Anarchists are not Marxists

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,739
30,984
Colorado
On looking up one legal definition of anarchy, the reference I used suggested the following: "...is the non-existence of government." If I interpret Marxism as the political, economic and social principles and policies advocated by Karl Marx. This leaves me to believe I could be an insincere Anarchist and a Marxist. My sense of selfishness for survival is finally attuned. I can readily switch from one camp to another based on self interest. What I definitely am not is a Martyr 'ist'.


Marxism is another "ism" that becomes politically co-opted. Marx made some good observations on where "free" capitalism would lead. That's not arguable in my opinion. And, the Occupy Movement makes one of Marx' views on the destination of unfettered capitalism plus democracy, namely oligarchy and plutocracy.



The oligarch-plutocratic state will be a welfare state. Sounds contradictory until you think about it a little.



That's where we are. It's a strange world, no doubt.
 
Oct 2011
16
0
slim gillott' timestamp='1319562178' post='363850 said:
On looking up one legal definition of anarchy, the reference I used suggested the following: "...is the non-existence of government." If I interpret Marxism as the political, economic and social principles and policies advocated by Karl Marx. This leaves me to believe I could be an insincere Anarchist and a Marxist. My sense of selfishness for survival is finally attuned. I can readily switch from one camp to another based on self interest. What I definitely am not is a Martyr 'ist'.


Marxism is another "ism" that becomes politically co-opted. Marx made some good observations on where "free" capitalism would lead. That's not arguable in my opinion. And, the Occupy Movement makes one of Marx' views on the destination of unfettered capitalism plus democracy, namely oligarchy and plutocracy.



The oligarch-plutocratic state will be a welfare state. Sounds contradictory until you think about it a little.



That's where we are. It's a strange world, no doubt.




.



Thank you for the above remarks.



The spirit of the document, "The Declaration of Independence, " and some of the other founding documents would provide a good base upon which to explore the answer for the next question. You have answered the first question in my mind. This question is, " Where are we now?" The next question in my mind is, "Where do we want to go?" I need to refresh myself on the spirit and the vision for the nation. A good place to begin is the beginning so with that in mind I'll join back in this discussion later.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,739
30,984
Colorado
imaginethat' timestamp='1319688881' post='364299 said:
[quote name='slim gillott' timestamp='1319562178' post='363850']

On looking up one legal definition of anarchy, the reference I used suggested the following: "...is the non-existence of government." If I interpret Marxism as the political, economic and social principles and policies advocated by Karl Marx. This leaves me to believe I could be an insincere Anarchist and a Marxist. My sense of selfishness for survival is finally attuned. I can readily switch from one camp to another based on self interest. What I definitely am not is a Martyr 'ist'.


Marxism is another "ism" that becomes politically co-opted. Marx made some good observations on where "free" capitalism would lead. That's not arguable in my opinion. And, the Occupy Movement makes one of Marx' views on the destination of unfettered capitalism plus democracy, namely oligarchy and plutocracy.



The oligarch-plutocratic state will be a welfare state. Sounds contradictory until you think about it a little.



That's where we are. It's a strange world, no doubt.




.



Thank you for the above remarks.



The spirit of the document, "The Declaration of Independence, " and some of the other founding documents would provide a good base upon which to explore the answer for the next question. You have answered the first question in my mind. This question is, " Where are we now?" The next question in my mind is, "Where do we want to go?" I need to refresh myself on the spirit and the vision for the nation. A good place to begin is the beginning so with that in mind I'll join back in this discussion later.

[/quote]



Where we want to go is a vital question. "How do we think we can get there?"is another vital questio.



I think the Founders realized that "where we want to go" would change over time. "How" we get there should, above all, promote personal Liberty to the maximum degree possible.



Where we want to go should be a place of increasing Liberty, increasing non-interference by the government. To do that requires a citizenry of responsible people.
 
Oct 2011
16
0
slim gillott' timestamp='1319774386' post='364539 said:
[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319688881' post='364299']

[quote name='slim gillott' timestamp='1319562178' post='363850']

On looking up one legal definition of anarchy, the reference I used suggested the following: "...is the non-existence of government." If I interpret Marxism as the political, economic and social principles and policies advocated by Karl Marx. This leaves me to believe I could be an insincere Anarchist and a Marxist. My sense of selfishness for survival is finally attuned. I can readily switch from one camp to another based on self interest. What I definitely am not is a Martyr 'ist'.


Marxism is another "ism" that becomes politically co-opted. Marx made some good observations on where "free" capitalism would lead. That's not arguable in my opinion. And, the Occupy Movement makes one of Marx' views on the destination of unfettered capitalism plus democracy, namely oligarchy and plutocracy.



The oligarch-plutocratic state will be a welfare state. Sounds contradictory until you think about it a little.



That's where we are. It's a strange world, no doubt.




.



Thank you for the above remarks.



The spirit of the document, "The Declaration of Independence, " and some of the other founding documents would provide a good base upon which to explore the answer for the next question. You have answered the first question in my mind. This question is, " Where are we now?" The next question in my mind is, "Where do we want to go?" I need to refresh myself on the spirit and the vision for the nation. A good place to begin is the beginning so with that in mind I'll join back in this discussion later.

[/quote]



Where we want to go is a vital question. "How do we think we can get there?"is another vital questio.



I think the Founders realized that "where we want to go" would change over time. "How" we get there should, above all, promote personal Liberty to the maximum degree possible.



Where we want to go should be a place of increasing Liberty, increasing non-interference by the government. To do that requires a citizenry of responsible people.

[/quote]





Has the oligarch-plutocratic state our government has become infringed upon a significant number of peoples right to: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."?



I read an article which pointed out, Gary WILLS, a scholar in one of his books, offered that Thomas JEFFERSON meant ..."a public happiness which is measurable; which is indeed the test and justification of any government.".



My take on this is there is a public unhappiness which is measureable. The oligarch-plutocratic government is facing a test the results to be seen.



Lincoln in the Gettysberg Address called for,.." government of the people, by the people, for the people."



Has the oligarch-plutocratic government gone away from the spirit of government of the people, by the people, for the people?



My take on this is it has gone away from the spirit of what Abraham Lincoln called for.



I am going to offer an answer to the second question, "Where do we want to go?" My answer is to return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.



How are we going to get there? In my mind you have already supplied the answer. With a responsible citizenry willing to do what it takes to have a government of the people, by the people for the people.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,739
30,984
Colorado
Has the oligarch-plutocratic state our government has become infringed upon a significant number of peoples right to: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."?



I read an article which pointed out, Gary WILLS, a scholar in one of his books, offered that Thomas JEFFERSON meant ..."a public happiness which is measurable; which is indeed the test and justification of any government.".



My take on this is there is a public unhappiness which is measureable. The oligarch-plutocratic government is facing a test the results to be seen.



Lincoln in the Gettysberg Address called for,.." government of the people, by the people, for the people."



Has the oligarch-plutocratic government gone away from the spirit of government of the people, by the people, for the people?



My take on this is it has gone away from the spirit of what Abraham Lincoln called for.



I am going to offer an answer to the second question, "Where do we want to go?" My answer is to return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.



How are we going to get there? In my mind you have already supplied the answer. With a responsible citizenry willing to do what it takes to have a government of the people, by the people for the people.


Now the next question: We evidently don't have an overall responsible citizenry. Why not?
 
Oct 2011
16
0
slim gillott' timestamp='1319780064' post='364546 said:
Has the oligarch-plutocratic state our government has become infringed upon a significant number of peoples right to: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."?



I read an article which pointed out, Gary WILLS, a scholar in one of his books, offered that Thomas JEFFERSON meant ..."a public happiness which is measurable; which is indeed the test and justification of any government.".



My take on this is there is a public unhappiness which is measureable. The oligarch-plutocratic government is facing a test the results to be seen.



Lincoln in the Gettysberg Address called for,.." government of the people, by the people, for the people."



Has the oligarch-plutocratic government gone away from the spirit of government of the people, by the people, for the people?



My take on this is it has gone away from the spirit of what Abraham Lincoln called for.



I am going to offer an answer to the second question, "Where do we want to go?" My answer is to return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.



How are we going to get there? In my mind you have already supplied the answer. With a responsible citizenry willing to do what it takes to have a government of the people, by the people for the people.


Now the next question: We evidently don't have an overall responsible citizenry. Why not?


I would be on thin ice if I answered this question for anybody but myself. I have ducked out on my responsibilities as a citizen most of my life because of one good excuse plus many lame ones.



The good one, in my opinion, was because, from nineteen years of age, one of the requirements of my employment was to be non-critical of law makers including not voicing my opinions on interpretation of the law.



The lame ones include all my justifications for not voting, not keeping abreast of the issues, and not contributing any time or treasure to the political life of my society.



The way I saw it, becoming involved in politics was trouble and something to be avoided. I later learned that avoidance is the most common tactic humans use when confronted with a problem. Besides, I was busy, "living the dream", and struggling to avoid my life turning into a "nightmare." I did learn (rather late in life I admit) that, drats, avoidance doesn't work very well. So, in summary, (to my credit?) I was a success as a consumer. Doe's that mitigate my spotty record as a citizen? Umm.. I think not.



I still see politics as trouble and something to be avoided. I have adult kids and grandkids who are busy, "living the dream".



I am retired now. I have time and a little treasure. I find it easier to put some time and treasure into the political life of the country. I am willing and able to read on-line the articles of several news websites.



I contribute the same amount of money to any political party at national and provincial level that is capable of fielding a candidate in most of the ridings (at the risk of sounding like a beer commercial slogan currently here, I am Canadian).



What has changed? The short answer is my age, lifestyle and motivation.



I think when I conformed with norms of society for the season of my life I was in I was less entertaining but usually happier.



What could be different in the design of our way of doing politics/life? I say, our, because I am a "snow-bird who lives in southern California for almost half the year and have family and friends on both sides of the 49th parallel.



One suggestion is that cheerleaders should want to date people involved in student politics. The players should want to date people involved in student politics as well. Bragging rights should be awarded to mothers whose child is dating a class president. I wrote this, tongue in cheek, of course. The point is, I suspect, how we do politics/life needs to change. I am willing to get involved in a program to increase the width of awareness that people who participate in the political life of the country are of high value to society. I think a natural consequence of such a program would increase the width of awareness that people who do not participate in the political life of the country, are of low value to society.



Patience is required. Lasting social change takes generations from what I have witnessed. What kind of program is required. A, "Word of mouth" campaign, would be my suggestion.



Here goes: "Don't be a "loser" make sure politics "occupies" your mind!"
 
Jul 2011
46
1
Norway
It can be Marxism as the means of production are under the people. Just more decentralized then "classical socialism and marxist". Marxism stretches from Anarcho Communism to Stalinism. Although most Marxist only see their ideology as the only true one.



Anarcho Communism means that most hierarchy is broken down. It is an anti-industrial agrarian ideology, as there is no centralization industry is not possible. All decicions are made by the local community without any "formal" parlamentarianism.



The opposite of it within the marxist ideologies is Stalinism. Where industrialization and centralization is under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Technically Stalinism and Maoism is socialism and not communism because Marx talked about socialism as a transition to communism where there is no state and almost no hierarchy. Socialism only involves the proletars taking control over the means of production. And the Marxist goal was a communist society. Most stalinists and maoist seem to have no plan for the decentralization of the means of production so in one way anarchism is more Marxist.



When i talk about Stalinism and Maoism. I talk about them as social-economic ideologies. Not the politics that the soviet and chinese practiced, but the theoretical system they developed.
 
Nov 2012
41,310
11,887
Lebanon, TN
Correct but anarchy leads to communism. Anarchy creates chaos, people will demand order. so the govenment takes over everything. abra ka dabra you have a communist dictatorship, or a facist state
 
Nov 2012
53
1
Anarchy has two roles in Marxism one is anarchy is a transition period between forms of government. It is very rare that a revolution leads directly into a new system of power so anarchy is like a vacuum political parties radical groups and various organizations all rush in to fill the void while this is not unique to Marxist revolutions it does play a huge role. Another role of anarchy has to do with the philosophy behind communism. Marxist call for equality and peace among all people and 1 way to achieve this is through the removal of central government. In what is believed to be a true communist state AKA anarcho-communism all people work for the good of man kind without out the corruption of money physical property or political power the role of anarchy in this state is people are kind caring and considerate without the ever present eye of government or police but as many of us know this way of life is impossible outside of small groups of people.
 
Nov 2012
1,438
120
lebanon
anarchy is opposed to marxism so it cant b related to positively


 


anarchy prone freedom as the reference to what exist bc anarchists are who suggests knowin all about freedom value being true existence values


 


while marxists mean freedom from slavery but always a matter to schedule and to limit in forms of self doing


 


self realisation has no relation with freedom facts, self realisation is all to absolute reality that objectively exist bc of else existence, while freedom is the right of individual present value in truth