I have been a member of a Marxist-Leninist party for six years now (i joined when I was 14), but I never really understood some of the theory until a year ago, and still I do not understand it all.

But as I have started to study, sort of like a hobby, Marxism etc, I have picked up different names of theorists, philosphers, revolutionaries. I have looked at different ideologies from Lassalle to Trotsky, only scratching the service you understand. And now, I am in a bit of a pickle

One thing has strook me as hard to get my head round and maybe you guys could let me know what you think. The fundamental difference between Bakunin and Marx was the State. Marx declared it a necessary tool for the revolution, Bakunin saw it as a contradiction to the whole idea of the revolution and called for its absoulte abolishment.

Well...I tend to agree that the destruction of the State should be the main objective of a revolution, but then I think will such a libertarian view be helpful in the beginning of the transition.

What id like to know is, could there be a middle ground. Can there be a compromise between the two ideologies, and if so. What would it be? Also any idea, books, links or comments would be greatful.

The fundamental difference between Bakunin and Marx was the State. Marx declared it a necessary tool for the revolution, Bakunin saw it as a contradiction to the whole idea of the revolution and called for its absoulte abolishment.

I really don't know. *To some extent, those two guys were arguing a theoretical problem: *is the state an organ of class rule or does it have an "existence" independent of the class structure of a given society?

Bakunin and other classical anarchists have argued, at least as I understand them, that the state, even in the absence of classes, would proceed at once to create them. *Marx, of course, thought that with the victory of proletarian revolution, that the new state apparatus created by the working class would begin to wither away at once...because in the absence of classes, no state as an organ of class rule is required.

It seems as if this actually happened in the brief existence of the Paris Commune; *most of the initiatives came from neighborhood and workplace groups and the weak "central authority" of the Commune actually did very little.

In the present era, I see no chance that modern anarchists would have anything to do with Leninists of any variety; *the idea of a small vanguard ruling over the working class "in the name of the working class" is flatly unacceptable.

On the other hand, I think there are some modern anarchists that are "open" to what I call "Marxism without the crap"...non-Leninist Marxism, in other words. *Marxists who make the effort to understand what the anarchists are getting at (instead of just repeating ancient insults) may find that they have more in common with some strands of anarchist theory than they thought they had.

For example, a "classical" Marxist who advocates the beginning of the transition to communism on "day one" after the revolution (no intermediate "strong state" socialism) might discover that in practice the only difference would be one of terminology...rather trivial under the circumstances.

But I don't mean to make it sound like a smooth road to unity; *there's been a lot of bad feeling between Marxists and anarchists (most of them) for more than a century and that's not something that's easily forgotten. *And that's not to mention some of the (pardon the expression) elderly figures in both camps that have something of a vested interest in maintaining the antagonisms.

Perhaps it will be the young Marxists who shake off all the old Leninist crap and the young anarchists who are not over-burdened with respect for their elders that will meet one another, over time, in the common struggle to establish the rule of the working class as a class.

But it will take a while.

As with anarchism and leninism - there is definately no path for compromise. The vanguard is extremely contradictory to anarchism.

As with marxism - well, there are plenty of anarchists who are very hostile to it, for a variety of reasons. I'll mention one of them: in quite a few cases, anarchists use 'marxism' instead of 'leninism', which gives marxism absolutely no credibility at all. This is thanks to Lenin of course, and so you have people like RedStar2000 trying to fix that up. But for some strange reason, trotskyists are more of a target of abuse, thanks to the antics of some trotskyists around the world. There is a certain trotskyist member of this board who wastes an exhaustive amount of time attacking anarchists, so I suppose it is justified.

There are 'old school' anarchists who will still squabble over the state question 'religiously' as well.
I don't see nothing too wrong with that, but I do not bother with the issue myself much. There isn't much difference between them anyway (there are more pressing differences with leninists). It is quite trivial as RedStar2000 says, and I believe that whatever happens will happen. I am quite sympathetic of 'traditional marxism' (I'm an anarchist, if you didn't catch on already).

The shining example of anarchism/communism (as in practice, not survival) being implemented is in Spain, where the state was rid of in various places, so I think the 'burden of proof' about the state lies with the anarchists. That is debatable, though.

The Paris Commune is also seen another example of anarchism. Much of what Bakunin said was right in his theory of revolution - Marx was right in many parts too of course, but he altered his views slightly upon analysing it. Anarchists acknowledge that the state was not abolished, but anarchists still held great influence in the Paris Commune. I hear Marx didn't acknowledge this influence as a good one. However, I hope that 'marxists without the crap' will overlook Marx's shortsightedness. But then again, I am not too knowledgable over the 'fights' that went on between Marx and Bakunin, and others, so please fill me in about that one.

You will find however, that many anarchists today hardly refer to people like Bakunin, and other anarchists. They prefer to 'think for themselves' more. In fact, the 'famous' Anarchist FAQ is written up entirely of ordinary people!

Anarchism has also dropped some authoritarian elements. For example, more traditionally, religion was not accepted. It is today, but it is my personal view that religion will have little part to play in any anarchist/communist society. In Spain it certainly didn't.

To sum up: there is the possibility of anarchism and marxism being 'conciliated', but you will always get your differing views between people, no matter what leftist ideology they may 'follow'. However, after a future socialist revolution actually settles down and succeeds in implementing anarchism/communism, and gets past the stage where it is 'shaky', the old differences won't matter too much. The practical example will be there for all to see.

(Edited by Neutral Nation at 2:23 pm on June 28, 2003)

Can either of you give me a comprahensive list of the differences between Marxism and Anarchism? I would like to have a basic idea before I continue reading stuff.

Also, why do Trotskyists dispise Anarchists so much? is it simply because of the idea of the State?

How exactly does Anarchism expect society to change directly after the revolution?

I understand that the best thing for me to do is read more, but I really would like to know what you have to say. I feel like I am having a crisis of faith here.....

According to Marxism stateless society have to be reached through the transitional stage (socialism). The main point is that stateless society can't function effectively without the developed economy. The necessary level of development is attained as the result of socialist and communist building.
Anarchist want to destroy the state right after revolution. Obviously, society would not be able to survive without any development directed on the transition from capitalism into socialism and later to communism (stateless society).
Marxist position is that the state can't be destroyed over night. Learning theory in depth will help you, Libertarian.

Libertarian: "I have been a member of a Marxist-Leninist party for six years now ".... and also you have to add "...and don't know what marxism- leninism is about..."

P.S. just came in to see how you revisionists are doing...

I have been a member of a Marxist-Leninist party for six years now (i joined when I was 14), but I never really understood some of the theory until a year ago, and still I do not understand it all.

I never said I didnt understand what Marxism-Leninism was. What I said was tht I didnt understand it all. And that now I understand more, I am haing a crisis of faith. Is the second phase really what we need?

All Leninists will repeat as a holy mantra that "Marxism" "requires" a transitional "strong-state"--called "socialism"--before the state can be abolished.

RH has just given you an example along with a couple of pathetic arguments--the stateless society can't function "effectively" without development and, by implication, stateless societies can't develop economically; a "strong state" is "needed" to make that happen.

All Soviet-era nonsense, of course, which has nothing in common with Marx.

Frankly, I think what really motivates the Leninists is that without a "transition stage" of "strong-state socialism", there's nothing for them to do. *Specifically, their dreams of being the next Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. are reduced to the level, at best, of figuring out the best way to use the space in a warehouse or devising an efficient bus schedule--the "administration of things rather than people"--and where's the fun in that? * No cheering crowds, no pictures of yourself on every public surface, no life of luxury when the proles aren't looking, no crowd of flatterers telling you how sweet your farts smell, etc.

One thing RH is right about, of course. *It is important to read as much good theory as you can find...and finding it is not always easy. *But there are sites on the web that have a lot of good texts (see the Websites forum). *I would advise concentrating on Marx and Engels and on the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain. *But Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao, I would not recommend...their entire paradigm no longer has any relevance for workers in advanced capitalist countries.

Of course, should you develop a passion for the history of 20th century proto-communism, those are essential sources.

personally I dont think that the state would wither away "eventualy" under communism. why would you overthrow one government to establish another?

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and I personally take offense to this generalization, and utter crap. I have NEVER even considered any of the following things you have listed. *It is ignorant to think that what you say is true for all Marxist-Leninists.

Ever hear of Ho Chi Minh? One of the most simple men to ever walk this earth. He was a Marxist-Leninist. What about Fidel Castro? He is a Marxist-Leninist, and I don't really see all of the crap you listed in Cuba. *What about CHE? He was a dogmatic Marxist-Maoist-Leninist; probably a lot more dogmatic than Castro.

Yeah, I'm more of a Marxist than Leninist, but blatant stereotypes that only the Western bourgeois media would use against Marxist-Leninists are just not fair. *I don't know where you have been, but Marx and Engels both were strongly against Anarchism! They denounced Bebel, Proudhon, and about every other Anarchist around their timespan. So how in the name of logic do you put Marx and Engels in the same category of the Anarcho-syndacalists? I mean, I admire the Anarchists' bravery, but you do know that Communists fought RIGHT along side them, do you not? In fact, it was the "evil" Marxist-Leninists in the Soviet Union (even though i don't agree with Stalin's purgery, he did do some good things) that gave support to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war.

So please, do not generalize, how would you like it if I called you a liberal hippy scumbag Anarchist that wants to smoke pot all day?

First of all, Redstar, I agree with most of the stuff you said.
I am NOT a Leninist, I consider myself more of a Marxist, but I also think that there does need to be a transition phase between capitalism and communism.
I always thought that's what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was.

I think it is absurd to say one can jump right from capitalism into a classless, free society.

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

Ahh, who cares, I'm not a Leninist, I just like lenin and what he did for the poor.

Ever hear of Ho Chi Minh? One of the most simple men to ever walk this earth. He was a Marxist-Leninist. What about Fidel Castro? He is a Marxist-Leninist, and I don't really see all of the crap you listed in Cuba. *What about CHE? He was a dogmatic Marxist-Maoist-Leninist; probably a lot more dogmatic than Castro.

You left out Lenin himself, who also lived very simply.

But if you think for a second the either Lenin, or Ho, or Che was not surrounded by a gaggle of flatterers, then you don't understand the dynamics of power at all.

Go look at this thread and you'll see what I'm talking about...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=912

They denounced Bebel, Proudhon, and about every other Anarchist around their timespan.

I think you mean Bakunin in that sentence, but I take your point and so what? *Proudhon's mutual-aid ideas were not really revolutionary at all and Marx said so. *Bakunin had some very strange ideas about how revolutionary organizations should function and Marx criticized them. *Engels wrote a rather silly polemic against the anarchism of that era based, in my view, on word-play more than anything else--e.g., "revolution is an authoritarian act and therefore anarchists can't be really revolutionary and still be consistent".

So how in the name of logic do you put Marx and Engels in the same category of the Anarcho-syndacalists?

Because the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain acted in practice "as if" they were Marxists...supporting a rising of the working class, not a self-appointed "elite" or "vanguard".

I mean, I admire the Anarchists' bravery, but you do know that Communists fought RIGHT along side them, do you not? In fact, it was the "evil" Marxist-Leninists in the Soviet Union (even though i don't agree with Stalin's purgery, he did do some good things) that gave support to the Republicans in the Spanish Civil war.

First of all, it's not a matter of "bravery"...physical courage is a common human characteristic and even fascists can be "brave".

It is a question of theoretical clarity and understanding...who had the "best idea" for Spain? *The Spanish Communist Party and their Soviet "handlers" united with the "progressive bourgeoisie" in support of the bourgeois Spanish Republic and actively suppressed the most rebellious elements of the working class; *the anarcho-syndicalists and one Leninist party--Trotskyist as it happened--supported a full-fledged working class revolution...and as well the immediate transition to communism.

You actually phrased it correctly: *the USSR supported the Spanish Republic and not the Spanish working class. *There's a difference.

So please, do not generalize, how would you like it if I called you a liberal hippy scumbag Anarchist that wants to smoke pot all day?

When people call me things that really have no relevance to my actual existence or convictions at all, it really doesn't bother me. *But I will concede that when I was speaking of "Leninists" generally, I should have made it abundantly clear that I was speaking of the upper-strata of these formations, not the ordinary members.

You see, in Leninist political formations, the "leadership" are the only people that matter.



PS: *On the problem of "transition", see these threads...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=895

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=900

Quote form redstar:"All Leninists will repeat as a holy mantra that "Marxism" "requires" a transitional "strong-state"--called "socialism"--before the state can be abolished."

Do you know what Marxism is? One of the main Marx's idea is that the transitional period called DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT is needed in order to achieve pure socialism. Dictatorship of the proletariat is politically directed on the oppression of bourgeois class and economically it is directed on the achieving of such level of economical development which will allow the state to enter the first stage of communism (socialism). Socialism characterized by the public (state) property on the means of production is the necessary stage which provide for economical development necessary for the state to wither away.
What has to be understood is that stateless society is the society of the highest level of economical and social conditions.

Quote from redstar: " *All Soviet-era nonsense, of course, which has nothing in common with Marx."

Please show me and others Marx's definition of socialism which would be contrary to the historical realities of the Soviet Union, show me Marx's definition of socialism which would prove that USSR wasn't socialistic state. You wouldn't be able to find any!
Marx's said very simply (exactly for such "leftists" like you redstar and other so called "leftists") that socialism means the presence of public property on the means of production.

Quote from redstar:" Frankly, I think what really motivates the Leninists is that without a "transition stage" of "strong-state socialism", there's nothing for them to do."

Obviously you are not Marxist. You don't support SOCIALISM or how Marx also called it the FIRST STAGE OF COMMUNISM. Are you that redstar who moderates che- lives forum called "Theory"? *Actually if you have been chosen on this position by the "community" then such kind of community is formed from theoretically uneducated "marxists".
*

I would advise all to study theoretical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. Read the works of all these great communists and you will find that there is no contradiction between their contributions to the theory development.

One of the main Marx's idea is that the transitional period called DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT is needed in order to achieve pure socialism. Dictatorship of the proletariat is politically directed on the oppression of bourgeois class and economically it is directed on the achieving of such level of economical development which will allow the state to enter the first stage of communism

First of all, I would like you to explain exactly why we need this dictatorship of the proletariate. "...the oppression of bourgeois..." is not a good enough reason for the preservance of this so called workers state. The defence of the revolution and the "oppression" of bourgeois counter revolutionaries can quite easily be co ordinated by workers councils and militias, independent of each other in the different areas of a country. I accept that some level of organization must be used in order to safe guard the revolution, but why does it need to be a centralised government. Do you mean to use some elite "vangaured" of intellectuals. Will they be better suited to co ordinate such an activity? Is it your oppion that the workers are too stupid to be able to organize such tasks? If the workers are capable enough to over throw capitalism, then surly they are capable enough to organize themselves?

You say that it is important to have this "dictatorship of the proletariate" which so far we actually means a dictatorship of a vangaurd, not only to coordinates the states security but also the states economy - "...economically it is directed on the achieving of such level of economical development which will allow the state to enter the first stage of communism..." But surely Marx talked about communism being the evolutioanry inevitablity of capitalism. That communism *can only come out of industrialised nations. So what exactly do you mean by economic development? And again, why can this not be co ordinated by a workers federation?

Also. Why do you have to believe in a the first stage of communism in order to be classed as a Marxist. To use religion as my analogy. Christians do not follow the bible to the letter, yet they are still called christians. This is not a political argument.

Anyway, if you are such an expert on Marxist theory, then you will know that there is a higher stage of communism which is a libertarian society. Do you then think that Stalin was indeed fighting for this higher level. I do not think so. In fact he gripped the nation with 25 years of totalitarian socialism. He had no intention of seeing the revolution through. So, by your own ideas of what makes a Marxist. Stalin was not!

Quote from Libertarian: " The defence of the revolution and the "oppression" of bourgeois counter revolutionaries can quite easily be co ordinated by workers councils and militias, independent of each other in the different areas of a country. "

The solution proposed by you can't be called realistic one. The state which used to be capitalistic posseses many features of the bourgeois society such as state system (which can't be destroyed in one day without causing a grave crisis situation), bourgeois elements and those so called "communists" who may easily side with bourgeois. That is why past bourgeois state system have to be slowly changed (it is clear that it can't be changed in one day, and I don't even talk about its destruction) into one which would be able to serve to the interests of all working people. Such kind of state must be only of strong centralized nature, so workers would be able to oppress capitalists.
The other reason why centralized state is needed is determined by the necessity of economical development. Proletarian state realizes economical planning function over state (public) enterprises; it is evident that planning can't be implemented in economically backward state right after victory of socialistic revolution if revolutionary proletariat decide that state have to be decentralized, rather than centralized.
U all have to understand that revolution will never take place in the modern develo9ped states, but in the most backward (so called "third world" countries).

Libertarian: "Is it your oppion that the workers are too stupid to be able to organize such tasks? If the workers are capable enough to over throw capitalism, then surly they are capable enough to organize themselves? "

Workers can't organize revolution by themselves. Communist party is main force which guides workers in their struggle. Party educates workers and makes them understand their interests, thanks to communist party workers gain class counsciousness.
Workers by no means are stupid, they are eager to learn. During transitional stage workers learn how to organize work in factories and on the governmental level. Once again, communist party teaches workers. Most able workers may take high governmental positions, while others participate in an activity of soviets.

Libertarian: "You say that it is important to have this "dictatorship of the proletariate" which so far we actually means a dictatorship of a vangaurd"

Dictatorship of the proletariat is not dictatorship of a vanguard. but it is dictatorship of all working people. Dictatorship of the proletariat means democracy for all workers and other working people, as only working people as a whole would be able to enjoy all possible rights and freedoms.

Libertarian: "But surely Marx talked about communism being the evolutioanry inevitablity of capitalism. That communism *can only come out of industrialised nations. "

You stand on increadibly dogmatic position. History showed us that socialism may appear in backward states.
Tell me if it is possible for socialism to take victory for example in the US. You have o be a great dreamer to believe in that.

Libertarian:" Why do you have to believe in a the first stage of communism in order to be classed as a Marxist"

Read Marx and Lenin *and you will understand what Marxism is about.

Libertarian:" Do you then think that Stalin was indeed fighting for this higher level. I do not think so. In fact he gripped the nation with 25 years of totalitarian socialism"

Totalitarian socialism is the bourgeois term, forget it and don't use it anymore. Socialism don't guarantee freedoms and human rights to bourgeois elements. That's my answer.

Anyway read theoretical works of great classics.

The solution proposed by you can't be called realistic one. The state which used to be capitalistic posseses many features of the bourgeois society such as state system (which can't be destroyed in one day without causing a grave crisis situation), bourgeois elements and those so called "communists" who may easily side with bourgeois. That is why past bourgeois state system have to be slowly changed (it is clear that it can't be changed in one day, and I don't even talk about its destruction) into one which would be able to serve to the interests of all working people. Such kind of state must be only of strong centralized nature, so workers would be able to oppress capitalists.

I understand that bourgeois society can not disappear over night, and this is what led to this thread. Why can the transition not be lead by workers federations. You have not answered my question satisfactorily. You keep repeating that the state has to be centralised to oppress the capitalists and plan the economy. But you have not said why this can not be done by a workers federation. If the planning was done before a revolution, and everyone new exactly what to do, then there would be no need for this centralised state. Areas could work independently from each other, while still keeping an overall level of co ordination. Each area would know what was happening in another area and it would be co ordinated in relations to those happenings.

You clarified your point again, that if you do not believe in Socialism as a transitional phaze, then you are not a marxist. And I will clarify again, that this is not the case. You do not have to believe in everything to be called a Marxist. Libertarian Marxism has been defined as a political theory and practiced by some intellectuals.

This leads into another question that you did not really answer. If you have to believe in all of Marx's theories to be a Marxist, which you say is the case. Then do you agree that Stalin was not a Marxist?

Tell me if it is possible for socialism to take victory for example in the US. You have o be a great dreamer to believe in that.

I think this is an extremely sectarian oppinion to have. Of course it is possible to have Socialism in the US, as much as it is in any other country. The US might have a bigger capitalist mentality, but the workers are still oppressed and they still have the ability to emancipate themselves.

You say that the Dictatorship of the Proletariate is not a dictatorship of a vanguard, yet all the examples of revolutions have turned out to be just that. A group of intellectual elites working in the "interests of the workers".

workers cant organize revolutions by themselves

Why not? Why does it have to be a party. Why can it not be a solidarity movement. Which encourages workers to educate each other with the help of intellectuals. Why cant the movment be guided, instead of led? There is no real logic behind what your saying. There is no real reason as far as I can see to have a vanguard, a party or a state.

read marx and lenin, you will understand what marxism is about

I do understand what marxism is about, but I do not necessarily agree with it all.

Bourgeois term or not, it was Totalitarian socialism.

I understand that bourgeois society can not disappear over night, and this is what led to this thread. Why can the transition not be lead by workers federations. You have not answered my question satisfactorily. You keep repeating that the state has to be centralised to oppress the capitalists and plan the economy. But you have not said why this can not be done by a workers federation. If the planning was done before a revolution, and everyone new exactly what to do, then there would be no need for this centralised state. Areas could work independently from each other, while still keeping an overall level of co ordination. Each area would know what was happening in another area and it would be co ordinated in relations to those happenings.

I believe the "workers' federations" idea ia a De Leonist one. I have been reading alot about that lately.
De Leon basically said that the workers should form into unions that would run the country. He called it "Socialist Industrial Unionism".

There's over 100 .pdf files on the subject here: Socialist Labor Party *

I put this response off as long as I could, RH, because, frankly, your "Marxism" is religious in character. *To be a "Marxist" in your view is to study and memorize "the holy words of the scriptures" without a moment's thought as to what these guys were really saying, much less why.

You constantly repeat: *"read Lenin and Stalin" with the same fervor as the Christians in the religion thread keep saying "read the bible".

It is tedious to argue with "true believers", no matter what their faith.

But here's a couple of examples...

Workers can't organize revolution by themselves.

If that were true, why should you or I or anyone do it for them? * What's the point?

Are we just "super-humanitarians" interested in pulling off the biggest act of global "charity" in recorded history?

Or, perhaps some of us, taking note that we were not born into the existing ruling class, have decided to rectify that historical oversight by planting our own butts in some nice plush seats of power?

The problem with Leninism-Stalinism-Trotskyism-Maoism is that, at best, it teaches workers how to change masters...when what communists need to do is teach workers how to liberate themselves from all masters.

You all have to understand that revolution will never take place in the modern developed states, but in the most backward (so called "third world" countries).

In other words, historical materialism is a bunch of "crap" and people can "by command" create any social order that they "will", regardless of material conditions.

Like all religious people, RH, you have a special interpretation of the "Marxist bible" that neatly converts anything into its opposite whenever useful or convenient.

If Marx said A and Lenin said B and you want to uphold B, then you think you can assert that Marx also said B and no one will notice.

Ahem, people notice.



PS: *On the question of "transition", see this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=900


(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:37 pm on June 29, 2003)

Quote from Libertarian: " The defence of the revolution and the "oppression" of bourgeois counter revolutionaries can quite easily be co ordinated by workers councils and militias, independent of each other in the different areas of a country. "

The solution proposed by you can't be called realistic one.

Except they can and they have, even at the same time and the same enemies as the leninists did.

In 1918, when Russian withdrew from WWI, *the Ukraine was ceded to the axis powers. *An ANARCHIST insurgency sprouted up from this and routed out the foreign armies. *The makhnovist armies even saved the red army, defeating two seperate white armies that were headed towards moscow. *
They weren't defeated by the reactionary capitalist forces, they were stopped by trotsky and the red army.

The makhnovists supported decentralization, never took control of anything, destroyed prisons instead of filled them, encouraged free speech instead of silenced it, and with all that, they still were an effective revolutionary force, even as a small army of untrained poorly equipped peasants.

Similiarly in spain, the democratic councils and militia of the CNT were no less effective then the Stalinist PCE.

It IS realistic, and history backs it up.

The other reason why centralized state is needed is determined by the necessity of economical development. Proletarian state realizes economical planning function over state (public) enterprises; it is evident that planning can't be implemented in economically backward state right after victory of socialistic revolution if revolutionary proletariat decide that state have to be decentralized, rather than centralized.

Any backing for this besides "because lenin said so" ?

Well heres a equally unbacked counter: Planning does not need to be authoritarian and centralized. *

The object of Communism and Anarchism is to abolish the State, it is how to get there that is the problem. *The only difference I see is the defense of the revolution: Communism says that a state is needed to defend the revolution against the capitalists, Anarchism says that communal federations will defend the revolution. *Both theories have failed in the past. *One leads to tyranny, the other to capitalist takeover. *We need to a)establish a way to not let the Marxist revolution slip into tyranny, to keep it in the hands of the people; or b)find a way for the Anarchist theory to work correcty, which means finding a better way to defend the revolution/