i-baster wrote:
Removing government is a big move that many people can get behind on one level because they say to themselves that government is poorly run and fucks shit up. Of course if you just remove it or limit it`s power greatly then you have new problems or worse problems. Anarchism to me is about removing the government and replacing it with community.
You're touching upon an issue that Marx and Engels notice with Proudhon, mentioned here by Lenin in State and Revolution:
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
Just open each chapter and run an f3 search on Proudhon or Anarchists.
Essentially it's idealism, that anarchy can smash the state and then prevent the reformation of the state apparatus by it's previous owners, benefactors without the power of a centralized force:
"If the political struggle of the working class assumes revolutionary form," wrote Marx, ridiculing the anarchists for their repudiation of politics, "and if the workers set up their revolutionary dictatorship in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, they commit the terrible crime of violating principles, for in order to satisfy their wretched, vulgar everyday needs and to crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie, they give the state a revolutionary and transient form, instead of laying down their arms and abolishing the state." (Neue Zeit Vol.XXXII, 1, 1913-14, p.40)
Ch 4 s/h "Controversy with the Anarchists"
Lenin quotes Marx then Engels extensively on their explanation of this "revolutionary and transient form of the state" and the end objective and how it shares this with Anarchism, interestingly in response to this excerpt from a book by a Social Democrat:
In spite of all the other points of difference between Marx and the 'petty-bourgeois' Proudhon [Bernstein places the word "petty-bourgeois" in inverted commas, to make it sound ironical] on these points, their lines of reasoning run as close as could be." Of course, Bernstein continues, the importance of the municipalities is growing, but "it seems doubtful to me whether the first job of democracy would be such a dissolution [Auflosung] of the modern states and such a complete transformation [Umwandlung] of their organization as is visualized by Marx and Proudhon (the formation of a National Assembly from delegates of the provincial of district assemblies, which, in their turn, would consist of delegates from the communes), so that consequently the previous mode of national representation would disappear." (Bernstein, Premises, German edition, 1899, pp.134 and 136)
ch 3 s/h Organisation of National Unity
[Lenin's notes]
Most characteristically, it is this important correction that has been distorted by the opportunists, and its meaning probably is not known to nine-tenths, if not ninety-nine-hundredths, of the readers of the Communist Manifesto. We shall deal with this distortion more fully farther on, in a chapter devoted specially to distortions. Here it will be sufficient to note that the current, vulgar “interpretation” of Marx's famous statement just quoted is that Marx here allegedly emphasizes the idea of slow development in contradistinction to the seizure of power, and so on.
As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the "ready-made state machinery", and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.
On April 12, 1871, i.e., just at the time of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann:
"If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marx's italics--the original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real people's revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting." (Neue Zeit, Vol.XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709.)
Ch3
the whole thing is worth reading, I like reading Lenin's analysis of international events at the time, he's very good on international Imperialism during the early 1900's.
But yeah I think we can address these details more in the near future, I wanted to post this as it's highly important to Marxist Theory:
A lively new polemic about the concepts ‘one divides into two’ and ‘two fuse into one’ is unfolding on the philosophical front in this country. This debate is a struggle between those who are for and those who are against the materialist dialectic, a struggle between two conceptions of the world: the proletarian conception and the bourgeois conception. Those who maintain that ‘one divides into two’ is the fundamental law of things are on the side of the materialist dialectic; those who maintain that the fundamental law of things is that ‘two fuse into one’ are against the materialist dialectic. The two sides have drawn a clear line of demarcation between them, and their arguments are diametrically opposed. This polemic is a reflection, on the ideological level, of the acute and complex class struggle taking place in China and in the world.” —Red Flag (Beijing), 21 September 1964
)
laughable, truly laughable 
not me!
) 
