becoming disillusioned with 'communism'

[ReD_ReBeL]

couple years ago, maybe even early last year,i'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist/communist, hence my display name but as of late i cant help thinking that all attempts at communism just turn out to be a horrible authoritarian mess and that ain't something i would want campaign or support.
One aspect i can personaly relate to(as im hoping to start a band soon) is muscians havnin to have their work checked over before they play gigs etc eg.East Germany and from what ive heard, Cuba. To me, the Government in so called communist countries or socialist, whtever u wanna call them, have far to much involvement in the everyday aspect of peoples life's. Do they inherently become anti-people?
In short this is what im trying to say, What comedian lenny Bruce one said "Communism is like on big phone company"
what are your thoughts? i know ive maybe not explained to well, but i can't seem to fidn the right words . but i think u can get the jist of what im tryign to say?

Also, im say im maybe somewhat of a left Libertarian.

[Glorious Union]

Communism has the unfortunate tendency to fall under authoritarian style governments and because of that no true communistic nations exist. Government is very customisable, especially communism. There can be communist nations that are not authoritarian states and if I have anything to say about it one day there will be. The government does not have to become involved in the people's individual business and, in an ideal communistic world, they don't. But people have this weird obsession with attaining power, and sometimes the plans of others are ruined by them seizing governmental liberties as their own selfish right. Therefor, totalitarianism starts. Early democracies in Greece and Rome ended in totalitarian dictatorships, but today it seems as if such a thing is impossible. That is because democracy has had over two thousand years to improve and grow while Communism has had only about a hundred years. It is inevitable that the early forms of communism should end in dictatorships, but once we work out our mistakes from the past we can form a better future for communism.

[StalinFanboy]

couple years ago, maybe even early last year,i'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist/communist, hence my display name but as of late i cant help thinking that all attempts at communism just turn out to be a horrible authoritarian mess and that ain't something i would want campaign or support.
One aspect i can personaly relate to(as im hoping to start a band soon) is muscians havnin to have their work checked over before they play gigs etc eg.East Germany and from what ive heard, Cuba. To me, the Government in so called communist countries or socialist, whtever u wanna call them, have far to much involvement in the everyday aspect of peoples life's. Do they inherently become anti-people?
In short this is what im trying to say, What comedian lenny Bruce one said "Communism is like on big phone company"
what are your thoughts? i know ive maybe not explained to well, but i can't seem to fidn the right words . but i think u can get the jist of what im tryign to say?

Also, im say im maybe somewhat of a left Libertarian.

Look up "Anarchism" on wikipedia. lulz

[griffjam]

http://infoshop.org/faq/index.html

[Invincible Summer]

couple years ago, maybe even early last year,i'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist/communist, hence my display name but as of late i cant help thinking that all attempts at communism just turn out to be a horrible authoritarian mess and that ain't something i would want campaign or support.
One aspect i can personaly relate to(as im hoping to start a band soon) is muscians havnin to have their work checked over before they play gigs etc eg.East Germany and from what ive heard, Cuba. To me, the Government in so called communist countries or socialist, whtever u wanna call them, have far to much involvement in the everyday aspect of peoples life's. Do they inherently become anti-people?

In short this is what im trying to say, What comedian lenny Bruce one said "Communism is like on big phone company"
what are your thoughts? i know ive maybe not explained to well, but i can't seem to fidn the right words . but i think u can get the jist of what im tryign to say?

Also, im say im maybe somewhat of a left Libertarian.

I went through the same things as you awhile ago, and that's when I read into Anarchism. It is anti-state, anti-centralization of power, but for a more "pure" form of democracy and Communism that is truly from the "bottom up."

To be fair though, I don't think that Communist Party leadership become "anti-people" (whatever that means... I mean, they are people too), but rather become extremely paranoid in holding their revolutionary gains. When the responsibility and power rests in the hands of few, there's more pressure on them to not screw it up. I can imagine this being part of the reason of why the individual was suppressed in the Soviet era - too much individualism can be seen as dangerous to the revolution.



Not very scientific, but that's my opinion.

[cyu]

It just depends on your definition of communism. It sounds like you'd be happy with anarcho-communism - you could still be "left libertarian" and still consider yourself not having "strayed" from communism.

What does communism mean anyway?

1. Economic equality?
2. Abolition of wage slavery / exploitation?
3. Elimination of the concept of property?
4. Government control of business?

Any combination of the above may be considered communism by some (and not communism by others). Of course, there may be other aspects to add as well.

As far as #4 goes, you'd also have to consider what a "government" means to you. If you prefer centrism, then the national government may have control. If you prefer decentralization, then the community may have control, or only the business employees themselves have control. Or you might prefer something in between - for example, at the state / province level.

Governments, of course, can not only be centralized or decentralized, they can also be democratic or authoritarian. Some may grant more individual rights than others, or different sets of rights. I wouldn't say this is directly related to communism though - communism deals with economics.

You could have an authoritarian government that tries to implement economic equality, a democratic government that tries to implement economic equality, various decentralized and autonomous regions trying to implement economic equality, etc etc

[Charles Xavier]

couple years ago, maybe even early last year,i'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist/communist, hence my display name but as of late i cant help thinking that all attempts at communism just turn out to be a horrible authoritarian mess and that ain't something i would want campaign or support.
One aspect i can personaly relate to(as im hoping to start a band soon) is muscians havnin to have their work checked over before they play gigs etc eg.East Germany and from what ive heard, Cuba. To me, the Government in so called communist countries or socialist, whtever u wanna call them, have far to much involvement in the everyday aspect of peoples life's. Do they inherently become anti-people?
In short this is what im trying to say, What comedian lenny Bruce one said "Communism is like on big phone company"
what are your thoughts? i know ive maybe not explained to well, but i can't seem to fidn the right words . but i think u can get the jist of what im tryign to say?

Also, im say im maybe somewhat of a left Libertarian.

Well you really should visit Cuba then because its really not a demonic country.

[BlackCapital]

To the OP: I completely understand where your coming from and I struggle with the same thing from time to time. But it's important to realize not only attempts at communism suffer from vulnerability to totalitarianism.

Look at western "democracies". I would argue that they are not anymore free then near socialist countries such as Cuba (excluding USSR for obvious reasons here). Yes, their government may be more intrusive when it comes to free speech, media, ect, but this is just one aspect of freedom. Not to mention the media in capitalist countries is owned and serves the interest of corporations. And can we really honestly call them democratic? People have the right to vote for two realistic parties, both of which are factions of the capitalist party, in which corporate interests set the agenda for the most part anyways.

While it's clearly not a perfect shining example of socialism, Cuba grants their citizens freedom through relative economic quality, free healthcare, free education, the right to a job,and provide necessities i.e. shelter and food. These are all things that capitalist "democracies" cannot claim to do for their populations. Instead, we are at the mercy of capitalists and our earnings are taxed by the government, which is generally used to in turn aid the capitalists (through wars and subsidies/handouts mainly) and we don't have a say in the matter; is THAT not totalitarian? Also take into account that all countries that have become socialist have been third world before hand, and they are still able to achieve these things, even with war and economic sanctions imposed on them.

Totalitarianism is a result of the extreme pressures and difficulties involved in acheiving communism. As Fidel said, "the revolution has no time for elections". If socialism could occur in a prosperous setting, or even just avoid being sabotaged, I truly believe we would see it be highly democratic and successful.

[Q]

couple years ago, maybe even early last year,i'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist/communist, hence my display name but as of late i cant help thinking that all attempts at communism just turn out to be a horrible authoritarian mess and that ain't something i would want campaign or support.
One aspect i can personaly relate to(as im hoping to start a band soon) is muscians havnin to have their work checked over before they play gigs etc eg.East Germany and from what ive heard, Cuba. To me, the Government in so called communist countries or socialist, whtever u wanna call them, have far to much involvement in the everyday aspect of peoples life's. Do they inherently become anti-people?
In short this is what im trying to say, What comedian lenny Bruce one said "Communism is like on big phone company"
what are your thoughts? i know ive maybe not explained to well, but i can't seem to fidn the right words . but i think u can get the jist of what im tryign to say?

Also, im say im maybe somewhat of a left Libertarian.

There have been many attempts indeed, but only one thusfar was successful, for a period. And that was the Russian Revolution of 1917. But due to the isolation of that revolution into a backward and wartorn country, the revolution degenerated, especially quickly after the death of Lenin in 1924. A bureaucratic stratum consolidated power and choked the young direct democracy to death. This is what we now know as Stalinism. I do recommend The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/) for further analysis into this important question.

Now, all other "communist" countries have been based on the Stalinist model in some way. Cuba for example never knew a genuine workers revolution, but instead a small guerillia group staged a coup, only in the last phase of the guerillia war did the working class play an auxiliary role. And Cuba is one of the better examples, with a relative "benevolent" dictatorship. I recommend Cuba: Socialism and Democracy (http://socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/00.html) if you want to read more.

My point is, Stalinism is a degenerated form of socialism, an apologist "ideology" for the bureaucratic counter-revolution. It has nothing to do with genuine Marxist ideas but is diametrically opposed to it.

[JimmyJazz]

I never understand things like this. If you know what you support (economic equality, or whatever attracted you to communism/socialism/leftism in the first place) and what you don't support (musicians/artists being censored, for example), then what's the problem? Why do you need a pre-existing label that sums up all your beliefs perfectly?

There isn't a revolutionary socialist movement to speak of in most countries at the moment, so you have as good a chance as anyone else of getting your ideas incorporated into the next generation of socialist platforms. Go join a group and get them to explicitly renounce artist censorship in their statement of principles. Don't be a spectator.

[ZeroNowhere]

Um, but libertarians are communists...

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

htp://infoshop.org/faq/index.html

DO NOT read this. It's sectarian, slanderous, manipulative CRAP.

[Leo]

There have been many attempts indeed, but only one thusfar was successful, for a period. And that was the Russian Revolution of 1917. But due to the isolation of that revolution into a backward and wartorn country, the revolution degenerated, especially quickly after the death of Lenin in 1924. A bureaucratic stratum consolidated power and choked the young direct democracy to death. This is what we now know as Stalinism. I do recommend The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/) for further analysis into this important question.

Now, all other "communist" countries have been based on the Stalinist model in some way. Cuba for example never knew a genuine workers revolution, but instead a small guerillia group staged a coup, only in the last phase of the guerillia war did the working class play an auxiliary role. And Cuba is one of the better examples, with a relative "benevolent" dictatorship. I recommend Cuba: Socialism and Democracy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://socialistworld.net/pubs/Cuba/00.html) if you want to read more.

My point is, Stalinism is a degenerated form of socialism, an apologist "ideology" for the bureaucratic counter-revolution. It has nothing to do with genuine Marxist ideas but is diametrically opposed to it.

Degenerated or not, how can you regard something that you call counter-revolutionary still as an actual form socialism?

[Invincible Summer]

DO NOT read this. It's sectarian, slanderous, manipulative CRAP.

It's not sectarian or manipulative. It's called a different point of view.

[Blackscare]

DO NOT read this. It's sectarian, slanderous, manipulative CRAP.

Yeah, it's crap because it dares to identify Anarchist Communism as it's own ideology separate from Authoritarian Communism, fuck off.

Obviously it's from a large ANARCHIST website, they are going to tell you why they think their ideas are better than Marxist-Leninists/Maoists/Trotskyists/etc. They don't have to offer an "unbiased" account, they have to get their ideas out into public thought. Also, historically, the Anarchist movement has had many occaisions to develope a hatred for the authoritarians, it's totally fair to express percieved dangers of authoritarian communism as experienced by the left libertarian movement.

I have no idea why you're crying about it being sectarian, what are they supposed to do? This isn't some fucking parliament session where you can call for bipartisan consensus or something.

Don't mislead people because you're got a massive problem with groups that you don't agree with.

I hate when people get all pissy because someone dares to show their idiology in a bad light...

I've read that whole faq and I think it's great. Sure, it's biased, but it's not supposed to be an objective historical work. It shows OUR perspective.

[robbo203]

Yeah, it's crap because it dares to identify Anarchist Communism as it's own ideology separate from Authoritarian Communism, fuck off.

Obviously it's from a large ANARCHIST website, they are going to tell you why they think their ideas are better than Marxist-Leninists/Maoists/Trotskyists/etc. They don't have to offer an "unbiased" account, they have to get their ideas out into public thought. Also, historically, the Anarchist movement has had many occaisions to develope a hatred for the authoritarians, it's totally fair to express percieved dangers of authoritarian communism as experienced by the left libertarian movement.

I have no idea why you're crying about it being sectarian, what are they supposed to do? This isn't some fucking parliament session where you can call for bipartisan consensus or something.

Don't mislead people because you're got a massive problem with groups that you don't agree with.

I hate when people get all pissy because someone dares to show their idiology in a bad light...

I've read that whole faq and I think it's great. Sure, it's biased, but it's not supposed to be an objective historical work. It shows OUR perspective.


I agree. While I have some quarrels - er... differences of opinion - with anarchists , particularly on the means of achieving a communist future, I have found the input of many anarchists to be enormously positive. The anarchist FAQ is a case in point. By contrast the views of many who call themselves "marxist" ( and I regard myself as one) take us nowhere except down the cul de sac of authoritarian state capitalism.

One last thing, it is not very helpful to urge people not to read something becuase you judge it to be crap. This is the kind of mentality that sanctions the burning of books. I read stuff that I fundamentally disagree with becuase apart from anything else it helps to clarify your own understanding. To understand why you oppose something you have to understand the thing that you oppose. And you dont do that by ignoring it

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Yeah, it's crap because it dares to identify Anarchist Communism as it's own ideology separate from Authoritarian Communism, fuck off.

Obviously it's from a large ANARCHIST website, they are going to tell you why they think their ideas are better than Marxist-Leninists/Maoists/Trotskyists/etc. They don't have to offer an "unbiased" account, they have to get their ideas out into public thought. Also, historically, the Anarchist movement has had many occaisions to develope a hatred for the authoritarians, it's totally fair to express percieved dangers of authoritarian communism as experienced by the left libertarian movement.

I have no idea why you're crying about it being sectarian, what are they supposed to do? This isn't some fucking parliament session where you can call for bipartisan consensus or something.

Don't mislead people because you're got a massive problem with groups that you don't agree with.

I hate when people get all pissy because someone dares to show their idiology in a bad light...

I've read that whole faq and I think it's great. Sure, it's biased, but it's not supposed to be an objective historical work. It shows OUR perspective.

I'm not pissy because they criticize "authoritarian communism," I'm mad that they can't do it without lying and misrepresenting other peoples positions.


Don't mislead people because you're got a massive problem with groups that you don't agree with.

Misleading people because they have a massive problem with a group they don't agree with is the entire basis for that FAQ.

[Blackscare]

Provide some quotes from the FAQ and we'll have a little debate then.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Provide some quotes from the FAQ and we'll have a little debate then.

ZeroNowhere has done a pretty good critique already:

ww.revleft.com/vb/critique-anarchist-faq-t100349/index.html

[Blackscare]

I really want to see if your quotes turn out to be examples of oversensitivity on your part or actual dishonesty, somehow I think it's the former ;)

It's a very detailed explanation of Anarchist opinion and far from slanderous. And just to illustrate how oversensitive you really are, I'd like to point out that the majority of the FAQ isn't about attacking other leftists anyway, so it's far from the "entire basis" of the FAQ. I think your wittle stomach tied in a knot at the first site of a perspective on your ideology that you didn't find very flattering.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I really want to see if your quotes turn out to be examples of oversensitivity on your part or actual dishonesty, somehow I think it's the former ;)

It's a very detailed explanation of Anarchist opinion and far from slanderous. And just to illustrate how oversensitive you really are, I'd like to point out that the majority of the FAQ isn't about attacking other leftists anyway, so it's far from the "entire basis" of the FAQ. I think your wittle stomach tied in a knot at the first site of a perspective on your ideology that you didn't find very flattering.

I'm not going to re-read the whole thing when a good critique has already been written.

And sorry, I've mostly just read the section "why do anarchists oppose state socialism." It may not be the basis for the whole FAQ, but it is for that section. I've seen plenty of sites that offer professional criticism, but when a site created by members of the so-called "revolutionary left" begins posting lies about Marxists and adopting bourgeois anti-Marxist propaganda to make their position look radically different from that of Marx's(which it isn't), that can do nothing but hurt the left. With all your talk of "our perspective," I wonder if you some anarchists just purposely misrepresent Marx so they can seem more original and unique.

[Blackscare]

From what I'm reading so far, it seems to be as empty and slanted as it claims the FAQ is in the first place. Anyway, it's too long and not from this discussion. Tell me why you disagree, or at least something smaller that I can realistically respond to.

Sectarian debate among the left is common, and you'd pretty much have to reject any work on leftist anything in order to weed out all cases of partisan bickering. Grow some thick skin and deal with it, not everyone is going to share your perspective.

[Blackscare]

I wonder if you some anarchists just purposely misrepresent Marx so they can seem more original and unique.


Yes, Anarchism is just an attempt to make Marxism cool! :rolleyes:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

From what I'm reading so far, it seems to be as empty and slanted as it claims the FAQ is in the first place. Anyway, it's too long and not from this discussion. Tell me why you disagree, or at least something smaller that I can realistically respond to.

Sectarian debate among the left is common, and you'd pretty much have to reject any work on leftist anything in order to weed out all cases of partisan bickering. Grow some thick skin and deal with it, not everyone is going to share your perspective.

I disagree because it misrepresents Marx's positions, as can be seen in that critique.

I'm not trying to get people to share my perspective. They can criticize it as much as they want, as long as they aren't misrepresenting it, and in extreme cases even using bourgeois arguments!

[Blackscare]

Marx was ambiguous about his position on the worker's state, what it would look like and so on. You're really not debating the FAQ, you're just rehashing the same old Anarchist/Marxist arguments that have been going on since before Bakunin walked out of the International. Both points already made in a reply to Zeronowhere's post, because this is an old and tired subject. :D


Also, history vindicates Bakunin's critique of Marx, we need only look at the Authoritarian communist movements that have turned into brutal dictatorships because, in part, of Marx's vagueness on the matter of state.

[Blackscare]

I disagree because it misrepresents Marx's positions

That's an assertion, not an explanation.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Marx was ambiguous about his position on the worker's state, what it would look like and so on. You're really not debating the FAQ, you're just rehashing the same old Anarchist/Marxist arguments that have been going on since before Bakunin walked out of the International. Both points already made in a reply to Zeronowhere's post, because this is an old and tired subject. :D


Also, history vindicates Bakunin's critique of Marx, we need only look at the Authoritarian communist movements that have turned into brutal dictatorships because, in part, of Marx's vagueness on the matter of state.

It does not vindicate Bakunin's critique of Marx. Bakunin's critique of Marx was a critique of things Marx never advocated:

ww.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm


That's an assertion, not an explanation.

And I linked to a damn good explanation. Like I said, I'm not going to re-read dozens of pages just to point out the parts where they say "zomg marxists just want to take over the state and be authoritarian blanquists lololo."

[Blackscare]

However, don't take this as meaning that the Anarchist FAQ is completely misleading, it's not. On the contrary, it's a wonderful resource, and any annoyance shown above was only at the distortions mentioned. It's a great way to get an introduction to libertarian socialist theory. My message is simply to take it with a grain of salt, and all that I am attempting is to make it as positive an educational experience as possible.
-Zeronowhere

He even admits it's not a slanderous piece of crap, like you made it out to be when you mislead the op with your remark. He claims there are distortions, but he didn't use the tone that you so unconstructively employed to do it.

The fact is, the FAQ contains many arguments that Marxists find controversial, and have been debated back and forth many many times in the past. In that sense, the FAQ is no more slanderous than anything else anarchists have ever said, from the point of view of a Marxist.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

-Zeronowhere

He even admits it's not a slanderous piece of crap, like you made it out to be when you mislead the op with your remark. He claims there are distortions, but he didn't use the tone that you so unconstructively employed to do it.

The fact is, the FAQ contains many arguments that Marxists find controversial, and have been debated back and forth many many times in the past. In that sense, the FAQ is no more slanderous than anything else anarchists have ever said, from the point of view of a Marxist.

I already apologized for calling the whole thing a slanderous piece of crap, I was referring to a specific section. I have read a few other sections on there that were pretty good and worth reading.

Just because a position has been misrepresented consistently in the past doesn't mean it should continue to be misrepresented. The whole left suffers from enough of this from the bourgeois already.

[Blackscare]

Fine, here's a small critique of some of what Zeronowhere said, because you apparently have the balls to stir up shit but not enough to read a little and back them up.

I guess I'll post this in that forum too, since you seem to want to pigeonhole me into arguing against someone else, rather than you.



Alright, so the first critique. "For Marx, the proletariat had to take part in bourgeois elections as an organised political party." Now, by extension we need to be primmos, or we'll be using 'bourgeois technology'. Insurrection uses 'bourgeois guns'? General strike uses the 'bourgeois working class'?

So rejecting the representative electoral process and parties is inherently primitive? It's a major contention point among the left, but has nothing to do with rejecting modernity. It's just silly to start listing things like guns and "the bourgeiose working class"(?), as being on the same level as the electoral process. I frankly don't even know what Zero is trying to say with that, especially with the "bourgeiose working class" remark (what the fuck does that even mean?).

And may I add that this sight is for people who believe revolution, rather than voting, is the only viable solution. That's what makes a revolutionary, rather than a reformist.


"By the start of the First World War, the Social Democrats had become so corrupted by its activities in bourgeois institutions they supported its state (and ruling class) and voted for war credits rather than denounce the war as Imperialist slaughter for profits. Clearly, Bakunin was proved right." Yes, and I could say 'anarcho-communism leads to the same thing' with as much evidence.

In reference to the text in bold: what 'thing' are you saying it leads to? The quote you provide relates to a specific event, show me where anarchists supported the 1st world war through 'Bourgouise institutions'. How on earth does an ideology that is inherently anti-hierarchy "lead to" the support of the state and it's ruling class?

That certainly isn't a valid critique, since he doesn't give a shred of evidence. If he's referring to the Spanish civil war, it's only fair to point out that the collaboration that happened was an aberration amongst the wider anarchist movement, whereas the creation of overbearing stae institutions has been the rule amongst attempts at Marxist or pseudo Marxist revolutions.


"Comparing Bakunin and Marx, it is clear whom history has validated." Neither. We haven't had a successful international socialist revolution yet, so, again, history has not validated either of them.

Perhaps Marx's own vagueness lead to the fact that his theories have been twisted and confounded. Surely if he had given clearer ideas about the state this wouldn't be the case, right? Marxists always complain about how conditions weren't right, but no revolution will be ideal. What Bakunin saw was a weakness in Marx's work to the chance of dictatorship arising. This is what happened. The idea that it's an invalid argument because Marxism has never really been tried emphasizes Bakunin's point, it doesn't destroy it. He saw that Marx's vagueness on important issues would be his movement's undoing. You can't just keep making excuses, sooner or later you're going to have to examine why so many communist states go the route of dictatorship. We all know you guys don't want that, but that's what happens. And you won't recognize that that is the argument, you just keep harping on the fact that "Marx didn't intend for that to happen!".

I'm running out of steam, because this "damn good explanation" is just an attack on Bakunin, with nothing new to add to the discussion or really anything specific about the FAQ.

In relation to the other link, you can throw Marx at me and I can retaliate with Bakunin or Kropotkin all day long, it won't solve a thing and at the end of the day you've still not backed up your assertians with your own arguments. This is a forum for debate, not a directed reading course.

I know this wasn't by any means complete, but that wasn't even the thread I intended to debate in anyway. I'm arguing with you, and you still haven't said a damn thing on your own. Don't quote iffy, debateable stuff posted by other users if you want to make a sound point.

[Blackscare]

Let me add that I won't be posting in Zero's thread, since I have no will to debate him now and I think that's reflected in the incompleteness of my responce. Zero deserves better than that.

I just tried to point out that he wasn't correct on plenty of points, making him hardly reliable enough to source for the entirety of one's argument (besides the Marx quotes that I won't engage, because the two were in an active feud and wrote much about eachother's shortcomings, I could quote Bakunin back at you).

Also, I tried to show that the majority of it was a thinly veiled attack on Bakunin, not a real analysis of the FAQ.


So give me some better arguments. Or don't, this is boring and infuriating (didn't know such a combination existed). I think you just read Zero's thread and got all hot under the collar, and decided to spring to the attack at the first mention of the FAQ.

[Comrade Anarchist]

i think that is what most people see when they think of communism. They see just this authoritarian gov't that takes everything then oppresses their people. I use to think just like that too. I dont think we can ever have communism till we show that this is a misconception of communist beliefs

[JimmyJazz]

It's sectarian


DO NOT read this...CRAP.

lol

[Blackscare]

lol

YES

I love you

[griffjam]

http://www.spunk.org/library/writers/meltzer/sp001500.html

I found this fascinating.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Fine, here's a small critique of some of what Zeronowhere said, because you apparently have the balls to stir up shit but not enough to read a little and back them up.

I guess I'll post this in that forum too, since you seem to want to pigeonhole me into arguing against someone else, rather than you.

I don't see why you want me to do what has already been done. He already pointed out many of the main parts that deserve criticism. All I would be doing is restating what he has said.




So rejecting the representative electoral process and parties is inherently primitive? It's a major contention point among the left, but has nothing to do with rejecting modernity. It's just silly to start listing things like guns and "the bourgeiose working class"(?), as being on the same level as the electoral process. I frankly don't even know what Zero is trying to say with that, especially with the "bourgeiose working class" remark (what the fuck does that even mean?).

And may I add that this sight is for people who believe revolution, rather than voting, is the only viable solution. That's what makes a revolutionary, rather than a reformist.



In reference to the text in bold: what 'thing' are you saying it leads to? The quote you provide relates to a specific event, show me where anarchists supported the 1st world war through 'Bourgouise institutions'. How on earth does an ideology that is inherently anti-hierarchy "lead to" the support of the state and it's ruling class?

That certainly isn't a valid critique, since he doesn't give a shred of evidence. If he's referring to the Spanish civil war, it's only fair to point out that the collaboration that happened was an aberration amongst the wider anarchist movement, whereas the creation of overbearing stae institutions has been the rule amongst attempts at Marxist or pseudo Marxist revolutions. Talk about selective quoting. Your attempt at arguing against his critique before you ran out of steam completely avoided his criticisms of parts dealing with misrepresentation of Marxists views.




Perhaps Marx's own vagueness lead to the fact that his theories have been twisted and confounded. Surely if he had given clearer ideas about the state this wouldn't be the case, right? Marxists always complain about how conditions weren't right, but no revolution will be ideal. What Bakunin saw was a weakness in Marx's work to the chance of dictatorship arising. This is what happened. The idea that it's an invalid argument because Marxism has never really been tried emphasizes Bakunin's point, it doesn't destroy it. He saw that Marx's vagueness on important issues would be his movement's undoing. You can't just keep making excuses, sooner or later you're going to have to examine why so many communist states go the route of dictatorship. We all know you guys don't want that, but that's what happens. And you won't recognize that that is the argument, you just keep harping on the fact that "Marx didn't intend for that to happen!".Marx's view on the state is obvious to anyone who has read Marx. It would not exist after the sucess of the revolution. Unless Bakunin had never read Marx, he would have known how Marx used the term state, and that Marx did not advocate the setting up of a state after the revolution. Going by the Marxist definition, any anarchist revolution will set up a workers state or dictatorship of the proletariat, even if they don't call it that. Bakunin didn't see anything, he just twisted Marx's words and misrepresented his meanings of terms such as dictatorship, state, etc to make him look like an authoritarian. Also, people twisting Marx's views in support of dictatorship can be no more an argument against Marx's views than pointing out that Hitler used the idea of "survival of the fittest" to support his social darwinist ideas is an argument against Darwin's theories.



I'm running out of steam, because this "damn good explanation" is just an attack on Bakunin, with nothing new to add to the discussion or really anything specific about the FAQ.Bakunin is the main source of the misrepresentation of Marx's view being regurgitated by the FAQ.




In relation to the other link, you can throw Marx at me and I can retaliate with Bakunin or Kropotkin all day long, it won't solve a thing and at the end of the day you've still not backed up your assertians with your own arguments. This is a forum for debate, not a directed reading course.No, you can't. In that document Marx is clarifying his views in response to Bakunin's slander. Unless Bakunin knows Marx's views better than Marx, you can not possibly retaliate with Bakunin. I don't really see why you're so obsessed with me coming up with my own arguments in this case when Marx already clarified his views for me, and I think he knows his views far better than I do.



I know this wasn't by any means complete, but that wasn't even the thread I intended to debate in anyway. I'm arguing with you, and you still haven't said a damn thing on your own. Don't quote iffy, debateable stuff posted by other users if you want to make a sound point.Of course it wasn't complete. You avoided the parts concerning misrepresentation of Marx's views, which is what we are arguing about. Unless you wanted me to repost the same things being pointed out by ZeroNowhere, there's no point in me arguing against those things myself. And how are the points made in his critique regarding the FAQs slander debatable? If they were, maybe you wouldn't have completely avoided them.

Anyway, to make you happy, I will point out the most infuriating part of the FAQ:


If we look at Marx, we get contradictory impressions. On the one hand, he argued that freedom "consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it." Combine this with his comments on the Paris Commune (see his "The Civil War in France"), we can say that there are clearly elements of "socialism from below" in Marx's work. On the other hand, he often stresses the need for strict centralisation of power. In 1850, for example, he argued that the workers must "not only strive for a single and indivisible German republic, but also within this republic for the most determined centralisation of power in the hands of the state authority." This was because "the path of revolutionary activity" can "proceed only from the centre." This meant that the workers must be opposed to the "federative republic" planned by the democrats and "must not allow themselves to be misguided by the democratic talk of freedom for the communities, of self-government, etc." This centralisation of power was essential to overcome local autonomy, which would allow "every village, every town and every province" to put "a new obstacle in the path" the revolution due to "local and provincial obstinacy." Decades later, Marx dismissed Bakunin's vision of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" as "nonsense." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 537, p. 509 and p. 547]

Thus we have a contradiction. While arguing that the state must become subordinate to society, we have a central power imposing its will on "local and provincial obstinacy." This implies a vision of revolution in which the centre (indeed, "the state authority") forces its will on the population, which (by necessity) means that the centre power is "superimposed upon society" rather than "subordinate" to it. Given his dismissal of the idea of organisation from bottom to top, we cannot argue that by this he meant simply the co-ordination of local initiatives. Rather, we are struck by the "top-down" picture of revolution Marx presents. Indeed, his argument from 1850 suggests that Marx favoured centralism not only in order to prevent the masses from creating obstacles to the revolutionary activity of the "centre," but also to prevent them from interfering with their own liberation.Bullshit. That is quoted from here:
ww.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

Just reading a few lines after those quotes makes us realize they're quoting this completely out of context:


A renewal of the present situation, in which the Germans have to wage a separate struggle in each town and province for the same degree of progress, can also not be tolerated. Least of all can a so-called free system of local government be allowed to perpetuate a form of property which is more backward than modern private property and which is everywhere and inevitably being transformed into private property; namely communal property, with its consequent disputes between poor and rich communities. Nor can this so-called free system of local government be allowed to perpetuate, side by side with the state civil law, the existence of communal civil law with its sharp practices directed against the workers. As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization. This is his views on what the workers should advocate in regards to the bourgeois state in Germany at that time, not an attack on the idea of direct democracy after the overthrow of capitalism.

As far as Marx calling Bakunins idea's of "the free organisation of the worker masses from bottom to top" nonsense, if you had read Marx's work that I posted earlier, you would understand this:

Bakunin: Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government?


Marx: In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin's constitution, will all 'from bottom to top' be 'at the top'? Then there will certainly be no one 'at the bottom'. (Hence Marx calling that idea nonsense) Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory.



Bakunin: The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?


Marx: Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.(AAAAH SELF GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMUNE, THAT MARX IS SO AUTHORITARIAN)

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

lol

If telling someone to not read something sectarian is sectarian, then I'm a sectarian. :rolleyes:

[JimmyJazz]

agreedo

[Q]

Degenerated or not, how can you regard something that you call counter-revolutionary still as an actual form socialism?

That is just depending on how broad you define socialism. I define socialism as a transitionary phase towards communism, which is a higher stage of human development. As such socialism starts with ending the backwardness and evils of feudalism and capitalism. For a period thi did happen in the USSR as the planned economy was vastly superior to the capitalist development in other countries, despite its bureaucratic limitations and inefficiency. However, Trotsky pointed out that socialism starts there where it leaves behind the development stage of the most advanced capitalist society (that'd be the USA) and the USSR never achieved that stage, the quality of life always lagged behind to that of the west.

But the USSR did have the social and economical basis to build socialism. What was needed was a political revolution to oust the bureaucratic dictatorship and recreate a healthy workers state by genuine workers control and management.

In a nutshell: degenerated socialism is not socialism.

[Leo]

That is just depending on how broad you define socialism. I define socialism as a transitionary phase towards communism, which is a higher stage of human development.

Then by definition, it can't be counter-revolutionary, and if a regime calling itself socialist is counter-revolutionary, then it is not really socialist because then it does not represent a higher stage of human development.


As such socialism starts with ending the backwardness and evils of feudalism and capitalism. For a period thi did happen in the USSR as the planned economy was vastly superior to the capitalist development in other countries, despite its bureaucratic limitations and inefficiency.

Surely though you can't say that it actually was socialism, because I presume you don't think socialism in one country was possible. And if you do think that then why call it counter-revolutionary?


However, Trotsky pointed out that socialism starts there where it leaves behind the development stage of the most advanced capitalist society (that'd be the USA) and the USSR never achieved that stage, the quality of life always lagged behind to that of the west.

Yet Trotsky never said there was socialism in the USSR anyway - neither did Lenin indeed.


But the USSR did have the social and economical basis to build socialism.

So you do think socialism is possible in one country then?


What was needed was a political revolution to oust the bureaucratic dictatorship and recreate a healthy workers state by genuine workers control and management.

This is an interesting question which I'd like to discuss, but I feel it would be for the best if we returned to it after clarifying the other questions.


In a nutshell: degenerated socialism is not socialism.

OK, fair enough. Then what do you think it is?

[ZeroNowhere]

i think that is what most people see when they think of communism. They see just this authoritarian gov't that takes everything then oppresses their people. I use to think just like that too. I dont think we can ever have communism till we show that this is a misconception of communist beliefsI'm sure that all of us here used to think that, and the SPUSA still uses the term 'communism' to refer to it. Hell, it's practically inevitable, seeing as it's one of the more important lessons that schools make sure to teach you.


And may I add that this sight is for people who believe revolution, rather than voting, is the only viable solution. That's what makes a revolutionary, rather than a reformist.
Interesting. So the WSM are a reformist organization? "Whenever a change leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the internal mechanism is changed, we have revolution." Whether it's done through the electoral system, a combination of that and industrial unionism (which you can debate on in the De Leonism thread in the 'Learning' section, if you so desire), general strike, insurrection, or heavy fucking metal, it's still a revolution.


Marx was ambiguous about his position on the worker's state, what it would look like and so on.
No, he didn't have a position on what a workers' state would look like. While he did give some things, like self-government, he didn't make a detailed blueprint, presumably because something made back then may have become out of date by the time a revolution comes about,


So rejecting the representative electoral process and parties is inherently primitive?
No. I never said that, I was merely criticizing the silly terminology used.


He saw that Marx's vagueness on important issues would be his movement's undoing.
I don't think that Marx being less 'vague' would have helped at all, seeing as authoritarian 'Marxism' was produced before quite a few of his works were published. That is, "the triumph of Marxism as a State doctrine and Party ideology preceded by several decades the publication of the writings where Marx set out most clearly and completely the scientific basis and ethical purpose of his social theory." Anyways, weren't you talking about shreds of evidence and the like?
Also, if a bunch of people who called themselves anarchists set up a hierarchal organization, would that prove correct the criticisms used by some Leninists that anarchism is simply 'secret authoritarianism'? Of course, SocialismOrBarbarism's example was better.
Hell, why would Lenin have not taken power, regardless of what Marx said? After all, it's not like he was quoting Marx when he started spouting authoritarian claptrap about party dictatorship, even though he did tend to like doing it otherwise. Also, Marx was planning on writing a book on the state. This would imply that he was at fault for dying too quickly.


The quote you provide relates to a specific event, show me where anarchists supported the 1st world war through 'Bourgouise institutions'. How on earth does an ideology that is inherently anti-hierarchy "lead to" the support of the state and it's ruling class?
I didn't say that it did. I'm not bloody GeorgiDemitrovII.


I wonder if you some anarchists just purposely misrepresent Marx so they can seem more original and unique.
Eh, that's drifting dangerously close to the kind of ad hominem that can turn threads into flamewars.

This reminds me, I just went through the WSM's articles, and they are bloody awesome, especially the ones on globalization, economics, resources and ownership. While I do, of course, have some disagreements with them (for example, on the issue of SIUs, of course, and labour credits. Certainly with their assertion about 'free access' being part of the definition of soicalism, though they do, of course, give the alternatives a hearing elsewhere, which is fair enough), I'd recommend them as a great read alongside the Anarchist FAQ, perhaps I'd say that the Anarchist FAQ is best for an introduction to libertarian socialism, and, of course, a refutation of 'anarcho'-capitalists and the like, while the WSM site is great for statistics, history (though the AFAQ does have some pretty good sections there, so that's worth reading too), and economics, though, again, the FAQ isn't too shabby here (though slightly), and refutations of reformist ideas (unless your definition of 'reformism' includes them, I suppose). Certainly, the WSM site can be very helpful when debating with cappies (though the Anarchist FAQ moreso when it comes to 'anarcho'-capitalism, though 'an'caps are fairly tiny minority. Hell, they're possible the only ones who can claim to be a smaller minority than us De Leonists. :lol:).

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Eh, that's drifting dangerously close to the kind of ad hominem that can turn threads into flamewars.

I don't know about that. I'm not evens sure why I said "wonder," as in the case of the writers of the FAQ, that's exactly what they did. Every Marxist tactic, slogan, and idea they don't consider authoritarian they claim as having been developed by Anarchists. The points that they do admit we share similar views on is just Marxists using their ideas to get support so that we can build a party dictatorship.

[cyu]

DO NOT read this. It's sectarian, slanderous, manipulative CRAP.


I think soon we'll be able to say the same thing about this thread :D:lol::tt2::laugh::cool:

[Yazman]

Red_Rebel, a few things to say to you.

First of all you seem to be falling into a trap that many fall into and this is often a mistake that is made when not enough research has been done. I am talking about the identification of "Marxism-Leninism" and Stalinism with all forms of communist thought simply because of the terms "marxism" and "communism" are commonly used.

You will find that most communists today are just as critical of those societies as anybody else - in fact I would go so far as to say we are more critical of them. We have our share of Marxist-Leninists here, as well as people who are proponents of derivative ideologies like Maoism though and it seems you have come to a point where you disagree with them fundamentally.

The important thing for you to do here is realise that we are not a single entity, a single group that supports a single ideology. Many of us disagree and Revleft is simply a hub where we promote discussion on our ideas and debate over the merit of these ideas. You sound like somebody who would be much more supportive of anarchist or anarcho-communist tendencies and I urge you to look into these. I suggest you take a look at the link to the anarchist FAQ linked here in this thread.

If you are more of a scientifically motivated person you might also enjoy the anarchist/marxist tendencies of technocracy and similar movements. We have a Revleft community group dedicated to these ideas and this seems to be an increasingly popular movement in society in general, as evidenced by the popularity of "Zeitgeist Addendum" (although there is criticism of this too - criticise everything always!).

In conclusion, I suggest you simply continue to post here while informing yourself of the various ideas promoted here. Just because you may find you do not identify or support the ideas, methods, or plans proposed by Leninists, this does not mean you are incompatible with anarchist or communist thought.

[Q]

Then by definition, it can't be counter-revolutionary, and if a regime calling itself socialist is counter-revolutionary, then it is not really socialist because then it does not represent a higher stage of human development.
Indeed.


Surely though you can't say that it actually was socialism, because I presume you don't think socialism in one country was possible. And if you do think that then why call it counter-revolutionary?
I may have been unclear here. What I meant was that, for a period, the USSR was a genuine workers state.


Yet Trotsky never said there was socialism in the USSR anyway - neither did Lenin indeed.

And neither did I.


So you do think socialism is possible in one country then?
No. A planned economy is a fundamental basis indeed, but alone it cannot hope to surpass capitalism. Internationalism is therefore vital as we inherited a globalised economy from capitalism.


This is an interesting question which I'd like to discuss, but I feel it would be for the best if we returned to it after clarifying the other questions.
Ok.


OK, fair enough. Then what do you think it is?
A degenerated workers state that had progressive gains from the socialist revolution, but in which the revolution couldn't progress to fullfilling its socialist tasks.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

couple years ago, maybe even early last year,i'd consider myself somewhat of a socialist/communist, hence my display name but as of late i cant help thinking that all attempts at communism just turn out to be a horrible authoritarian mess and that ain't something i would want campaign or support.
One aspect i can personaly relate to(as im hoping to start a band soon) is muscians havnin to have their work checked over before they play gigs etc eg.East Germany and from what ive heard, Cuba. To me, the Government in so called communist countries or socialist, whtever u wanna call them, have far to much involvement in the everyday aspect of peoples life's. Do they inherently become anti-people?
In short this is what im trying to say, What comedian lenny Bruce one said "Communism is like on big phone company"
what are your thoughts? i know ive maybe not explained to well, but i can't seem to fidn the right words . but i think u can get the jist of what im tryign to say?

Also, im say im maybe somewhat of a left Libertarian.
I'm disappointed to hear this.
Whatever Communism turns out to be later on, it's still better than the capitalist oppression we have now.

[griffjam]

I'm disappointed to hear this.
Whatever Communism turns out to be later on, it's still better than the capitalist oppression we have now.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'"~ Bakunin

[ZeroNowhere]

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'"~ Bakunin
Ah, but of course it does! It indicates that the stick is being used in the interests of the working class, and only made necessary through the effects of imperialism, trying to put down socialism, and being helped along by you sectarian Trotskyite and anarchist reactionaries.