Anarchist organization

[Idealism]

so i was thinking today about the method a revolution should use whether it be a vanguard (Marxist-Leninist) or a less organized anarchist group. i came to the conclusion that an anarchist revolution could succeed without any centralized party. I arranged my argument into a three main points i will explain:

1. Anarchists are not susceptible to the ideological blockades that communists have
2. Anarchists are united, but diverse
3. United common diversity of belief is always more effective than forced uncommon direction.

1. Communists, by the method of taking over the state; are susceptible to reactionaries such social democrats, but also bureaucrats such as Stalinists. This has been one of the main causes of degeneration (ideologically) in socialist states, that the opinion splits into to several sub-sects that diverge from the former goal. Anarchists do not have this problem as they all call as anti-authoritarians for the destruction of the state, which leads to the next point.

2 Anarchists, as you all well know, are split into five major groups: mutualists, collectivists, communists, syndicalists, and individualists. But despite the sometimes large ideological differences between these they are all united by the fact that they all wish to abolish the state, which unites them in that they all have the same goal.

3. The fact that they all have the same goal leads to a lack of reason as to why the anarchist revolution would ever need a centralized committee to keep the end standardized. It also leads to the conclusion that while leninists argue that without a common decision you just have a group of individuals, that this group of individuals all have the same goal to start with; and because of such do not need a enforced common decision.

I posted this mainly because i want communists to counter my argument; as i am still unsettled in my beliefs. Also, though id like to see what fellow anarchists think of this logic.

[Invincible Summer]

blah blah


Well, most anarchists are communists, so you might want to re-think this.

Also, I find the most prominent "divide" in Anarchist groups are "lifestylists" vs non-lifestylists. Yknow... the guys who go around calling people mofos/tools/posers for not wearing smelly band clothes and trying to do everything DIY

[Stranger Than Paradise]

2 Anarchists, as you all well know, are split into five major groups: mutualists, collectivists, communists, syndicalists, and individualists. But despite the sometimes large ideological differences between these they are all united by the fact that they all wish to abolish the state, which unites them in that they all have the same goal.



Syndicalist is hardly an ideology or theory. It's just a tactic. I am of the communist variety and I don't think I would want to unite with the individualists. Mutualists ok but not individualists. If they have their wishes we'll see the brutal capitalist system continue, no way am I allied with them.

[Pogue]

Syndicalist is hardly an ideology or theory. It's just a tactic. I am of the communist variety and I don't think I would want to unite with the individualists. Mutualists ok but not individualists. If they have their wishes we'll see the brutal capitalist system continue, no way am I allied with them.

'Anarcho-capitalists' are not anarchists so don't worry. Its like saying Socialist unity would have to involve Nazis. Just because they use the word anarchist or socialist does not make them so.

[Bilan]

1. Communists, by the method of taking over the state; are susceptible to reactionaries such social democrats, but also bureaucrats such as Stalinists. This has been one of the main causes of degeneration (ideologically) in socialist states, that the opinion splits into to several sub-sects that diverge from the former goal. Anarchists do not have this problem as they all call as anti-authoritarians for the destruction of the state, which leads to the next point.

To be blunt, that is plainly simplistic, with little connection to the reality of the degeneration of revolutions. It was not ideological constraints (and if it were, it would go the opposite way). The ideology of the Stalinists reflected the conditions of the revolution(s) and their deterioration - it was the ideological representation of the material degeneration. Socialists, or the Communist Parties, are not more susceptible, but simply susceptible.
Anarchist groups are susceptible to things of an equally stupid, and bourgeois nature - such as the centrality of Individualism - as opposed to harmony between the collective and the individual, as such; fetishism of social struggles, opposed to class struggle (note: social struggles are intrinsically linked to the class struggle, and social oppression are direct manifestations of the nature of class systems, much like the existence of 'rich and poor' is the material manifestion of the bourgeoisie and the workingg class; eco-centrality.
Etc, etc, etc.



2 Anarchists, as you all well know, are split into five major groups: mutualists, collectivists, communists, syndicalists, and individualists. But despite the sometimes large ideological differences between these they are all united by the fact that they all wish to abolish the state, which unites them in that they all have the same goal.

Unity on one issue is of no value. The state is only one part of capitalist society. You abolish the state, you don't abolish capitalism. You abolish capitalism (through proletarian revolution), you abolish the state.
Simple.
Individualists have little understanding of the internal mechanics of society, nor the interrelationship between the individual and the collective, or, between society and the individual, and the inseperable relationship.
Collectivists don't really exist.
Mutualists are a fringe on a fringe. No value, anyway.
Communist and Syndicalist anarchists are, on the other hand, on the ball.




3. The fact that they all have the same goal leads to a lack of reason as to why the anarchist revolution would ever need a centralized committee to keep the end standardized. It also leads to the conclusion that while leninists argue that without a common decision you just have a group of individuals, that this group of individuals all have the same goal to start with; and because of such do not need a enforced common decision.


Wrong. They don't have the same goals. A communist anarchist a Mutualist do not have the same goals, but very different goals.
The only ones you mentioned which have the same goals are syndicalists and communists (though, not all syndicalists are communists).
You also didn't mention insurrectionists, who have played an important role in the development of the anarchist movement (whether good or bad, this is for another discussion).

Furthermore, as I said, the unity of this 'movement' on one issue does not suffice for general unity, or a general, indepth understanding of the nature of society.

Additionally, you mentioned that communists are more susceptible to bourgeois politics than anarchism (which is obviously false, as Bakinun and Proudhon made so clear), you showed quite a contradiction.
The Communist movement, as such, is filled with very different strands - as you noted. No more, no less than anarchism.

[Idealism]

To be blunt, that is plainly simplistic, with little connection to the reality of the degeneration of revolutions. It was not ideological constraints (and if it were, it would go the opposite way). The ideology of the Stalinists reflected the conditions of the revolution(s) and their deterioration - it was the ideological representation of the material degeneration. Socialists, or the Communist Parties, are not more susceptible, but simply susceptible.
Anarchist groups are susceptible to things of an equally stupid, and bourgeois nature - such as the centrality of Individualism - as opposed to harmony between the collective and the individual, as such; fetishism of social struggles, opposed to class struggle (note: social struggles are intrinsically linked to the class struggle, and social oppression are direct manifestations of the nature of class systems, much like the existence of 'rich and poor' is the material manifestion of the bourgeoisie and the workingg class; eco-centrality.
Etc, etc, etc.




Unity on one issue is of no value. The state is only one part of capitalist society. You abolish the state, you don't abolish capitalism. You abolish capitalism (through proletarian revolution), you abolish the state.
Simple.
Individualists have little understanding of the internal mechanics of society, nor the interrelationship between the individual and the collective, or, between society and the individual, and the inseperable relationship.
Collectivists don't really exist.
Mutualists are a fringe on a fringe. No value, anyway.
Communist and Syndicalist anarchists are, on the other hand, on the ball.





Wrong. They don't have the same goals. A communist anarchist a Mutualist do not have the same goals, but very different goals.
The only ones you mentioned which have the same goals are syndicalists and communists (though, not all syndicalists are communists).
You also didn't mention insurrectionists, who have played an important role in the development of the anarchist movement (whether good or bad, this is for another discussion).

Furthermore, as I said, the unity of this 'movement' on one issue does not suffice for general unity, or a general, indepth understanding of the nature of society.

Additionally, you mentioned that communists are more susceptible to bourgeois politics than anarchism (which is obviously false, as Bakinun and Proudhon made so clear), you showed quite a contradiction.
The Communist movement, as such, is filled with very different strands - as you noted. No more, no less than anarchism.

More a criticism of anarchism without objectives than this specific logic.

[Idealism]

Syndicalist is hardly an ideology or theory. It's just a tactic. I am of the communist variety and I don't think I would want to unite with the individualists. Mutualists ok but not individualists. If they have their wishes we'll see the brutal capitalist system continue, no way am I allied with them.

i did not mean to say syndicalism was, just pointing out that even though there are differences in how you said tactic, it still strives for the elimination of the state.
Capitalism and individualism do not have to coincide, and many of the anarcho-communists that have been influential to theory, such as Emma Goldmen; were influenced by Max Stirners 'egoism' or individualist anarchism.

[Matina]

1. Anarchists are not susceptible to the ideological blockades that communists have

When your ideology is "primitive" (in the sense that there's not much to anarchism), then you have another problem. The lack of revolutionary method and programme. This is pretty obvious with the anarchists in history and today.


2. Anarchists are united, but diverse

This "unity" is not principled. Because when it comes to a real revolutionary situation, if you are not united in principle, then you are going to waste your time arguing and will not have enough time to prepare etc for the great events.


3. United common diversity of belief is always more effective than forced uncommon direction.

Who talked about "forced uncommon direction"? Certainly Marxists are not forced to be in their party. It is voluntary. Certainly the workers are not forced to support whichever decisions the post-revolutionary workers state makes. I explained to you in another thread why Stalinism rose etc. I don't think I should repeat myself.


1. Communists, by the method of taking over the state; are susceptible to reactionaries such social democrats, but also bureaucrats such as Stalinists. This has been one of the main causes of degeneration (ideologically) in socialist states, that the opinion splits into to several sub-sects that diverge from the former goal. Anarchists do not have this problem as they all call as anti-authoritarians for the destruction of the state, which leads to the next point.

Communists do not take over the state. They destroy it.
Naturally an apparatus springs up, which is the workers state. A state does not become "authoritarian" just because it is a state. There is bourgeois democracy in Germany for example. Just like bourgeois democracy can exist, workers democracy can exist as well. To think that the workers can't democratically manage the state,is idealist. You have to take into account the material conditions of isolation and backwardness as I explained to another post.



2 Anarchists, as you all well know, are split into five major groups: mutualists, collectivists, communists, syndicalists, and individualists. But despite the sometimes large ideological differences between these they are all united by the fact that they all wish to abolish the state, which unites them in that they all have the same goal.

Again when it comes to decision making in a revolutionary situation, those "united" anarchists will squable just like Stalinists and Trotskyists do now:lol:. A unity needs to be principled in order to be effective.



3. The fact that they all have the same goal leads to a lack of reason as to why the anarchist revolution would ever need a centralized committee to keep the end standardized. It also leads to the conclusion that while leninists argue that without a common decision you just have a group of individuals, that this group of individuals all have the same goal to start with; and because of such do not need a enforced common decision.

I don't get the use of "Leninists" . Please do not use that word it's not accurate. Is it Trotskyists? Is it Stalinists? Is it Maoists? Everyone calls themselves a Leninist, be more specific. I don't like my ideology to get mixed up with its caricature (Stalinism).

All those different anarchists and "anarchists" you described are very different and as I explained before this will show in a revolutionary situation. Just like the Mensheviks and SR's did not withstand the test of the revolution, a lot of self-described anarchists will not withstand it either.

About the "central committee " that is a Party apparatus, not a state apparatus. If you want to read some articles online, which explain marxism for begginers message me :)

[Jack]

For all those who say anarchists think capitalism will disappear along with the state, you are wrong. Read the chapter on Expropriation in The Conquest of Bread.

I'm a firm beleiver that "The revolution must be communist, or else there will be bloodshed" (something Kropotkin clarifies on in The Conquest).

[Jack]

i did not mean to say syndicalism was, just pointing out that even though there are differences in how you said tactic, it still strives for the elimination of the state.
Capitalism and individualism do not have to coincide, and many of the anarcho-communists that have been influential to theory, such as Emma Goldmen; were influenced by Max Stirners 'egoism' or individualist anarchism.

Those individualistic tendencies (that haunt us today with Crimethinc.) still came up with a defense of Communism. Individualists are irrelavent and incapable of being a revolutionary force, and will merely sit on the sidelines. Same with Mutualists, and the Collectivists still out there just group up with Communists.

Insurrectionism has gone from genuine revolutionaries, to the terrorist Gaellaenists and many of the French anarchists (not attacking all of their actions). Now they are, sadly, Crimethincers who want to get drunk and party to "smash the state".

[Jack]

Since you bring up the SCW, the conversation is going to go this way:

Trot is going to talk about the POUM and how they fought with the anarchists.

Then he is going to say anarchists failed because they didn't "seize state power"

then you're going to say because they were denied weapons

and it goes on and on and on and on and on.

[Matina]

Just because you have no clue about the hundreds of books written on anarchist theory, does not negate all the anarchist theory that is already there. In fact there is "much" to anarchism and it is not primitive, unless you mean Anarcho-primitivism. You can prove this to yourself by reading some of the books like Conquest of Bread, which was mentioned earlier.

Conquest of Bread, in fact I have read it along with another book by Kropotkin, Fields Factories and Workshop, both were fine books. I have read God and the State, the ABC of Anarchism, Durutti(the book), along with many other anarchist books. I am aware of the anarchist literature. What I meant was that the anarchist theory is primitive, as it does not encompass many aspects of theory, such as tactics, methods, perpectives, analysis etc.

It is good at attacking capitalism, the state etc. Therefore good for the newbies. Also it is good at describing the "communist society". But that is only a small portion of what is needed in order to overthrow capitalism (theory-wise).


What do you mean by that? I'd again ask you to understand something about the anarchist movement and make some specific criticisms instead of such ignorant statements.

How is "unprincipled unity" an arrogant statement:lol:?
I am saying that all those "united" anarchists have different theories and are binded together temporarily. A non-principled unity on a fundamental theoretical basis is inevitably short lived. How is this arrogant again?


Actually I'd say that to think a so-called revolutionary party will voluntarily give up power to transition into a classless society is utopian. From what we have seen, no "communist" party has been willing to allow any form of political democracy or workers control in the places where they have taken power. This in a way negates your assumption that a bunch of workers, who transform into bureaucrats the moment they take power, can in fact bring about a democracy.


Again an idealist point. You do not take into account the material conditions that led to the degeneration of the soviet union . As about the other "communist" nations I have dealt with them here.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-transfer-statelessness-t105104/index.html

I won;t repeat myself over and over. If you are interested to learn about the marxist analysis on the degeneration, please consult my link. If not, then too bad.



Of course. Anarchism does no suggest "unity" of decision making or anything of the sort. The so-called principled unity you are talking about has to in most cases be forcefully enforced as the party line. Instead anarchism is for consensual decision-making, aka, democracy.

:lol: You confuse Stalinists with Marxists. I don't blame you. Anyways in a genuine revolutionary Parties like all the trotskyist organizations and the Bolshevik party, there is democratic centralism. Aka freedom of discussion, unity in action.

The so called consensus is an idiotic form of organizing.
They use consensus in order to take decisions, so if someone doesn't agree, then the whole plan fails, just because one person disagrees. So they sit there and debate or force that person to agree haha. That is how democratic some anarchist groups are. Either the majority is opressed by an individual that does not consent, either the one-two people in disagreement are forced to agree because an action needs to be taken.

Others are just a bunch of individuals, who do whatever they want . This is not an organization, its a collection of people who cannot make a single collective decision. Why then organize?


That has no weight. Anyone can substitute anything in place of anarchists there. For example, "Marxists will not withstand the "test of a revolution"" (whatever that means).

Not if someone has used arguments specificaly against anarchism in the rest of the reply:lol:


Anyway, see the Spanish Revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution) where in Anarchist Catalonia, anarchism was in place for two years after the revolution.

Nice with that wikipedia link. If you wanna know more about Spain, read Durutti or Homage to Catalonia, not wikipedia. Anyways there was no stateless, classless society in Catalonia, therefore Anarchist Catalonia is a contradictory term. Also you can't have "anarchism" in one province, the same way you can't have socialism in one country.

It's funny how anarchists sound like stalinists sometimes :lol: . Anyways sorry for being patronizing, but your posts are not to be taken that seriously as it is evident that you are new in this whole business. Go learn and have an open mind about different ideas. Aknowledge when you loose a debate and make sure you have good points when you start one :)


Trot is going to talk about the POUM and how they fought with the anarchists.

the POUM was centrist not Trotskyist :lol: , the stalinists used to call it Trotskyist, I guess anarchists now buy into Stalinist propaganda? It was in fact afilliated with the reformist ILP, not the Fourth International. :)


Then he is going to say anarchists failed because they didn't "seize state power"

No they failed because they participated in the Provisional government, being not better than the stalinists and the POUMists :lol:


then you're going to say because they were denied weapons

Did I ever say that? Don't put words in my mouth


and it goes on and on and on and on and on.
No it doesn't. !

[Invincible Summer]

Holy fuck Trotsky II.. you're really condescending and fulfill lots of Trot stereotypes. No need to call Anarchists "newbies" and equate Anarchists to Stalinists.

[Matina]

Holy fuck Trotsky II.. you're really condescending and fulfill lots of Trot stereotypes. No need to call Anarchists "newbies" and equate Anarchists to Stalinists.I didn't call anarchists newbies. There are some anarchists which I respect/admire, although I disagree with them. The word 'newbie' was not directed to all anarchists in general, but some people interested to revolutionary leftism that happen to stumble upon anarchism.

Also I equated anarchists to stalinists as a joke, because 'socialist' here, seems to believe that we can have 'anarchism in one province', just like Stalin thought that you can have socialism in one country. In fact the so-called anarchists in Spain played no better role that the Stalinists (by joining the bourgeois government).

How is this condescending? I hope this clarified your concerns. Also it is not a 'trot' stereotype to be condescending from what I am aware.

[Idealism]

heres all i meant by unity:
anarchists will be able to come together and over through the state without any enforced decision making as the idea of democratic centralism proposes. This is because ALL (true) anarchists call for the overthrow of state and private property; and those who do not are reactionaries and site by and be just that, reactionaries.

[Matina]

heres all i meant by unity:
anarchists will be able to come together and over through the state without any enforced decision making as the idea of democratic centralism proposes. This is because ALL (true) anarchists call for the overthrow of state and private property; and those who do not are reactionaries and site by and be just that, reactionaries.

It is not enough for the anarchists to overcome the state, the workers need to do too. In fact for your statement of unity and non-enforcement to be true, then all the people should agree to destroy the state. This is impossible. And this is why a socialist revolution is authoritarian in the sense that it imposes the will of the majority (working class and oppressed ) over the minority.

Also again you are confusing democratic centralism, which is an attribute of an apparatus (party), with the decision making of the workers state, which is carried by the workers voting in their workers councils, sending elected and recallable representatives to convene etc (ie running the workers state).

Just like the bourgeoisie can run the state , so can us! (The workers :))

[Matina]

What is the use of such theory if they never work?

How does theory never work? Didn't we have a successful revolution in Russia? A society does not degenerate because of theory. It's not like theory is a rain of meteors, that destroys everything in it's way:). The Soviet Union degenerated due to objective conditions , which I explained in the link I provided you in my previous post. If you want read and then ask me more questions. I won't type the same stuff over and over.


what else do you need? "Dialectical materialism" that noone can understand? what exactly do you expect when you talk of theory? Give some examples of where Trotskyists have theory where anarchism does not.

Attitudes towards the unions, attitude towards individual terrorism, a form of party organization, international perspectives, attitude towards workers parties, orrientation in a period of war , "Proletarian military policy", instead of having Kropotkin supporting one imperialist force against "German Militarism" in the First World War:lol:.


You do have an interesting perspective on it, but still holding on to Lenin's "State and Revolution" which the Bolsheviks never implemented or never meant to implement

All the points that could be implemented were implemented. But how can "rotation of bureaucratic tasks" be implemented if 80% of the population cannot read or write? That is what I talk about when I say backwardness. Read State and Revolution and you will understand some stuff, although I think its too complex if you are not familiar with the basis.

Also don't forget that there was workers democracy, with workers councils voting delegated, which were recallable etc. It was a true workers democracy. Unffortunately , 21 imperialist armies invaded, there was a civil war etc. etc. The proletariat lost its energy, millions of militants were lost, so under conditions of backwardness which was inherent from the Czarist regime, the workers withdrew from the political arena and the bureaucrats took over. Of course there's more to it (isolation etc), but I am just filling the gaps from the psot I linked you to. That is the materialist analysis you asked for (together with the stuff I wrote in the link I gave you).


Ultimately the Bolsheviks turned out to be a typical bourgeois party that never implemented their programs or never intended to. Compare that with Obama's present day rhetoric of anti-war with which he came to power and his actual practice.




What Bolsheviks are you talking about ? :lol: Do you know how many Bolsheviks were executed by Stalin, or sent to Siberia? Hundreds of thousands. In fact Stalin liquidated the Bolshevik party and replaced it with an opportunist layer. Trotskyists were directly affected by Stalinism. Do you think that we are that dumb to continue to advocate marxism, if we knew that it leads to Stalinism? Fortunately we are not, because we are able to understand how and why Stalin came to power without blaiming a particular ideology (+1 for the trotskyists here compared to the anarchists as per theory :lol:).


Democratic centralism sounds contradictory to me and I doubt if it can be ever democratic.

'Sounds contradictory to you' does not prove anything. Have you participated in a party that run under democratic centralism? Do you even know what democratic centralism is? I doubt it. As I explained democratic centralism is a form of organizing where there is a democratic vote taken on decisions by the members and then everyone does what the majority voted on. If that is not democratic then what is?


So you are against democratic forms of organizing? Keep in mind that the apologists for capitalism also give the same inane elitist argument against consensus and democracy. If you try to replace such democracy and consensus, there inevitably rises some authoritarian dickhead dictating to everyone.

Concensus is when everyone agrees, not democracy where the majority decides :lol:
Please learn the terminology before you start debating. As I explained its concensus is far from democratic. Even the great anarchist Bookchin argues against it, in his book about modern "so-called anarchists".


That was just an example of anarchist organization I had given. I never mentioned anything about anarchism in one country or other such absurdities.

Is it hard to understand that "anarchist Catalonia" was not anarchist at all and not organized under anarchist principles? You need "anarchy" to exist wolrdwide in order to call it such. that makes me wonder. Do you even know what anarchism is? :lol:


Thanks for the suggestions. Keep in mind they apply not only to me but to you also.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/smilies/wink.gif However, it is true that I have not read many books and am a beginner to anarchism.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/smilies2/blushing.gif

I know that it applies to me, that is why I actualy had good points before I even started debating:lol:
But anyways you' ll get there, I knew you were new to anarchism, sorry but it shows when someone is new and someone is not :)

Anyways you should start reading some marxist literature, it is more intriguing and more useful as you will realize. i can pm you some good resources for you to start reading the basics.

[Invincible Summer]

I didn't call anarchists newbies. There are some anarchists which I respect/admire, although I disagree with them. The word 'newbie' was not directed to all anarchists in general, but some people interested to revolutionary leftism that happen to stumble upon anarchism.

Also I equated anarchists to stalinists as a joke, because 'socialist' here, seems to believe that we can have 'anarchism in one province', just like Stalin thought that you can have socialism in one country. In fact the so-called anarchists in Spain played no better role that the Stalinists (by joining the bourgeois government).

How is this condescending? I hope this clarified your concerns. Also it is not a 'trot' stereotype to be condescending from what I am aware.

You know what, after I posted, I realized I was being really immature and impulsive - I'm sorry for reacting that way. I recently messed up my back and I'm in a bit of pain so I guess I'm a tad grouchy. Apologies.

I suppose I have to get used to your (and some others on this board) style of posting - sometimes I interpret the ":lol:" and such smilies to be like "Oh you're silly for thinking this way! Here's how to think!"

And as for Trots being condescending - it's something that my friends and I think is true based on our experience on many occasions, so yeah. Perhaps it's related to the accusation of Trots being "sectarian."

EDIT: Okay I just read your last reply to socialist and you are being quite condescending - he/she may not be as well-versed as some other people, but it's not fair to be laughing and basically saying that he/she is a fool for posting.


Is it hard to understand that "anarchist Catalonia" was not anarchist at all and not organized under anarchist principles? You need "anarchy" to exist wolrdwide in order to call it such. that makes me wonder.

I don't disagree that Communism has to be international, but why does anarchism have to exist internationally to be able to call Catalonia anarchist? And how was it not organized under anarchist principles?

[Matina]

You know what, after I posted, I realized I was being really immature and impulsive - I'm sorry for reacting that way. I recently messed up my back and I'm in a bit of pain so I guess I'm a tad grouchy. Apologies.

Accepted:)


I suppose I have to get used to your (and some others on this board) style of posting - sometimes I interpret the "http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif" and such smilies to be like "Oh you're silly for thinking this way! Here's how to think!"

I just find them cute :lol: Reallyy


And as for Trots being condescending - it's something that my friends and I think is true based on our experience on many occasions, so yeah. Perhaps it's related to the accusation of Trots being "sectarian."

Many trots can be sectarian I agree. They give us a bad name :lol:

[Matina]

To begin with, your constant use of:lol: http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif is a little distracting, to be honest.

But it's so cutee. Ok I'll stop I promise.


We have seen such "attitudes" taken by hundreds of Trotskyist parties in the world. All that has resulted is more sectarian squabbling and splits. God knows how many tiny Trotskyist parties exist in the world today.

However I do admit that Kropotkin was wrong in supporting a particular side in WW1.


The objective situation with the Stalinists and the reformists prevailing due to material conditions (the USSR not having collapsed, the economic basis for reforms etc) , made the Trotskyists fighting against the stream.
And when you are a group who cannot get its ideas out because of external factors, inevitably you have petty squabbles and splits. That is a rule.
Anyways the Trots did manage however to create important organizations, such as the Militant in the 70s, 80s, the WIL in the second world war, the SWP right now (although I disagree with many of the SWP's positions), The Struggle in Pakistan, the Fourth International in Argentina etc. Currently the trots are the most influential in Latin America, among the other revolutionaries (or "revolutionaries"). That is due to their theoretical, tactical depth as well as due to marxist analysis. Although mistakes are made, they are less than those of the anarchists.


BTW, do you support WW2? Do you think Stalin was leading a "people's" army against the Nazis?

As a trotskyist I support the proletarian military policy. That is participation of the workers in the fight against fascism, not on the basis of supporting imperialism by their own countries, but on the basis of creating independent workers councils in the army and attempting to fight fascism while at the same recognizing that they first should destroy their capitalist state in order to effectively fight against it . At the same time, unconditional support should be given to the USSR.

The proletarian military policy can be found on marxists.org (my attempt to summarize it is probably a failure).


Stalin did not drop out of the sky. He was merely continuing Lenin's legacy

Was Lenin's lgacy the killing of hundreds of thousands of bolshevism? Was Lenin;s legacy, socialism in one country? Was Lenin's legacy top down command of the party? Was Lenin's legacy the two stage theory? Why do you assert stuff that are ridiculous? Please if you can't justify don't bring it up.

Stalin did not drop from the sky, he was the head of the bureaucratic clique who assended to power due to reasons I excplicitly explained and linked you to.


If we argue for the sake of argument that Trotsky had replaced Lenin as the leader of the Russians, I doubt if we would have any other result. People in power have historically shown that they will make up any excuse to consolidate their power.

It's not a question of Trotsky being inpower. It is a question of workers holding power after the revolution. They managed to hold power for a while , but then due to conditions they lost it.

Also which people consolidate their power etc? There are not people in power but classes. What part of that don't you understand? Do you think that Obama is in power right now or the capitalists? If you think that Obama is in power then I concur!!
The same way the capitalists can be in power, the working class can also be in power.


I am not in the least interested in participating in "democratic centralism". In theory it may sound democratic, but have we seen any democracy at all in so called democratic centralist states as pre-Stalin Russia? You can't keep blaming the people (that they were stupid, uneducated etc) for why the revolution failed. Perhaps you need to look beyond such elitist attitudes and start analyzing the actions rather than theories behind Lenin?

Democratic centralism is not a state attribute. democratic centralism is the way a party functions, not a state. ( I told you that a million times and you seem to not understand it).
And how did I blame the people? What theories? What? You don't make sense.


Seems that being a Trotskyist, you know anarchism better than anarchists.
I know anarchism better than you since I have obviously read more than you on anarchism. This is proved when I correct you on mistakes that you make about your own theory, which you yourself don't understand.


I am currently reading Marx's Capital. Do PM me your recommendations however.

Marx's capital is the worst book ever for a begginer.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Marx's capital is the worst book ever for a begginer.

I'm totally butting in, but I agree. I took the advice NOT to read it...

[Matina]

Of course. One would not expect anything less coming from you.

Hmmm... this is not about counting mistakes but seeing both sides orientations, effects on the movement etc. through that you make conclusions. Which are pretty obvious as the anarchists have little impact to the working class movement.


The both seem contradictory. If you support proletarian democracy, why do you support USSR? It was no better than any bourgeois state. It was in fact state capitalist, managed and run completely by the bureaucrats since the time of Lenin.

The USSR should be supported against fascism, as it was a tremendous gain for the working class in Russia. Although degenerated, the planned economy massively increased the standard of living of the Russian working class.

Also I am opposed to the "state capitalism" theory. The economy was planned and nationalized, the laws of the market did not exist, there was no boom and bust cycle and the capitalist restoration with 70% of the GDP collapsing proved the absurdity of the state capitalist theory.


(http://www.anonym.to/?http://struggle.ws/ws91/lenin33.html)I had linked this earlier (http://www.anonym.to/?http://struggle.ws/ws91/lenin33.html).


I have read that long ago. Why bother reading crappy propaganda, with distorted facts? Seriously? Can't you understand that this is propaganda? Did I ever link you to propaganda against anarchism?


You seem to think all anarchists do is bawl away at the Leninist ideology while ignoring the people who did such things as take away workers' power. But I do recognize the people who did such things and caused the loss of workers' power to happen and my list of bureaucratic elites who caused this includes both Stalin and Lenin.

Again with the "people" did this little poem. Can't you understand that people have a minor role compared to objective conditions? An example. If Einstein was born in Africa, with no education and healthcare, while starving , do you think he would have been the man he became?


When were the working class in power at all? The process of disintegration of workers councils began with Lenin.

No it did not. the process of disintegration begun when the results of the Civil and imperialist war started occurring (again due to the conditions) and finaly with the defeat of the German revolution. The soviets (workers councils) were the driving force in the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period and made most decisions. It is again a fact that the majority of the people in the Soviets were bolsheviks, not because bolshevism was imposed on them, but because they saw the bankruptsy of the mensheviks and the SR's.


You said earlier: "But how can "rotation of bureaucratic tasks" be implemented if 80% of the population cannot read or write?"

How is this blaiming the people ? It is blaiming the backward conditions of the USSR. It is also an indisputable fact!! You cannot be a bureaucrat if you are illiterate.


Do you claim to know anarchism better than anarchists was my original question. Anyway, thanks for trying to lecture me on anarchism.

I know anarchism better than most anarchists to be honest.



Another important point I want to ask you is why are you so bothered about defending people like Lenin and Trotsky when both are dead and gone?

If you noticed I am defending ideas not people.


Why do present-day Marxists spend so much energy in discussing tiny historical matters and obscure theoretical aspects

Because those aspects are not at all obscure, if you actualy take time to understand them. They are very important, if not crucial for the years to come. Debate over theory is only beneficial as it makes you re-examine your position or consolidate it. If you have a disdain of theory then you are worthless in the movement. With no revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary action.


instead of utilizing them to more constructive and creative purposes.

As revolutionaries we have the duty to learn from the historical experience of the working class. those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. From what it seems you don't care about "minor" topics like that. All that is interesting and pertinent is not theory, because you find it obscure. Therefore take the easy way, believe in fairy tales and think that by being creative you will overthrow capitalism.

Anyways don't take this debate personal. There are no feelings in politics. Realize that before its too late :)

[bcbm]

But that is only a small portion of what is needed in order to overthrow capitalism (theory-wise).

"I and my coworkers could run this job better ourselves, without bosses. I and my class could run this world better ourselves, without politicians," is all the theory truly necessary. The struggle to destroy capitalism is a struggle of necessity and self-interest for our class, not some battle of intellectuals and complex theories.

[sanpal]

Actually I'd say that to think a so-called revolutionary party will voluntarily give up power to transition into a classless society is utopian. From what we have seen, no "communist" party has been willing to allow any form of political democracy or workers control in the places where they have taken power.

There is a big difference between "communist" party and communist party. The true communist party must have in its programme as an important point the main aim - to take the power in pre-revolution period for establishment of workers' democracy (DOTP) what is implied as abolishing of bourgeois democracy with dissolution of all parties including communist party itself and then communists would stay as a public organization but not as party, for the helping to the proletariat ideologically to establish the Proletarian state and to organize the communist sector of economy (self-management commune with plan economy where money/market would not been used) within the Proletarian state.
As i said in other posts, increasing of communist sector has to lead to withering away of the Proletarian state.

[StalinFanboy]

"I and my coworkers could run this job better ourselves, without bosses. I and my class could run this world better ourselves, without politicians," is all the theory truly necessary. The struggle to destroy capitalism is a struggle of necessity and self-interest for our class, not some battle of intellectuals and complex theories.
Totally agree with this.

[Bilan]

More a criticism of anarchism without objectives than this specific logic.

You mean adjectives. :p
Anarchism without objectives would be rather silly.

[Charles Xavier]

so i was thinking today about the method a revolution should use whether it be a vanguard (Marxist-Leninist) or a less organized anarchist group. i came to the conclusion that an anarchist revolution could succeed without any centralized party. I arranged my argument into a three main points i will explain:

1. Anarchists are not susceptible to the ideological blockades that communists have
2. Anarchists are united, but diverse
3. United common diversity of belief is always more effective than forced uncommon direction.

1. Communists, by the method of taking over the state; are susceptible to reactionaries such social democrats, but also bureaucrats such as Stalinists. This has been one of the main causes of degeneration (ideologically) in socialist states, that the opinion splits into to several sub-sects that diverge from the former goal. Anarchists do not have this problem as they all call as anti-authoritarians for the destruction of the state, which leads to the next point.

2 Anarchists, as you all well know, are split into five major groups: mutualists, collectivists, communists, syndicalists, and individualists. But despite the sometimes large ideological differences between these they are all united by the fact that they all wish to abolish the state, which unites them in that they all have the same goal.

3. The fact that they all have the same goal leads to a lack of reason as to why the anarchist revolution would ever need a centralized committee to keep the end standardized. It also leads to the conclusion that while leninists argue that without a common decision you just have a group of individuals, that this group of individuals all have the same goal to start with; and because of such do not need a enforced common decision.

I posted this mainly because i want communists to counter my argument; as i am still unsettled in my beliefs. Also, though id like to see what fellow anarchists think of this logic.


First it is up to you to research and find what is right. You should learn the analytical tools Marxism and Leninism give you. You should come to your own conclusions and don't rely on others. I will give you my conclusions.

1. Well what makes you come to that conclusion? In practice there is no examples of this, second social democracy is about reforming capitalism into socialism(though social dems now refute that they are moving towards socialism anymore). The workers taking the helm of the state destroys the need for social democracy, that current is gone, because workers have control. The major division on the left is the question of reformism or revolution. So after a successful revolution such a question gets answered, they no longer need to rely on reformism, reformism has been destroyed in favour of revolution.

Bureaucrats such as Stalin? Well Stalin is a book or two worth of discussion. The bourgeiosie have put a lot of lies in there about Stalin. I prefer not to go into detail as it will bog down discussion, I mean the bourgeiosie lie about all their enemies, and my proof is they do it today, (Fidel Castro being a billionaire, Iraq having nuclear weapons, Venezuela doesn't have elections, etc etc.). But how was Stalin beaurcratic? I mean this is something that is thrown around like crazy but I think the word beaucratic is either misunderstood or understood but not applied correction.

The communist party has diverse opinions but it is united. The degeneration is due to the opportunism that occured, IE perks for joining the communist party, extra vacation time for joining the communist, special stores or discounts for the communist members, move up in the quota for goods. How do the opportunist justify this? They say communists work harder so they deserve extra vacation, I say bullshit, because communists do this out of love of the people. This opportunism destroyed the communist party.

2. The problem with anarchism is they this the people will be able to defend a counter revolution with no leadership. Proganda of the deed. People will just be inspired to fight. They are against authority. And would love to be an anarchist, but a divided or self moblizing working class fighting a united and centralized bourgeiosie. I'm sorry but this is a revolution not a gentlemen's debate where you can convince your enemy to give up. The reaction of the working class must be equal or greater to the reaction of the bourgeiosie else counter-revolution succeeds. Anarchism has existed long before Marxism yet has never born fruit. There has been many attempts at Anarchism and I would say the revolution in Spain of 1854 would show the problematic tactics that anarchism had to offer.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/revolutionary-spain/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm

And another thing, it is not the political ideologies that need to be united. I don't care if there is 10 communist party and 1 anarchist group that represents all anarchists in a federation and its organized perfectly. It is the working class that will need to be united parties and organizations will need to play a subservent role to the aims and desires of the working class. The working class will pick its leadership.

3. And the communist party is quite diverse, there is many opinions and heated discussions, but democracy is the deciding factor in the Communist Party. So you can debate for hours trying to convince people your position. But when the vote is taken your follow the descision of the vote.


Just like in a trade union, your trade union votes on a strike you don't agree with the strike so you go back to work? thats undemocratic and betraying your fellow worker.

The communist party must always bare in mind how does such a descision match up with the working class? If a descision is divorced from the working class, the working class stands a chance of divorcing the communist party. As the only reason the party exist is to serve the interest of the working class.

How would the anarchists deal with a diversity of opinions and tactics? How would they resolve heated debates? Well in my experience, they split or quit. how many unified anarchist organizations in this world? Well look around.

[Matina]

"I and my coworkers could run this job better ourselves, without bosses. I and my class could run this world better ourselves, without politicians," is all the theory truly necessary. The struggle to destroy capitalism is a struggle of necessity and self-interest for our class, not some battle of intellectuals and complex theories.

This is an ignorant statement. It does not take into account the past historical struggles. Believe it or not, if there is no leadership with revolutionary ideas and correct tactics, the workers will be betrayed one again by the social-democracy.

If a revolutionary leadership is not there, fighting side by side with the workers, the Social Democrats will sell everything out. It happened again in history, it will happen again in the future. Whoever doesn't learn from history is doom to repeat it.

[Idealism]

You mean adjectives. :p
Anarchism without objectives would be rather silly.

no i meant objectives, as proposed by Fernando Tarrida del Marmol; and also continued with Errico Malatesta, Rudolf Rocker, and Voltairine de Cleyre

[Stranger Than Paradise]

no i meant objectives, as proposed by Fernando Tarrida del Marmol; and also continued with Errico Malatesta, Rudolf Rocker, and Voltairine de Cleyre

I have never heard of Anarchism without Objectives but you included Errico Malatesta and Rudolf Rocker as proponenets of it. These people were both proponents of Anarchism without adjectives not objectives. I think you got mixed up.

Anarchism without adjectives wants all Anarchists to unite as we all seek one common goal: the abolition of the state. After revolution they believe different schools of Anarchist thought could exist harmoniously within society.

[Idealism]

you are right, on look through it was without adjectives:)

[StalinFanboy]

2. The problem with anarchism is they this the people will be able to defend a counter revolution with no leadership. Proganda of the deed. People will just be inspired to fight. They are against authority. And would love to be an anarchist, but a divided or self moblizing working class fighting a united and centralized bourgeiosie. I'm sorry but this is a revolution not a gentlemen's debate where you can convince your enemy to give up. The reaction of the working class must be equal or greater to the reaction of the bourgeiosie else counter-revolution succeeds. Anarchism has existed long before Marxism yet has never born fruit. There has been many attempts at Anarchism and I would say the revolution in Spain of 1854 would show the problematic tactics that anarchism had to offer.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1854/revolutionary-spain/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm

Oh my fucking god. Have you read anything by anarchist theorists from the last 50 years? Fuck, no one even seriously talks about propaganda by the deed anymore. I can't believe you said you knew more about anarchism than most anarchists, yet you talk about this arcane shit as if it were common place.

[Bright Banana Beard]

To Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninist: Stop reading the "old" anarchist critique, they changed as they barely accept Bakunin, and at last, you fail because you only aiming that what we are not practicing the one you criticized.

[nuisance]

I have never heard of Anarchism without Objectives but you included Errico Malatesta and Rudolf Rocker as proponenets of it. These people were both proponents of Anarchism without adjectives not objectives. I think you got mixed up.
Malatesta was a anarchist-communist with insurrectionist tendencies and Rocker a anarcho-syndicalist. Neither were without adjectives.

[Charles Xavier]

Oh my fucking god. Have you read anything by anarchist theorists from the last 50 years? Fuck, no one even seriously talks about propaganda by the deed anymore. I can't believe you said you knew more about anarchism than most anarchists, yet you talk about this arcane shit as if it were common place.


Explain the fundamental differences. Because I don't see this.

Anarchism has not existed as a mainstream ideological trend since the fall of the IWW, which was the only alternative at that time to the AFL and other craft unionism. The CIO put the nails on the coffin of the IWW, by embracing industrial unionism.


Anarcho-Syndicialism was what emerged from the Ashes of Bukharin. But any anarchist I've met embraces propaganda of the deed, direct action, maybe you don't consider them anarchists and refuse to work with them.

There is not one serious anarchist organization in Canada.

And this is the place where Emma Goldman died.

I've seen some anarchists mind you but they are limited to Toronto.

The biggest problem I think with providing a criticism of anarchism since 1950-60 is that it has not really existed. I mean what is there to criticize on a wide scale? The tactics and theories of anarchists vary widely from city to city. And for most the bigger picture is absent. Who am I to criticize? I can only criticize the tactics of the few who I've encountered or read about. Maybe there's some important anarchist situation I've not heard about. But what I've noticed is a bunch of disgruntled youth who are angry at the situation for a valid reason, think throwing paint at cops during a peaceful protest is going to create social change. Or I've read about Anarchists smashing up stores in the US. Or dumpster diving. To be fair not all anarchists engage in direct action but what is the common thread between all these organizations? What am I to criticize? I am left to criticize the theories even if they are somewhat modified since than which they have followed since Bakharin and Anarcho-Syndicalism.

And a concrete unified ideological developement has not occurred, There is no general principle of the Anarchist movement. It wildly varies and its not unified under a single banner. One anarchist author may some the contradictory of another. I don't think you can say that a qualitative change has occurred in the anarchist ideology. Since Anarcho-Syndicalism. In fact I think in the last 20 years the only major development is a right-wing turn occurred since a lot of Anarchist adopt an adbusters type approach where they consider advertisement and consumer culture as their primary struggle.

I mean there is only two significant authors within the English speaking world that have write impressive works, Noam Chomsky who has great criticisms of capitalism but doesn't put fourth an alternative. And Ward Churchill who is arguably an anarchist, who considers himself a Marxist, has write some good works on the indigenous movement and politics in general but doesn't put fourth qualitative changes on anarchism as well.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Malatesta was a anarchist-communist with insurrectionist tendencies and Rocker a anarcho-syndicalist. Neither were without adjectives.

Yes I know they were but they were also advocates of Anarchism without Adjectives.

[nuisance]

Yes I know they were but they were also advocates of Anarchism without Adjectives.
This is news to me. Could you reference the information?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

This is news to me. Could you reference the information?

Here (http://books.google.com/books?id=8z8mdUYp-6gC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=rudolph+rocker+anarchy+without+adjectives&source=bl&ots=cVzmcWV4uO&sig=ig8xyJGz66JkW7OqWxf8Xl3FNMM&hl=en&ei=aobSSdqpB86IlAeTmImKBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result) explains that Rocker was an Anarchist Without Adjectives.

This (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/An_Anarchist_FAQ_-_What_is_%22anarchism_without_adjectives%22%3F) explains that Malatesta was also.

The second one is a little harder to find so in it is the quote: "These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without adjectives"

[Pogue]

Here (http://books.google.com/books?id=8z8mdUYp-6gC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=rudolph+rocker+anarchy+without+adjectives&source=bl&ots=cVzmcWV4uO&sig=ig8xyJGz66JkW7OqWxf8Xl3FNMM&hl=en&ei=aobSSdqpB86IlAeTmImKBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result) explains that Rocker was an Anarchist Without Adjectives.

This (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/An_Anarchist_FAQ_-_What_is_%22anarchism_without_adjectives%22%3F) explains that Malatesta was also.

The second one is a little harder to find so in it is the quote: "These debates had a lasting impact on the anarchist movement, with such noted anarchists as de Cleyre, Malatesta, Nettlau and Reclus adopting the tolerant perspective embodied in the expression "anarchism without adjectives"

I'd doubt the validity of that. Rocker was a fervent Anarcho-Syndicalist, writing the book on the subject and being veyr supportive of the Spanish revolution. When and by whom was that book you linked wrote?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Just because he was an Anarcho-Syndicalist doesn't mean he cannot also be a Anarchist without Adjectives. The term simply means you accept other schools of Anarchism and that you believe we are united in the belief of a world without government. No Anarchist Without Adjectives described themselves without an adjective, they are all from different schools of thought, it is just the acceptance of other Anarchist schools which is important about the term.

[bcbm]

This is an ignorant statement. It does not take into account the past historical struggles. Believe it or not, if there is no leadership with revolutionary ideas and correct tactics, the workers will be betrayed one again by the social-democracy.

Actually it very much takes into account past historical struggles. No revolutionaries, at least those who've been part of organizations claiming "revolutionary ideas and correct tactics," have ever done anything besides betray my class. This is why we need to organize ourselves and pursue our own interests, not the pet theories of whatever group of hacks who want a shot at playing Lenin/Durutti/whomever.


If a revolutionary leadership is not there, fighting side by side with the workers, the Social Democrats will sell everything out. It happened again in history, it will happen again in the future. Whoever doesn't learn from history is doom to repeat it.

"History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce." Believe me, I'm certainly keen to prevent the farce of more "revolutionary organizations" proving which side they're really on.