Communism, why is it "authoritarian"

[Idealism]

For the anarchists and communists who would like to refute the point of the anarchists, why do anarchists see leninism as "authoritarian." I have a very basic understanding of Leninism, but do not see it as somehow "authoritative," so i was wondering if i was missing something.

[Jack]

USSR
China
Vietnam
Kronstadt
Romania
Albania
East Germany

Need I continue?

[JFMLenin]

USSR
China
Vietnam
Kronstadt
Romania
Albania
East Germany

Need I continue?

I hardly consider myself an expert, and I may be wrong, but, if I understand my history correctly:

Stalinist
Maoist
Maoist
Honestly don't know
Stalinist
Hoxhaist/Stalinist
Stalinist

Not Leninist.

[LOLseph Stalin]

USSR
China
Vietnam
Kronstadt
Romania
Albania
East Germany

Need I continue?

All these countries mentioned swayed away from authentic Marxism so of course they're going to be authoritarian.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I hardly consider myself an expert, and I may be wrong, but, if I understand my history correctly:

Stalinist
Maoist
Honestly don't know
Stalinist
Hoxhaist/Stalinist
Stalinist

Not Leninist.

Corrected the first one. :) Also, I thought I would point out that Stalinists consider themselves "Marxist-Leninist". If they will they can remove the Marxist part. Marx was no authoritarian.

[JFMLenin]

Corrected the first one. :) Also, I thought I would point out that Stalinists consider themselves "Marxist-Leninist". If they will they can remove the Marxist part. Marx was no authoritarian.
I didn't even notice he had written the USSR there, so my list was beginning from China. Including the USSR....

Stalinist
Maoist
Maoist
Honestly don't know
Stalinist
Hoxhaist/Stalinist
Stalinist

[Brother No. 1]

USSR
China
Vietnam
Kronstadt
Romania
Albania
East Germany




Revisionist
Maoist till 1975
Revisionist
dont know
Revisionist
Hoxhaist till Hoxha died
Anti-Revisionist till the 2nd premier came.



Now Anti-Revisionists only see a few as Marxist-Leninist nations for the Revisionism of the CCCP basicly destroyed that Marxism-Leninism.


Communism is not authorian for it hasnt been on this earth yet and Anarchists see Leninism as "too authorian" for they see weakness in the Leninist Vangaurd party and see that Capitalists can take the vangaurd party and use it. They may also see that the Vangaurd party can be easily corrupted,from their point not mine, and that Leninism cant protect the vangaurd party.

[Jack]

Kronstadt was done by Trotsky.

Vietnam was not Maoist, beleive it or not there are socialist movements in Asia that aren't Maoist.

Besides, Leninism leaves breeding room for revisionism, and betrayal of workers.

[Brother No. 1]

Vietnam was not Maoist

If it was Maoist it would have supported the Peoples Republic of China but instead it supported the Revisionist CCCP.
Thus I agree with you.




Kronstadt was done by Trotsky.

Never knew that..well thanks for the Info.



Besides, Leninism leaves breeding room for revisionism, and betrayal of workers.

I'm not anarchist but Revisionism was ramped in the CCCP from 1956-1991.




Stalinist
Hoxhaist/Stalinist
Stalinist


Comrade Anti-Revisionism died in 1956 when nika came to power. Thus Anti-Revisionism=Stalinism. So CCCP,Romania, and the DDR, when the True Anti-Revisionist leader died, were Revisionist. Now comrade Hoxhaism is another form of Marxism-Leninism, aka Anti-Revisionism, thus it cant be Hoxhaist/Stalinist. It was Hoxhist when Hoxha was around but after that it faced the same fate. Revisionist then fall into Capitalist.


[qute]Stalinist
Maoist
Maoist[/quote]

Vietnam=Revisionism not Maoism. True Vietcong used Mao's gurrilla war tatics but they never supported the PRC and only the CCCP. PRC was Maoist from 1949-1975 after that it was State Capitalist. the CCCP was a true Socialist nation from 1922-1953 after that Revisionist state and after that it finally fell and became many Capitalist countires.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Oh please, give me a break. These tendency wars are getting old.

[Brother No. 1]

I'm only stating what the countries really were. Not starting a tendency war.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm only stating what the countries really were. Not starting a tendency war.

I'm saying it'll lead to one. :) Stalinism is not authentic Marxism. End of story.

[Brother No. 1]

Stalinism is not authentic Marxism. End of story.

So says the Troskyists but I wont argue with you like last night.

[JFMLenin]

I can accept that Vietnam was not Maoist, but, as for the others, it depends on when you're looking at them. After WWII various socialist nations began to decay into state capitalism, yes, however, before that, I believe my classifications (minus Vietnam) fit for the most part, though they are fairly black and white, I'll admit that.

[Idealism]

is that the only reason, is the "communist" countries? what about the theory?

[Sasha]

leninst (and those who stand in their line; stalinists, maoists, hoxasists, some strands of trotskyst etc etc) misunderstand the meaning of dictatorship of the proletariat, they believe that an vanguard party must lead the revolution and forcefilly transit the capitalist state to comunism trough the creation of a "socialist" state.
anarchists, left-communist and some trotkysts understand that replacing the dictatorship of the bourgois with the dictatorship of the vanguard or party (what leninism-stalinism-etc.ism boils down to) will not abolish class it will invent a new class (that of the party buraucrats) that will not give up their new found power for communism.
on top of that anarchist also reject the forming of so called "socialist" states because they reconise that a state is inherently authoritarian and will never voluntarly disband too make room for communism.

[Patchd]

USSR
China
Vietnam
Kronstadt
Romania
Albania
East Germany

Need I continue?

I think the reason many Libertarians consider Leninism to be authoritarian doesn't stem from historical examples of Leninism in practice, but moreso to do with theory. So things like "Democratic" Centralism, leadership hierarchy, Central "Committees", an elitist and intellectual concept like the vanguard party meant to lead those silly misguided workers etc.

Those are some reasons why we consider Leninism to be authoritarian.

[Charles Xavier]

There is something called imperialism. Which is why the revolutions in the third world were not able to simply hold hands and sing ballads and be happy and hope for the best. They had to be ready to defend themselves while they hold hands sing ballads and be happy. These governments were hardly authoritarian though. They were like any system which resulted in a recent upheaval the old order, they employed measures to prevent the return of the old, and the old employed measures to destroy the new.

And in many cases that you gave as examples the old did destroy the new, case in point, the need to defend the revolutions. Most revolutions were no successful because Imperialism had a role to play, they wouldn't even tolerate reformers.

Just look at what the US did to Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Vietnam, Panama, etc etc. There was a reason these governments invested/invest in the military and policing. It wasn't because they were paranoid, but because it was necessary. The Imperialist powers were actively involved in their overthrow. You don't think they did the same in eastern europe? You can even just look at Yugoslavia in 1991 and 1999, when the system didn't get overthrown they had to intervene militarily.

[Mabool]

Marxism has always been authoritarian. Engels was a dedicated enemy of anti-authoritarianism.

So, it's going to be very hard to refute this claim of the Anarchists, since they're right.

[Patchd]

These governments were hardly authoritarian though. They were like any system which resulted in a recent upheaval the old order, they employed measures to prevent the return of the old, and the old employed measures to destroy the new.

Yeah ... authoritarian measures.:rolleyes:
In addition, it is no excuse, as history has shown, it's either conduct revolution the right way, or don't do it at all. As in, in a revolutionary period, the revolution should be conducted by the workers (or peasants), and not by a small group of "professionals", in turn, power should be placed in the hands of the workers post-revolution, and not in the hands of a few (again).

In addition, it is ridiculous to suggest that decentralised forms of organisation cannot defeat Imperialism. We have seen a number of examples of how Imperialism has been defeated by autonomous militias, and not necessarily by centralised armies.

[Idealism]

leninst (and those who stand in their line; stalinists, maoists, hoxasists, some strands of trotskyst etc etc) misunderstand the meaning of dictatorship of the proletariat, they believe that an vanguard party must lead the revolution and forcefilly transit the capitalist state to comunism trough the creation of a "socialist" state.
anarchists, left-communist and some trotkysts understand that replacing the dictatorship of the bourgois with the dictatorship of the vanguard or party (what leninism-stalinism-etc.ism boils down to) will not abolish class it will invent a new class (that of the party buraucrats) that will not give up their new found power for communism.
on top of that anarchist also reject the forming of so called "socialist" states because they reconise that a state is inherently authoritarian and will never voluntarly disband too make room for communism.

How different from Leninism is Trotskyism? What percentile of Trotskyists would you place in the Maoist/Stalinist category Vs. The left communist, anarchist category. Not that the ideologies are similar (to my understanding) but you put it like that when explaining the vanguard party idea.

[manic expression]

Communism isn't "authoritarian", the term is completely subjective and nebulous enough to be applied to anything. The idea that the working class can and should establish a state in its interests is no more authoritarian and no less authoritarian than any other revolutionary act; all revolutionary acts take some measure of coercion and force, if only for the fact that the ruling class will not give up its position without a struggle. Those who label this as "authoritarian" are only dodging the reality of history and of society.

In short, communism is not "authoritarian", and those who incorrectly label it as such are missing the point completely.

[Invariance]

Disregarding a complete ideology by attaching a buzzword to it, be it 'totalitarian', 'authoritarian' or whatever, is always more convenient and easier then taking an open look at the facts and history which may contradict your own views. Attaching your (perceived) view of the failure of any revolution - particularly the Russian revolution - on the criteria of 'authoritarianism' is just plain unhistorical. I don't know if 'communism' or a communist revolution (and no one claims that the USSR or any other nation was communist) is authoritarian - it involves suppressing a dominant ruling class. It also involves the great majority of workers engaging in that. In that sense its a very emancipatory act. Alarm bells should be ringing when you have adopted the same catchphrases as bourgeoisie society on people who were, whether you like it or not, revolutionaries.

[cb9's_unity]

Marxism has always been authoritarian. Engels was a dedicated enemy of anti-authoritarianism.

So, it's going to be very hard to refute this claim of the Anarchists, since they're right.

wait.... what?

Where are you getting this shit? Can you give me a source? How does workers democracy or eventually abolishing the state represent authoritarianism in any form. For the most part Marx praised the paris commune which was probably the most democratic societal experiment to date. I'm sorry but unless you have some sort of super sectarian anarchist definition that says anything but the immediate and total abolishing of the state is authoritarian then I have no clue how you describe marxism the way you do.
----

Any way to get back to the subject I don't really identify Leninist's as authoritarian but if you look at it historically authoritarianism is all that Leninism has lead to. Every country that has had an even remotely leninist outlook (and yes that includes Maoism and Stalinism) has somehow devolved into an authoritarian state.

No matter if you blame it on Mao or Stalin or Kruschev that fact is that leninism and its derivatives have all failed to create a truly democratic state. Stalin obviously didn't create a strong democratic society if before his body went cold the USSR was transformed from "Socialism" to "Dirty stinking revisionism".

So basically where I don't think Leninism and especially Leninists are authoritarian I think history has blatantly proved that their ideology just doesn't create an un-authoritarian state.

On a side note however I think one of the main characterisitics of Leninism is its acceptance of workers revolution in states that are only getting their first tastes of capitalism (Russia in 1917 for example). To me any form of marxism applied to largely peasant countries is doomed to failure. While I don't support the vanguard party or some other leninist principles I think Leninism is far less likely to become authoritarian if applied to a first world country that at least has a taste of a democratic condition,

[Invariance]

I think Luxemburg said it best, regarding Lenin & co:


Thus it is clear that in every revolution only that party capable of seizing the leadership and power which has the courage to issue the appropriate watch-words for driving the revolution ahead, and the courage to draw all the necessary conclusions from the situation. This makes clear, too, the miserable role of the Russian Mensheviks, the Dans, Zeretellis, etc., who had enormous influence on the masses at the beginning, but, after their prolonged wavering and after they had fought with both hands and feet against taking over power and responsibility, were driven ignobly off the stage.

The party of Lenin was the only one which grasped the mandate and duty of a truly revolutionary party and which, by the slogan – “All power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry” – insured the continued development of the revolution.

Thereby the Bolsheviks solved the famous problem of “winning a majority of the people,” which problem has ever weighed on the German Social-Democracy like a nightmare. As bred-in-the-bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism,these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the home-made wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry anything, you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to a revolution: first let’s become a “majority.” The true dialectic of revolutions, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority – that’s the way the road runs.

Only a party which knows how to lead, that is, to advance things, wins support in stormy times. The determination with which, at the decisive moment, Lenin and his comrades offered the only solution which could advance things (“all power in the hands of the proletariat and peasantry”), transformed them almost overnight from a persecuted, slandered, outlawed minority whose leader had to hid like Marat in cellars, into the absolute master of the situation.

Moreover, the Bolsheviks immediately set as the aim of this seizure of power a complete, far-reaching revolutionary program; not the safeguarding of bourgeois democracy, but a dictatorship of the proletariat for the purpose of realizing socialism. Thereby they won for themselves the imperishable historic distinction of having for the first time proclaimed the final aim of socialism as the direct program of practical politics.

Whatever a party could offer of courage, revolutionary far-sightedness and consistency in an historic hour, Lenin, Trotsky and all the other comrades have given in good measure. All the revolutionary honor and capacity which western Social-Democracy lacked was represented by the Bolsheviks. Their October uprising was not only the actual salvation of the Russian Revolution; it was also the salvation of the honor of international socialism.
She writes later:


Everything that happens in Russia is comprehensible and represents an inevitable chain of causes and effects, the starting point and end term of which are: the failure of the German proletariat and the occupation of Russia by German imperialism. It would be demanding something superhuman from Lenin and his comrades if we should expect of them that under such circumstances they should conjure forth the finest democracy, the most exemplary dictatorship of the proletariat and a flourishing socialist economy. By their determined revolutionary stand, their exemplary strength in action, and their unbreakable loyalty to international socialism, they have contributed whatever could possibly be contributed under such devilishly hard conditions. The danger begins only when they make a virtue of necessity and want to freeze into a complete theoretical system all the tactics forced upon them by these fatal circumstances, and want to recommend them to the international proletariat as a model of socialist tactics. When they get in there own light in this way, and hide their genuine, unquestionable historical service under the bushel of false steps forced on them by necessity, they render a poor service to international socialism for the sake of which they have fought and suffered; for they want to place in its storehouse as new discoveries all the distortions prescribed in Russia by necessity and compulsion – in the last analysis only by-products of the bankruptcy of international socialism in the present world war.
and later:


In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”She had criticisms of the Bolsheviks (i.e. land reform, national self-determination and censorship, for example). But she didn't attack the Bolsheviks for being 'authoritarian' communists who wanted all power to themselves - on the contrary, she praised them for being decisive, for arguing for all power to the Soviets, for not shying away from leadership etc.

[Idealism]

wait.... what?

Where are you getting this shit? Can you give me a source? How does workers democracy or eventually abolishing the state represent authoritarianism in any form. For the most part Marx praised the paris commune which was probably the most democratic societal experiment to date. I'm sorry but unless you have some sort of super sectarian anarchist definition that says anything but the immediate and total abolishing of the state is authoritarian then I have no clue how you describe marxism the way you do.


Engels: "Had the autonomists," he wrote, "contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction."
Though i do not think opposing a part of an ideology of those who call themselves anti-authoritarians makes you authoritarian :confused:

[cb9's_unity]

To Idealism,
I think you are taking words way to literally.

In those quotes he is clearly not dismissing anti-authoritarianism as it is currently viewed.


But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.This quote clearly shows that he is using the term anti-authoritarian as a synonym for what would be considered today as an anarchist or an anarcho-communist. I see nothing their that would suggest authoritarianism as it is modernly conceived. He is not supporting a dictatorship, or junta, or oligarchy or whatever other form of government is now considered authoritarian. It would be like reading a quote about the dictatorship of the proletariat and saying that Engels must thus be opposed to democracy. Unfortunately political terms tend to develop very different connotations over time and it is important to understand the difference between what someone is saying and what exactly it is they mean.


"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction."If this is the definition of authoritarianism then Leninist's, Marxists, and Anarchists are the most authoritarian ideologies in the world today. The proletariat will have to use its authority to enforce its policies whether or not there is a transitional workers state. Will the proletariat not use its new found authority to force the abolishment of private property and control the means of production under Anarchism?

When we talk about authoritarianism we are talking about governments or societies that largely reject democracy and put power into the hands of a few. Everything Marx and Engels talked about is the complete opposite, they wanted to put power into the majority working class and then promote democracy.

[Idealism]

To Idealism,
I think you are taking words way to literally.

In those quotes he is clearly not dismissing anti-authoritarianism as it is currently viewed.

This quote clearly shows that he is using the term anti-authoritarian as a synonym for what would be considered today as an anarchist or an anarcho-communist. I see nothing their that would suggest authoritarianism as it is modernly conceived. He is not supporting a dictatorship, or junta, or oligarchy or whatever other form of government is now considered authoritarian. It would be like reading a quote about the dictatorship of the proletariat and saying that Engels must thus be opposed to democracy. Unfortunately political terms tend to develop very different connotations over time and it is important to understand the difference between what someone is saying and what exactly it is they mean.

If this is the definition of authoritarianism then Leninist's, Marxists, and Anarchists are the most authoritarian ideologies in the world today. The proletariat will have to use its authority to enforce its policies whether or not there is a transitional workers state. Will the proletariat not use its new found authority to force the abolishment of private property and control the means of production under Anarchism?

When we talk about authoritarianism we are talking about governments or societies that largely reject democracy and put power into the hands of a few. Everything Marx and Engels talked about is the complete opposite, they wanted to put power into the majority working class and then promote democracy.

i realize this, all i meant to point out that Engels and Marx were both critical of the "anti-authoritarian ideology" , which as you said basically meant anarchist. So in that sense i think the person was quoting was right, but i also pointed out that this did not some how make Marx and Engels "authoritarians." Thus "Though i do not think opposing a part of an ideology of those who call themselves anti-authoritarians makes you authoritarian"

[griffjam]

Vanguardism
Democratic Centralism
Bureaucratic Centralism
the Leninist theory of the state

[Invariance]

Vanguardism

Quite a loaded word. Usage just as varied depending on the person employing it. By the broadest definition, it includes that section of the proletariat that is actively conscious of its historical role, and hence is its most advanced and militant section. This may very well include anarchists.


Democratic Centralism

Indeed, the majority of a party should determine that party's purpose and role. Debate, discussion and criticism is essential to that. Discussion, however, must cease at one point for action to begin. I don't think this, as a principle, is employed by most 'Leninist' parties; it certainly does not prevent splits. But anarchist parties are no better either for having cliques which have de facto power. Sometimes splits may very well be justified, in which case opposing the reactionary majority (for instance Luxemburg, in my view, was too late to react against the SPD) is also justified. A minority controlling a party, or any organisation, is just as counter-productive as a reactionary majority.


Bureaucratic Centralism

A planned economy must have an element of bureaucracy. Bureaucrats are required to record output data, to assess that data, and someone, eventually, needs to make a decision on how best to direct the economy towards optimal achievement. Centralism is required, just as a level of decentralism is required. A good example of someone combining two catchphrases - bureaucracy and centralism - in order to avoid the difficult question of how exactly a socialist society would operate.


the Leninist theory of the state

And what is this theory? I suggest you read Chapter 3 on the State and Revolution. Lenin's comments on Pannekoek against Kautsky may even surprise you, if you have even bothered to read Chapter 6.

For example:

In an article touching on the question of the state, entitled “Mass Action and Revolution” (Neue Zeit, 1912, Vol.XXX, 2), Pannekoek described kautsky’ s attitude as one of “passive radicalism", as “a theory of inactive expectancy". “Kautsky refuses to see the process of revolution,” wrote Pannekoek (p.616). In presenting the matter in this way, Pannekoek approached the subject which interests us, namely, the tasks of the proletarian revolution in relation to the state.

“The struggle of the proletariat,” he wrote, “is not merely a struggle against the bourgeoisie for state power, but a struggle against state power.... The content of this [the proletarian] revolution is the destruction and dissolution [Auflosung] of the instruments of power of the state with the aid of the instruments of power of the proletariat. (p.544) “The struggle will cease only when, as the result of it, the state organization is completely destroyed. The organization of the majority will then have demonstrated its superiority by destroying the organization of the ruling minority.” (p.548)

The formulation in which Pannekoek presented his ideas suffers from serious defects. But its meaning is clear nonetheless, and it is interesting to note how Kautsky combated it.

“Up to now,” he wrote, “the antithesis between the Social-Democrats and the anarchists has been that the former wished to win the state power while the latter wished to destroy it. Pannekoek wants to do both.” (p.724)

Although Pannekoek’ s exposition lacks precision and concreteness—not to speak of other shortcomings of his article which have no bearing on the present subject—Kautsky seized precisely on the point of principle raised by Pannekoek; and on this fundamental point of principle Kautsky completely abandoned the Marxist position and went over wholly to opportunism. His definition of the distinction between the Social-Democrats and the anarchists is absolutely wrong; he completely vulgarizes and distorts Marxism.

The distinction between Marxists and the anarchists is this: (1) The former, while aiming at the complete abolition of the state, recognize that this aim can only be achieved after classes have been abolished by the socialist revolution, as the result of the establishment of socialism, which leads to the withering away of the state. The latter want to abolish he state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished. (2) The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship. (3) The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.

In this controversy, it is not Kautsky but Pannekoek who represents Marxism, for it was Marx who taught that the proletariat cannot simply win state power in the sense that the old state apparatus passes into new hands, but must smash this apparatus, must break it and replace it by a new one.

Kautsky abandons Marxism for the opportunist camp, for this destruction of the state machine, which is utterly unacceptable to the opportunists, completely disappears from his argument, and he leaves a loophole for them in that “conquest” may be interpreted as the simple acquisition of a majority.

To cover up his distortion of Marxism, Kautsky behaves like a doctrinaire: he puts forward a “quotation” from Marx himself. In 1850, Marx wrote that a “resolute centralization of power in the hands of the state authority” was necessary, and Kautsky triumphantly asks: does Pannekoek want to destroy “Centralism”?

This is simply a trick, like Bernstein’ s identification of the views of Marxism and Proudhonism on the subject of federalism as against centralism.
Kautsky’ s “quotation” is neither here nor there. Centralism is possible with both the old and the new state machine. If the workers voluntarily unite their armed forces, this will be centralism, but it will be based on the “complete destruction” of the centralized state apparatus—the standing army, the police, and the bureaucracy. Kautsky acts like an outright swindler by evading the perfectly well-known arguments of Marx and Engels on the Commune and plucking out a quotation which has nothing to do with the point at issue.

“Perhaps he [Pannekoek],” Kautsky continues, “wants to abolish the state functions of the officials? But we cannot do without officials even in the party and trade unions, let alone in the state administration. And our programme does not demand the abolition of state officials, but that they be elected by the people.... We are discussing here not the form the administrative apparatus of the ’ future state’ will assume, but whether our political struggle abolishes [literally dissolves - auflost] the state power before we have captured it. [Kautsky’ s italics] Which ministry with its officials could be abolished?” Then follows an enumeration of the ministeries of education, justice, finance, and war. “No, not one of the present ministries will be removed by our political struggle against the government.... I repeat, in order to prevent misunderstanding: we are not discussing here the form the ’ future state’ will be given by the victorious Social- Democrats, but how the present state is changed by our opposition.” (p.725)

This is an obvious trick. Pannekoek raised the question of revolution. Both the title of his article and the passages quoted above clearly indicate this. By skipping to the question of “opposition”, Kautksy substitutes the opportunist for the revolutionary point of view. What he says means: at present we are an opposition; what we shall be after we have captured power, that we shall see. Revolution has vanished! And that is exactly what the opportunists wanted.

The point at issue is neither opposition nor political struggle in general, but revolution. Revolution consists in the proletariat destroying the “administrative apparatus” and the whole state machine, replacing it by a new one, made up of the armed workers. Kautsky displays a “superstitious reverence” for “ministries”; but why can they not be replaced, say, by committees of specialists working under sovereign, all-powerful Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies?

The point is not at all whether the “ministries” will remain, or whether “committees of specialists” or some other bodies will be set up; that is quite immaterial. The point is whether the old state machine (bound by thousands of threads to the bourgeoisie and permeated through and through with routine and inertia) shall remain, or be destroyed and replaced by a new one. Revolution consists not in the new class commanding, governing with the aid of the old state machine, but in this class smashing this machine and commanding, governing with the aid of a new machine. Kautsky slurs over this basic idea of Marxism, or he does not understand it at all.

His question about officials clearly shows that he does not understand the lessons of the Commune or the teachings of Marx. “We cannot to without officials even in the party and the trade unions...."

We cannot do without officials under capitalism, under the rule of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat is oppressed, the working people are enslaved by capitalism. Under capitalism, democracy is restricted, cramped, curtailed, mutilated by all the conditions of wage slavery, and the poverty and misery of the people. This and this alone is the reason why the functionaries of our political organizations and trade unions are corrupted - or rather tend to be corrupted—by the conditions of capitalism and betray a tendency to become bureaucrats, i.e., privileged persons divorced from the people and standing above the people.

That is the essence of bureaucracy; and until the capitalists have been expropriated and the bourgeoisie overthrown, even proletarian functionaries will inevitably be “bureaucratized” to a certain extent.

According to Kautsky, since elected functionaries will remain under socialism, so will officials, so will the bureaucracy! This is exactly where he is wrong. Marx, referring to the example of the Commune, showed that under socialism functionaries will cease to be “bureaucrats”, to be “officials”, they will cease to be so in proportion as—in addition to the principle of election of officials—the principle of recall at any time is also introduced, as salaries are reduced to the level of the wages of the average workman, and as parliamentary institutions are replaced by “working bodies, executive and legislative at the same time".

As a matter of fact, the whole of Kautsky’ s argument against Pannekoek, and particularly the former’ s wonderful point that we cannot do without officials even in our party and trade union organizations, is merely a repetition of Bernstein’ s old “arguments” against Marxism in general. In his renegade book, The Premises of Socialism, Bernstein combats the ideas of “primitive” democracy, combats what he calls “doctrinaire democracy": binding mandates, unpaid officials, impotent central representative bodies, etc. to prove that this “primitive” democracy is unsound, Bernstein refers to the experience of the British trade unions, as interpreted by the Webbs. Seventy years of development “in absolute freedom", he says (p.137, German edition), convinced the trade unions that primitive democracy was useless, and they replaced it by ordinary democracy, i.e., parliamentarism combined with bureaucracy.

In reality, the trade unions did not develop “in absolute freedom” but in absolute capitalist slavery, under which, it goes without saying, a number of concessions to the prevailing evil, violence, falsehood, exclusion of the poor from the affairs of “higher” administration, “cannot be done without". Under socialism much of “primitive” democracy will inevitably be revived, since, for the first time in the history of civilized society the mass of population will rise to taking an independent part, not only in voting and elections, but also in the everyday administration of the state. Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.

Marx’ s critico-analytical genius saw in the practical measures of the Commune the turning-point which the opportunists fear and do not want to recognize because of their cowardice, because they do not want to break irrevocably with the bourgeoisie, and which the anarchists do not want to see, either because they are in a hurry or because they do not understand at all the conditions of great social changes. “We must not even think of destroying the old state machine; how can we do without ministries and officials>” argues the opportunist, who is completely saturated with philistinism and who, at bottom, not only does not believe in revolution, in the creative power of revolution, but lives in mortal dread of it (like our Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries).

“We must think only of destroying the old state machine; it is no use probing into the concrete lessons of earlier proletarian revolutions and analyzing what to put in the place of what has been destroyed, and how,” argues the anarchist (the best of the anarchist, of course, and not those who, following the Kropotkins and Co., trail behind the bourgeoisie). Consequently, the tactics of the anarchist become the tactics of despair instead of a ruthlessly bold revolutionary effort to solve concrete problems while taking into account the practical conditions of the mass movement.
Marx teaches us to avoid both errors; he teaches us to act with supreme boldness in destroying the entire old state machine, and at the same time he teaches us to put the question concretely: the Commune was able in the space of a few weeks to start building a new, proletarian state machine by introducing such-and-such measures to provide wider democracy and to uproot bureaucracy. Let us learn revolutionary boldness from the Communards; let us see in their practical measures the outline of really urgent and immediately possible measures, and then, following this road, we shall achieve the complete destruction of bureaucracy.

The possibility of this destruction is guaranteed by the fact that socialism will shorten the working day, will raise the people to a new life, will create such conditions for the majority of the population as will enable everybody, without exception, to perform “state functions", and this will lead to the complete withering away of every form of state in general...

We, however, shall break with these traitors to socialism, and we shall fight for the complete destruction of the old state machine, in order that the armed proletariat itself may become the government. These are two vastly different things.
Marxists recognise that councils are by definition states - armed bodies enforcing their class interests. If you, as an anarchist, argue for the abolition of all states, do you also argue for the abolition of those Soviets? Of workers' councils?

[Black Dagger]

For the anarchists and communists who would like to refute the point of the anarchists, why do anarchists see leninism as "authoritarian." I have a very basic understanding of Leninism, but do not see it as somehow "authoritative," so i was wondering if i was missing something.

Communism in and of itself is not authoritarian, for example anarchist communism AKA libertarian communism - it is only types of marxist communism that are regarded as authoritarian by anarchists.

This charge of authoritarianism is based on the perception that some marxists advocate a centralised authority in the form of a proletarian state - a so-called class dictatorship (often lead by a political party) wherein decision-making power flows from the top down. Historically anarchists have argued that this approach to social revolution will lead to the creation of a new political caste to rule over the workers, see: for example Bakunin's predictions of the result of this vanguardist/statist approach a 'Red Bureaucracy',


They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

Anarchists also argue that this approach ('people's state') will hampen the expansion or growth of the social revolution, similar in a way to the role of trade unions as a brake on the spontanteous revolutionary action of the working class.


Marxists recognise that councils are by definition states - armed bodies enforcing their class interests. If you, as an anarchist, argue for the abolition of all states, do you also argue for the abolition of those Soviets? Of workers' councils?

Well the Bolsheviks did, ultimately - by subordinating the Soviets to their state.

There is a vast difference between the most un-Leninist/opportunistic text Lenin ever wrote (theory) and the practice of the Bolsheviks in Russia who did anything but favour the autonomous organisation of the working class.

[griffjam]

Quite a loaded word. Usage just as varied depending on the person employing it. By the broadest definition, it includes that section of the proletariat that is actively conscious of its historical role, and hence is its most advanced and militant section. This may very well include anarchists.
Firstly, and most importantly, anarchists reject the underlying assumption of vanguardism. It is based on the argument that "socialist consciousness" has to be introduced into the working class from outside. We argue that not only is this position empirically false, it is fundamentally anti-socialist in nature. This is because it logically denies that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself. Moreover, it serves to justify elite rule. Some Leninists, embarrassed by the obvious anti-socialist nature of this concept, try and argue that Lenin (and so Leninism) does not hold this position. We show that such claims are false.
Secondly, there is the question of organisational structure. Vanguard parties are based on the principle of "democratic centralism". Anarchists argue that such parties, while centralised, are not, in fact, democratic nor can they be. As such, the "revolutionary" or "socialist" party is no such thing as it reflects the structure of the capitalist system it claims to oppose.
Lastly, anarchists argue that such parties are, despite the claims of their supporters, not actually very efficient or effective in the revolutionary sense of the word. At best, they hinder the class struggle by being slow to respond to rapidly changing situations. At worse, they are "efficient" in shaping both the revolution and the post-revolutionary society in a hierarchical fashion, so re-creating class rule.




Indeed, the majority of a party should determine that party's purpose and role. Debate, discussion and criticism is essential to that. Discussion, however, must cease at one point for action to begin. I don't think this, as a principle, is employed by most 'Leninist' parties; it certainly does not prevent splits. But anarchist parties are no better either for having cliques which have de facto power. Sometimes splits may very well be justified, in which case opposing the reactionary majority (for instance Luxemburg, in my view, was too late to react against the SPD) is also justified. A minority controlling a party, or any organisation, is just as counter-productive as a reactionary majority. Democratic centralism, to use Cornelius Castoriadis's term, a "revolutionary party organised on a capitalist manner" and so in practice the "democratic centralist" party, while being centralised, will not be very democratic. In fact, the level of democracy would reflect that in a capitalist republic rather than a socialist society.

They simply reflect the capitalist society they claim to represent. As such, Lenin's argument against "primitive" democracy in the revolutionary and labour movements is significant. When he asserts that those who argue for direct democracy "completely" fail to "understand that in modern society this principle can have only a relative application," he is letting the cat out of the bag. [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 163] After all, "modern society" is capitalism, a class society. In such a society, it is understandable that self-management should not be applied as it strikes at the heart of class society and how it operates. That Lenin can appeal to "modern society" without recognising its class basis says a lot. The question becomes, if such a "principle" is valid for a class system, is it applicable in a socialist society and in the movement aiming to create such a society? Can we postpone the application of our ideas until "after the revolution" or can the revolution only occur when we apply our socialist principles in resisting class society?



A planned economy must have an element of bureaucracy. Bureaucrats are required to record output data, to assess that data, and someone, eventually, needs to make a decision on how best to direct the economy towards optimal achievement. Centralism is required, just as a level of decentralism is required. A good example of someone combining two catchphrases - bureaucracy and centralism - in order to avoid the difficult question of how exactly a socialist society would operate.Democratic centralism produces bureaucratic centralism, a bureaucratic clique controlling from the top-down with little democratic control, never mind participation. For anarchists, this is hardly surprising. The reasons why this continually happens are rooted in the nature of "democratic centralism" itself.




And what is this theory? I suggest you read Chapter 3 on the State and Revolution. Lenin's comments on Pannekoek against Kautsky may even surprise you, if you have even bothered to read Chapter 6.There is a contradiction at the heart of the Marxist theory of the state. On the one hand, it acknowledges that the state, historically, has always been an instrument of minority rule and is structured to ensure this. On the other, it argues that you can have a state (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") which transcends this historical reality to express an abstract essence of the state as an "instrument of class rule." This means that Marxism usually confuses two very different concepts, namely the state (a structure based on centralisation and delegated power) and the popular self-management and self-organisation required to create and defend a socialist society. This confusion between two fundamentally different concepts proved to be disastrous when the Russian Revolution broke out. Confusing party power with working class power, the Bolsheviks aimed to create a "workers' state" in which their party would be in power. As the state was an instrument of class rule, it did not matter if the new "workers' state" was centralised, hierarchical and top-down like the old state as the structure of the state was considered irrelevant in evaluating its role in society. Thus, while Lenin seemed to promise a radical democracy in which the working class would directly manage its own affairs in his State and Revolution, in practice he implemented a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was, in fact, "the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 337] In other words, the vanguard party in the position of head of the state, governing on behalf of the working class which, in turn, meant that the new "workers' state" was fundamentally a state in the usual sense of the word. This quickly lead to a dictatorship over, not of, the proletariat (as Bakunin had predicted). This development did not come as a surprise to anarchists, who had long argued that a state is an instrument of minority rule and cannot change its nature. To use the state to affect socialist change is impossible, simply because it is not designed for such a task. The state is based on centralisation of power explicitly to ensure minority rule and for this reason has to be abolished during a social revolution.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Firstly, and most importantly, anarchists reject the underlying assumption of vanguardism. It is based on the argument that "socialist consciousness" has to be introduced into the working class from outside. We argue that not only is this position empirically false, it is fundamentally anti-socialist in nature. This is because it logically denies that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself. Moreover, it serves to justify elite rule. Some Leninists, embarrassed by the obvious anti-socialist nature of this concept, try and argue that Lenin (and so Leninism) does not hold this position. We show that such claims are false.
Secondly, there is the question of organisational structure. Vanguard parties are based on the principle of "democratic centralism". Anarchists argue that such parties, while centralised, are not, in fact, democratic nor can they be. As such, the "revolutionary" or "socialist" party is no such thing as it reflects the structure of the capitalist system it claims to oppose.
Lastly, anarchists argue that such parties are, despite the claims of their supporters, not actually very efficient or effective in the revolutionary sense of the word. At best, they hinder the class struggle by being slow to respond to rapidly changing situations. At worse, they are "efficient" in shaping both the revolution and the post-revolutionary society in a hierarchical fashion, so re-creating class rule.



Democratic centralism, to use Cornelius Castoriadis's term, a "revolutionary party organised on a capitalist manner" and so in practice the "democratic centralist" party, while being centralised, will not be very democratic. In fact, the level of democracy would reflect that in a capitalist republic rather than a socialist society.

They simply reflect the capitalist society they claim to represent. As such, Lenin's argument against "primitive" democracy in the revolutionary and labour movements is significant. When he asserts that those who argue for direct democracy "completely" fail to "understand that in modern society this principle can have only a relative application," he is letting the cat out of the bag. [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 163] After all, "modern society" is capitalism, a class society. In such a society, it is understandable that self-management should not be applied as it strikes at the heart of class society and how it operates. That Lenin can appeal to "modern society" without recognising its class basis says a lot. The question becomes, if such a "principle" is valid for a class system, is it applicable in a socialist society and in the movement aiming to create such a society? Can we postpone the application of our ideas until "after the revolution" or can the revolution only occur when we apply our socialist principles in resisting class society?


Democratic centralism produces bureaucratic centralism, a bureaucratic clique controlling from the top-down with little democratic control, never mind participation. For anarchists, this is hardly surprising. The reasons why this continually happens are rooted in the nature of "democratic centralism" itself.



There is a contradiction at the heart of the Marxist theory of the state. On the one hand, it acknowledges that the state, historically, has always been an instrument of minority rule and is structured to ensure this. On the other, it argues that you can have a state (the "dictatorship of the proletariat") which transcends this historical reality to express an abstract essence of the state as an "instrument of class rule." This means that Marxism usually confuses two very different concepts, namely the state (a structure based on centralisation and delegated power) and the popular self-management and self-organisation required to create and defend a socialist society. This confusion between two fundamentally different concepts proved to be disastrous when the Russian Revolution broke out. Confusing party power with working class power, the Bolsheviks aimed to create a "workers' state" in which their party would be in power. As the state was an instrument of class rule, it did not matter if the new "workers' state" was centralised, hierarchical and top-down like the old state as the structure of the state was considered irrelevant in evaluating its role in society. Thus, while Lenin seemed to promise a radical democracy in which the working class would directly manage its own affairs in his State and Revolution, in practice he implemented a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was, in fact, "the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class." [Essential Works of Lenin, p. 337] In other words, the vanguard party in the position of head of the state, governing on behalf of the working class which, in turn, meant that the new "workers' state" was fundamentally a state in the usual sense of the word. This quickly lead to a dictatorship over, not of, the proletariat (as Bakunin had predicted). This development did not come as a surprise to anarchists, who had long argued that a state is an instrument of minority rule and cannot change its nature. To use the state to affect socialist change is impossible, simply because it is not designed for such a task. The state is based on centralisation of power explicitly to ensure minority rule and for this reason has to be abolished during a social revolution.

You could just post a link to the anarchist faq, y'know. This way people don't get the illusion that you're actually capable of coming up with something yourself.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

This charge of authoritarianism is based on the perception that some marxists advocate a centralised authority in the form of a proletarian state - a so-called class dictatorship (often lead by a political party) wherein decision-making power flows from the top down. Historically anarchists have argued that this approach to social revolution will lead to the creation of a new political caste to rule over the workers, see: for example Bakunin's predictions of the result of this vanguardist/statist approach a 'Red Bureaucracy',

All Marxists advocate a class dictatorship, but not top down decision making. Bakunins predictions were made on the basis of twisting Marx's words, so they don't really count.


Anarchists also argue that this approach ('people's state') will hampen the expansion or growth of the social revolution, similar in a way to the role of trade unions as a brake on the spontanteous revolutionary action of the working class.So is your entire understanding of Marxism based on Bakunin's writings?


Bakunin: We have already stated our deep opposition to the theory of Lassalle and Marx, which recommends to the workers, if not as final ideal then at least as the next major aim -- the foundation of a people's state, which, as they have expressed it, will be none other than the proletariat organized as ruling class. The question arises, if the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule?It means that there will still remain another proletariat, which will be subject to this new domination, this new state.

Marx: It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.

Bakunin: If there is a state , then there is unavoidably domination , and consequently slavery. Domination without slavery, open or veiled, is unthinkable -- this is why we are enemies of the state.
What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?

Marx: It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared.

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'. 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.

Bakunin: The whole people will govern, and there will be no governed.

Marx: If a man rules himself, he does not do so on this principle, for he is after all himself and no other.

Bakunin: Then there will be no government and no state, but if there is a state, there will be both governors and slaves.

Marx: i.e. only if class rule has disappeared, and there is no state in the present political sense.Marx's definition of the state and Bakunins definition of statelessness are compatible.


The people's state has been flung in our teeth ad nauseam by the anarchists, although Marx's anti-Proudhon piece and after it the Communist Manifesto declare outright that, with the introduction of the socialist order of society, the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. Now, since the state is merely a transitional institution of which use is made in the struggle, in the revolution, to keep down one's enemies by force, it is utter nonsense to speak of a free people's state; so long as the proletariat still makes use of the state, it makes use of it, not for the purpose of freedom, but of keeping down its enemies and, as soon as there can be any question of freedom, the state as such ceases to exist.

[ZeroNowhere]

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians down't know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction."
He was defining 'authority' as 'the subjugation of one to another'. Proletarian revolution is inherently the subordination of one class' interests to another, the expropriation of the expropriators and the use of forceful, hence governmental, means to achieve socialism, as in order to abolish its character as salariat, the proletariat must, as Engels said, enforce its will on the capitalist class. And when the revolution succeeds and the proletariat abolishes itself as a class, then there will not be class rule, and hence the state will not have been abolished, merely have, and while the expression has its faults, it gets its point across, 'withered away'. Certainly, we cannot have class rule over the ex-bourgeoisie, class is not genetic or a scar, and saying that the bourgeoisie will not be abolished until the last member of the ex-bourgeoisie has died is somewhat laughable. Presumably we wait in suspense by his death-bed, and, as soon as his heart ceases to beat, the world has suddenly become classless. Yeah, sure.


Marxism has always been authoritarian. Engels was a dedicated enemy of anti-authoritarianism.

So, it's going to be very hard to refute this claim of the Anarchists, since they're right.
Here the roads fork. Either Engels was an authoritarian, and all anarchists, all revolutionaries, are authoritarian. Otherwise, if we are to use the definition used to differ us from the Blanquists and a significant amount of Leninists, then the anarchists are anti-authoritarian... And so is Engels.


The latter want to abolish he state completely overnight, not understanding the conditions under which the state can be abolished.
This would be among the faults of Lenin's most libertarian work. It doesn't quite compare with the AFAQ including philosophical libertarianism in their merging together of dictionary definitions to form 'libertarian socialism' (seriously, it's fucking horrible), but it's still crap.


The former recognize that after the proletariat has won political power it must completely destroy the old state machine and replace it by a new one consisting of an organization of the armed workers, after the type of the Commune. The latter, while insisting on the destruction of the state machine, have a very vague idea of what the proletariat will put in its place and how it will use its revolutionary power. The anarchists even deny that the revolutionary proletariat should use the state power, they reject its revolutionary dictatorship.
Eh, I don't know, shouldn't the guy know better than this crap?
Anyways, he's pretty much completely generalizing anarchists here. Did he go and ask every single anarchist about what will happen during revolution? Because I was not aware that that was part of the definition of 'anarchism'. And really, the last sentence, it's just a load of bollocks. Anarchists don't reject the proletariat's revolutionary dictatorship, because they are socialists.


The former demand that the proletariat be trained for revolution by utilizing the present state. The anarchists reject this.
Other than the fact that I have no idea what the fuck this means... Alright, I have no idea what the fuck he's talking about here, but it sounds like a load of crap either way you go. Is he saying that anarchists necessarily reject the use of the ballot? That would be incorrect.
But then again, one has to wonder what he thinks an anarchist is, exactly.


The idea that the working class can and should establish a state in its interests is no more authoritarian and no less authoritarian than any other revolutionary act; all revolutionary acts take some measure of coercion and force, if only for the fact that the ruling class will not give up its position without a struggle.
Whether they struggle or do not struggle cuts no figure in whether it is a revolutionary dictatorship. Even if they don't fight back against the revolution, they are still being expropriated by the revolutionary proletariat.