Anarchism cannot be achieved whilst bourgeois nations exist! [Archive]

Raúl Duke

15th May 2009, 21:56

this is because the reactionary bourgeois state would intervene in the geographic area which wished to change it's current socioeconomic system to an anarchist one. Under international law a geographic anarchist autonomous zone would not be recognized by the bourgeois. Furthermore the will of the people living in that zone would surely by undermined by people working for capitalist states such as CIA agents funding pro-capitalist rebels etc. The reason why is so that the market in the geographic area (being the resources and the labor) could be exploited.
You do know all these same things apply to a socialist state?

Take the USSR for example.
In it's early history the Allies funded the White Armies and even sent in their own armies to stop it.

What happened?
Well, the Bolsheviks took the necessary measures to defend themselves.
They were lucky, in the end the USSR survived. Other socialist revolutions like the one in Germany (and the short-lived socialist state in the south) and Hungary (and its short-lived socialist state) were crushed.

The anarchist revolutions however were less lucky in this sphere, Ukraine was defeated (by the white armies although the red army/bolsheviks might have played a role in it's demise), Anarchist Barcelona also (again, the Stalinist factions played a role that caused problems in the Catalonian home front. However, not all Leninists were enemies to the anarchists, for example the POUM.) defeated, etc.

FreeFocus

15th May 2009, 22:00

Under revolutionary situations (since revolution is a process really, that goes on at stages), I easily foresee guerrilla wars bogging down imperialist, bourgeois states for years, and internal reactionaries in these "anarchist zones" being fought for fifty or more years.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th May 2009, 22:05

I agree that for an Anarchist society to exist surrounded by a capitalist world seems idealistic, I firmly believe Anarchist World Revolution is the goal. I'm sure others will disagree.

Stranger Than Paradise

15th May 2009, 22:30

How would that even be possible??

Isn't that the ultimate goal of all leftists? Possible through the revolution.

Pogue

15th May 2009, 22:45

Its basic socialist ideology that a revolution cannot be isolated to one place. It applies to all socialists, from Leninists to Anarchists.

Pogue

15th May 2009, 22:49

I'm not a socialist and I find that concept of "revolution" to be unscientific. But thanks for telling me as an anarchist what is mandatory for me to agree with Leninists about....

Huh? Everyone on the revolutionary left recognises you can't have socialism in one country.

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:12

A) Stalinists are part of the "revolutionary left" (whether you want them to or not) and advocate "socialism in one country' (which is not what I'm advocating)
B) I'm not a socialist, as I've already established, so I don't want socialism in any country.
C) If I am living in a communist society, and there is a feudal society on the other side of the globe, it doesn't make my existence any less communistic....

I don't think you'd ever be able to live in a communist society if most of the rest of the world was not communist as well.

Agrippa

15th May 2009, 23:16

Because when you think of "communism" you think of mass-society, "globalization from below", a truly libertarian and egalitarian global system of commodity production and distribution, etc.

Such thoughts do not reflect any practical or conceivable reality...

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:17

Blackscare

15th May 2009, 23:19

If I am living in a communist society, and there is a feudal society on the other side of the globe, it doesn't make my existence any less communistic....

Except we're talking about a modern world with almost global capitalism/imperialism, not an isolationist medieval feudal society that doesn't exist anymore. Imperialism is inherently interventionist in nature. So it's quite difficult to just coexist with peacefully.

Agrippa

15th May 2009, 23:24

If you believe thats the case, why are you here?

Because I think it's totally realistic for capitalism to be destroyed, it will just take at least a century, will be incredibly bloody and drawn-out, and will involve conflicts of more complex ethical intricacies than just "the workers vs. the bourgeoisie".....

I believe in realistic goals. The global revolution isn't happening any time soon....

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:25

Because I think it's totally realistic for capitalism to be destroyed, it will just take at least a century, will be incredibly bloody and drawn-out, and will involve conflicts of more complex ethical intricacies than just "the workers vs. the bourgeoisie".....

I believe in realistic goals. The global revolution isn't happening any time soon....

No one thinks its going to be an over-night affair. No one thinks its going to be simple. What led you to such a conclusion?

Agrippa

15th May 2009, 23:28

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:31

Well, you're the one who insisted that there is no such thing as a communistic existence, or a communistic society, or a communistic experience unless capitalism is completely erradicated from the globe.

On the contrary, as capitalism becomes more unstable and loses more control, a wide variety of political organisms are likely to co-exist. (That's not to say they will co-exist peacefully...)

If capitalism still exists, any society progressing to libertarian communism will be in conflict with it, and its unlikely we could build a true communist society while we're in conflict. Capitalism has to be destroyed entirely. Of course, if 90% of the world was communist and 10% capitalist it could be implemented, but thats unlikely. This is all pointless speculation really.

Agrippa

15th May 2009, 23:45

If capitalism still exists, any society progressing to libertarian communism will be in conflict with it

In theory, but in practice, material circumstances such as scarcity might limit this or even eliminate it as a possibility....

its unlikely we could build a true communist society while we're in conflict.

The only way to succeed in imposing communism is to adopt communist modes of life now....

Pogue

15th May 2009, 23:47

In theory, but in practice, material circumstances such as scarcity might limit this or even eliminate it as a possibility....

The only way to succeed in imposing communism is to adopt communist modes of life now....

Ah, so your one for setting up communes and the like? I just don't understand your position - if you explain it maybe I can deal with it.

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 00:03

Ah, so your one for setting up communes and the like? I just don't understand your position - if you explain it maybe I can deal with it.

Once a commune becomes self-sufficient it has a tactical advantage over body of revolutionaries who are individually dependent on the state for survival, in terms of being able to confront and disrupt the state.

To say "we'll have communism once we eliminate all the capitalists" is essentially to admit defeat, because the selfish interests that lead to capitalism will emerge in any society...thus a state of permanent global communism will never exist continuously. We can only do our best to address specific situations in our lives in a way that will ensure our liberty.

Blackscare

16th May 2009, 02:00

Tactical advantage in the sense that is does nothing to spread communist ideals to a larger audience and alienates people from the radical left?

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 02:28

Tactical advantage in the sense that is does nothing to spread communist ideals to a larger audience

There's more to waging a war than just running a recruitment campaign...

and alienates people from the radical left?

The point is to alienate people from the left, so they can become communists.

Anyway, how the hell would it alienate people?

Blackscare

16th May 2009, 02:38

There's more to waging a war than just running a recruitment campaign...And some off the grid hippy commune is going to help with that?

The point is to alienate people from the left, so they can become communists.Uh, Communism IS left.

Anyway, how the hell would it alienate people?I don't know, it just seems that setting up some off the grid communal beet farm is a lot less of an effective means of making an impact on regular people than active working-class agitation. People are more likely to listen to their peers than a bunch of naive hippies on a ranch somewhere.

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 03:00

And some off the grid

The point is to create our own grid. A grid of resistance to capitalism...

hippyYou're already resorting to ad hominem assaluts. I hate the Grateful Dead and Janis Joplin, I'm ethically opposed to the production and consumption of LSD, my house does not smell like patchouli, I'm shy about my sexuality, I like heavy metal. However, were I a hippie, merely pointing out my hippie-ness would not be a valid logical argument but an ad hominem insult

Uh, Communism IS left. Wrong. Leftists are capitalist.

I don't know, it just seems that setting up some off the grid communal beet farm is a lot less of an effective means of making an impact on regular people than active working-class agitation.

If you can't even demonstrate to the people you're trying to agitate against capitalism that you're capable of surviving without capitalism, (As opposed to the anarchists who sustain their soup kitchens by digging through rubbish like sewer rats in search of moldy vegetables) then agitation is a waste of time.

You're embracing an utterly false dichotomy between establishing autonomy and disrupting capitalism, when in fact, they are essentially the same goal...and, again, you're using an ad hominem argument by calling me a "hippie". (and an appeal to emotion by using beats, a rather gross and unpleasant crop, as an example of something that could be grown...)

People are more likely to listen to their peers than a bunch of naive hippies on a ranch somewhere.What exactly is "naive" about what I've proposed thus far?

16th May 2009, 03:08

Wrong. Leftists are capitalist.

Not in the valid opinions of the majority of the board.

What exactly is "naive" about what I've proposed thus far?

Everything! It's a totally non-workable ideology, you cannot divorce yourself from the mass workers' movement like that without detracting from it if anything.

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 03:40

Not in the valid opinions of the majority of the board.

Their opinions are valid. I just disagree. Communism has nothing to do with democracy, (social or otherwise) socialism, or any other Leftist ideology. Leftism is actually the avant-garde of capitalism because Leftists are the wing of capitalists willing to make the adaptations comprimises, and restructuring necessary to keep capitalism afloat.

you cannot divorce yourself from the mass workers' movementHow am I advocating divorcing myself from the "mass workers' movement"? First off, which "mass workers' movement"? Neo-Nazi gangs? MS-13? Hindutva? Those "tea parties" Sean Hannity and Joe the Plumber threw? Just because there's a mass-movement comprised of workers does not mean it is a communist movement. I'drather be in a communist movement of five than a "mass-movement" with no political cohesion...

Is the communist movement just going to parasitically survive off of capitalism forever? Are you aware that postponing the creation of communist material conditions for a later date under the premise of tactical discipline is the same technique the Leninists used to justify their autocracy?

You're the one who is cutting yourself off from any constructive attempt at communist organization by refusing to admit the necessity of challenging state hegemony in a real, material way.

16th May 2009, 03:57

Their opinions are valid. I just disagree. Communism has nothing to do with democracy, (social or otherwise) socialism, or any other Leftist ideology.

Socialism on this board is often used interchangeably with communism, it all depends on your definition. I could describe myself as a libertarian socialist, a libertarian communist or an anarchist-communist.

How am I advocating divorcing myself from the "mass workers' movement"? First off, which "mass workers' movement"? Neo-Nazi gangs? MS-13? Hindutva? Those "tea parties" Sean Hannity and Joe the Plumber threw? Just because there's a mass-movement comprised of workers does not mean it is a communist movement. I'drather be in a communist movement of five than a "mass-movement" with no political cohesion...

What exactly is a communist movement? Are you saying that workers cannot gain class consciousness? History has disproven this many times, the recent occupation of the Visteon factory should prove this.

Is the communist movement just going to parasitically survive off of capitalism forever? Are you aware that postponing the creation of communist material conditions for a later date under the premise of tactical discipline is the same technique the Leninists used to justify their autocracy?

It's not about tactical discipline, it's about mobilising a class-conscious, mass workers movement that is able to successfully overthrow the state, it is that simple.

You're the one who is cutting yourself off from any constructive attempt at communist organization by refusing to admit the necessity of challenging state hegemony in a real, material way.

What is not real or material about encouraging and helping workers during strikes, building residents associations, fighting fascism and all the other things that are used to aid the class struggle?

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 04:22

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 04:26

Also, the way you talk about "encouraging workers" and having to remain a subject of the capitalist metropole in order to participate in "the workers movement" gives me the impression that you yourself are not a worker, or, if you are, you've lost sight of what "the worker's movement" is. The point is to liberate ourselves from oppression...

16th May 2009, 07:46

Libsoc, could you spare me the dogma and party lines, please? I've already heard about "mobilising a class-conscious, mass workers movement that is able to successfully overthrow the state", dozens of times. If all it took to convince me was hearing that same catchphrase over and over, I would have been won over ages ago...

I'm not sure what you mean by party lines.

You're also attacking positions I never defended or claimed ownership of. A textbook "strawman"

For example, when did I argue that "workers cannot gain class consciousness"?

Well you wrote:
Just because there's a mass-movement comprised of workers does not mean it is a communist movement. I'drather be in a communist movement of five than a "mass-movement" with no political cohesion...

that indicates to me that you seem to believe that mass movements of workers with "no political cohesion" have no chance of developing any "political cohesion" which is completely wrong imo.

"class struggle", "worker's movement" - these are buzzwords that can be used to justify anything.

And so is "political cohesion" and "communist movement".

I would say there's a big gap between enough workers being class-conscious enough to occupy a factory, and enough workers being class-conscious enough to globally uproot capitalism. (Even if they did globally uproot capitalism, they would all starve, because only "hippies" try to grow their own food...)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by this.

The basic anarcho-socialist conciet of an end to capitalism coming about by the majority of international workers (ie: the majority of the global human population) developing a class-consciousness and participating a global mass-organization (especially one that relies solely on tactics such as strikes and mass-demonstrations) is unrealistic. It's an easy answer, a utopian pipedream, a cop-out, a way of avoiding the issue at hand.

How is it a "cop-out"?

Strikes for the purpose of having certain reformist demands met are ill-guided. Strikes for the purpose of disrupting economic production are a wonderfully useful tactic.

Striking for fair pay for workers is not at all a reformist demand.

I'm not sure what you mean by "residents assocations". Are you talking about above-ground political campaigns with the purpose of dissauding capitalists from evicting tenants? That obviously has it's place, but it is not revolutionary organization, it won't bring about a fundamental change in the nature of society.

I mean associations of residents that live in our communities coming together and forming democratic associations that can decide on a number of issues that affect them, as well as potentially building more of a community atmosphere.

And allying with the anti-fascist bourgeoisie in doing so? That turned out great for us during WWII.

The good anti-fascist organisations like Antifa do not ally with the bourgeoisie whatsoever.

Also, the way you talk about "encouraging workers" and having to remain a subject of the capitalist metropole in order to participate in "the workers movement" gives me the impression that you yourself are not a worker, or, if you are, you've lost sight of what "the worker's movement" is. The point is to liberate ourselves from oppression...

I wrote "encouraging workers during strikes", I didn't say "I'm petty-bourgeoisie and I sit there telling them they should be good boys and do their job", I'll leave that for the Socialist Worker's Party.

16th May 2009, 09:26

You do know all these same things apply to a socialist state?

Yes, the reactionary bourgeois would intervene however the existence of the socialist state would give it legitimacy under international law (however not protecting it from espionage or "special political action as the CIA calls it), whilst, an anarchist "zone" or geographic area could not be recognized under international law as a socialist state could. Furthermore state institutions, agencies and departments provide protection for the people living in the state (such as a military, counter-espionage agencies like ASIO etc.) and act as a shield to ensure geopolitical integrity.

Furthermore, has my thread just been hijacked or are we just deviating from OP question?

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th May 2009, 11:14

Imperialists dont give a shit about international law.

16th May 2009, 12:11

Imperialists dont give a shit about international law.

States are recognized under international law, Cuba was never under direct attack from the US and it's considered communist from the perspective of the US, this is because Cuba was considered as a legitimate state under international law and thus couldn't be directly destroyed. International bureaucracy can shield the socialist states, whereas anarchists wouldn't have this luxury and would be divided and conquered for exploitation by the capitalists.

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th May 2009, 12:14

States are recognized under international law, Cuba was never under direct attack from the US and it's considered communist from the perspective of the US, this is because Cuba was considered as a legitimate state under international law and thus couldn't be directly destroyed.

I dont really think they would have wanted to risk the less then plesent response that an invasions would have got them from the USSR.

16th May 2009, 14:31

I dont really think they would have wanted to risk the less then plesent response that an invasions would have got them from the USSR.

Okay, so why haven't they launched an invasion since 1991?

Pirate turtle the 11th

16th May 2009, 14:48

because it would be a waste of money and its closeness to the US means that it would come under direct attack from cuban insurgents.

Raúl Duke

16th May 2009, 14:49

Yes, the reactionary bourgeois would intervene however the existence of the socialist state would give it legitimacy under international law (however not protecting it from espionage or "special political action as the CIA calls it), whilst, an anarchist "zone" or geographic area could not be recognized under international law as a socialist state could. Furthermore state institutions, agencies and departments provide protection for the people living in the state (such as a military, counter-espionage agencies like ASIO etc.) and act as a shield to ensure geopolitical integrity.

Furthermore, has my thread just been hijacked or are we just deviating from OP question?

It's true that the thread has been deviated into what seems to be a discussion about left vs post-left. A mod or admin should move it.

There's many de-facto states in the world that are not recognized (or not fully recognized) in the past and in the present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_unrecognized_countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_countries#Not_recognized_by_a ny_state

Also, international law can change to accommodate these "anarchist zones" (or perhaps they don't, they can just be considered a "state" by international law). The only reasons why an "anarchist zone" wouldn't be recognized would be political (i.e. an anarchist zone is a threat to bourgeois interests), and the political reasons would also apply to a socialist state (i.e. a socialist state is a threat to bourgeois interests).

"Legitamacy of international law" means nothing if the bourgeois nations deem your socialist state to be a threat. The only reason why the USSR wasn't "attacked all the time" was because the USSR was strong enough beyond defensive capabilities (extremely so once they had nukes).

Also an anarchist zone could have alterntive institutions to all those state institutions. One example, Anarchist Barcelona did have armed militias with the abilites to do some of the tasks an army could.

revolution inaction

16th May 2009, 14:54

Okay, so why haven't they launched an invasion since 1991?

they would be strongly resisted and would gain nothing significant.

If its only international law recognising somewhere as a state that stops places being invaded then how come Taiwan has not been invaded, and why was Iraq invaded?

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 16:00

Okay, so why haven't they launched an invasion since 1991?

Why hasn't Sweden launched an invasion against Finland?

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 16:30

I'm not sure what you mean by party lines.

I was just being snarky.

that indicates to me that you seem to believe that mass movements of workers with "no political cohesion" have no chance of developing any "political cohesion" which is completely wrong imo.I didn't say there was "no chance", but realistically, the vast majority of people are not going to rebel against capitalism as long as it offers them a way to survive. Even when capitalism no longer offers them a chance to survive, or even among the minority who will rebel, there is such deeply rooted ethnic and sexual chauvinism that fascism (and other forms of warlordist "anarcho-capitalism" such as drug gangs) will likely be the most popular form of rebellion.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by this.You're suggesting that anarchists or communists somehow destroy the state power of capitalism without giving any concern for developing an alternative mode of production. To me this seems linked to the bourgeois socialist notion of the workers "seizing control" of the industrial means of production. To me, communism is about destroying the means of capitalist production and replacing it with our completely different, completely better society.

How is it a "cop-out"?Because when capitalism does collapse it will be much more bloody and horrible than a clean, sterile global worker's uprising. It will likely involve decades of scarcity, plagues, and bloody territory disputes between every gang and political faction. Realistically, anarchists should prepare themselves to survive the destabliziation of capitalism, while also using it as an upper hand in their offensive attacks....

Striking for fair pay for workers is not at all a reformist demand.Yes it is. I'm not insulting it, I'm just pointing out what it is.

Think of it this way. You're a pot-head. You have a dealer, who sells you an eighth an ounce of weed for $200. You can pressure him to lower to price to $100 or $50, but you're still buying it from someone, when you could be growing all the weed you can smoke yourself for free. In other words, you're still alienated from the resources you need to produce the things you want and need. (Land, labor, etc.) You still have to sell your labor to earn money to buy things you want and need, rather than being able to produce it yourself, being able to own the product of your labor, and trade or give it as you see fit...

I mean associations of residents that live in our communities coming together and forming democratic associations that can decide on a number of issues that affect them, as well as potentially building more of a community atmosphere.Yeah, that's the point. And then what do they do next, throw a bunch of drunken punk rock concerts? Campaign for the Democratic Party? Or reclaim the material resources, ie: the land, from the capitalist regime? The point is to develop a material force that can free us from the daily tedium of capitalist slavery.

The good anti-fascist organisations like Antifa do not ally with the bourgeoisie whatsoever.Well obviously. Unfortunately most anti-fascist groups at least in the US don't fall under the category of "good".

I wrote "encouraging workers during strikes", I didn't say "I'm petty-bourgeoisie and I sit there telling them they should be good boys and do their job", I'll leave that for the Socialist Worker's Party.But regardless if you are a worker or a petit-bourgeoisie or whatever class you belong to, you still think of "the worker's struggle" as something that must exist within and be dependent on the capitalist paradigm, rather than something forcing itself out of the capitalist system, refusing to allow the capitalist system operate normally. It's like a wife who *****es about her abusive husband but will never leave him or kick his ass because she's emotionally dependent upon him.

16th May 2009, 17:03

I didn't say there was "no chance", but realistically, the vast majority of people are not going to rebel against capitalism as long as it offers them a way to survive. Even when capitalism no longer offers them a chance to survive, or even among the minority who will rebel, there is such deeply rooted ethnic and sexual chauvinism that fascism (and other forms of warlordist "anarcho-capitalism" such as drug gangs) will likely be the most popular form of rebellion.

So your "realistic" solution to that is to just cut yourself off from all that and form yet another minority?

You're suggesting that anarchists or communists somehow destroy the state power of capitalism without giving any concern for developing an alternative mode of production. To me this seems linked to the bourgeois socialist notion of the workers "seizing control" of the industrial means of production. To me, communism is about destroying the means of capitalist production and replacing it with our completely different, completely better society.

The aim is to replace money with labour vouchers and to operate a gift economy, I'm not sure what "seizing control" means to you but it's pretty clear to me.

Because when capitalism does collapse it will be much more bloody and horrible than a clean, sterile global worker's uprising. It will likely involve decades of scarcity, plagues, and bloody territory disputes between every gang and political faction.

Not if a dictatorship of the proletariat is established, there is nothing to indicate it should be anything like what you describe.

Realistically, anarchists should prepare themselves to survive the destabliziation of capitalism, while also using it as an upper hand in their offensive attacks....

Is Capitalism currently stable?

Yes it is. I'm not insulting it, I'm just pointing out what it is.
..

Everyone must use resources provided by Capitalists at some point and to deny that is stupid. Striking for decent pay for workers is not reformist. It's selfish to believe every action should be to the detriment of workers but for the good of your "alternative movement".

Yeah, that's the point. And then what do they do next, throw a bunch of drunken punk rock concerts? Campaign for the Democratic Party? Or reclaim the material resources, ie: the land, from the capitalist regime? The point is to develop a material force that can free us from the daily tedium of capitalist slavery.

They exist within the system the best they can, as all workers do. By your logic, just about every worker in the world is currently 'reformist'.

But regardless if you are a worker or a petit-bourgeoisie or whatever class you belong to, you still think of "the worker's struggle" as something that must exist within and be dependent on the capitalist paradigm, rather than something forcing itself out of the capitalist system, refusing to allow the capitalist system operate normally. It's like a wife who *****es about her abusive husband but will never leave him or kick his ass because she's emotionally dependent upon him.

That's not true at all. It's dependent on workers organising and fighting back against an unfair system built to oppress. Recent events such as the riots in Greece, the strikes and marches worldwide are more akin to a forced movement out of capitalism.

Agrippa

16th May 2009, 17:48

So your "realistic" solution to that is to just cut yourself off from all that and form yet another minority?

Not nessicarily. But a single person can lead a satisfying existence totally seperated from capitalism. We, as individuals, do not need a "mass-movement", do not need the masses to agree with or sanction our actions, to guarantee our personal freedom. We don't need to feel bad if other people choose to doom themselves to dependency on capitalism because they can't live without cocaine, television, chlorinated swimming pools, SUVs, hardcore porn, etc. We should have no more allegience to the masses who accept their lot in society than we should to their bourgeois overlords.

I'm not saying abandon all recruitment efforts. I'm saying, we should have realistic expectations for our recruitment efforts. "The majority of the human race", especially at this point, is not a realistic expectation.

The aim is to replace money with labour vouchersThen you're just perpetuating capitalism, no matter how "egalitarian" it would ideally be...capitalism could be, in theory, completely egalitarian, but it would still be alienating and oppressive.

and to operate a gift economyThis is Kropotkinism, which in my mind, is a form of utopian socialism. A "gift economy" is a simple enough economic basis for a tribe of 200 people, but how is it going to be a basis for managing the economic interactions of hundreds of thousands or millions, much less billions, of people?

I'm not sure what "seizing control" means to you but it's pretty clear to me.It's pretty clear to me. It's what happened in the Soviet Union.

Not if a dictatorship of the proletariat is established, there is nothing to indicate it should be anything like what you describe.But the majority proletariat has no interest in establishing its dictatorship. Thus the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has become a historical misnomer. It should be the dictatorship of people interested in creating communist material conditions right now.

Is Capitalism currently stable?Capitalism hasn't been stable for a long time. Y'call the Russian Revolution, WWII, and the 1960s "stability"?

Everyone must use resources provided by Capitalists at some point and to deny that is stupid.No, this is wrong. This is exactly what I am questioning. No one "must" use resources provided by capitalism. Communists could create the needs to provide for not only their own ranks but possibly large amounts of their apolitical friends and neighbors as well. (which will increase our ranks rather than alienate people) That way no one within the movement has to earn a wage, steal, etc. to survive unless they want to. Thus they have more time and energy to use towards trying to disrupt capitalism.

Striking for decent pay for workers is not reformist.How? You must seem to think I'm using "reformist" as a synonym for bad. Some reformist campagins are quite useful, in both the aleviation of suffering and oppression provide, and in that they contribute to the creation of a movement with revolutionary potential. (Other reformist campagins, however, are a total waste of time)

How is demanding higher wages from employers not reformist? It is re-forming the current society to make a certain change. It is not questioning the foundations of our economy. The bosses can't just pull money out of their asses to pay for a worker's rase. They have to take it from somewhere else, and they're not going to take it from their (bloated) salaries unless they have to. Reforms often indirectly deprive other people with equally important struggles when the capitalists take resources away from them to appease your demands....

It's selfish to believe every action should be to the detriment of workers but for the good of your "alternative movement".It's selfish to demand that works spend their time and energy making ridiculous appeals to their oppressors, rather than work now to attack their oppressors, to free themselves from an abusive co-dependency.

They exist within the system the best they can, as all workers do. By your logic, just about every worker in the world is currently 'reformist'.No, just about every worker in the world is currently apolitical, has absolutely no interest in political campaigns of any kind. Those that do tend to be overwhelmingly conservative or reactionary and thus predisposed towards fascism. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just pointing out the reality.

I'm not insulting people for "exist within the system the best they can". I want to create a communist movement so we [I]don't have to do that any more. Unless you particularly enjoy living in the capitalist system, in which case you should re-evaluate this whole anarchism/communism thing.

That's not true at all. It's dependent on workers organising and fighting back against an unfair system built to oppress.Which I didn't condemn in any way, shape or form.

Just because there were riots in Greece does not mean that the majority of Greeks are anarchists ready to sieze control of society. The number of Greeks who were angry enough to riot is much larger than the number of Greeks interested in long-term anarchist organizing. Also, the autonomist tactics I'm arguing in favor of are very popular in Greece and are an important part of that movement's success...

Blackscare

17th May 2009, 00:43

The point is to create our own grid. A grid of resistance to capitalism...

Also:
If you can't even demonstrate to the people you're trying to agitate against capitalism that you're capable of surviving without capitalism
Most of us believe that history happens in steps, capitalism (private or state) being one of them. It's purpose is to rapidly industrialize and build infrastructure. It is a brutal, nasty phase of history but one the ultimately lays the groundworks for communism. Communist revolution involves taking over the industries vital to society that under capitalism are run on a basis of exploitation, and running them on the basis of equality and worker's control.

You seem to be suggesting that we just throw away all the hard work and suffering of many generations under capitalism that built up the vast productive capabilities of modern man in favor of autonomous farming communes.

Leftists don't want to abandon civilization and "start over" with "our own" means of production. Instead, we want to seize control of the productive apparatus that exist today, the apparatus that rightfully belong to us. Our goal is to increase productivity and therefor lower the amount of time dedicated to work. How do we do that? Certainly not by starting independent little communes. We do it by harnessing the means that exist today for large-scale agricultural and factory production.

Your solution would get us nowhere in this regard. At best we'd wind up in some feudal-era peasant commune situation, which is not communism by any modern definition.

You're equating capitalism with industry. We can live without capitalism, because that is just a method of managing industry. We cannot abandon industry because it supports our way of life. For that reason, it's impractical and stupid for the vast majority to simply cease to participate in "capitalism" in favor of independent commune life.

You're advocating withdrawal from participation in industry (not just factory production, any means of socially useful employment that exists today, and hence under capitalism), which is stupid. We're advocating an end to the mode of organization called capitalism. Big difference.

Wrong. Leftists are capitalist.
Wrong, you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Stop pulling definitions for things out of your ass and learn something about the political spectrum. This statement only makes sense if you think "leftists" are the same as liberals. IF that was your intention, however, it doesn't make it any less stupid, because it highlights your total ignorance of the fact that liberalism has nothing to do with leftism.

and, again, you're using an ad hominem argument by calling me a "hippie".I was actually trying to point out how the majority of working class people would see you if you tried this course of action.

(and an appeal to emotion by using beats, a rather gross and unpleasant crop, as an example of something that could be grown...)Oh shut the fuck up, that is the most ridiculous (and whiny) thing I've ever read.

What exactly is "naive" about what I've proposed thus far?Mostly that you think it's actually going to accomplish anything.

There have been plenty of independent communes across the US over it's entire history (and there are many that exist today), and they've had pretty much no social impact. The labor movement, on the other hand, has had massive social impact.

17th May 2009, 00:45

Not nessicarily. But a single person can lead a satisfying existence totally seperated from capitalism. We, as individuals, do not need a "mass-movement", do not need the masses to agree with or sanction our actions, to guarantee our personal freedom. We don't need to feel bad if other people choose to doom themselves to dependency on capitalism because they can't live without cocaine, television, chlorinated swimming pools, SUVs, hardcore porn, etc. We should have no more allegience to the masses who accept their lot in society than we should to their bourgeois overlords.

We have an allegiance to our fellow workers to help them, that's all I can say on that, I think that's a fair enough thing to say really.

I'm not saying abandon all recruitment efforts. I'm saying, we should have realistic expectations for our recruitment efforts. "The majority of the human race", especially at this point, is not a realistic expectation.

The CNT got people into it in Catalonia by offering workers what they want, which is fairness and equality, it's not unrealistic to expect and to be given that.

Then you're just perpetuating capitalism, no matter how "egalitarian" it would ideally be...capitalism could be, in theory, completely egalitarian, but it would still be alienating and oppressive.

We should really be operating a gift economy, it should be a transitional period to a gift economy.

This is Kropotkinism, which in my mind, is a form of utopian socialism. A "gift economy" is a simple enough economic basis for a tribe of 200 people, but how is it going to be a basis for managing the economic interactions of hundreds of thousands or millions, much less billions, of people?

By not exceeding fair quotas and by giving everyone what they need; there are definitely enough resources in the world to serve everyone.

It's pretty clear to me. It's what happened in the Soviet Union.

It did begin well with workers uprising.

But the majority proletariat has no interest in establishing its dictatorship. Thus the "dictatorship of the proletariat" has become a historical misnomer. It should be the dictatorship of people interested in creating communist material conditions right now.

No that's like saying there should be a vanguard. I do not believe in vanguards that "lead the proletariat" to a revolution, also a small group of people performing a coup is not a workers' revolution.

No, this is wrong. This is exactly what I am questioning. No one "must" use resources provided by capitalism. Communists could create the needs to provide for not only their own ranks but possibly large amounts of their apolitical friends and neighbors as well. (which will increase our ranks rather than alienate people) That way no one within the movement has to earn a wage, steal, etc. to survive unless they want to. Thus they have more time and energy to use towards trying to disrupt capitalism.

But before that we should be getting people into the mass movement by simply offering them what they deserve, fair pay and the like are not reformist, it doesn't matter what you say.

How? You must seem to think I'm using "reformist" as a synonym for bad. Some reformist campagins are quite useful, in both the aleviation of suffering and oppression provide, and in that they contribute to the creation of a movement with revolutionary potential. (Other reformist campagins, however, are a total waste of time)

Most reformist campaigns are a complete waste of time.

How is demanding higher wages from employers not reformist? It is re-forming the current society to make a certain change. It is not questioning the foundations of our economy. The bosses can't just pull money out of their asses to pay for a worker's rase. They have to take it from somewhere else, and they're not going to take it from their (bloated) salaries unless they have to.

And it is our job to make them "have to" in the interests of fairness for the workers.

Reforms often indirectly deprive other people with equally important struggles when the capitalists take resources away from them to appease your demands....

That's a dumb argument, the more we can push for fairness for workers the better, in whatever sector.

It's selfish to demand that works spend their time and energy making ridiculous appeals to their oppressors, rather than work now to attack their oppressors, to free themselves from an abusive co-dependency.

It isn't like that though. It is an attack on their oppressors, denying the oppressors your labour is a form of attack.

No, just about every worker in the world is currently apolitical, has absolutely no interest in political campaigns of any kind. Those that do tend to be overwhelmingly conservative or reactionary and thus predisposed towards fascism. I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just pointing out the reality.

What like the miners were in Britain. :rolleyes:

I'm not insulting people for "exist within the system the best they can". I want to create a communist movement so we [I]don't have to do that any more. Unless you particularly enjoy living in the capitalist system, in which case you should re-evaluate this whole anarchism/communism thing.

I think you should, your belief in some twisted individualist crap that is divorced from the mass movement of workers is no in line with "this whole anarchism/communism thing".

Just because there were riots in Greece does not mean that the majority of Greeks are anarchists ready to sieze control of society.

No, they are workers, just like the Greek anarchists.

The number of Greeks who were angry enough to riot is much larger than the number of Greeks interested in long-term anarchist organizing. Also, the autonomist tactics I'm arguing in favor of are very popular in Greece and are an important part of that movement's success...

I don't attack some of the autonomist tactics used there. I'm attacking "opting out" of the current system.

Some of the things in Greece are absolutely excellent, for instance a while ago they smashed up all the ticket machines at a subway station to give free rides for everyone; I really liked that. Also, some kids from classwar smashed up one of the richest private schools in the entire state, that was also a good move and not divorced from the mass workers movement.

Blackscare

17th May 2009, 01:02

17th May 2009, 03:22

because it would be a waste of money and its closeness to the US means that it would come under direct attack from cuban insurgents.

they would be strongly resisted and would gain nothing significant.

From a tactical standpoint, Cuba would be an easy target for the US due to their geographical proximity, all they would have to do would be to destroy the existing leadership and replace it with a puppet government, this would provide the US with a whole new market to exploit & vast quantities of oil reserves which exist in the caribbean.

With the amount of money the US has put into the Iraq operation (for what people believe is a strategic war to capture the economic resources required to sustain current economic growth in the United States) the amount of oil and the investment potential of a conquered Cuba would far outweigh the military expenditure required for such an operation.

ZeroNowhere

17th May 2009, 08:08

We don't need to feel bad if other people choose to doom themselves to dependency on capitalism because they can't live without cocaine, television, chlorinated swimming pools, SUVs, hardcore porn, etc.Wait a minute, what's wrong with wanting cocaine (and hell, not that many people do), television, chlorinated swimming pools, SUVs, hardcore porn, etc? And why exactly would these only be available under capitalism?

Raúl Duke

17th May 2009, 14:28

With the amount of money the US has put into the Iraq operation (for what people believe is a strategic war to capture the economic resources required to sustain current economic growth in the United States) the amount of oil and the investment potential of a conquered Cuba would far outweigh the military expenditure required for such an operation.

Yes but the Iraq operation is not going so well now is it?
It's true that if everything went clear-cut and as predicted then Cuba would be an easy target.
But there's also the possibility of continued guerrilla resistance and other stuff that could make this "easy Cuban war" into "another Vietnam".
Plus you are forgetting something about Cuba and the geo-politics of Latin America today; Cuba is backed by Venezuela. Venezuela could stop or diminish oil trade with the U.S. and call on other Latin-American nations (specifically Ecuador, Bolivia {Which has lots of natural gas that is also important to the U.S.}, etc) to take actions against the U.S. for their action against Cuba. Plus, he could even persuade the less leftist countries like Brazil and Argentina using the argument that the "U.S. is acting like Latin-America is its playground and violating the sovereignty of a fellow Latin-American nation."

Now, you see that Cuba has a lot of factors that benefit its current existence.
But let's say that they didn't.
If they didn't have factors like these then yes they could likely get invaded.
But the example you pulled is a "socialist state", which you said that inherently by just being a state would be safe from such a scenario.
As you can see being a state doesn't "guaranteed" you are safe.

Let's say that the much of Western Europe and parts of Eastern Europe became "anarchist zones." Even so they may not be "states" there's a factor that would make an attack less prudent. Let's say a commune (Barcelona) in "anarchist zone Spain" was attacked. This attack would not be seen as only an act of aggresion towards "anarchist zone Spain" but to all of the "European anarchist zones" which would then send out aid, volunteers, weapons, etc to aid "anarchist zone Spain." A war against one anarchist zone might lead to a war against all European anarchist zones, something that perhaps the bourgeois nations do not want.

But let's say that besides "Anarchist Europe" there was an "Anarchist Japan." Due to logistics (distance) from Europe it could be difficult for them to aid them. This "anarchist zone" thus does have little factors that would make an invasion unlikely. Although who will do the invasion would be a point of contention. Most likely the U.S., after all it would be against their imperialist interests to see Japan fall to China.

It's geo-political factors (amongts others) that determine why some states are not invaded then "international law."

FreeFocus

17th May 2009, 14:47

Wait a minute, what's wrong with wanting cocaine (and hell, not that many people do), television, chlorinated swimming pools, SUVs, hardcore porn, etc? And why exactly would these only be available under capitalism?

You know what he means, don't nitpick. He's talking about people being obsessed with those things (materialism), and I agree that it's wrong (and frankly pathetic) to be unable to live without those things.

Agrippa

17th May 2009, 20:19

We have an allegiance to our fellow workers to help them

That's asinine. Classes are economic, not moral or ethical, categories. By spouting this fatuous line, you're completely alienating political struggle from personal experience.

For example, take a female worker who is raped and beaten by her husband, also a worker. Does she have an "allegience" to her oppressor merely because he's a "fellow worker"?

Now, assuming you find that line of argument as ridiculous as I do, how does it not apply on a mass-scale?

The CNT got people into it in Catalonia by offering workers what they want, which is fairness and equality

No organization, including the CNT, can offer anyone fairness or equality. The concept of social empowerment as something bestowed upon individuals by social institutions is bourgeois. It is the responsibility of the individual to empower herself...

We should really be operating a gift economy, it should be a transitional period to a gift economy.

Ah. And who else enjoys justifying semi-totalitarian policies under the pretense of "transitional period[s]" to communism?

By not exceeding fair quotas and by giving everyone what they need; there are definitely enough resources in the world to serve everyone.

And how would the totally fair and equal global distribution of commodities to billions of people be managed without an administrative class? It's impossible. It's an anarcho-industrialist delusion....

It did begin well with workers uprising.

The French Revolution also "began well"...

No that's like saying there should be a vanguard.

There should be a vanguard. I agree with Bakunin in that respect...

But before that we should be getting people into the mass movement by simply offering them what they deserve

No one deserves a wage. Wage labor is one of the most profane forms of economic exploitation. Accumulating disposable income (to spend on worthless consumer goods) doesn't negate this.

If the workers get together and say "we won't work for these wages!", what they're really saying is "we'll gladly work for another wage, we ultimately consent to be ruled, we're ultimately dependent on our wages". When you say "we're not going back to work until [X demand] is met", you're saying that we will go back to work, that our struggle is destined to result in the return to capitalist business-as-usual.

You can just as easily "get[...] people into the mass movement" by participating in workplace organization on the basis of sheer economic disruption and material expropriation....

Most reformist campaigns are a complete waste of time.

Well yes, but not all of them.

And it is our job to make them "have to" in the interests of fairness for the workers.

How? A strike in demand for higher wages has no control over where the money for these higher wages comes from...why would the bosses take the funds from their own wages when they could take it from something else?

That's a dumb argument, the more we can push for fairness for workers the better, in whatever sector.

You could say the same thing about anti-tax movements. If anti-tax movements succeeded, they would aleviate the suffering of the workers by giving them extra income from tax returns, however, the money for the tax reforms would likely be taken away from social programs thast also benefit the working class. Wage is no different than taxation, despite the insistance otherwise by state-socialists of all varieties.

It isn't like that though. It is an attack on their oppressors, denying the oppressors your labour is a form of attack.

No argument here.

What like the miners were in Britain. :rolleyes:

All of them? Are you suggesting that the majority of miners in Britain are anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchal?

I think you should, your belief in some twisted individualist crap that is divorced from the mass movement of workers is no in line with "this whole anarchism/communism thing".

In Europe, self-proclaimed "individualists" have always been the faction of the anarchist/communist movement most reluctant to comprimise in the struggle against capitalism. The fact that an individualist such as myself is interested in developing the material resources needed to become autonomous from the capitalist system does not change that, in fact, it reinforces it, because what I'm suggesting is the only realistic way to combat capitalism and carve out an alternative.

No, they are workers, just like the Greek anarchists.

Again, you're using "worker" as an ethical rather than material descriptor. I'm sure many contemporary Greek anarchists come from petit-bourgeois and bourgeois backgrounds, as many loyal class-warriors have been in the past, and I'm sure many (if not most) workers in Greece are very hostile towards the prospect of anarchist insurrection or any form of "Red" politics....

I don't attack some of the autonomist tactics used there. I'm attacking "opting out" of the current system.

Well, I'm not advocating "opting out". Can you give me a coherent explanation as to my "hippie" deviation from traditional autonomist tactics?

Some of the things in Greece are absolutely excellent, for instance a while ago they smashed up all the ticket machines at a subway station to give free rides for everyone; I really liked that. Also, some kids from classwar smashed up one of the richest private schools in the entire state, that was also a good move and not divorced from the mass workers movement.

How are any of those tactics inconsistant with what I've been advocating on this thread?

Agrippa

17th May 2009, 20:48

Most of us believe that history happens in steps, capitalism (private or state) being one of them. It's purpose is to rapidly industrialize and build infrastructure.

It is a brutal, nasty phase of history but one the ultimately lays the groundworks for communism.There is no "ultimate" conclusion or consequence of history or divine purpose of any method of social organization

Communist revolution involves taking over the industries vital to society that under capitalism are run on a basis of exploitation, and running them on the basis of equality and worker's control.The notion of any industry being "vital to society" is a falsification. Society has existed without industry for at least hundreds of thousands of years (much longer if you factor in the possibility of "society" not being an exclusively human phenomenon)

What you mean to say is that industry is vital to the level of material comfort you currently enjoy, which is entirely different...

You seem to be suggesting that we just throw away all the hard work and sufferingYou seem to be suggesting that just because something is "hard work", or involves suffering, that that it is worthwhile or beneficial. However I'm not challenging the notion of using the material surplus created by capitalism to build a new society in the ruins of capitalism. That, however, is entirely different than maintaining a system of centralized, industrialized mass-production, mass-distribution, mass-transit, and mass-communication that devastates the ecosystem and intrinsically requires alienated labor to maintain.

the vast productive capabilities of modern manKeep in mind that in many important ways modern modes of production are inefficient and wasteful...

Leftists don't want to abandon civilization and "start over" with "our own" means of production.Exactly. Hence why Leftism is a form of capitalism rather than communism.

Instead, we want to seize control of the productive apparatus that exist today, the apparatus that rightfully belong to us.The "right" of the proletarian masses to maintain the capitalist productive apparatus at the expense of ecological health is pretty much on the same level as the "right" of the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat's labor.

Our goal is to increase productivityIs your goal to hasten ecological collapse?

and therefor lower the amount of time dedicated to work.[/quote]

Bourgeois "anti-workism" rooted in utopian socialist fantasies...might as well be a Christian who believes that "the lion shall lie down with the lamb" once Jesus Christ physically descends to Earth from Heaven to form a literal kingdom of god....

We do it by harnessing the means that exist today for large-scale agricultural and factory production. And once large-scale agricultural and factory production is "egalitarian" and controlled by "workers", its material consequences will somehow be less devistating?

Your solution would get us nowhere in this regard. At best we'd wind up in some feudal-era peasant commune situation, which is not communism by any modern definition.By "any modern definition", you mean "the Marxist definition". You're trying to rewrite history to erradicate all segments of the historical communist movement that contradict your ideology. The ideas I'm proposing are certainly not new, and its proponents have always been a strong current in the worker's struggle...

You're equating capitalism with industry.That's because industry is an innovation of capitalism. Capitalists imposed industry on society, violently, to the equally violent resistance of workers. (Luddites, Diggers, etc.) As of yet, no un-capitalist industrial society has existed and the historical inevidability of the emergence of an un-capitalist industrial society is a mere insistance (to such an extent that it borders on religious delusion) with no substantial evidence to back it up, in fact, it must ignore the heaps of evidence that suggests the contrary....

We cannot abandon industry because it supports our way of life.There's a difference between "cannot" and "do not want to"

For that reason, it's impractical and stupid for the vast majority to simply cease to participate in "capitalism" in favor of independent commune life.It's not about merely "ceas[ing] to participate" in capitalism but rather attacking and rooting it up, which requires that we are not dependent on it for our survival, even if that means giving up certain material priviliges the capitalist system has given us...

You're advocating withdrawal from participation in industry (not just factory production, any means of socially useful employment that exists today, and hence under capitalism), which is stupid.So strikes are stupid, then?

Wrong, you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Stop pulling definitions for things out of your ass and learn something about the political spectrum. You may not agree with my definition but I did not pull it "out of" my "ass"...refusal to identify with "Leftist" movements is a very old tradition...

This statement only makes sense if you think "leftists" are the same as liberals.No, extra-parliamentary/revolutionary/insurgent Leftists can just as easily reinforce capitalism....

IF that was your intention, however, it doesn't make it any less stupid, because it highlights your total ignorance of the fact that liberalism has nothing to do with leftism.If by liberalism, you mean Social Democracy, you're totally wrong and I suggest you research the history of the Social Democratic party.

If by liberalism, you mean classical liberalism, you're also wrong, because that's where the origin of "left-right" terminology in relation to politics comes from.

I was actually trying to point out how the majority of working class people would see you if you tried this course of action.

There have been plenty of independent communes across the US over it's entire history (and there are many that exist today), and they've had pretty much no social impact. The labor movement, on the other hand, has had massive social impact.You're using a vulgar Marxist definition of "working class", "the workers' movement" that is ultimately chauvinistic. (Excluding the attitudes of peasants, rural proletariats, and the "lumpen") The armed resistance by peasants and rural workers against the further colonization of their lives by the development of capitalist infrastructure is as much a part of the worker's movement as organized resistance among the industrial proletariat.

You're also projecting your thoughts ("people who want to form autonomous communes are hippies") onto "the majority of working class people". Were your claims true, it would only indicate that "the majority of working class people" retain certain bigotries.

Agrippa

17th May 2009, 21:06

You seem to be advocating some aloof primitavist individualism, which has nothing to do with communist principles.

Again, you're taking "communist principles" and equating that with "a narrow Marxist interpretation of communist principles", and then ostracizing anyone who disagrees from the "worker's movement", "communist movement" or whatever you want to talk about. Regardless of your attitudes towards "primitivism" and "individualism", they have always been expressions of the tendency towards international class war and the communization of resources.

Our job is to chip away at the idiological hegemony of the ruling classes (and this usually happens most during times of catastrophe).Exactly. This doesn't mean, however, that the majority of the human race simultaniously rises up and seizes control of the capitalist mode of production, re-organizing it so it's 100% equal, further developing material conditions to the point that no one ever has to labor or suffer. I can safely say that's a form of "chip[ping] away at the ideological hegemony of the ruling classes" that's unlikely to occur. In fact, I'd say, those lofty delusions are an essential part of "the ideological hegemony of the ruling classes".

All of your ideas to "advance" the communist cause entail completely giving up communist principles in the process.Claiming that the material development of capitalism serves a benefecent purpose, or that we can't exist independently of capitalism but rather forever are dependent (and in fact destined by the clockwork of history) upon capitalist systems of commodity production entails completely giving up communist principles.

Adding "in theory" to a bullshit statement makes it no less stupid. Capitalism is based, first and foremost, on wage labor. Wage labor is when a worker sells his labor to an employer for less than it is worth (hence the employer making a profit). That is the backbone of capitalism.Labor has no inherent "worth". If the capitalist social order was not limited by material scarcity, it would happily provide a life of extreme affluence and material luxury to the entirity of the human race. In fact elevating the level of material wealth among segments of the proletariat has strengthened capitalism....

I would disagree. The backbone of capitalism is alienation.

Obviously there can be nothing egalitarian about the system just described, because it involves worker and parasite. So no, it couldn't be egalitarian in reality or theory.But a more "egalitarian" form of alienated labor is not nessicarily desirable, even if it was possible....

Solidarity, mass-strikes, and revolution make that all possible, not growing cornYour revolutionaries are going to starve to death if they have no way of feeding themselves. Are we just going to live off of stolen junkfood?

So we just isolate and give up on trying to change the world actively through labor movements? As I have stated a half-dozen times I am not advocating that.

Care to share some information (links, books, anything) to back that up?Just Google "Άναρχο-αυτόνομοι". Autonomists are, for the most part, the largest Marxist/anarchist tendency in not only Greece, but Germany, Italy, and France as well, since the 70s and 80s. (And there's a reason for that)

17th May 2009, 21:12

That's asinine. Classes are economic, not moral or ethical, categories. By spouting this fatuous line, you're completely alienating political struggle from personal experience.

For example, take a female worker who is raped and beaten by her husband, also a worker. Does she have an "allegience" to her oppressor merely because he's a "fellow worker"?

That's a really stupid argument. I mean really stupid. Of course she doesn't and of course every worker is not some class-conscious anarchist, you trying to paint me out as believing that is annoying.

Now, assuming you find that line of argument as ridiculous as I do, how does it not apply on a mass-scale?

Because on a mass scale, workers are not reactionary in that way.

No organization, including the CNT, can offer anyone fairness or equality. The concept of social empowerment as something bestowed upon individuals by social institutions is bourgeois. It is the responsibility of the individual to empower herself...

And the CNT offered help in that respect.

Ah. And who else enjoys justifying semi-totalitarian policies under the pretense of "transitional period[s]" to communism?

So how is it semi-totalitarian?

And how would the totally fair and equal global distribution of commodities to billions of people be managed without an administrative class? It's impossible. It's an anarcho-industrialist delusion....

No it isn't, it has worked on a mass scale before and it could work again, not "several hundred" people as you made out.

The French Revolution also "began well"...

How it began is the only relevant point.

There should be a vanguard. I agree with Bakunin in that respect...

Well Bakunin's idea of a vanguard is vastly different to the Leninist one. However, I don't think there should be a vanguard of any kind.

If the workers get together and say "we won't work for these wages!", what they're really saying is "we'll gladly work for another wage, we ultimately consent to be ruled, we're ultimately dependent on our wages". When you say "we're not going back to work until [X demand] is met", you're saying that we will go back to work, that our struggle is destined to result in the return to capitalist business-as-usual.

That's a load of rubbish frankly. There have been lots of strikes where workers frankly did not know whether they were going back to work, improving your wage does not mean you "consent to being ruled", it's just common sense to realise that there is a certain level you must conform to within the system or it won't let you escape untouched. By your logic, being exploited for your labour is reformist. :confused:

You can just as easily "get[...] people into the mass movement" by participating in workplace organization on the basis of sheer economic disruption and material expropriation....

And what "economic disruption" do you propose? That sounds really similar to strikes which are apparently "reformist" to you.. so um.. yeah......

How? A strike in demand for higher wages has no control over where the money for these higher wages comes from...why would the bosses take the funds from their own wages when they could take it from something else?

There's no way of guaranteeing that. If it becomes detrimental to the workers in some way then they should take action against it until it isn't to their own detriment but the bosses'.

You could say the same thing about anti-tax movements. If anti-tax movements succeeded, they would aleviate the suffering of the workers by giving them extra income from tax returns, however, the money for the tax reforms would likely be taken away from social programs thast also benefit the working class. Wage is no different than taxation, despite the insistance otherwise by state-socialists of all varieties.

This isn't relevant.

All of them? Are you suggesting that the majority of miners in Britain are anti-capitalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchal?

I think that definitely at a time, the majority of them were.

In Europe, self-proclaimed "individualists" have always been the faction of the anarchist/communist movement most reluctant to comprimise in the struggle against capitalism.

A very bold claim and also an irrelevant one. Your strand of individualism is not necessarily that of others'.

The fact that an individualist such as myself is interested in developing the material resources needed to become autonomous from the capitalist system does not change that, in fact, it reinforces it, because what I'm suggesting is the only realistic way to combat capitalism and carve out an alternative.

No your individualism is too individualistic and cut off from the mass workers' struggle. I'm not saying all the more individualist anarchists are though.

Again, you're using "worker" as an ethical rather than material descriptor. I'm sure many contemporary Greek anarchists come from petit-bourgeois and bourgeois backgrounds, as many loyal class-warriors have been in the past, and I'm sure many (if not most) workers in Greece are very hostile towards the prospect of anarchist insurrection or any form of "Red" politics....

No don't twist that, I said worker and meant it. Many petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie people probably help in various struggles and also try to help and hinder it, but your generalisations about most workers in Greece being hostile towards anarchist insurrection is preposterous.

Well, I'm not advocating "opting out". Can you give me a coherent explanation as to my "hippie" deviation from traditional autonomist tactics?

Can you give me a coherent explanation as to your "traditional autonomist tactics"? I don't think you can to be purely honest.

How are any of those tactics inconsistant with what I've been advocating on this thread?

They aren't split off from the mass workers' struggle like "not comprimising with capitalism" and "forming an alternative movement" are.

Perhaps we share some tactics in common but it's clear that with your denouncing of strikes/fighting for better conditions for workers as 'reformist', you are missing some totally vital elements in your "individualism".

Agrippa

17th May 2009, 21:37

That's a really stupid argument. I mean really stupid. Of course she doesn't and of course every worker is not some class-conscious anarchist, you trying to paint me out as believing that is annoying. Because on a mass scale, workers are not reactionary in that way.As far as I've observed, male workers are just as likely to be misogynists as male members of the bourgeoisie or any other economic class. Being less economically privileged has nothing to do with being more open to feminist politics.

And the CNT offered help in that respect.Ignoring criticisms of the CNT, (of which I have many) it's worth pointing out that a very large chunk of the Spanish anarchist movement was made up of agricultural communes formed by peasants and farm-workers, especially among Basques.

So how is it semi-totalitarian?A bureaucracy needed to give people paper tokens as "credits" for the labor they've provided for the collective good would only serve to mediate and regulate the sale of one's labor. It seems totally unnecessary to me.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't, it has worked on a mass scale before and it could work again, not "several hundred" people as you made out."mass" as in more than a million?

How it began is the only relevant point.You mean, the success or failure of a social project is not relevant? I guess you're right if we want to avoid drawing correct conclusion and encourage the repetition of mistakes.

Well Bakunin's idea of a vanguard is vastly different to the Leninist one.I'm aware. What I'm advocating is a Bakuninist vanguard...

However, I don't think there should be a vanguard of any kind.How would it even be possible to organize the sort of mass worker's uprising you envision without a Bakuninist vanguard?

That's a load of rubbish frankly. There have been lots of strikes where workers frankly did not know whether they were going back to work, improving your wage does not mean you "consent to being ruled",All that is true, but organizing strikes around demands limits their insurrectionary potential

it's just common sense to realise that there is a certain level you must conform to within the system.No, it's not.

By your logic, being exploited for your labour is reformist. :confused:
And what "economic disruption" do you propose? That sounds really similar to strikes which are apparently "reformist" to you..I didn't say strikes are reformist. I said strikes with reformist goals are reformist. A striking is a form of economic disruption. I'm merely proposing they be reoriented towards economic disruption for the specific purpose of weakening capitalism rather than accomplishing short-term goals

There's no way of guaranteeing that. If it becomes detrimental to the workers in some way then they should take action against it until it isn't to their own detriment but the bosses'.Why not just attack the roots of the social relationship, then?

This isn't relevant.Yes it is. Tax refunds and wage increases are essentially identical.

I think that definitely at a time, the majority of them were.What time period are you talking about? All you said was "the British miners"?

A very bold claim and also an irrelevant one. Your strand of individualism is not necessarily that of others'.Not nessicarily. What relevance does that have?

No your individualism is too individualistic and cut off from the mass workers' struggle.The "mass workers struggle" is made up of individuals. You can't seperate struggle of the masses from the struggle of the individual, and you can't advocate policies thast would be detrimental to the individual under the pretense of serving "the masses", since "the masses" are comprised of individuals....

I'm not saying all the more individualist anarchists are though.So you're

No don't twist that, I said worker and meant it. Many petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie people probably help in various struggles and also try to help and hinder it,

but your generalisations about most workers in Greece being hostile towards anarchist insurrection is preposterous.Do you have any first-hand experience with the political climate in Greece? I'm sure the good majority of workers are brainwashed by capitalist mass-media disinformation, just like in every other part of the world. But if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be hapy to look it over...

Can you give me a coherent explanation as to your "traditional autonomist tactics"? I don't think you can to be purely honest.I'm not entirely sure what your claims of "dishonesty" are supposed to imply...I don't see how struggling to be autonomous isn't part of the autonomist tradition....

They aren't split off from the mass workers' struggle like "not comprimising with capitalism" and "forming an alternative movement" are. You're spouting dogma again. How is creating the material conditions to survive without capitalist production "split[ting] off from the mass workers' struggle". Again, which mass workers' struggle?

Perhaps we share some tactics in common but it's clear that with your denouncing of strikes/fighting for better conditions for workers as 'reformist', you are missing some totally vital elements in your "individualism".Wildcat strikes conducted with no pretense of demands would just as easily result in attempts at appeasement by capitalists (such as wage increases) and would result in a stronger, more politically conscious movement for radical workplace organization

robbo203

17th May 2009, 21:56

This is Kropotkinism, which in my mind, is a form of utopian socialism. A "gift economy" is a simple enough economic basis for a tribe of 200 people, but how is it going to be a basis for managing the economic interactions of hundreds of thousands or millions, much less billions, of people?s...

I think you are mistaken here. There are different forms of reciprocity that might come under the title of a gift economy. One of these in particular - generalised reciprocity - which is how I would characterise a communist society is unbounded. It does not involve quid pro quo exchanges and is not restricited to direct face to face interactions. There have been several articles Ive come across which cite the internet itself as an example of a gift economy. Tryng googling "the internet and the gift economy"

17th May 2009, 22:32

"mass" as in more than a million?

I believe it could work and that such a thing scales to no end if you distribute goods fairly.

You mean, the success or failure of a social project is not relevant? I guess you're right if we want to avoid drawing correct conclusion and encourage the repetition of mistakes.

No I mean workers initially uprising in the typical way they do, but also the way they overthrew the Tsar specifically in Russia is fine and shouldn't be criticised.

How would it even be possible to organize the sort of mass worker's uprising you envision without a Bakuninist vanguard?

By working at grassroots levels with the workers (which is not what any kind of vanguard entails) and not acting like "their saviour".

All that is true, but organizing strikes around demands limits their insurrectionary potential

To an extent, but you can't always just strike for no given reason without serious repercussions for the workers. Also demands can always be extended.

No, it's not.

Then you're free to live in your fantasy world where you can do whatever you want, I hope it works out for you.

I didn't say strikes are reformist. I said strikes with reformist goals are reformist. A striking is a form of economic disruption. I'm merely proposing they be reoriented towards economic disruption for the specific purpose of weakening capitalism rather than accomplishing short-term goals

Since when is a strike not a kind of economic disruption?

Why not just attack the roots of the social relationship, then?

I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Overthrowing "the system" isn't something that a small "alternative individualist movement" can do by itself.

Yes it is. Tax refunds and wage increases are essentially identical.

And unless you intend on overthrowing the government making these tax refunds then you can only disrupt the local bosses who are exploiting workers.

What time period are you talking about? All you said was "the British miners"?

The mid 80s.

The "mass workers struggle" is made up of individuals. You can't seperate struggle of the masses from the struggle of the individual, and you can't advocate policies thast would be detrimental to the individual under the pretense of serving "the masses", since "the masses" are comprised of individuals....

That's right. But you can't function as an individual without in some way affecting the masses either.

Do you have any first-hand experience with the political climate in Greece? I'm sure the good majority of workers are brainwashed by capitalist mass-media disinformation, just like in every other part of the world. But if you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be hapy to look it over...

Do you? You're the one making whacky claims in the first place..

I'm not entirely sure what your claims of "dishonesty" are supposed to imply...I don't see how struggling to be autonomous isn't part of the autonomist tradition....

I don't believe your exact individualism is particularly in line with the autonomist tradition.

You're spouting dogma again. How is creating the material conditions to survive without capitalist production "split[ting] off from the mass workers' struggle". Again, which mass workers' struggle?

The class-struggle. You can't create the material conditions with an "alternative movement" that isn't going to get enough people in it anyway.

Wildcat strikes conducted with no pretense of demands would just as easily result in attempts at appeasement by capitalists (such as wage increases) and would result in a stronger, more politically conscious movement for radical workplace organization

Yes I'm in agreement completely, but you can't write off other kinds of strikes either.

Agrippa

17th May 2009, 23:08

I believe it could work and that such a thing scales to no end if you distribute goods fairly.

How do you ensure that millions of people, with varying degrees of physical and intellectual ability, "distribute goods fairly", with no police, prisons, or other forms of state power?

Libertarian societies are by their very nature decentralized; economic and political decisions are only made by those they effect, not by strangers unfamiliar with the local situation and community.

No I mean workers initially uprising in the typical way they do, but also the way they overthrew the Tsar specifically in Russia is fine and shouldn't be criticised.But by not placing an emphasis on the destruction of the the material and social foundations of capitalism, the Russian revolution failed.

By working at grassroots levels with the workers (which is not what any kind of vanguard entails) and not acting like "their saviour".How does a Bakuninist vanguard "not entail" that?
And we're working "with the workers"? Are we not ourselves workers?

you can't always just strike for no given reason without serious repercussions for the workers.So we should let fear of capitalist retaliation paralyze our resistance?

You're ignoring my primary point: if communists and anarchists focused on building their own social structures, they wouldn't be dependent on their bosses for survival, and thus such "repercussions" would be a less effective deterrent. If you have no need for rent money, grocery money, utility money, etc., what does it matter what wage you earn?

Then you're free to live in your fantasy world where you can do whatever you want, I hope it works out for you.Refusing to compromise with capitalists does not mean "do whatever you want".

Since when is a strike not a kind of economic disruption?Re-read. I said it [I]was.

I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Overthrowing "the system" isn't something that a small "alternative individualist movement" can do by itself.I never used the phrase "alternative indivdualist movement", so you're misquoting me. And this movement need not be "small", just decentralized.

And unless you intend on overthrowing the government making these tax refunds then you can only disrupt the local bosses who are exploiting workers.You can also disrupt government officials and pressure them to lower taxes. That doesn't mean it's a constructive goal or that it will strengthen our ability to liberate ourselves from capitalism.

The mid 80s. Every coal-miner in Britain in the mid-80s was anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and feminist? Proof?

That's right. But you can't function as an individual without in some way affecting the masses either.So?

Do you? You're the one making whacky claims in the first place..I think the claim I'm making is a pretty normal, common sense assumption, (The majority of workers in Greece or any other geographic territory are not anarchists or sympathetic towards anarchists) assuming you're not a Polyanna who insists on wearing rose glasses.

I don't believe your exact individualism is particularly in line with the autonomist tradition."Individualism" is a philosophical descrpition whereas "autonomism" is a tactical one.

You can't create the material conditions with an "alternative movement" that isn't going to get enough people in it anyway.I'm questioning the notion that you need a certain number of people to "create the material conditions" of communism. (A communistic social arrangement can exist among a half-dozen people) I actually think we should focus on the quality rather than the quantity of our recruits. Some political actions require a small number of people and would actually be hampered or handicapped by the inclusion of additional, unnessicary, incompetent participants.

Yes I'm in agreement completely, but you can't write off other kinds of strikes either.No, you cannot write them off as manifestations of social tensions that can be exploited by communists to accomplish communistic goals but just because you can't write something off as unimportant or socially insignificant doesn't mean you can't crticize it, or certain aspects of it.

18th May 2009, 00:11

How do you ensure that millions of people, with varying degrees of physical and intellectual ability, "distribute goods fairly", with no police, prisons, or other forms of state power?

By setting up libertarian communist communes that distribute goods fairly at a local level. Goods are passed around as necessary to communes that require it.

Libertarian societies are by their very nature decentralized; economic and political decisions are only made by those they effect, not by strangers unfamiliar with the local situation and community.

Exactly. But communes can and obviously will ask for help off other communes.

But by not placing an emphasis on the destruction of the the material and social foundations of capitalism, the Russian revolution failed.

But you were just earlier the one talking about "organising a revolution" being too long-winded and not working.

How does a Bakuninist vanguard "not entail" that?

Because you seem to believe you're outside the realm of normal workers.

And we're working "with the workers"? Are we not ourselves workers?

Of course we are. We shouldn't see ourselves as a vanguard however.

So we should let fear of capitalist retaliation paralyze our resistance?

No we should evade and subvert it.

You're ignoring my primary point: if communists and anarchists focused on building their own social structures, they wouldn't be dependent on their bosses for survival, and thus such "repercussions" would be a less effective deterrent. If you have no need for rent money, grocery money, utility money, etc., what does it matter what wage you earn?

Of course there are some mutual aid initiatives, but they aren't going to catch-on at such a grassroots level that they can "replace" the capitalist's work to underpin people to their system. Not enough people are going to be attracted to your movement to completely replace their lifestyle so they don't have to rely on capitalist underpinnings.

Refusing to compromise with capitalists does not mean "do whatever you want".

But you seem to believe in sleepwalking into capitalist traps.

Re-read. I said it [I]was.

You wrote:
I'm merely proposing they be reoriented towards economic disruption for the specific purpose of weakening capitalism rather than accomplishing short-term goals

It is economic disruption in that it is weakening capitalism. These "small fish" are entirely part of the capitalist system.

I never used the phrase "alternative indivdualist movement", so you're misquoting me. And this movement need not be "small", just decentralized.

"need not"? But it won't gain the main body of workers.

You can also disrupt government officials and pressure them to lower taxes. That doesn't mean it's a constructive goal or that it will strengthen our ability to liberate ourselves from capitalism.

It is a constructive goal, picking your specific targets and disrupting them is good. This happens a lot and has achieved things.

Every coal-miner in Britain in the mid-80s was anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and feminist? Proof?

To be fair, all of them were anti-capitalist. Many of them were no doubt feminist and also anti-racist. Your assumptions about "all of them" are just silly. If you think even your small movement is going to be "perfect" then that is so misled.

I think the claim I'm making is a pretty normal, common sense assumption, (The majority of workers in Greece or any other geographic territory are not anarchists or sympathetic towards anarchists) assuming you're not a Polyanna who insists on wearing rose glasses.

I don't think it is particularly normal, you have no way of knowing that. Also your definition of "sympathetic" could be interpreted in many ways.

"Individualism" is a philosophical descrpition whereas "autonomism" is a tactical one.

I believe you mix the two up too much.

I'm questioning the notion that you need a certain number of people to "create the material conditions" of communism.

You could indeed share the bread out equally amongst yourself. You could even make democratic decisions that affect yourself by yourself.

I actually think we should focus on the quality rather than the quantity of our recruits.

The quantity has no bearing at all, as I already said; you can recreate the material conditions of communism all by yourself, why let it..

..be hampered or handicapped by the inclusion of additional, unnessicary, incompetent participants.

Sorry couldn't resist. You are right though that occasionally too many people spoil the party. However, a revolution is not one political action where this is true.

No, you cannot write them off as manifestations of social tensions that can be exploited by communists to accomplish communistic goals but just because you can't write something off as unimportant or socially insignificant doesn't mean you can't crticize it, or certain aspects of it.

Clearly you are criticising it too much and in essence writing it off as 'reformist'.

Agrippa

18th May 2009, 01:08

By setting up libertarian communist communes that distribute goods fairly at a local level. Goods are passed around as necessary to communes that require it.

So the only difference in our philosophies seems to be that I believe we can set up the libertarian communist communes right now, whereas you believe we have to wait until after the revolution, a.k.a. after the total global purge of capital, to do it. On the contrary, I believe that the only way a total global purge of capital will ever come close to occuring is if a strong network of self-sustaining militant communities is created. The idea is proletarian self-abolition. Just remaining an urban proletariat and struggling within the existing parameters of "worker's struggle" is not going to cut it in terms of radically transforming society.

Exactly. But communes can and obviously will ask for help off other communes.

Well, no doubt about that

But you were just earlier the one talking about "organising a revolution" being too long-winded and not working.

I don't believe those were my words at all...

Because you seem to believe you're outside the realm of normal workers.

I'm just being pragmatic and accepting the fact that among any socio-economic class, including workers, the ones committed to constant anti-capitalist agitation will be among the minority, even if it is a large minority. Even if half the working-class harbors explicit anti-capitalist sentiment and is ready to act on it, the other half will still be willing to sell their services to the counter-revolution, be it out of conviction or self-interest. That's just reality, sorry. Cops and soldiers are workers too, they're just assholes.

Of course we are. We shouldn't see ourselves as a vanguard however.

Why not?

No we should evade and subvert it.

So then we should strike whenever we feel like it...

Of course there are some mutual aid initiatives, but they aren't going to catch-on at such a grassroots level that they can "replace" the capitalist's work to underpin people to their system.

That's because they aren't powerful enough yet...

Not enough people are going to be attracted to your movement to completely replace their lifestyle so they don't have to rely on capitalist underpinnings.

Only if you resign yourself to failure

But you seem to believe in sleepwalking into capitalist traps.

It is economic disruption in that it is weakening capitalism. These "small fish" are entirely part of the capitalist system.

If you say "we are fighting to get your wage increased by $1.00", you are miseducating your fellow workers regarding the true nature of the fight. Radicals should be unconcerned with what consessions will be offered to us by the bourgeoisie in the course of our militant agitation. We may enjoy the material benefits of these bribes, but they are not goals or aspirations. Our only goal is freedom.

"need not"? But it won't gain the main body of workers.

Right now, the likelihood of anarchism "gain the main body of workers", especially in the US, is very unlikely. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be anarchists.

It is a constructive goal, picking your specific targets and disrupting them is good. This happens a lot and has achieved things.

Agreed, but it should be disruption for disruptions' sake, not a specific reformist goal.

To be fair, all of them were anti-capitalist. Many of them were no doubt feminist and also anti-racist. Your assumptions about "all of them" are just silly. If you think even your small movement is going to be "perfect" then that is so misled.

Yes but the vast majority of people, including working-class people, have such deeply psychologically engrained racial and sexual chauvinisims that it will take much more than a pamphlet, it will take a total personal transformation, for them to change. If we pretend like this is untrue, than we are refusing to confront the reality of the difficult job ahead of us. If we accept reality we can create reasonable goals and begin the task of accomplishing them.

Just because "all of" the British miners (as in every single miner in England, Scotland, and Wales) were angry enough to disrupt business-as-usual, (which they weren't, even if a large majority of them were) doesn't mean that "all of" them were intellectually anti-capitalist, much less anti-racist and feminist.

I don't think it is particularly normal, you have no way of knowing that. Also your definition of "sympathetic" could be interpreted in many ways.

True, but do you really think reactionary and conservative ideas don't prevail among the masses in Greece as they do throughout the globe? Have you talked to a Greek person about this?

I believe you mix the two up too much.

Well, obviously, I am both, so I feel they compliment each other perfectly. And there is a significant overlap between the two tendencies.

You could indeed share the bread out equally amongst yourself. You could even make democratic decisions that affect yourself by yourself.

[quote]The quantity has no bearing at all, as I already said; you can recreate the material conditions of communism all by yourself, why let it..

Exactly my point.

Sorry couldn't resist. You are right though that [I]occasionally too many people spoil the party. However, a revolution is not one political action where this is true.

You're thinking of "the revolution" as a process that will be spearheaded by a single political organization, which is a form of quasi-centralism. Some "revolutionary" acts require four or five people who know each other very well, as opposed to dozens of people who don't know or trust each other at all...

Clearly you are criticising it too much and in essence writing it off as 'reformist'.

I did say that not all reformist projects are worthless. All I am writing off is the goals, the way the struggle is framed, the lack of appropriate focus.

18th May 2009, 01:41

So the only difference in our philosophies seems to be that I believe we can set up the libertarian communist communes right now, whereas you believe we have to wait until after the revolution, a.k.a. after the total global purge of capital, to do it. On the contrary, I believe that the only way a total global purge of capital will ever come close to occuring is if a strong network of self-sustaining militant communities is created. The idea is proletarian self-abolition. Just remaining an urban proletariat and struggling within the existing parameters of "worker's struggle" is not going to cut it in terms of radically transforming society.

The whole idea is we push the existing parameters of the workers struggle and bloat them far beyond what they already are, not get outside of it and try to do it another way.

I don't believe those were my words at all...

That is what you meant though, like you said yourself "we can do it now".

I'm just being pragmatic and accepting the fact that among any socio-economic class, including workers, the ones committed to constant anti-capitalist agitation will be among the minority, even if it is a large minority. Even if half the working-class harbors explicit anti-capitalist sentiment and is ready to act on it, the other half will still be willing to sell their services to the counter-revolution, be it out of conviction or self-interest. That's just reality, sorry. Cops and soldiers are workers too, they're just assholes.

This is what I mean. The fact that you think soldiers have no revolutionary potential is out of this world; soldiers are not like cops, they are exploited in a much more grassroots way.

So then we should strike whenever we feel like it...

Groups of people will strike whenever they feel it's a worthy cause, it's a simple reality.

That's because they aren't powerful enough yet...

Perhaps individualist communities have helped in previous revolutions and will in near ones, they aren't however contributing to actively triggering it. Also they will not be the main force of workers that commit it.

Only if you resign yourself to failure

Or face facts.

pquote]If you say "we are fighting to get your wage increased by $1.00", you are miseducating your fellow workers regarding the true nature of the fight. Radicals should be unconcerned with what consessions will be offered to us by the bourgeoisie in the course of our militant agitation. We may enjoy the material benefits of these bribes, but they are not goals or aspirations. Our only goal is freedom.[/quote]

Of course but in the end of the day "material benefits" as you put it are what allow us to survive.

Right now, the likelihood of anarchism "gain[ing] the main body of workers", especially in the US, is very unlikely. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be anarchists.

Yes but you are cutting yourself off from the movement with the highest potential.

Agreed, but it should be disruption for disruptions' sake, not a specific reformist goal.

What does that even mean?

Yes but the vast majority of people, including working-class people, have such deeply psychologically engrained racial and sexual chauvinisims that it will take much more than a pamphlet, it will take a total personal transformation, for them to change. If we pretend like this is untrue, than we are refusing to confront the reality of the difficult job ahead of us. If we accept reality we can create reasonable goals and begin the task of accomplishing them.

"total personal transformation" - yeah because previous revolutions have required people to read a million books and go to self-transformation classes everyday. Come on. Waking up and realising home truths is just not "total personal transformation", well it is for some people but not for most.

Just because "all of" the British miners (as in every single miner in England, Scotland, and Wales) were angry enough to disrupt business-as-usual, (which they weren't, even if a large majority of them were) doesn't mean that "all of" them were intellectually anti-capitalist, much less anti-racist and feminist.

I believe a great many of them were.

True, but do you really think reactionary and conservative ideas don't prevail among the masses in Greece as they do throughout the globe? Have you talked to a Greek person about this?

They do to an extent, but there is no way of truly measuring that extent even if I spoke to and did a survey on 100,000 Greek people, views change under different circumstances also.

Exactly my point.

Yep, we could build a libertarian communist commune in a horrible rundown factory tomorrow and get people living in alright housing to join, maybe three or four including you, that would really help the class-struggle.

You're thinking of "the revolution" as a process that will be spearheaded by a single political organization, which is a form of quasi-centralism. Some "revolutionary" acts require four or five people who know each other very well, as opposed to dozens of people who don't know or trust each other at all...

Those dozens of people who don't know or trust each other at all could equally find themselves bonded in a common cause, equally those four or five people could betray one another after knowing each other for years and having worked hard on building strong political theory.

I did say that not all reformist projects are worthless. All I am writing off is the goals, the way the struggle is framed, the lack of appropriate focus.

Appropriate focus is focus on improving lives for all workers.

Agrippa

18th May 2009, 03:04

The whole idea is we push the existing parameters of the workers struggle and bloat them far beyond what they already are, not get outside of it and try to do it another way.

If a strategy doesn't work once, and it fails a second and a third and a fourth time, you don't "push" it to try to make it work again, you abandon it and try a new tactic.

Your language - "get outside and try to do it another way". You're making it sound like a certain group of people have a monopoly on appropriate resistance, on the terms in which people rebel. In fact, it's right for anyone to rebel against oppression under any parameters, in any context.

That is what you meant though

If that's what I meant, I would have written it.

This is what I mean. The fact that you think soldiers have no revolutionary potential is out of this world; soldiers are not like cops, they are exploited in a much more grassroots way.

This seems like a totally separate tangent to me. There are other threads on this message board where this very subject is being discussed and if you wish to extend this conversation to those appropriate threads, you'll find that I have already posted in them in agreement with your position. However, while soldiers may have "revolutionary potential" (I would call it potential to rebel or create insurrection rather than "revolution" but that's semantic bickering) most of them (with the obvious exceptions of soldiers forced to join the army to avoid imprisonment, deportation, etc.) are willingly agreeing to be paid forces of state power. This is an obvious example of how the workers aren't historically or sociologically predestined towards progressive politics or revolutionary upheaval. Just because every class has material interests does not mean members of that class will behave in according with their material interests, in the case of soldiers, they often willingly sell away their long-term material interests to meet their short-term material interests. (BTW for every soldier on the verge of becoming a "revolutionary", there are two or three that only joined to kill or rape "towel-heads", to infiltrate the military on behalf of a white nationalist organization or drug gang, and so on)

Groups of people will strike whenever they feel it's a worthy cause, it's a simple reality.

And what's a more worthy cause that prolonged, declared war on the capitalist system?

Perhaps individualist communities have helped in previous revolutions and will in near ones, they aren't however contributing to actively triggering it. Also they will not be the main force of workers that commit it.

Previous revolutions have only reinforced the bourgeois order. The point isn't "revolution" anymore. It's survival, it's autonomy, it's uprooting the foundations of an oppressive social order where they exist in our immediate communities.

Or face facts.

Which facts are those?

Of course but in the end of the day "material benefits" as you put it are what allow us to survive.

Communes would also "allow us to survive" but you seem to be opposed to that...

Yes but you are cutting yourself off from the movement with the highest potential.

And what if fascism was the "movement with the highest potential"? (Which it often is) The point isn't to deliberately cut yourself off from anyone, but to strengthen the communities you've already formed, to set realistic goals in terms of recruitment.

What does that even mean?

The workers of a specific company deciding they are going to do everything in their power to run the company's economic profitability into the ground, not because they want anything out of their oppressors, but because they want to destroy a noxious entity out of sheer altruism and joy.

"total personal transformation" - yeah because previous revolutions have required people to read a million books and go to self-transformation classes everyday. Come on. Waking up and realising home truths is just not "total personal transformation", well it is for some people but not for most.

You're really just serving to delude yourself. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are deeply-engrained personal psychoses that afflict the majority of people raised in our society. This isn't something that "read[ing] a million books" is likely to cure, or "self-transformation classes", whatever those are. The only hope we have of challenging these deeply-engrained attitudes is offering alternatives and striving to effect their perception in our personal interactions with them. However we shouldn't bend over backwards or be afraid to shake their dust from our feet, as Jesus said

I believe a great many of them were.

There's a big difference between "a great many" and "the majority". "A great many" people are anti-capitalist, but that's certainly not the majority. The fact that "a great many" of miners had anti-capitalist ideas does not vindicate the perposterous delusion that there will ever be a time in history in which all six billion people will unite at once to depose the bourgeoisie. This is just senseless optimism that serves only to insulate oneself from the difficulties of the real task ahead of us.

They do to an extent

Well, there you go. If conservative or reactionary ideas exist "to an extent" among the populace than there's a chance a good portion of the populace will be our opponents rather than allies, even if they are our "fellow workers"

Yep, we could build a libertarian communist commune in a horrible rundown factory tomorrow and get people living in alright housing to join, maybe three or four including you, that would really help the class-struggle.

I wouldn't reccomend anyone live in a "horrible, rundown factory" unless they are forced to or have a particular desire to.

Those dozens of people who don't know or trust each other at all could equally find themselves bonded in a common cause

That doesn't mean that every decision-making process is improved with the addition of more people. I'd say the more dozens or hundreds or thousands of people involved in a decision-making process, the more of a clusterfuck it becomes.

equally those four or five people could betray one another after knowing each other for years and having worked hard on building strong political theory.

It's possible but less likely in a situation where people have established bonds of trust, friendship, empathy, etc. versus large, transparent groups in which hundreds of strangers with little in common interact on the basis of points of vague political unity. The latter is more likely to become unwieldy, to be hijacked by forces of counter-insurrection and class-collaboration, to be prone to police infiltration and manipulation, and so on.

Appropriate focus is focus on improving lives for all workers.

All workers? Even snitches, child molestors, wife beaters?

I just don't get this bullshit of having to pretend like we belong to a "universal brotherhood" of workers when most of my fellow workers would like to douse me in gasoline and light me on fire for being a commie fag.

18th May 2009, 03:27

If a strategy doesn't work once, and it fails a second and a third and a fourth time, you don't "push" it to try to make it work again, you abandon it and try a new tactic.

No you don't "abandon" something just because elements of it didn't work, or could not face off against a certain kind of threat.

Your language - "get outside and try to do it another way". You're making it sound like a certain group of people have a monopoly on appropriate resistance, on the terms in which people rebel. In fact, it's right for anyone to rebel against oppression under any parameters, in any context.

That's not it at all, you just want to cut yourself off from the mass workers' struggle and try to doing it another way with some "comrades" who happen to be in your elite club of the vanguard. If anything that's a bloody appropriate resistance monopoly.

This seems like a totally separate tangent to me. There are other threads on this message board where this very subject is being discussed and if you wish to extend this conversation to those appropriate threads, you'll find that I have already posted in them in agreement with your position.

Ok so why the following?..

However, while soldiers may have "revolutionary potential" (I would call it potential to rebel or create insurrection rather than "revolution" but that's semantic bickering) most of them (with the obvious exceptions of soldiers forced to join the army to avoid imprisonment, deportation, etc.) are willingly agreeing to be paid forces of state power. This is an obvious example of how the workers aren't historically or sociologically predestined towards progressive politics or revolutionary upheaval. Just because every class has material interests does not mean members of that class will behave in according with their material interests, in the case of soldiers, they often willingly sell away their long-term material interests to meet their short-term material interests.

In the USA, you are required to register with the SSS if you're an immigrant, student in requirement of financial aid or in several other categories. Pray tell how every college student should be affording their own college education?

(BTW for every soldier on the verge of becoming a "revolutionary", there are two or three that only joined to kill or rape "towel-heads", to infiltrate the military on behalf of a white nationalist organization or drug gang, and so on)

I disagree.

Previous revolutions have only reinforced the bourgeois order. The point isn't "revolution" anymore. It's survival, it's autonomy, it's uprooting the foundations of an oppressive social order where they exist in our immediate communities.

Yes definitely but a revolution needs to happen in order for the latter of what you said to completely happen.

Which facts are those?

Idk, this quoting business gets tiresome after a while.

Communes would also "allow us to survive" but you seem to be opposed to that...

Not if the state begins oppressing you in them.

And what if fascism was the "movement with the highest potential"? (Which it often is) The point isn't to deliberately cut yourself off from anyone, but to strengthen the communities you've already formed, to set realistic goals in terms of recruitment.

I meant a revolutionary and fair movement not just any.

You're really just serving to delude yourself. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are deeply-engrained personal psychoses that afflict the majority of people raised in our society. This isn't something that "read[ing] a million books" is likely to cure, or "self-transformation classes", whatever those are. The only hope we have of challenging these deeply-engrained attitudes is offering alternatives and striving to effect their perception in our personal interactions with them. However we shouldn't bend over backwards or be afraid to shake their dust from our feet, as Jesus said

And a massive, massive number of people that have those prejudices are simply told it by their parents; you do not have enough faith in workers.

There's a big difference between "a great many" and "the majority". "A great many" people are anti-capitalist, but that's certainly not the majority. The fact that "a great many" of miners had anti-capitalist ideas does not vindicate the perposterous delusion that there will ever be a time in history in which all six billion people will unite at once to depose the bourgeoisie. This is just senseless optimism that serves only to insulate oneself from the difficulties of the real task ahead of us.

Of course not all people will, we need a great many or a majority to though.

Well, there you go. If conservative or reactionary ideas exist "to an extent" among the populace than there's a chance a good portion of the populace will be our opponents rather than allies, even if they are our "fellow workers"

I never said this wasn't the case though.

I wouldn't reccomend anyone live in a "horrible, rundown factory" unless they are forced to or have a particular desire to.

Where else are you going to build squats? You can't just set up a commune anywhere or the state will move quickly to oppress you.

That doesn't mean that every decision-making process is improved with the addition of more people. I'd say the more dozens or hundreds or thousands of people involved in a decision-making process, the more of a clusterfuck it becomes.

It depends on how the decision-making works.

It's possible but less likely in a situation where people have established bonds of trust, friendship, empathy, etc. versus large, transparent groups in which hundreds of strangers with little in common interact on the basis of points of vague political unity. The latter is more likely to become unwieldy, to be hijacked by forces of counter-insurrection and class-collaboration, to be prone to police infiltration and manipulation, and so on.

I think it can be equal and that once again, you do not have enoughh faith in the workers.

All workers? Even snitches, child molestors, wife beaters?

I just don't get this bullshit of having to pretend like we belong to a "universal brotherhood" of workers when most of my fellow workers would like to douse me in gasoline and light me on fire for being a commie fag.

Why does it always have to be all of something, seriously, you know what I mean, why be pedantic? Yes we should work to improve the lives for all workers with a libertarian communist revolution, we should police our own communities ourselves and make sure that we are protected.

If you really believe most workers want to douse you in gasoline and set you on fire then you've got it completely wrong.

Agrippa

18th May 2009, 03:35

Since you find the constant back-and-forth quoting to be tiresome, and I agree, I'm taking the initiative to break our little tradition.

You chastise me for not having "faith" in workers. Ask me, if I have rejected thus far all previous forms of faith - faith in Americanism, faith in Christianity, faith in capitalism, why should I embrace this newest form of faith? Faith is inherently about believing in something without evidence.

18th May 2009, 03:37

Because evidence only goes so far. Past a certain level you always inevitably rely on an unknown element.

Agrippa

18th May 2009, 04:35

Think of it is way, though.

A mother bear and a mother mouse plunge themselves at a human that threatens their cubs with equal ferocity. The fact that the bear will easily overcome her foe and the mouse has a very remote chance of surviving her encounter much less seriously incapacitating her foe in any way makes no difference.

Considering the social system we live under threatens not only everyone we hold dear but this very Earth that provides us with everything we need for our lives, it is with the attitude of the mother bear and the mother mouse that we should conduct our campaign against capitalism. The fact is, though, we are the mother mouse. We will make a tiny cut in our great foe, producing only a drop of blood. But better to draw blood at all than submit and abandon our childrens' lives in defeat. The fact that we may not deliver the death knell to capitalism is totally irrelevant. We shouldn't even be thinking about it at this point. Capitalism will ultimately collapse as a consequence of its own material limits, anyway, so what we should focus on is building the military and economic force to maintain enough sovereign territory in the course of escalating global instability so that we can create a safe haven for us our allies (our real allies) and a social order that will allow us to preserve and pass on our cultural values into the centuries.

The way I figure it, with your method, I'm putting my hope in the uprising of an entire social class - a mob of millions who have mostly proven themselves in the past to be apathetic, sadistic, and hopelessly addicted to capitalism, in a event of such extra-worldly grandeur and historical unprecedented that you fully admit it goes against all realms of evidence and can only be accepted out of appreciation for the totally unexpected and counter-intuitive. Even if I placed my hope in an external force that had any chance of succeeding, I'm still only guaranteed if they succeed. If I place my hope in myself, in my own abilities, in my immediate community of friends, neighbors, and allies, however...

18th May 2009, 05:04

..
Capitalism will ultimately collapse as a consequence of its own material limits, anyway, so what we should focus on is building the military and economic force to maintain enough sovereign territory in the course of escalating global instability so that we can create a safe haven for us our allies (our real allies) and a social order that will allow us to preserve and pass on our cultural values into the centuries.

Are you sure about that?

The way I figure it, with your method, I'm putting my hope in the uprising of an entire social class - a mob of millions who have mostly proven themselves in the past to be apathetic, sadistic, and hopelessly addicted to capitalism, in a event of such extra-worldly grandeur and historical unprecedented that you fully admit it goes against all realms of evidence and can only be accepted out of appreciation for the totally unexpected and counter-intuitive.

Nope, I didn't say that. It doesn't go against "all realms of evidence". It's logical to admit that luck and the unknown element always plays a part in struggles however.

Even if I placed my hope in an external force that had any chance of succeeding, I'm still only guaranteed if they succeed. If I place my hope in myself, in my own abilities, in my immediate community of friends, neighbors, and allies, however...

We should be doing that as well though, also I don't see the workers' mass movement as an "external force" to myself at all.

Agrippa

18th May 2009, 18:52

Are you sure about that?

About capitalism collapsing because of obvious material limits? I think any intelligent analysis of the situation will come to that conclusion

It's logical to admit that luck and the unknown element always plays a part in struggles however.

There's a difference between luck and miracles.

We should be doing that as well though, also I don't see the workers' mass movement as an "external force" to myself at all.

Maybe you don't, but the whole thread started around discussions of whether not a society could be considered communist or anarchist if it existed prior to the total destruction of capitalism, many saying no. I'm saying that to suggest that none of us are free until we have all risen up against capitalism is a way of making our own liberty and fulfillment dependent upon others rather than ourselves.

18th May 2009, 19:00

About capitalism collapsing because of obvious material limits? I think any intelligent analysis of the situation will come to that conclusion

The state isn't just some soft thing that will roll over and let people do what they want. As all is collapsing, as you said before, it's not going to be just some sovereign territory dispute. Also you are talking about "me and my allies" but what does that mean? I think you need to think more internationally.

There's a difference between luck and miracles.

We need a bit of both.

Maybe you don't, but the whole thread started around discussions of whether not a society could be considered communist or anarchist if it existed prior to the total destruction of capitalism, many saying no. I'm saying that to suggest that none of us are free until we have all risen up against capitalism is a way of making our own liberty and fulfillment dependent upon others rather than ourselves.

And your definition of free is clearly different to others'.

The Author

18th May 2009, 21:26

LOL USSR.

Jesus you guys are bad at this.

Well, let's see:

USSR: 1917-1991

DPRK: 1948-Present

Cuba: 1959-Present

China: 1949-Present

Vietnam: 1945-Present (includes North Vietnam)

Laos: 1949-Present

East Germany: 1949-1990

Poland: 1945-1989

Hungary: 1947-1989

Romania: 1945-1989

Bulgaria: 1946-1989

Czechoslovakia: 1948-1989

Yugoslavia: 1943-1991

Albania: 1944-1991

Mongolia: 1924-1992

Free Territory of Ukraine: 1918-1921

Anarchist Spain: 1936-1939

Shinmin, Korea: 1929-1930

Oaxaca: May-December 2006

Great life expectancy for our Anarchist experiments... The unbolded countries above at least lasted longer with socialism in some type of form or another, some even surviving today. So, where are the numerous Anarchist communes under worker's control that have completely smashed the state in certain regions of the world today? How come, for the past 161 years, we've had a serious lack of Anarchist free territories and Anarchist countries around the world? How come there have been so many failures?

Well, I think it's simple. I think Anarchism does not benefit the working class enough to be considered as a serious ideology. If there were Anarchist free territories growing larger and actually throwing off the oppression of the bourgeoisie instead of small splinter piecemeal groups doing little, I would consider Anarchism a serious ideology. But if Anarchism is not effecting some kind of change for the working class, not helping out the proletariat, then I'd rather take my chances with Marxism and look seriously into the problems and struggles of the class struggle that are met with successes and failures.

21st Century Kropotkinist

18th May 2009, 23:13

I am joining late in the conversation and didn't read through everything, so if I'm being redundant I apologize.

I think that the question was can an anarchist society of any scale coexist with bourgeois capitalist states. Well, first and most importantly, as someone mentioned: the goal is international revolution. It's analogue would loosely be socialism in one country. Done from a nationalist perspective (and I'm not per se referring to Stalin here), when a country creates socialist standards as a platform for nation X and doesn't speak of revolution spreading abroad, at best it's reformist, and at worst it could just become another backwards state-capitalist nation like the Soviet Union.

Why I think seeking autonomy is essentially anarchist in nature, e.g., the Zapatistas, I don't think this should be the end-goal. So, theoretically a horizontally organized, decentralized society, i.e., anarchist, could, in rare occasions exist.

But to suggest that, say, 100,000 people deem themselves autonomous from capital and state in the United States, I think we know what would happen.

The State and capital would use every resource they had to destroy the anarchist community, or loose federation of communities. We would see the worst kind of oppressive procedures deployed. This is of course if this community or communities resisted. And, you know, armed revolution doesn't go very well when you're up against a way more sophisticated enemy.

So, the idea of this state coexisting in a country like the U.S. is crazy, and I would argue as another comrade did that the idea of revolution is international.

Now, what anarchists can talk about coexisting is building dual power structures. So, as reformist as it sounds, creating general radical unions, having worker's ran hospitals, grocery stores, etc., creating meaningful institutions that are anarchist in scope can coexist, and I believe should be pursued. This can show people that there is a counter to the State and capital.

While this is certainly working within the system, it is that old idea of prefigurative politics, i.e., building the new world in the shell of the old. Anarchists are not uniform on this, but I think this is not a wasted effort and this is the kind of action we should be participating in. This can at least offer a different MO to the working masses than capitalists and governors.

But as far as a per se anarchist society coexisting on, say the same continent as a bourgeois capitalist nation? Well, I think it's highly unlikely, unless it's actually participating in the capitalist system and within the boundaries of a nation-state. In this case, it would only be quasi-anarchist.

Blackscare

19th May 2009, 00:00

Well, let's see:

Free Territory of Ukraine: 1918-1921

Anarchist Spain: 1936-1939

The above were crushed by counter-revolutionary Machiavellian "communists" (first by the Bolsheviks and then by Stalin's puppet communist party in Spain).

So what's your point? This means nothing in terms of the long term viability of anarchism (hasn't had a chance to take root yet).

The Makhnovists performed incredibly well given their material conditions (for instance, they had to seize almost every bullet/weapon they used because their area had no ability to produce such things and the Bolsheviks broke their agreements to provide arms every time they were made).

The CNT-FAI couldn't have sustained a war and maintained power because all of the arms coming into the country came from the USSR and were distributed by the CP, which wouldn't share (a major cause of the demise of the government forces, I might add).

If you think the CNT didn't "benefit the working class enough" you have some serious reading to do.

The Author

19th May 2009, 05:17

The above were crushed by counter-revolutionary Machiavellian "communists" (first by the Bolsheviks and then by Stalin's puppet communist party in Spain).

"Counterrevolutionary Machiavellian communists" who were more reactionary than the White Guards and Kolchak and Denikin, and the Americans, British, and French who ransacked the Russian territories in the so-called "Allied intervention." Sure. Really makes sense...

Stalin wasn't a ventriloquist. Drop the "Great Man" bullshit already, I've heard it from so many for three years now and it's getting really old. If you're going to criticize, point the blame to the entire state of the U.S.S.R. and not just one man.

So what's your point? This means nothing in terms of the long term viability of anarchism (hasn't had a chance to take root yet)But that's the point. They never do take root. They break ground, they initially help the working class, but they can never seem to overcome opposition from without or problems from within objectively. Instead, these efforts end up on precarious positions.

The Makhnovists performed incredibly well given their material conditions (for instance, they had to seize almost every bullet/weapon they used because their area had no ability to produce such things and the Bolsheviks broke their agreements to provide arms every time they were made).The bolded parts prove my point. Without a sound base and not working carefully according to the material conditions to improve the base, there was no way the superstructure would have survived. In effect, it was doomed from the start.

The CNT-FAI couldn't have sustained a war and maintained power because all of the arms coming into the country came from the USSR and were distributed by the CP, which wouldn't share (a major cause of the demise of the government forces, I might add).

If you think the CNT didn't "benefit the working class enough" you have some serious reading to do. Here's some reading material I thought was interesting. It's an article called "The Historical Failure of Anarchism by Chris Day" which is linked here,

http://www.loveandrage.org/?q=historicalfailure

Some quotes from the article that caught my attention, and which further add to my points:

Anarchism in Spain raised the hopes of millions that a classless stateless society could be achieved in the hear and now, lead them to the barricades to make it real, and failed abysmally. The Spanish people were condemned to fourty years of fascist rule because of the failure. And yet while the anarchist movement of the past half century has produced an extensive literature extolling the momentary successes of the Spanish Revolution in the creation of peasant and workers collectives, there has been almost no serious effort to analyze how the anarchist movement contributed to its own defeat. Blaming ones political enemies (fascists, Communists, or social-democrats) for behaving exactly as one would expect them to behave only further confuses matters. Betrayal, after all, is only possible on the part of someone trusted.
Anti-capitalism doesn't do the victims of capitalism any good if you don't actually destroy capitalism. Anti-statism doesn't do the victims of the state any good if you don't actually smash the state. Anarchism has been very good at putting forth visions of a free society and that is for the good. But it is worthless if we don't develop an actual strategy for realizing those visions. It is not enough to be right, we must also win.
Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. Projects, schemes, and reasons to riot abound -- but their place in a larger coherent strategy for actually overthrowing the existing order is anybody's guess.

Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. In the place of substantive political debate the anarchist movement has raised the personal quarrel to an art form.

ZeroNowhere

19th May 2009, 09:07

So in summary, Leninists are better at capitalism.

19th May 2009, 09:10

so in summary, leninists are better at capitalism.

- lol

Pogue

19th May 2009, 10:25

Well, let's see:

USSR: 1917-1991

DPRK: 1948-Present

Cuba: 1959-Present

China: 1949-Present

Vietnam: 1945-Present (includes North Vietnam)

Laos: 1949-Present

East Germany: 1949-1990

Poland: 1945-1989

Hungary: 1947-1989

Romania: 1945-1989

Bulgaria: 1946-1989

Czechoslovakia: 1948-1989

Yugoslavia: 1943-1991

Albania: 1944-1991

Mongolia: 1924-1992

Free Territory of Ukraine: 1918-1921

Anarchist Spain: 1936-1939

Shinmin, Korea: 1929-1930

Oaxaca: May-December 2006

Great life expectancy for our Anarchist experiments... The unbolded countries above at least lasted longer with socialism in some type of form or another, some even surviving today. So, where are the numerous Anarchist communes under worker's control that have completely smashed the state in certain regions of the world today? How come, for the past 161 years, we've had a serious lack of Anarchist free territories and Anarchist countries around the world? How come there have been so many failures?

Well, I think it's simple. I think Anarchism does not benefit the working class enough to be considered as a serious ideology. If there were Anarchist free territories growing larger and actually throwing off the oppression of the bourgeoisie instead of small splinter piecemeal groups doing little, I would consider Anarchism a serious ideology. But if Anarchism is not effecting some kind of change for the working class, not helping out the proletariat, then I'd rather take my chances with Marxism and look seriously into the problems and struggles of the class struggle that are met with successes and failures.

This is such a tried and tested approach to the Anarchism vs Leninism argument. All of these revolutions had working class involvement, struggle and conflict, right? Ok. And some of them were met with problems. In the 'Marx-Leninist' countries, we were met with a huge amount of internal decay into a system resembling anything other than socialism, and in the Anarchist territories, the revolution were literally physically destroyed, i.e. in Spain the Stalinists and fascists killed most of the revolutionary leaders/supressed the revolutionary organisational standards (such as democratic militias). In Ukraine, the Makhnovistas were literally wiped out by the Red and White Army. In Korea, the anarchists were being hit by both the Japanese and Stalinists, once more, two armies versus one.

Now, in the anarchist territories, there was workers control. Thats what socialism is. Anarchists don't view themselves as a force in their own right. Anarchists are revolutionaries who basically believe in the working class being in control. Thats libertarian socialism, or socialism as the name goes (workers control). Now in all the cases you bolded, these societies existed along communist lines (I.e. were organised in a democratic, libertarian manner) and were basically building communism from this structure, the only way it can be built (this is contrary to Marx-Leninists who insanely believe a state can actually build communism the same way you can build a house).

And in every bolded example, these worker run territories were attacked, physically and literally wiped out, by much larger armies.

In three out of four of those cases, it was self proclaimed 'Marx-Leninists' who supressed the revolts!

What does this tell us? Well, it tells us the bourgeoisie (Stalinists, imperialists, capitalists of all stripes) will crush by force a workers revolution. Well, even if you had the best fighters in the world, being attacked form both sides by much bigger armies is going to result in you getting beaten pretty quick, especially as your isolated and alone, which these societies were.

But - these societies were defeated as workers societies. Till the point when the last one of them was shot, the people were the rulers, i.e, there were no rulers. For the whole marked period, there were no dictators, no capitaism, no authority. Just workers power.

Contrast this to your wonderul, un-bolded societies. Within a few years of their establishment, they all fell into a chaotic authoritarian system resented by the people. They all became another form of capitalism, but with a ruling class hiding behind a red flag. The ones still around are not nice places to live. The DPRK, with its secret police, worship of leaders dead and alive in a cult like fashion, and militarised population. Cuba too. The PR China, a flourishing example of authoritarian capitalism in action!
You even link Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary. All of these countries revolted against what you call 'socialism'. In Cezechoslovakia there was an uprising to bring about true socialism in the USSR. The Soviet ruling class supressed this. In Hungary earlier on we saw the same thing. The Soviet ruling class supressed this. In Poland, the workers managed to unite in an fighting union and overthrow the system. They didn't establish socialism but then again they weren't intending too, they just wanted and end to a brutal and murderous regime.

You see, Marx-Leninists seem to think that setting up a state which survives with a red flag is something of an acheivment. As a socialist, I believe the only thing which is progress and acheivment is a radically different society, one run by the ordinary people for the ordinary people. I think the Marx-Leninists love of these authoritarian regimes comes from the very fact that Lenin originally distorted and abused Marx's ideas, twisting the idea of a 'workers state' or 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean if the state had a few self-proclaimed socialists in it, had a red flag and a left wing anthem, and called itself socialist, this is socialism. Thank god alot of people recognised early on that this isn't socialism, but another form of rulnig class oppresion and capitalism (albeit a disfigured form of it). Anarchists, on the other hand, believe that a society is only revolutionary if the people are the authority, if the people are in control. You talk about 'what anarchists have acheived' or 'how anarchist societies have done' and mock them for their failures. Well anarchism is working class control. Anarchism is anti-capitalist, anti-authority. Its ordinary people building a revolution, a revolutionary society, for themselves. If you mock that then your mocking the sort of thing socialists advocate, which generally confuses me because at times Leninists seem to love their state more than they do the working class. Look where that got you.

Pogue

19th May 2009, 10:34

Some quotes from the article that caught my attention, and which further add to my points:

All he does is say 'anarchism failes because it doesn't know how to do things'. I don't see how that represents a strong argument that completely refutes anarchism.

And his bits on the Spanish Civil War are quite frankly an abuse of history. At no point during the building of the revolution did the Anarchists stop fighting on the front. This is an historical fact.

Do you not think that maybe the fact that many soldiers on leave from the anarchist fronts were imprisoned along with the most able (elected) 'leaders' by the Stalinists contributed to the defeat in the Spanish Civil War? It was the Stalinists who attacked the anarchists, not the other way around.

You and him need to do some research on Spain, even a quick reading will tell you that the anarchists never stopped fighting in the war, it was the Stalinists who stopped them by repressing them.

He makes empty poin, pure opinion, no facts. And anyway, if whats happened historically with anarchism is an indication of its failure, what does that say about Marx-Leninism? No doubt we'll hear a load of old tosh about material conditions and bourgeois counter revolutions.

Heres the point - the Marxist-Leninists were the bourgeois counter-revolution.

Omi

19th May 2009, 18:16

Ok for the sake of keeping young new comrades out of the hands of these dictatorial maniaks, here's why there aren't any anarchist free territory's today:

Everytime workers stood up and created a mass movement, totalitarian ideals such as leninism hijack it, and defeat and halt the workers movement. And here comes the tricky bit: The anarchists are among those workers. The leninists represent an petty-bourgois intelligentia, not workers. The anarchists are crushed together with the workers.

Try again.

The Author

19th May 2009, 18:23

All he does is say 'anarchism failes because it doesn't know how to do things'. I don't see how that represents a strong argument that completely refutes anarchism.

That's my problem with Anarchism. It doesn't know how to do things. Hence my earlier remark, "If there were Anarchist free territories growing larger and actually throwing off the oppression of the bourgeoisie instead of small splinter piecemeal groups doing little, I would consider Anarchism a serious ideology. But if Anarchism is not effecting some kind of change for the working class, not helping out the proletariat, then I'd rather take my chances with Marxism and look seriously into the problems and struggles of the class struggle that are met with successes and failures."

The rest of your two above posts proves his statement in the quotes I provided earlier,

Anarchism has quite simply refused to learn from its historic failures, preferring to rewrite them as successes. Finally the anarchist movement offers people who want to make revolution very little in the way of a coherent plan of action. Projects, schemes, and reasons to riot abound -- but their place in a larger coherent strategy for actually overthrowing the existing order is anybody's guess.

Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role. Consequently anarchist thinking has not had to adapt in response to the results of serious efforts to put our ideas into practice. In the process anarchist theory has become ossified, sterile and anemic. In the place of substantive political debate the anarchist movement has raised the personal quarrel to an art form.I think the author really offers up some informative points, and if I were an Anarchist, I would take them a lot more seriously and try to learn from them, rather than stick to "the dogmatism and political shallowness of anarchism as well as with the authoritarian essence of marxism." His remarks on Spain and the Spanish military are a good example of what happens when you stick to dogma. In Spain in 1873, you had disorganized organizations that were not satisfied with the republic and there were conflicts which ended up in the enemy creating a military dictatorship and eventually restoring the Bourbon monarchy. Rather than learn from their mistakes, the Anarchists decided to be dogmatists, purists. They made the same mistakes in 1936, and the result was the institution of fascism which lasted 40 years, followed by the constitutional monarchy and sham social democracy which exists today. Sums up Marx's remark, "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." If one doesn't learn from their mistakes, if one doesn't study the material conditions and take them seriously, but rather sticks to hagiography and states that they were 100% right and everyone else was 100% wrong, they'll never accomplish anything.

The Author

19th May 2009, 18:30

Ok for the sake of keeping young new comrades out of the hands of these dictatorial maniaks

Perfect sense of paranoia. I'm not a "dictatorial maniak" (sic), I don't have a fetish for dictatorship, I look at concrete reality: that apparently, authoritarian measures seem to be the only way the working class really can be liberated. I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat overthrowing the old bourgeois dictatorship through political revolution and armed struggle of the working class as Marx and Engels envisioned.

Now, if Anarchism can demonstrate that it can learn from its mistakes and really liberate the working class, I'll be convinced. But if it merely just acts as a minor force or as a force of dragging the working class down, then I'm afraid Marxism is the road I'll consider as the means for proletarian liberation.

Omi

19th May 2009, 19:05

Dude, if you think the DPRK is a place of workers liberation, you need to be beamed back to f*cking reality.

Your critique contains no basis for anything whatsoever. You comment us with ''not knowning how to do things'' and that everything we do comment you on authoritarianism. But you know what? I have a hunch this guy you keep quoting is a Marxist himself. So that explains his thinking. You know why we keep bringing up the authoritarianism? Because you Leninists fucked us over in the past, big time. Most of us don't want anything to do with groups and persons such as yourself, and I can't blame them. Most anarchists I meet here on this site are fairly non-hostile towards these tendencys compared to most I meet in real life.

21st Century Kropotkinist

19th May 2009, 20:26

#FF0000

19th May 2009, 20:52

ITT: people argue history because it's easier than theory.

The Author

20th May 2009, 03:39

Dude, if you think the DPRK is a place of workers liberation, you need to be beamed back to f*cking reality.

I would measure the DPRK in comparison to other Third World countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

This thread,

http://www.revleft.com/vb/liberty-north-korea-t63904/index.html?p=981323#post981323

and these web pages,

http://www.enlight.ru/camera/dprk/phen_tpk_e.html

http://www.enlight.ru/camera/dprk/index_e.html

of photos were taken by a Russian who visited all of North Korea and did not get the official packaged tour of just Pyongyang. It gives one a good idea of the conditions of life in society. You don't see bone-thin people, you don't see homeless people, you don't see extreme poverty. In effect, you see about the same conditions of life as you see in Cuba today or in the other of the countries listed above at some time in their past.

Your critique contains no basis for anything whatsoever. You comment us with ''not knowning how to do things'' and that everything we do comment you on authoritarianism. But you know what? I have a hunch this guy you keep quoting is a Marxist himself. So that explains his thinking. You know why we keep bringing up the authoritarianism? Because you Leninists fucked us over in the past, big time. Most of us don't want anything to do with groups and persons such as yourself, and I can't blame them. Most anarchists I meet here on this site are fairly non-hostile towards these tendencys compared to most I meet in real life.One, the guy is an Anarchist.

Two, the "fucking over" is yet more proof of his statement which I quoted.

Three, I find it irrelevant how Anarchists feel in their attitudes towards Marxists. Want to work with us, fine. Want to hate us, fine. Want to blame us for everything, fine. The feeling is mutual.

MarxistLeninist, please. Do you really think there is/was anything remotely socialist about these state-capitalist regimes? Further, do you really think the working-class had something to do with the bureaucracies that claimed power after the revolution, or that these regimes gave a damn about the working-class and Marx?

First of all, I don't buy the flimsy theory that these countries were/are "state capitalist" at all times. All I see is history pigeonholed into a dogmatic theory and made to fit an interpretation of the social systems present.

Second, yes, I do really think the working class had a role of some sort or another in these countries, and that these governments did give a damn. The high literacy rates, the improved standards of living, basic needs like food, housing, and care, etc. being met are examples of this.

Further, the examples of anarchist, or quasi-anarchist revolutions like Spain and Oaxaca were spontaneous, and actually carried out by the working class. Also, the post-revolution activity was highly beneficial to the working class, hence why, like Spain, every surrounding government, i.e., "Communists," fascists, and democrats, destroyed the uprisings. These revolutions represent real emancipation from capital and state, unlike the state-capitalist nations for which you mentioned. Problem is, how does one maintain such revolutions, and how does one expect more to come- points brought out in the article I referred to. How does one address the shortcomings....

Marxists and anarchists agree on a great deal, and one aspect that most of us agree upon is that the nations that you mentioned have nothing to do with the proletariat or socialism/communism.Actually, there is no agreement on the context or character of what each country or revolution represents. I've heard those advocate some of these countries and revolutions as communist, socialist, state-capitalist, fascist fuckholes, socio-imperialist, revisionist, market socialist, market capitalist, libertarian socialist, etc. Whatever the ideology, there are contradictions in the interpretation.

21st Century Kropotkinist

20th May 2009, 14:20

I find it irrelevant how Anarchists feel in their attitudes towards Marxists.

There are immature individuals in both camps. It's important to realize that, to make an analogy, we're (anarchists and Marxists) on the same phylogenetic tree branch with a common ancestor. Both come from the history of the labor movement, and both envision different strategies of socialism, and communism. Historically this animosity started, as I'm sure you know, with Marx and Bakunin, or state socialism and libertarian socialism.

But this is too black and white. Libertarian socialists consist of left communists, libertarian Marxists, and anarchists. While many disagreements are unbridgeable, the libertarian Marxists and anarchists have a great deal of common ground. The kind of sectarianism you imply in the above quote is more between the lock-step Leninists and anarchists; there's plenty of tension there.

And I'm not implying the left is one happy family, and I certainly have problems with a great bulk of Marxism. However, some of it I find brilliant and useful. Oftentimes, I find myself closer to Marxism than individualist anarchism, though there are exceptions. So, I do not think that the issue here is necessarily the Marxian lens versus the anarchist lens in regards to the countries that you mentioned.

First of all, I don't buy the flimsy theory that these countries were/are "state capitalist" at all times.

Did the working-class have control of the means of production? I'm no fan of parliamentary politics or the State in general, but the aforementioned countries had regimes that were about as accountable as a multinational corporation. Hence, the rhetoric about the working-class in this country was in vain. Since, I believe, the State was an unaccountable monopoly, this constituted state-capitalism. Do/did these countries offer social services that help the working-class? Sure. But capitalist countries do this as well (only from the result of long struggles). For example, in England, healthcare is universal, or socialized. And in the U.S., the working poor has access to food and health care if they cannot afford it via food stamps and a service called Passport. Should we rush to the conclusion that the modern industrial capitalist nation-state benefits the working-class? Of course not. I argue that these states are not so different than the USSR et. al.

The high literacy rates, the improved standards of living, basic needs like food, housing, and care, etc. being met are examples of this.

Again, I think this line of argument is a slippery slope. The United States, for example has "high literacy rates, improved standards of living, basic needs like food, housing, and care" being met. Should we forget about the disastrous indoctrination that occurs in education? Should we forget how capitalism and private property oppresses and subordinates working people and destroys the planet? Should we forget about the gross conformity and homogeneity that state-capitalism creates, or the fact that everything has been commodified in the United States? Of course we shouldn't. I think most of these same questions should be considered before praising the countries you listed.