Anarchists Need Marxism [Archive]

Asoka89

13th June 2009, 15:27

Sorry about formatting, Ill try to make it more readable later.

Excerpted from "Wobbies and Zapatistas" page 46-48:

I also agree with you in wishing to distance myself from
recent Left “high” theory. My objections are simple:
1. It is unintelligible; 2. It is produced by persons with no discern-
ible relationship to practice. Nevertheless, I am convinced that anarchists need Marxism. Let me try to explain.

I lived through a movement participants in which had
no consensus strategy about how to reach the better world
we all desired, mixed political gestures with alternative life
styles, easily became discouraged when victory did not come
quickly, and in their frustration, sometimes turned to sense-
less violence. It was the movement of the 1960s.
I perceive the new anarchism as a very similar movement.
Well-intentioned individuals drift in a sea of vague idealism,
but with little conception of how to get from Here to Tere.
When people return to their homes from apocalyptic demon-
strations they have no notion about how to turn their energy
into day-by-day organizing until the next demonstration.
It seems to me that the critique of “utopian socialism”
voiced by Marx and Engels applies with equal force to lat-
ter day anarchists. Tey want something better, something
qualitatively diferent, but they do not know how to make
it happen. Countless small prefgurative experiments are
launched within the belly of the capitalist beast. Most fail.
Tose that survive tend to be transformed into replicas of
that which initially they opposed.

I want to make it clear that I am not a believer in “scientifc
socialism” as a solution to all problems. I oppose Marxism
Leninism as well as Stalinism. I am keenly aware of Marx’s
authoritarian personality and desire for control.

Nevertheless, the general theory of class confict expressed
in The Communist Manifesto and the theory of capitalist
development presented in Capital seem to me fundamentally
correct. Much as I share Luxemburg’s critique of Leninism, I
believe Lenin’s analysis of imperialism is also basically true.
Tere is one other aspect to my insistence that anarchists
need Marxism. I think we need to take seriously the fact that
most of humanity is in a diferent situation than footloose
students and intellectuals, and is necessarily preoccupied
with economic survival.
Tis was brought home to me as a graduate student in his-
tory when I took a long look at tenant farmers and artisans
during the period of the American Revolution. Most of my
Left colleagues who sought to view history “from the bottom
up” focused attention on the ideology of such groups. I found
otherwise. Whether a tenant farmer was for or against the

Revolution in the Hudson Valley of New York depended on
the politics of his landlord: whatever the landlord supported,
the tenant opposed, in the hope that if the landlord’s political
party was defeated the tenant might come to own his farm.
Similarly, artisans before and after the Revolutionary War
favored whatever political party most efectively opposed
the import of British manufactures: this meant the Sons of
Liberty in 1763-1776 and Federalists including Alexander
Hamilton, who wanted a national government with a strong
tarif, in 1787-1788.

There was nothing ignoble about wanting to own the
farm on which a tenant labored, or to preserve an artisan’s
livelihood in making shoes, or hats, or nails, or sails, or rope,
or barrels. But it is necessary to recognize the concern for
economic survival that drove these lower-class protagonists.
And Marxism appeared to do this more understandingly
than does anarchism.

Does anything require us to reject the project of combining
what is best in anarchism and Marxism? Are we fated end-
lessly to repeat the squabbles within the First International?
It should be remembered that when anarchists launched
the Paris Commune, Marx defended them. Likewise, when
anarchists and Social Revolutionaries in Russia wondered
whether Russia could altogether bypass the capitalist stage
of economic development, Marx took the question seri-
ously. Tere is a good deal of truth to the notion, famously
expressed by Marx himself, that Marx was more fexible than
his followers and in this sense was “not a Marxist.”

New Tet

13th June 2009, 15:59

Maybe there is a synthesis between Anarchism and Marxism.

The need to take, hold and democratically operate the means of production as the material basis for socialism is in seeming contradiction to the need to capture and abolish the political state. How to reconcile that apparent contradiction?

Of all of the socialist prescriptions I have studied, it seems to me that the Deleonist program of SIU comes closest to achieving that.

One good source to determine if that is correct is the SLP's pamphlet titled As To Politics. You can read it here (you'll need a .pdf reader):
http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/as_to_politics.pdf

ZeroNowhere

13th June 2009, 16:10

Where have all the 'h's gone?

I am keenly aware of Marx’s authoritarian personality and desire for control.Marx was not, it would seem.

Much as I share Luxemburg’s critique of Leninism, I believe Lenin’s analysis of imperialism is also basically true.Lenin's analysis of imperialism? More accurate would be Hilferding and Hobson's analyses of imperialism, Lenin didn't have an original one.

Of all of the socialist prescriptions I have studied, it seems to me that the Deleonist program of SIU comes closest to achieving that.Yup, also the SPGB (and other parties affiliated with the World Socialist Movement).

One good source to determine if that is correct is the SLP's pamphlet titled As To Politics. You can read it here (you'll need a .pdf reader):Probably better is 'Socialist Reconstruction of Society', available here (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/soc_recons.pdf) and here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1905/050710.htm) (the former is pdf, the latter isn't, the former has the 'Uncle Sam's Balance Sheet' image, the latter doesn't, but it's not particularly relevant), which is a pretty good detailed summary of De Leonite views.
De Leon attacked 'anarchism', but generally this was due to a misconception on what anarchism is. Hell, even if one views his views on political organization as incompatible with anarchism (I do not), he viewed insurrection as a possibility in some places (for example, in this (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1909/1909_aug03.pdf)), though not in the US, and also said, "The political movement of labor that, in the event of triumph, would prolong its existence a second after triumph, would be a usurpation. It would be either a usurpation or the signal for a social catastrophe."

It should be remembered that when anarchists launched the Paris Commune, Marx defended them.
To be honest, his enthusiasm for the Paris Commune did wane, with him later stating that it was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, and the majority was not socialist.

Tere is a good deal of truth to the notion, famously expressed by Marx himself, that Marx was more fexible than his followers and in this sense was “not a Marxist.”Eh, people such as Rubel put far too much importance on this statement, all that Marx was doing here was distancing himself from a group of French communists who called themselves 'Marxists', I went over this here (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/context-marxs-i-am-not-marxist-quote-09062009).

Asoka89

13th June 2009, 16:59

I cut and pasted it from a .pdf ebook, I don't subscribe to everything the author saids, but it's of interest

GPDP

13th June 2009, 17:27

Anarcho-Marxism, anyone?

ZeroNowhere

13th June 2009, 17:29

Anarcho-Marxism, anyone?Yeah, hello there.

Bright Banana Beard

13th June 2009, 18:24

There is a lot of information of council communism, left communism, deleonism that could help anarchism cause, the problem is they just dont go into the Libertarian Marxist. I am not sure why they would not let the ideas influence into Non-Marxism Anarchism.

Asoka89

13th June 2009, 19:05

Revolutionary change has to come first from the base of a mass worker's movement (social democratic, labor)... revolutionary parties don't grow from sects to revolutionary forces that's what ultra-leftists fail to understand.

The Ungovernable Farce

13th June 2009, 21:43

What exactly does this "needing Marxism" boil down to? Accepting that the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the workers themselves and that all human history is the history of class struggle? Already done that, thanks. I also think that there's a lot to be learned from various thinkers in the Marxist, even sometimes in the Leninist, tradition (e.g. Gramsci). Still doesn't mean I have to accept any of their ideas wholesale. If your point is that individualist anarchists should get to grips with the class struggle and become communists, then I agree totally, but I dunno how far that makes them Marxists as opposed to Bakuninists/Kropotkinists/Malatestaists.
F'r instance, see this article on the AF's politics (http://www.afed.org.uk/org/issue52/roots.html), acknowledging the influence of William Morris and the German council communists (and that's just the first of a five-part series) - is that enough, or do we need even more Marxism?

Nwoye

14th June 2009, 01:11

while I completely agree with you, I think this synthesis has already been achieved, with the development of Libertarian Marxism and other non-authoritarian strains of Marxism, like autonomists or council commies.

good post though.

black magick hustla

14th June 2009, 01:55

council communists were not "anarchists" and they believed in the creation of centralized parties.

Vincent P.

14th June 2009, 02:15

I'm not ashamed to say that while I am an anarchist, my critique of capitalism comes downright from Marx's work and that I have little to no disagreement with him on the matter, exept for some out-dated parts. I am also reading Luxemburg, and I find her non-leninist marxist view quite nice.
Does that make me a Marxist? No, because I don't agree with Marx on how to achieve communism. While Marx advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat I'm thinking of a kind of mutualist-to-a.communism road, a bottom-to-bottom road. I'm also against any kind of centralism, although I know most of left marxists don't think of centralisation as a soviet-like thing.

You know what? The more I read socialist litterature, the more I tell myself the guys were saying about the same things. To me anarchist or marxist or communist doesn't mean much: I'm a libertarian socialist. That's all I can say, and when a revolution will come (I don't like to use Revolution witt a capital R, it sounds too much of a dogmatic it's-a-fatality thing, and it somewhat implies that it will be worldwide and all at once) I'll be there to support it if it gives tangible perspectives of freedom and communism, no matter who will trigger it. Anarchist only means that I'm part of the anarchist section of those trying to promote revolution.

Revolutions are too uncommon for lefties to be selective over subtilities, and most movements are too fuzzy and unorganized to have any big difference in practice.

Asoka89

14th June 2009, 09:45

Basically here's the deal.. any anarchist interested in real organization and class struggle is a friend of mine. We could call operate in the same broad multi-tendency organization like the NPA. This only applies to real social anarchist and not lifestyle anarchists.

When I look at the Anarchist in the Spanish Civil War I consider that part of my revolutionary legacy. These guys knew how to organize, educate and agitate.

Lamanov

14th June 2009, 12:39

council communists were not "anarchists" and they believed in the creation of centralized parties.

Centralizes parties? Not quite.

Council communists had several ideas on how political groups would be organized:

1.) A party which would not be centralized in the Leninist sense. One Bolshevik could never dream of such an organization where "To express the autonomy of the members in all circumstances is the basic principle of a proletarian party, which is not a party in the traditional sense." (Program of the KAPD) In 1920 council communists protested against Lenin's theses: "Lenin favors “the strictest centralization” and “iron discipline”. He wants the Third International to endorse his views and to eject all those who, like the KAPD, are critically opposed to omnipotent leadership." (Franz Pfempfert) In fact, KAPD never practiced "democratic centralism" and it was, for the most time, divided into several fractions.

Later, Pannekoek would suggest: "For the parties - then remains the second function, to spread insight and knowledge, to study, discuss and formulate social ideas, and by their propaganda to enlighten the minds of the masses. The workers’ councils are the organs for practical action and fight of the working class; to the parties falls the task of the bolding up of its spiritual power. Their work forms an indispensable part in the self-liberation of the working class." (1947.)

2.) Political groups organized without any central organ, whose main goal would be discussion, agitation and propaganda. Such groups were Socialisme ou Barbarie, ICO and SI.

3.) No parties, only "factory organizations", such as the AAUD, and, consequently, the AAUD-E.

Devrim

14th June 2009, 13:09

1.) A party which would not be centralized in the Leninist sense. One Bolshevik could never dream of such an organization where "To express the autonomy of the members in all circumstances is the basic principle of a proletarian party, which is not a party in the traditional sense." (Program of the KAPD) In 1920 council communists protested against Lenin's theses: "Lenin favors “the strictest centralization” and “iron discipline”. He wants the Third International to endorse his views and to eject all those who, like the KAPD, are critically opposed to omnipotent leadership." (Franz Pfempfert) In fact, KAPD never practiced "democratic centralism" and it was, for the most time, divided into several fractions.

Later, Pannekoek would suggest:"For the parties - then remains the second function, to spread insight and knowledge, to study, discuss and formulate social ideas, and by their propaganda to enlighten the minds of the masses. The workers’ councils are the organs for practical action and fight of the working class; to the parties falls the task of the bolding up of its spiritual power. Their work forms an indispensable part in the self-liberation of the working class." (1947.)

The KAPD was a centralised party. I think that is quite clear from their texts at the time. I think that the Pannekoek that you quote from 1947 is somebody who had very different politics then than at the time.

Devrim

Leo

14th June 2009, 13:13

Centralizes parties? Not quite.

Well... quite, I'm afraid:

Going forward in the mass actions and along with them, the factory organisations will naturally have to create for themselves the centralised organs which correspond to their revolutionary development.

(...)

Formation of workers’ councils as legislative and executive organs of power. Election of a central council of delegates of the workers’ councils of Germany.

(...)

Regulation and central management of the totality of production by the higher economic councils, which must be mandated by the congress of economic councils.

The historically determined form of organ*isation which groups together the most conscious and prepared proletarian fighters is the Party. Since the historical task of the proletarian rev*olution is communism, this party, in its prog*ramme and in its ideology, can only be a commun*ist party. The communist party must have a thor*oughly worked out programmatic basis and must be organised and disciplined in its entirety from below, as a unified will. It must be the head and weapon of the revolution.

The main task of the communist party, just as much before as after the seizure of power, is, in the confusion and fluctuations of the prolet*arian revolution, to be the one clear and unflinching compass towards communism. The commun*ist party must show the masses the way in all situations, not only in words but also in deeds. In all the issues of the political struggle be*fore the seizure of power, it must bring out in the clearest way the difference between reforms and revolution, must brand every deviation to re*formism as a betrayal of the revolution, and of the working class, and as giving new lease of life to the old system of profit. Just as there can be no community of interest between exploiter and exploited, so can there be no unity between reform and revolution. Social democratic reform*ism - whatever mask it might choose to wear - is today the greatest obstacle to the revolution, and the last hope of the ruling class.

A party which would not be centralized in the Leninist sense.

Well, the term "Leninist" was not really used in that period, but we can let Gorter himself explain his understanding of centralism in relation to the development of the Bolshevik Party:

What we need here is such a kernel, hard as steel, clear as glass. And this is where we should begin herewith to build up a big organisation. In this respect we are here in the stage you were in 1903, or even before, in the Iskra period.

One Bolshevik could never dream of such an organization where "To express the autonomy of the members in all circumstances is the basic principle of a proletarian party, which is not a party in the traditional sense." (Program of the KAPD)

I think lots of them saw it more or less exactly like that.

In 1920 council communists protested against Lenin's theses: "Lenin favors “the strictest centralization” and “iron discipline”. He wants the Third International to endorse his views and to eject all those who, like the KAPD, are critically opposed to omnipotent leadership." (Franz Pfempfert)

Pfemfert was not a mainstream council communist though, he was indeed a part of the Rühlist split from the party which actually had quite an anti-party approach.

In fact, KAPD never practiced "democratic centralism" and it was, for the most time, divided into several fractions.

Well, so was the Bolshevik Party until it degenerated.

Political groups organized without any central organ, whose main goal would be discussion, agitation and propaganda. Such groups were Socialisme ou Barbarie, ICO and SI.

These organizations, especially SouB and SI were not council communists at all.

Lamanov

14th June 2009, 13:16

The KAPD was a centralised party.

What does that mean? Was there an actual democratic-centralist structure? I don't think there was.

See Gerber, pages 157-160. (http://books.google.ba/books?id=WSDK3lyJGbIC&pg=PA158&lpg=PA158&dq=%22AAUD-E%22&source=bl&ots=Lu4r-bEehb&sig=FLdUV-Db8-ntA5EJGl1RmCHNwX4&hl=bs&ei=4jPaSZH6CtXRjAePn9WWDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA159,M1)

Edit: I'll get back on the post above.

Devrim

14th June 2009, 13:22

What does that mean? Was there an actual democratic-centralist structure? I don't think there was.

You are the one who is constantly making the 'democratic-centralist' point. What we are saying is that it was centralised.

Devrim

Lamanov

14th June 2009, 14:54

Quotes from KAPD documents don't exactly prove existence of 'democratic centralism' in the KAPD. The word 'centralized' doesn't exactly reflect the classic understanding of centralized executive power, but, obviously, 'federalization' (an unholy word dating from Proudhonist-Bakuninist Schism) through a central congress of delegates.

This is how council communists in the AAUD defined 'dictatorship of the proletariat' by means of 'centralism' through the councils: "The dictators, properly speaking, are the delegates of the councils; these delegates must carry out the decisions of the councils. The councils can be recalled at any time by the rank and file which bestowed their mandates. There is no place for so-called leaders except as advisors."

This is precisely what it means to be a council communist. And I'm offended by late attempts to make peace between Bolshevism and 'The Left' where no such peace was ever possible.

I think lots of them saw it more or less exactly like that.

If the ever took part in the processes which shape the politics of the Party, they couldn't have see it like that, because such processes negated autonomy. Autonomy within organization and 'party discipline' can't coexist, and for that matter they did not.

Pfemfert was not a mainstream council communist though, he was indeed a part of the Rühlist split from the party which actually had quite an anti-party approach.

As if they were not council communists. The KAPD declined after the East Saxony AAUD split. The so-called "Ruhlists" were a big part of the organization.

Well, so was the Bolshevik Party until it degenerated.

I'm afraid not. Bolshevik party didn't have factions, it always had a Center and an Opposition. There was always a central line determined by the leadership around Lenin, and opposing 'fractions' which all had to, eventually, give up on its free existence.

These organizations, especially SouB and SI were not council communists at all.

Oh, right, they were "councilists". :rolleyes:

You are the one who is constantly making the 'democratic-centralist' point. What we are saying is that it was centralised.

OK. What does that actually mean?

BakuninFan

14th June 2009, 15:55

The easily most sound anarchist/libertarian socialist theories came out of Rosa Luxemburg, who argued that the revolution and path to anarchism would be 100% democratically enforced, in the interests of the collective masses rather than a Revolutionary council or Communist Party. Therefore, certain Marxisms are needed to create sound anarchism, unless there is a huge upheaval in intellegent or public thoughts on anarchism, which is unlikely.

Hit The North

14th June 2009, 16:36

New Tet

14th June 2009, 16:44

I think it's pretty clear what benefits anarchists derive from Marxism. They get a coherent theory of history; a materialist methodology; a sophisticated analysis of how capitalism works; a clear analysis of why only the working class can be the agent of revolution in capitalist society; and a critical hermeneutic in the concept of ideology.

The question is what does anarchism offer Marxism?

Little besides the emotional response which, properly managed, can be very useful in a revolution.

The Ungovernable Farce

14th June 2009, 17:20

I think it's pretty clear what benefits anarchists derive from Marxism. They get a coherent theory of history; a materialist methodology; a sophisticated analysis of how capitalism works; a clear analysis of why only the working class can be the agent of revolution in capitalist society; and a critical hermeneutic in the concept of ideology.

The question is what does anarchism offer Marxism?
A clear opposition to the formation of any new ruling elite, which Marxists, particularly Leninists, have usually failed pretty hard at.

Lamanov

14th June 2009, 17:24

I think it's pretty clear what benefits anarchists derive from Marxism. They get a coherent theory of history; a materialist methodology; a sophisticated analysis of how capitalism works; a clear analysis of why only the working class can be the agent of revolution in capitalist society; and a critical hermeneutic in the concept of ideology.

Agreed.

The question is what does anarchism offer Marxism?

Organizational principles which anarchism developed in its syndicalist form.

ComradeOm

14th June 2009, 17:30

I'm afraid not. Bolshevik party didn't have factions, it always had a Center and an Opposition. There was always a central line determined by the leadership around Lenin, and opposing 'fractions' which all had to, eventually, give up on its free existenceI've taken you up on this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-and-trotsky-t108103/index.html?p=1434458#post1434458). During the revolutionary years the Bolshevik party had many fractions which, far from being controlled or automatically in opposition to the Central Committee, were permitted to exercise a degree of independence. Bolshevik fractions within soviets, dumas, and other bodies were free to decide their own course rather than simply obeying CC directives. These were not in "opposition" to some "centre", certainly not one focused on Lenin, but part of the highly democratic structure of the Bolshevik party prior to its degeneration

To give another example, in addition to the one from the linked post, on 21 Sept 1917 the Bolshevik fraction of the Democratic State Conference rejected, by democratic vote, the CC's previous decision to register a protest at the planned Preparliament. The CC immediately accepted the new decision. Lenin's proposal to boycott the Preparliament was not even voted on. When the issue was again raised on 7 Oct the possibility of a boycott was again put to a fraction vote, in this case the newly formed Preparliament delegation, at the insistence the powerful Petersburg Committee (yet another another Bolshevik organisation semi-independent of the CC) where it was narrowly passed. The Bolsheviks subsequently walked out of the Preparliament later that evening. So much for Lenin passing directives down from 'on high' :rolleyes:

Leo

14th June 2009, 18:14

Quotes from KAPD documents don't exactly prove existence of 'democratic centralism' in the KAPD. Actually I don't think "democratic" is an accurate term to describe the centralism we want or we need anyway. On the other hand, these quotes do prove that KAPD's understanding of centralism was more or less in the same lines with early Bolsheviks, regardless of the fact that they (correctly) did not call it "democratic" centralism.

The word 'centralized' doesn't exactly reflect the classic understanding of centralized executive powerWell, either we have to say that it did not in the early Bolshevik party either or that it did in KAPD also - KAPD had a central committee after all. In the actually marxist movement, centralized refers to a form of organization united around a platform, but with the ultimate openness of all sorts of debates around that program.

but, obviously, 'federalization' (an unholy word dating from Proudhonist-Bakuninist Schism) through a central congress of delegates.I'd say actually say centralism is quite the opposite of a "federalization". In the latter the "delegates" only represent and are responsible to the parts they are delegated by. In the former they represent and are responsible to the whole first always, and the whole is more than just a sum of the parts.

If the ever took part in the processes which shape the politics of the Party, they couldn't have see it like that, because such processes negated autonomy. Autonomy within organization and 'party discipline' can't coexist, and for that matter they did not.I have the feeling that what you call "autonomy" is not synonomous with openness and freedom of debate, and refers rather to a negation of the united intervention of an organization, in which case yes, and there was 'party discipline' in the KAPD rather than autonomy.

As if they were not council communists. The KAPD declined after the East Saxony AAUD split. The so-called "Ruhlists" were a big part of the organization.They were actually a minor part, the main parts being first of all the Berlin and then the Essen tendency. Of course all splits were very damaging to the party even if the splitting factions were minor, because of other conditions. By this point, the KAPD was swimming against the current after all.

'm afraid not. Bolshevik party didn't have factions, it always had a Center and an Opposition. It occasionally had a majority and a minority if that's what you mean (of course the same was occasionally the case with the KAPD), sometimes it had factions of equal strength (the war and peace factions during the Brest debate, with of course a minor middle faction around Trotsky) and so forth.

There was always a central line determined by the leadership around Lenin, and opposing 'fractions' which all had to, eventually, give up on its free existence.Lenin was many times on the minority which sort of destroys the point.

Oh, right, they were "councilists". :rolleyes:Actually I don't even consider the SouB and SI to be councilists to be honest.

The easily most sound anarchist/libertarian socialist theories came out of Rosa LuxemburgLuxemburg was neither an anarchist nor a "liberatarian socialist".

Nwoye

14th June 2009, 20:09

The Feral Underclass

14th June 2009, 23:55

I think it's pretty clear what benefits anarchists derive from Marxism. They get a coherent theory of history; a materialist methodology; a sophisticated analysis of how capitalism works; a clear analysis of why only the working class can be the agent of revolution in capitalist society; and a critical hermeneutic in the concept of ideology.

Yes, exactly.

The question is what does anarchism offer Marxism?Nothing. But then why would it? Why would you expect it to? Unless you accept that the theory of two stage socialism has been falsified; that the state can never be an instrument of working class power, there really is nothing anarchism can offer you.

Hit The North

15th June 2009, 00:14

Nothing. But then why would it? Why would you expect it to? Unless you accept that the theory of two stage socialism has been falsified; that the state can never be an instrument of working class power, there really is nothing anarchism can offer you.

We don't need anarchism to prove the former if it is indeed falsified. The latter point re. the state is more of a problem because the anarchist theory of the state is incompatible with the Marxist analysis, as you know. As a Marxist I cannot accept the ahistorical view of the state as an oppressive institution disconnected from the wider class relations, which the anarchist theory implies.

Labor Shall Rule

15th June 2009, 04:52

A clear opposition to the formation of any new ruling elite, which Marxists, particularly Leninists, have usually failed pretty hard at.

In fact, Marxist epistemology and theory is the only analytical tool that could point out that there are cadre and other managerial sections of the revolutionary state that hold onto old ideas that threaten to restore capitalist relations from within. Anarchists don't look at reactionary class forces and the ideas that represent them, they see centralized political organization as the principle enemy.

As so, the unsalient, dogmatic focus on hierarchies leaves a lot of people in the dust. It leaves out potential allies and friends, it distances us from uniting to create a wider progressive majority, and it leads to further tactical defeats. The left doesn't have much of a reason to use anarchism.

The Feral Underclass

15th June 2009, 09:45

In fact, Marxist epistemology and theory is the only analytical tool that could point out that there are cadre and other managerial sections of the revolutionary state that hold onto old ideas that threaten to restore capitalist relations from within.

Yet 'Marxists' consistently fail to see how that happens.

Anarchists don't look at reactionary class forces and the ideas that represent them, they see centralized political organization as the principle enemy.That's a little unfair. It's not the "principle enemy", we simply recognise the structure as an antithesis to working class power.

As so, the unsalient, dogmatic focus on hierarchies leaves a lot of people in the dust. It leaves out potential allies and friends, What this essentially boils down to is our rejection of tactics used by Marxist organisations that largely consist of reformism and popularism.

Our rejection of these tactics does not come out of an anti-authoritarian attitude. We in the AF have consistently worked alongside Trotskyists and other Marxists for immediate and transitional goals for example.

Also, our philosophical outlook in terms of how, as organisations, we relate to the working class are fundamentally different. The AF for instance does not see itself as a permenant political entity, but rather a fluid organisation that can assist in struggle and help foster cultures of resistance, while offering coherency and ideas, which will disappear when it's no longer necessary. This attitude differs greatly to Marxist notions of class organisation and actually this difference has little to do with hierarchy.

it distances us from uniting to create a wider progressive majority, and it leads to further tactical defeats.Most Marxist organisations employ reformist and popularist methods that have consistently failed to achieve lasting, coherent and strong movements. We reject reformism and popularism on the basis that, as tactics, they are anti-working class in nature.

The left doesn't have much of a reason to use anarchism.That's because people cling onto the hope that we can "all be friends" or that "parliament will provide". If we look at the history of our movement it's abundantly clear that we have little in common.

The Feral Underclass

15th June 2009, 09:54

As a Marxist I cannot accept the ahistorical view of the state as an oppressive institution disconnected from the wider class relations, which the anarchist theory implies.

I don't see how the theory implies that. The state has very clearly developed as an instrument of class repression, I don't reject Marx's analysis of the state. I simply understand that Marx's very basic overview of a state is not fully developed.

The state is not just an instrument of class repression that can be employed by the working class just because of some difference in the ideological window dressing.

Asoka89

15th June 2009, 09:56

I think you can tell if a "worker's state" is healthy or not by whether or not left-marxists and anarchists are organized and part of the political scene instead of being throughly repressed.

They were right about state-socialism in the 20th century, even though there are holes in anarchist theory as a whole (imo).

Hit The North

15th June 2009, 12:24

I don't see how the theory implies that. The state has very clearly developed as an instrument of class repression, I don't reject Marx's analysis of the state. I simply understand that Marx's very basic overview of a state is not fully developed.

The anarchist theory implies that the state contains suprahistorical oppressive characteristics which will always manifest themselves in an inherently undemocratic manner. It is leviathan irrespective of the type of society it rises from. As Marx points out, it is not the state which creates civil society but civil society which creates the state.

The state is not just an instrument of class repression that can be employed by the working class just because of some difference in the ideological window dressing. I agree, but detect this line of thinking, this idea of "ideological window dressing", in the anarchist view of the state, where its history is characterised as a succession of veiled ideological justifications, a kind of disguise surrounding an unchanging core of authoritarianism and class oppression. From a Marxist point of view, political states are shaped by the struggles and requirements of ruling classes and are radically transformed through the revolutionary overthrow of one class by another. Of course, the working class cannot just appropriate a state which was designed to defend and administer bourgeois society, any more than the feudal state was fit for purpose for the bourgeoisie. The capitalist state must be smashed so that the a new society can be built. Now, although Marx made tentative prescriptive comments about the exercise of political power after proletarian revolution, he was much more open to accepting the open creativity of the class struggle, and was therefore loath to rule out options on the basis of theoretical assertion. I think this separates Marxist thinking from the anarchist. The anarchist analysis prioritises concepts such as authority, hierarchy and centralisation and rules these essential evils out of any future post-revolutionary settlement. It seems to me that this is a clear example of dogmatic thinking.

The Feral Underclass

15th June 2009, 12:52

The anarchist theory implies that the state contains suprahistorical oppressive characteristics which will always manifest themselves in an inherently undemocratic manner.

We don't fetishise the word "state". We are simply clear in understanding what a state is, how it characterises itself and the relationship it has with the working class. I am happy to concede that the word "state" can be applied to any manifestation and expression of class dominance, but that's not what we're [anarchists] are talking about.

As Marx points out, it is not the state which creates civil society but civil society which creates the state.And as an anarchist, I don't reject that. If you want to use the word "state" to mean decentralised, non-hierarchical federalism then you can call that a state. Semantically, I don't give a shit.

From a Marxist point of view, political states are shaped by the struggles and requirements of ruling classes and are radically transformed through the revolutionary overthrow of one class by another.I agree.

Of course, the working class cannot just appropriate a state which was designed to defend and administer bourgeois society, any more than the feudal state was fit for purpose for the bourgeoisie.Agreed.

The capitalist state must be smashed so that the a new society can be built. Now, although Marx made tentative prescriptive comments about the exercise of political power after proletarian revolution, he was much more open to accepting the open creativity of the class struggle, and was therefore loath to rule out options on the basis of theoretical assertion.Bakunin's prediction that centralised, hierarchical political authority (a state), irrespective of who was in charge, would lead to the destruction of the working class as a political, economic and social force; would lead to the consolidation of a bureaucratic class and see the re-emergence of capitalist class relations, has been realised. On several occasions.

The two stage, statist (i.e. centralised political authority) theory does not work. It can never create the material conditions for transition, ever. This is because centralised political authority has to, as a pre-requisite, conslidate power in order to maintain its existance. You cannot have openly democratic, worker led control over the means of production and the political process while a political party/organisation or a group of individuals consolidates power through centralising political authority and institutions into its hands.

The anarchist analysis prioritises concepts such as authority, hierarchy and centralisation and rules these essential evils out of any future post-revolutionary settlement.That's because they don't work. They don't create the conditons for communism.

It seems to me that this is a clear example of dogmatic thinking.Yes, it's dogmatic, but it's dogmatic because we actually want to create a communist society and centralised political authority (the state) isn't going to do that.

The Feral Underclass

15th June 2009, 13:10

Bilan

15th June 2009, 13:22

These organizations, especially SouB and SI were not council communists at all.

I don't know about SouB, but the SI?

Emancipation from the material bases of inverted truth this is what the self-emancipation of our epoch consists of. This “historical mission of installing truth in the world” cannot be accomplished either by the isolated individual, or by the atomized crowd subjected to manipulation, but now as ever by the class which is able to effect the dissolution of all classes by bringing all power into the dealienating form of realized democracy, the Council, in which practical theory controls itself and sees its own action. This is possible only where individuals are “directly linked to universal history”; only where dialogue arms itself to make its own conditions victorious.

Since the only purpose of a revolutionary organization is the abolition of all existing classes in a way that does not bring about a new division of society, we consider an organization to be revolutionary if it consistently and effectively works toward the international realization of the absolute power of the workers councils, as prefigured in the experience of the proletarian revolutions of this century.

Within councilist organizations real equality of everyone in making decisions and carrying them out will not be an empty slogan or an abstract demand. Of course, not all the members of an organization will have the same talents (it is obvious, for example, that a worker will invariably write better than a student). But because in its aggregate the organization will have all the talents it needs, no hierarchy of individual talents will come to undermine its democracy. It is neither membership in a councilist organization nor the proclamation of an ideal equality that will enable all its members to be beautiful and intelligent and to live well; but only their real aptitudes for becoming more beautiful and more intelligent and for living better, freely developing in the only game that’s worth the pleasure: the destruction of the old world.

I must say I disagree.

Devrim

15th June 2009, 13:26

I don't know about SouB, but the SI?
I must say I disagree.

I think that really most of the SI's political ideas came from SouB. Debord was actually a member. I don't think 'council communism' is just communists who believe in councils. Trotskyists fit into that definition. It represents a particular political current, which I don't really think that you can include the SI in.

Devrim

Bilan

15th June 2009, 13:30

Devrim

15th June 2009, 13:34

I don't see it in those theses. I think though if you look at other positions, such as on the union question, which was a vital part of what was council communism, you can see a much more clear difference.

Devrim

Bilan

15th June 2009, 13:51

As far as I understand, the SI regarded unions as counter-revolutionary.
I don't honestly see the difference, beyond the style of language.

Leo

15th June 2009, 14:15

You can check out Dauve's criticism, who actually is more or less what we would call a councilist although not a council communist: http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/barsit.htm

Bilan

15th June 2009, 14:56

Labor Shall Rule

15th June 2009, 15:10

Bakunin's prediction that centralised, hierarchical political authority (a state), irrespective of who was in charge, would lead to the destruction of the working class as a political, economic and social force; would lead to the consolidation of a bureaucratic class and see the re-emergence of capitalist class relations, has been realised. On several occasions.

But is that because the party was taken over by non-worker elements that have seperate class interests from that of the proletariat, or because of the existence of a centralized state?

I don't know much about Marxists in the UK, so I don't think I can draw conclusions about their tactics or strategy. I'll concede to you on that.

mikelepore

15th June 2009, 15:54

I'd also like to point out that I'm not against the concept of centralisation per se. I am against the centralisation of political authority on the principle that it cannot create the conditions for communism.

For example, I'm not opposed to food distribution being centralised to a large distribution centre or the postal service having a central sorting office.

How can people exist without centralized political authority? Would the people who live on each city block decide whether murder and rape shall be allowed or prohibited there, and what to do with violators? Would it be legal to clone babies on the east side of Main Steet but not on the west side? Would the meaning of a yield sign on the road change constantly as you drive along, here you have to stop, and there you don't have to stop? The rules for living would become arbitrary and capricious.

New Tet

15th June 2009, 16:02

Bilan

15th June 2009, 16:27

How can people exist without centralized political authority?

Because existence doesn't require centralized political authority? The organisation of the transition period necessitates this, perhaps, but existence?

Would the people who live on each city block decide whether murder and rape shall be allowed or prohibited there, and what to do with violators?

Are you objecting to the decisions being made from below, or for the lack of continuity in application of law?

Would it be legal to clone babies on the east side of Main Steet but not on the west side?

Why, certainly! The West Side's cloning facilities are less than desirable. The West side, however, would be the dominant side in regards to art, particularly due to their creative hand gestures.
In all seriousness, this question is absurd.
You object to continuity in legislation, not to the absence of centralized political authority.

The Feral Underclass

15th June 2009, 16:39

How can people exist without centralized political authority?

:ohmy:

I don't know, how could people exist? It would be madness, chaos I tellz ya! The world would cease to function...Oh my godd noooo!

Would the people who live on each city block decide whether murder and rape shall be allowed or prohibited there, and what to do with violators?

How does this relate to centralised political authority?

Would it be legal to clone babies on the east side of Main Steet but not on the west side?

What is legality? And why does having it prevent these things?

Would the meaning of a yield sign on the road change constantly as you drive along, here you have to stop, and there you don't have to stop? The rules for living would become arbitrary and capricious.

It's difficult to deconstruct these assumptions without understanding why you hold them? Can you explain to me why not having centralised political authority will create "arbitrary and capricious"?

Furthermore, can you also explain why not having centralised political authority equates to not having "rules for living"?

The Feral Underclass

15th June 2009, 16:42

But is that because the party was taken over by non-worker elements that have seperate class interests from that of the proletariat, or because of the existence of a centralized state?

When people take control of centralised political authority and consolidate it's power into their hands they are no longer workers and their class interests become different. That of managing the state and maintaining its existence.

ZeroNowhere

15th June 2009, 16:56

Really, you use words like 'centralised' and expect somebody to debate you based on what you mean?

@Mike: I think he was referring to something along these lines: "You cannot have openly democratic, worker led control over the means of production and the political process while a political party/organisation or a group of individuals consolidates power through centralising political authority and institutions into its hands."

New Tet

15th June 2009, 16:57

Because existence doesn't require centralized political authority? The organisation of the transition period necessitates this, perhaps, but existence?
Are you objecting to the decisions being made from below, or for the lack of continuity in application of law?
Why, certainly! The West Side's cloning facilities are less than desirable. The West side, however, would be the dominant side in regards to art, particularly due to their creative hand gestures.
In all seriousness, this question is absurd.
You object to continuity in legislation, not to the absence of centralized political authority.

I think that as long a the majority of people define their individual existence in terms of their social participation in their communities there will be a need to create and re-create a central directing authority.

The need to define and formalize our common aspirations and our social relations requires the creation of institutions democratically empowered to define and formalize.

Bilan

15th June 2009, 16:59

I think that as long a the majority of people define their individual existence in terms of their social participation in their communities there will be a need to create and re-create a central directing authority.

I'm not objecting to that. I'm objecting to the notion that 'existence is impossible without centralised political authority', which is obviously ludicrous.

Forward Union

15th June 2009, 17:06

How can people exist without centralized political authority? Would the people who live on each city block decide whether murder and rape shall be allowed or prohibited there, and what to do with violators?

Yes. In previous Anarchist societes courts and police were set up to deal with criminals, and to charge former capitalists and statesmen. These laws and their punishments were decided upon by decentralized, democratic bodies made up of the people. These would then be written down and could be amended by referendum at a later time. Verdicts were passed by Juries. A constitution would be set up before this process in order to lay down basic rights, enshrining the equality of all people, and various other basics.

Would it be legal to clone babies on the east side of Main Steet but not on the west side?While it depends on what the people choose to do, and where the legal boundaries will be, there will be more regional constitutional rights I would imagine.

Would the meaning of a yield sign on the road change constantly as you drive along, here you have to stop, and there you don't have to stop? The rules for living would become arbitrary and capricious.I don't think there would be much need to reform the road safety regulations. If people thought a Yield sign ought to be removed, they could vote and decide to do it.

I will also note that many European towns have begun removing road signs as it has been proven to make roads safer... http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2143663,00.html

New Tet

15th June 2009, 17:08

Really, you use words like 'centralised' and expect somebody to debate you based on what you mean?

Because 'centralised' is used in the pejorative.

@Mike: I think he was referring to something along these lines: "You cannot have openly democratic, worker led control over the means of production and the political process while a political party/organisation or a group of individuals consolidates power through centralising political authority and institutions into its hands."

Which would be correct if that was the end of it. Didn't De Leon make the observation that there was a difference between capturing the Bastille to preserve it and seizing it to destroy it?

ZeroNowhere

15th June 2009, 17:15

Which would be correct if that was the end of it. Didn't De Leon make the observation that there was a difference between capturing the Bastille to preserve it and seizing it to destroy it?I doubt that using the ballot as a destructive force is what TAT is referring to. Certainly, De Leon wasn't exactly in favour of a political party 'consolidating power' and 'centralising political authority and institutions into its hands': "The political movement of labor that, in the event of triumph, would prolong its existence a second after triumph, would be a usurpation. It would be either a usurpation or the signal for a social catastrophe."

I think that as long a the majority of people define their individual existence in terms of their social participation in their communities there will be a need to create and re-create a central directing authorityWould a democratically elected and instantly recallable manager in a co-operative factory have 'centralised political power'?

Lamanov

15th June 2009, 17:25

I think that really most of the SI's political ideas came from SouB. Debord was actually a member. I don't think 'council communism' is just communists who believe in councils. Trotskyists fit into that definition. It represents a particular political current, which I don't really think that you can include the SI in.

Actually, council communists are those whose theory and practice is based on the councils, and who make it a primary and axiomatic part of their politics, where everything is subdued to their eventual creation and "all power to" them.

In that respect, both SouB and SI are council communists.

Trotskyists don't "believe in councils" because they are: 1.) apologists of their eventual demise in Russia, 2.) basing their politics primarily on The Party.

Devrim

15th June 2009, 17:32

Actually, council communists are those whose theory and practice is based on the councils, and who make it a primary and axiomatic part of their politics, where everything is subdued to their eventual creation and "all power to" them.

In that respect, both SouB and SI are council communists.

Trotskyists don't "believe in councils" because they are: 1.) apologists of their eventual demise in Russia, 2.) basing their politics primarily on The Party.

I don't really accept this. What you say is that the Trotskyists aren't really council communists because you don't believe they are sincere.

I think that council communism was a specific trend that emerged in Germany, and also other countries at a specific point. It implies more than merely an adherence to workers' councils which is a very vague idea.

If you could point me to something specifically, I may be able to see where you're coming from on this conflict between the two. But in terms of organisation, and the role of unions, I see very little difference. On the 'spectacle' and 'ideology', there is certainly difference. Perhaps this is what you were referring to?

I am a bit tired for trawling through the SI, but I am pretty sure that they believed that the trade union structures (for example shop stewards committees) could be used by revolutionaries. It is a very different conception from that of the German left.

Devrim

Leo

15th June 2009, 17:41

Leo

15th June 2009, 17:49

I've been reading through it, but I don't see much of a critique of the SI's thesis on Councils per se, but a more general critique of the SI's theories on everything. Despite being interesting, I don't see any major disagreement between Council Communists and the SI. Perhaps, the difference lies in the lack of any indepth critique of production by the SI, and instead, their continuous critique of the 'surface' and 'images' etc, and indeed the 'total self managment of life' (the SI's critique of SouB).

If you could point me to something specifically, I may be able to see where you're coming from on this conflict between the two. But in terms of organisation, and the role of unions, I see very little difference. On the 'spectacle' and 'ideology', there is certainly difference. Perhaps this is what you were referring to? Geocities is actually banned here for some reason and it's bit of a pain to get to it and browse it (although possible) so I won't be able to link to every argument but there are very key differences asides from 'spectacle', 'ideology' and unions concerning things like self-management under capitalism and even to an extent on the national question. As for the councils, well yes they talked about councils but that was basically about it. As for organization, the SI of course was not an "organization" (and god forbid was not centralized!) but a political group of people among whom those the supreme leader didn't like were immediately expelled. I would take KAPD's party discipline over this any second.

I am not saying the SI were counter-revolutionaries or anything, a few things they say are interesting, but I would say they weren't council communists, and were actually a lot behind them on most issues. Besides council communism has always referred to a specific tradition which was a part of the communist left - the SI was not.

Lamanov

15th June 2009, 17:55

How can people exist without centralized political authority? Would the people who live on each city block decide whether murder and rape shall be allowed or prohibited there, and what to do with violators? Would it be legal to clone babies on the east side of Main Steet but not on the west side? Would the meaning of a yield sign on the road change constantly as you drive along, here you have to stop, and there you don't have to stop? The rules for living would become arbitrary and capricious.

Actually, such human questions which are concerning everyone can't be decided on a wholly local level, but have to be coordinated among a federation of councils (i. e. through the congress of delegates) whose population is for all intents and purposes concerned with such decisions.

Just like economic planning, so would the law function: local communities would draw up their principles and rules and would try to create a consensual list of the same in the central delegated bodies, which would send it back to localities for confirmation.

Uh... by this definition, the Bolshevik Party of 1917 is council communist.

No, it wasn't.

I don't really accept this. What you say is that the Trotskyists aren't really council communists because you don't believe they are sincere.

It really has nothing to do with sincerity but with the practical implications of the totality of their politics.

I am a bit tired for trawling through the SI, but I am pretty sure that they believed that the trade union structures (for example shop stewards committees) could be used by revolutionaries. It is a very different conception from that of the German left.

There was nothing similar to British shop stewards when KAPD-AAUD were active; SI's refusal of the unions is very well known. They did see a potential in the concretely British shop stewards for anti-union, wildcat activities, but that wasn't remotely close to their theoretical cornerstones and subjects of their everyday politics.

Leo

15th June 2009, 22:41

Uh... by this definition, the Bolshevik Party of 1917 is council communist.

No, it wasn't.

Who came up in the first place with the slogan "all power to the Soviets"?

"Oh but they were lying" is not an answer any more than "Oh but they were German spies".

Forward Union

15th June 2009, 22:51

Who came up in the first place with the slogan "all power to the Soviets"?

"Oh but they were lying" is not an answer any more than "Oh but they were German spies".

It was used by everyone. I've read sources that it was first used by the Anarcho Syndicalists.

Certainly it was used by them as a protest against the anti-soviet policies of the Bolshevik Party.

mikelepore

16th June 2009, 05:08

Would the people who live on each city block decide whether murder and rape shall be allowed or prohibited there, and what to do with violators?How does this relate to centralised political authority?

"Centralised political authority" can only mean that one legal policy is carried out uniformly everywhere, for example, slavery is not allowed, racial and other forms of discrimination are not allowed, people aren't allowed to murder their neighbors, people have freedom of speech, people have the right to privacy, pollution of the air and water should be prohibited, the manufacture of nuclear weapons should be prohibited, etc. These policies, which by definition can only be actions of a political authority, should not be allowed to vary from one geographical district to another. Such policies should be centralised at the highest level of political authority possible, at the national level at least, and, as soon as it can be accomplished, by a world government.

Bilan

16th June 2009, 05:24

It was used by everyone. I've read sources that it was first used by the Anarcho Syndicalists.

Yeah, I think Maurice Brinton points that out in For Workers Power. If I recall correctly, he said the Bolshevik's adopted the slogan of the Syndicalists, that being "All power to the Factory Committees" and "All power to the Soviets!"

The Feral Underclass

16th June 2009, 07:13

Really, you use words like 'centralised' and expect somebody to debate you based on what you mean?

You really don't know what 'centralised' means?

The Feral Underclass

16th June 2009, 07:17

"Centralised political authority" can only mean that one legal policy is carried out uniformly everywhere, for example, slavery is not allowed, racial and other forms of discrimination are not allowed, people aren't allowed to murder their neighbors, people have freedom of speech, people have the right to privacy, pollution of the air and water should be prohibited, the manufacture of nuclear weapons should be prohibited, etc.

It's an insult to my intelligence to be asked to respond to such neurotic, prejudiced nonsense. Do you honestly think it requires me to take seriously the assumption that if there is no centralised political authority people will bring back slavery and build nuclear weapons? I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

Presumably in a post-revolutionary society there will be some level of class consciousness and dare I say common sense, or are you saying the working class can't be trusted not to suddenly revert back to radically reactionary principles...Like slavery...:rolleyes:

These policies, which by definition can only be actions of a political authority, should not be allowed to vary from one geographical district to another. Such policies should be centralised at the highest level of political authority possible, at the national level at least, and, as soon as it can be accomplished, by a world government.

The "rules of living" would be determined by communities, but they would be done so predicated on the principle that each is free providing their freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others.

ZeroNowhere

16th June 2009, 07:20

You really don't know what 'centralised' means?No, I am referring to the fact that, in a way similar to 'state', it tends to have various uses among the left, as Mike seems to have just demonstrated.

Bright Banana Beard

16th June 2009, 16:25

It's an insult to my intelligence to be asked to respond to such neurotic, prejudiced nonsense. Do you honestly think it requires me to take seriously the assumption that if there is no centralised political authority people will bring back slavery and build nuclear weapons? I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

Presumably in a post-revolutionary society there will be some level of class consciousness and dare I say common sense, or are you saying the working class can't be trusted not to suddenly revert back to radically reactionary principles...Like slavery...:rolleyes: Such possible, as Isrealite can kill Palestian, or group of mob terrorizing the town. Marx said during the war the working class will work together, this isn't true as prove to the point in WWI, WWII, and other war. The class concessinous is not by the worker themselves, but the communist themselves which will help the proletariat to see they are capable to produce such society. I thought that central political party is unnessecary after the commondity disappear.

The "rules of living" would be determined by communities, but they would be done so predicated on the principle that each is free providing their freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others. The Islam community, Christian community spoke otherwise, this is only capable after the revolution is done with. Workers is not born with mindset toward communism, mind you. They learn.

The Feral Underclass

16th June 2009, 17:06

Such possible, as Isrealite can kill Palestian, or group of mob terrorizing the town. Marx said during the war the working class will work together, this isn't true as prove to the point in WWI, WWII, and other war.

Marx...Wrong...! :ohmy:

But anyway, you're talking about things in the context of class society. I am talking about a post-revolutionary society. Sure there will be obvious class elements/enemies still at work and there will remain certain prejudices but at the same time the working class have come to consciousness and overthrown capitalism and the state to forge a society for their own progress. Why would they turn back?

The class concessinous is not by the worker themselves, but the communist themselves which will help the proletariat to see they are capable to produce such society.

That doesn't refute what I've said.

I thought that central political party is unnessecary after the commondity disappear.

I can see the logic in the argument but unfortunately the theory has been falsified.

The Islam community, Christian community spoke otherwise, this is only capable after the revolution is done with.

I'm not claiming otherwise.

Workers is not born with mindset toward communism, mind you. They learn.

I know this, but again I don't see what relevance it has...I am talking about a post-revolutionary society.

mikelepore

16th June 2009, 18:01

It's an insult to my intelligence to be asked to respond to such neurotic, prejudiced nonsense.

I wouldn't attribute this to a matter of intelligence, but some people in this forum seems to have been absent on the day when their schools taught everyone what "central" and "centralised" mean. More often this is indicated by the way so many people object to "central planning", without showing any sign that they know what it means.

"Central" in such contexts means to have a standardized and interconnected system for doing something, as in the many bus and train terminals that use the name "central", the central nervous system, central air conditioning, etc.

Do you honestly think it requires me to take seriously the assumption that if there is no centralised political authority people will bring back slavery and build nuclear weapons? I mean, what the hell are you talking about?

If there were no coercive laws and enforcement methods, put in place consistency and uniformly, gangsters and warlords would rule much of society. There would a few people who would kidnap others, and then slavery would exist. Now that anyone with a physics degree knows how to make a nuclear weapon, and the only thing stopping them is the difficulty in obtaining the purified materials, there would be a few people who would use them to commit mass murder. The freedom and safety of everyone requires mandatory and efficient controls over the few.

Presumably in a post-revolutionary society there will be some level of class consciousness and dare I say common sense, or are you saying the working class can't be trusted not to suddenly revert back to radically reactionary principles...Like slavery...:rolleyes:

The enlightened consciousness and common sense of the people has nothing to do with this subject. Any human society will always require laws to restrict the behavior of a few individuals who are what statisticians call outliers.

Many Marxists and anarchists argue, in effect, that intrinsic human behavior is pure and angelic, and, once we eliminate the artificial distortion of our angelic character caused by an oppressive society, there will no longer exist any individuals with defective brains who will behave outside the statistical norm. The belief gets accepted entirely on faith.

The "rules of living" would be determined by communities, but they would be done so predicated on the principle that each is free providing their freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others.

"Communities" is ambiguous, since it can mean anything ranging in size from individual buildings to municipalities to wide continents. If you mean that the laws limiting behavior should be enacted locally, in the geographical sense, as implied by the earlier opposition to "centralised political authority", I can't think of a worst possible system.

The Feral Underclass

16th June 2009, 19:05

I wouldn't attribute this to a matter of intelligence, but some people in this forum seems to have been absent on the day when their schools taught everyone what "central" and "centralised" mean. More often this is indicated by the way so many people object to "central planning", without showing any sign that they know what it means.

I see.

"Central" in such contexts means to have a standardized and interconnected system for doing something

No it doesn't.

as in the many bus and train terminals that use the name "central", the central nervous system, central air conditioning, etc.

And as previously stated by me in this thread I have no issue with this definition of "central".

If there were no coercive laws and enforcement methods, put in place consistency and uniformly, gangsters and warlords would rule much of society.

Why?

There would a few people who would kidnap others, and then slavery would exist.

I am not suggesting that communities have no means to defend themselves. How else would we workers have overthrown capitalism and the state without having the means to exact such things.

Now that anyone with a physics degree knows how to make a nuclear weapon, and the only thing stopping them is the difficulty in obtaining the purified materials, there would be a few people who would use them to commit mass murder.

I honestly don't know how I'm supposed to respond to this...

The freedom and safety of everyone requires mandatory and efficient controls over the few.

Yes, and I've never suggested that there is absolutely no systems in place for people to defend their freedom.

The enlightened consciousness and common sense of the people has nothing to do with this subject.

Well, clearly I don't agree.

Any human society will always require laws to restrict the behavior of a few individuals who are what statisticians call outliers.

If you'd actually read what I have been saying you will clearly see that I have never suggested that communities have no basis to protect themselves from violence or that human society should exist without rules and regulations.

Many Marxists and anarchists argue, in effect, that intrinsic human behavior is pure and angelic, and, once we eliminate the artificial distortion of our angelic character caused by an oppressive society, there will no longer exist any individuals with defective brains who will behave outside the statistical norm. The belief gets accepted entirely on faith.

If this is genuinely your view then you have clearly no understanding of the nature of the political theories you are claiming to speak about. In fact I challenge you to present to me evidence that backs up your assertion that anarchists and Marxists argue that after a revolution there will be no individuals with "defective brains"...Where is it?

"Communities" is ambiguous, since it can mean anything ranging in size from individual buildings to municipalities to wide continents.

I think when you actually look at the geographical make-up of cities and counties/states etc there are clear demarcations.

If you mean that the laws limiting behavior should be enacted locally, in the geographical sense, as implied by the earlier opposition to "centralised political authority", I can't think of a worst possible system.

That's because your assumptions are based on prejudice towards human beings and seemingly blind acceptance of bourgeois legal structures.

mikelepore

17th June 2009, 07:25

In fact I challenge you to present to me evidence that backs up your assertion that anarchists and Marxists argue that after a revolution there will be no individuals with "defective brains"...Where is it?

Well, that sure was easy. You asked me for evidence, and then a few centimeters below that you provided the evidence yourself. When I pointed out that human behavior is a statistical distribution, so even in the best of environmental circumstances there would still be some problem with violent crimes committed by the tail of statistical outliers, you read what I wrote, and then you claimed that you saw in my post "prejudice toward human beings."

mikelepore

17th June 2009, 07:36

and seemingly blind acceptance of bourgeois legal structures.

You think my call for a set of universal social rules -- to globally prohibit slavery, racial discrimination, violent assaults, etc. -- is "bourgeois." Oh, yeah, just see the "bourgeois" characteristic all over it. I might have well have posted the regulations pertaining to trades on the floor of the stock exchange.

ZeroNowhere

17th June 2009, 07:55

Well, that sure was easy. You asked me for evidence, and then a few centimeters below that you provided the evidence yourself. When I pointed out that human behavior is a statistical distribution, so even in the best of environmental circumstances there would still be some problem with violent crimes committed by the tail of statistical outliers, you read what I wrote, and then you claimed that you saw in my post "prejudice toward human beings."Well, he did say this:

If you'd actually read what I have been saying you will clearly see that I have never suggested that communities have no basis to protect themselves from violence or that human society should exist without rules and regulations.
So it would seem that he doesn't accept that all humans will suddenly become Harry Conklin in socialism.

The Feral Underclass

17th June 2009, 08:03

Well, that sure was easy. You asked me for evidence, and then a few centimeters below that you provided the evidence yourself.

Where...?

When I pointed out that human behavior is a statistical distribution, so even in the best of environmental circumstances there would still be some problem with violent crimes committed by the tail of statistical outliers, you read what I wrote, and then you claimed that you saw in my post "prejudice toward human beings."

If you're view is that there will be a minority of people who wish to subvert a workers society then that's fine, I totally accept that. But this is not a defence of centralised political authority i.e. the state.

You think my call for a set of universal social rules -- to globally prohibit slavery, racial discrimination, violent assaults, etc. -- is "bourgeois."

Hyperbole.

No, that's not what I'm saying. You are very good at attributing opinions to me.

What I am saying is that your defence of bourgeois legal structures is myopic in it's scope.

ZeroNowhere

17th June 2009, 19:07

If you're view is that there will be a minority of people who wish to subvert a workers society then that's fine, I totally accept that. But this is not a defence of centralised political authority i.e. the state.As far as I can see, Mike isn't defending what you mean by the term 'centralised political authority', and you aren't necessarily attacking what Mike means by 'centralised political authority'.

Marx...Wrong...!Marx was wrong on a few things, but I do not recall him saying that in wars, the working class will necessarily work together. Hell, he was rather aware of the American Civil War. The closest I can find is, "While the balloting was going on, Citizen Marx called attention to the Peace Congress to be held in Geneva. He said: It was desirable that as many delegates as could make it convenient should attend the Peace Congress in their individual capacity; but that it would be injudicious to take part officially as representatives of the International Association. The International Working Men’s Congress was in itself a peace congress, as the union of the working classes of the different countries must ultimately make international wars impossible. If the promoters of the Geneva Peace Congress really understood the question at issue they ought to have joined the International Association." Which is still rather different.

The class concessinous is not by the worker themselves, but the communist themselves which will help the proletariat to see they are capable to produce such society.Since when did being a communist and a worker become mutually exclusive?

Bright Banana Beard

17th June 2009, 19:25

Since when did being a communist and a worker become mutually exclusive? I am referring that we will make sure the ideas of communism will lead the working class during the revolution otherwise we will have new bureaucrat that can become bourgeois.

ZeroNowhere

17th June 2009, 19:26

I am referring that we will make sure the ideas of communism will lead the working class during the revolution otherwise we will have new bureaucrat that can become bourgeois.So the revolutionary working class won't be communists?

Bright Banana Beard

17th June 2009, 19:46

So the revolutionary working class won't be communists? They are communists in sense they are creator of the society, but what if workers don't want communism? Are they communist?

ZeroNowhere

17th June 2009, 20:11

They are communists in sense they are creator of the society, but what if workers don't want communism? Are they communist?No, but they're also not going to be having a socialist revolution. Of course, not every worker would be socialist during revolution, but we were talking about the ones involved in the revolution.

Little Red Robin Hood

17th June 2009, 20:13

To be honest, his enthusiasm for the Paris Commune did wane, with him later stating that it was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, and the majority was not socialist.

Is this true...?

I think it's pretty clear what benefits anarchists derive from Marxism. They get a coherent theory of history; a materialist methodology; a sophisticated analysis of how capitalism works; a clear analysis of why only the working class can be the agent of revolution in capitalist society; and a critical hermeneutic in the concept of ideology.

The question is what does anarchism offer Marxism?

A revolutionary theory. :)

On the need for a new one, please see: the 20th Century

ZeroNowhere

17th June 2009, 20:19

Is this true...?"Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be. With a small amount of sound common sense, however, they could have reached a compromise with Versailles useful to the whole mass of the people -- the only thing that could be reached at the time." This apparently had some relation to the Zurich Congress, which Marx was criticizing because one of the questions to be discussed was was, "If socialists should attain power by one means or another, what new legislation (whether political or economic) should they introduce, and what existing legislation should they repeal, in order to inaugurate socialism?" (according to this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/ch33.htm).) So yeah.

On the need for a new one, please see: the 20th CenturyAs a De Leonite, this rather amuses me.

Little Red Robin Hood

17th June 2009, 20:26

ZeroNowhere

17th June 2009, 20:30

Did he ever see the PC as fully socialist though, even in earlier writings? Or did he just see it as an example of the working class being politically independent? (I haven't read The Civil War in France, which would probably answer this).He did see it as being the political rule of the producer, which is in some sense socialist. This wasn't entirely realistic, however. Though, to be fair, he could have just been saying that it wasn't socialist, but instead just the political rule of the producer. But eh, I just wouldn't see 'in no sense socialist' without clarification as being likely if this was his view. It's also not entirely clear what Marx was referring to there, though as far as I can see, it doesn't make that much sense if he was referring to his statement that, "One thing you can at any rate be sure of: a socialist government does not come into power in a country unless conditions are so developed that it can above all take the necessary measures for intimidating the mass of the bourgeoisie sufficiently to gain time--the first desideratum [requisite]--for lasting action." The meaning of that statement isn't entirely clear, as we don't know what he was responding to, exactly. In all likelihood, he was talking about an elected government, in which case actions would be necessary in order to 'intimidate' the mass of the bourgeoisie, presumably along with the implementation of instant recallability, etc, which Marx promoted in 'The Civil War in France' (Engels later commented, "I do not see what violation of the social-democratic principle is necessarily involved in putting up candidates for any elective political office or in voting for these candidates, even if we are aiming at the abolition of this office itself," and "One may be of the opinion that the best way to abolish the Presidency and the Senate in America is to elect men to these offices who are pledged to effect their abolition, and then one will consistently act accordingly. Others may think that this method is inappropriate; that’s a matter of opinion. There may be circumstances under which the former mode of action would also involve a violation of revolutionary principle; I fail to see why that should always and everywhere be the case"), I'm not entirely sure what this would entail.
Anyways, back to what I was saying. It wouldn't really make much sense if he was referring to that, so he was presumably saying that the Paris Commune was no justification for discussions of what is to be done if socialists come into power, as not only was it just the uprising of a town under exceptional conditions, but it was also not especially socialist. On the other hand, his following comments could be referring to the earlier discussion, and perhaps suggest that the Commune could have developed into socialism if it had intimidated the bourgeoisie through appropriating the Bank of France, thus gaining peace and hence time, though it's never said that it could have developed socialism, merely that said peace would be best for the whole mass of people. On the other hand, 'merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions' doesn't sound like something he would have said in TCWF, so it's possible that he was saying that socialism wasn't really possible in Paris there, and the best thing possible was a compromise with Versailles.