Could Anarchists and Communists unite if there was a revolution?

[Uppercut]

I've been contemplating this for a while. How would the anarchists respond if we overthrew our government and established a workers' state? Would they break down and join the party or would they take up arms and fight us?

I've talked to a few of my anarchist friends at school about this question. A couple said they'd join us commies if our party actually represents proletarian interests. Another said he wouldn't put up with a state at all. "I won't take your hand and marry the state," etc. etc.

So, comrades, feel free to discuss. I want to see what anarchists think, as well.

[Comrade Gwydion]

During the revolution, they'll work together, the purges will come afterwards >=)

[Q]

I've been contemplating this for a while. How would the anarchists respond if we overthrew our government and established a workers' state? Would they break down and join the party or would they take up arms and fight us?
That's what happened after 1917, so it stands as a possibility.


I've talked to a few of my anarchist friends at school about this question. A couple said they'd join us commies if our party actually represents proletarian interests.
That also happened a lot in 1917.


So, comrades, feel free to discuss. I want to see what anarchists think, as well.
I don't have any problems with anarchists personally. Despite disagreeing with their many of their tactics and strategies, I appreciate them as genuine working class fighters.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I would assume if it was mostly communistic then they would fight alongside us, but would still be hostile to our idea of dictatorship of the proletariat.

If it were mainly anarchist, personally I would fight alongside.

[Revy]

The socialist state will be different from the capitalist state, both in substance and in behavior.

If it's there to enrich the wallets of bureaucrats, and oppress workers, it's not a socialist state, and it's not a "workers' state" in any form.

[Kayser_Soso]

I've been contemplating this for a while. How would the anarchists respond if we overthrew our government and established a workers' state? Would they break down and join the party or would they take up arms and fight us?

I've talked to a few of my anarchist friends at school about this question. A couple said they'd join us commies if our party actually represents proletarian interests. Another said he wouldn't put up with a state at all. "I won't take your hand and marry the state," etc. etc.

So, comrades, feel free to discuss. I want to see what anarchists think, as well.


Obviously the main task of winning the civil war and actually running the country, feeding people, etc. would fall to the Communists. As for anarchists, if they wish to establish their communes and abstain from modern society, I don't think it would bother us much. But if they intend to benefit from the wealth of society, they will have perform their social duties as well. If they manage to build a totally self-sustaining society, then more power to them; we would have far larger things to worry about.

[Bitter Ashes]

To put my views bluntly, Lenninist style socialism would be an improvement over capitalism, at least in the short/medium term. There are no safeguards to prevent it all going tits up again though, other than to claim that the current leadership of the parties is acting with the best of intentions. That's not enough for me to be honest, because even if that is true, years down the line somebody else is going to take over and they may not be as trustworthy. So, it'll be up to the proleterian to stage yet another revolt, except that it'll be just as difficult then (possibly more!) as it is now, due to workers still holding the mistaken belief that a represenative will fix things for them. "We didnt have to do anything to overthrow the capitalists, so we wont have to do anything to overthrow the lenninists either".

All this bieng said though, I would unite with communists to overthrow capitalism and hope that vanguard politics hasnt kept class consiciousness suppressed. If it has then as soon as the revolution's over I'll probably start plotting again within a few weeks/months.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's what happened after 1917, so it stands as a possibility.

That's not strictly true. While some anarchists did join the Bolsheviks, the majority of the anarchist movement did not. The St Petersbourg anarchist communist federation for example, along with Chernoe Znamia and the Moscow Federation of Anarchist groups, not to mention the Black Guard. All of whom put up active resistance against the Bolsheviks before and during the third revolution. The Ukraine anarchist movement also being an obvious example of resistance towards Bolsheviks from anarchists.

[Bitter Ashes]

Obviously the main task of winning the civil war and actually running the country, feeding people, etc. would fall to the Communists. As for anarchists, if they wish to establish their communes and abstain from modern society, I don't think it would bother us much. But if they intend to benefit from the wealth of society, they will have perform their social duties as well. If they manage to build a totally self-sustaining society, then more power to them; we would have far larger things to worry about.
It could be claimed that we're living off the fruits of globalised capitalist exploitation while we're plotting to overthrow it. Should socialists be forbidden to trade, or rent, or claim welfare from the state if they're plotting to overthrow it?

I'm sure they would if they could, but it wouldnt make it right. What ever happened to "Each according to thier ability and to each according to thier need?"

[The Feral Underclass]

I've been contemplating this for a while. How would the anarchists respond if we overthrew our government and established a workers' state?

First of all, it should be noted that there is no such thing nor can there ever exist a "workers state". It's an oxymoron of tragic proportion.

Secondly, the anarchist movements reaction to the unfortunate development of a 'Leninist' revolution would depend on the nature the revolution took. Historically speaking the anarchist movement would most likely end up in a position where we were having to defend ourselves from the new socialist states repression.

The establishment of a socialist state and the consolidation of the bureaucratic class that would inevitably emerge would cause a revolution to stagnate and it would be up to anarchists, left-communists and the autonomist movement to agitate and organise against it. Otherwise the working class will just face decades of continued exploitation and oppression that we saw in Russia and see today in China and Cuba. From my experience and instinctively, I don't believe the working class will ever go back down that road.

[Искра]

As for anarchists, if they wish to establish their communes and abstain from modern society, I don't think it would bother us much. But if they intend to benefit from the wealth of society, they will have perform their social duties as well. If they manage to build a totally self-sustaining society, then more power to them; we would have far larger things to worry about.

Are you idiot or you are just provoker?

Do you have any clue about anarchism or libertarian communism?

Where did anarchists ever wanted to abstain from modern society? Anarchists want to transform modern society into communism.

[FSL]

Are you idiot or you are just provoker?

Do you have any clue about anarchism or libertarian communism?

Where did anarchists ever wanted to abstain from modern society? Anarchists want to transform modern society into communism.


Isn't it a popular view among anarchists that big industry and central planning of the economy leads to oppresion of the workers? That the economy is better off organized in autonomous collectives that collaborate?


As for the question presented, working class anarchists would probably join forces with communists, petty owners, students, some intellectuals would scream "Freedoooom!" and set up bombs at places.

[Kayser_Soso]

Are you idiot or you are just provoker?

Do you have any clue about anarchism or libertarian communism?

Yes, but particularly I respond directly to the anarchists' arguments that are addressed to me.



Where did anarchists ever wanted to abstain from modern society? Anarchists want to transform modern society into communism.


Guess what, transforming society is a process that takes time, and requires "coercian", period. So you have two choices- either you can do what anarchists in history did, which was basically adopt the same actions and policies of their enemies(sometimes worse), and make them anarchist-friendly by labeling them "grassroots" or "from the bottom", or you can just abandon the utopian nonsense altogether and grow up.

[bricolage]

or you can just abandon the utopian nonsense altogether and grow up.

Wow. Because this isn't the same insult that most people use against everyone on the left...

[Искра]

Isn't it a popular view among anarchists that big industry and central planning of the economy leads to oppresion of the workers? That the economy is better off organized in autonomous collectives that collaborate?
Do you know anything about anarcho-syndicalism and about organising of that "big industry"?
Well, if you do know something than you know that anarchist don't have anything against the industry as long as it's in the workers hands and there's no class system and hierarchy. Big industry can also be about needs not profit.

[The Feral Underclass]

or you can just abandon the utopian nonsense altogether and grow up.

Precisely what is it you think we should grow up into?

[Искра]

So you have two choices- either you can do what anarchists in history did, which was basically adopt the same actions and policies of their enemies(sometimes worse), and make them anarchist-friendly by labeling them "grassroots" or "from the bottom", or you can just abandon the utopian nonsense altogether and grow up.
Very strange statement from someone who's declaring himself as a Stalinist.

[FSL]

Do you know anything about anarcho-syndicalism and about organising of that "big industry"?
Well, if you do know something than you know that anarchist don't have anything against the industry as long as it's in the workers hands and there's no class system and hierarchy. Big industry can also be about needs not profit.


"Strange to say, there are people who extol this deadening method of centralized production as the proudest achievement of our age. They fail utterly to realize that if we are to continue in machine subserviency, our slavery is more complete than was our bondage to the King"

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910s/anarchism.htm



You can tell me what anarchosyndicalism means while I tell you what do the words "popular view" mean, deal?

[Zanthorus]

Isn't it a popular view among anarchists that big industry and central planning of the economy leads to oppresion of the workers? That the economy is better off organized in autonomous collectives that collaborate?

Yeah what's wrong with that?

Big industry is a state-capitalist construct, we've had the technology to support localised/decentralised production since the 20's but of course that all interferes with the bourgeoise's ill gotten gains so they keep suppressing it and using advertising and cultural pressure to keep people hooked on big business.

[Raúl Duke]

I've been contemplating this for a while. How would the anarchists respond if we overthrew our government and established a workers' state? Would they break down and join the party or would they take up arms and fight us?

I've talked to a few of my anarchist friends at school about this question. A couple said they'd join us commies if our party actually represents proletarian interests. Another said he wouldn't put up with a state at all. "I won't take your hand and marry the state," etc. etc.

So, comrades, feel free to discuss. I want to see what anarchists think, as well.

Across history (Russia, Spain, etc) we see a tendency of anarchists allying themselves with Leninists, especially in cases of civil war where there's a lot of importance placed on defeating the counter-reaction.

However, there's a difference between anarchist then and now. Now most if not all anarchists are weary of alying themselves with Leninists due to the history of Leninists betraying them (i.e. Barcelona May Days, Kronstadt, part of the end of Mahknovischina). Now I'm not sure if anarchists are very willing to ally the Leninists in this modern age but it isn't impossible.

In fact, now anarchists and Leninists do work together in a few things (they could both hold anti-war rallies since both tend to be anti-imperialists, etc) but when revolution comes many factors will be at play in whether anarchists end up allying themselves with Leninists factions. Past history of Leninist alliances will however play a factor and I think all anarchist-leninist alliances will probably contain a large level of mistrust. However, I have my doubts that anarchists today would do a repeat of Spain and end up allying themselves with a bourgeois state which happen to later be in control by Leninists; they will however be able to ally with revolutionary Leninist organizations and militias.

At the creation of a Leninist state 2 things might occur, a part (perhaps a large majority, depending on factors) will continue fighting against this Leninist state (if they feel that it doesn't represent the working class and/or see it as more of a "dictatorship above the working class") while another part might try to work from within (or perhaps not from within but more like try to create "dual power" institutions) to maintain certain institutions of working class power such as independent worker's councils and neighborhood assemblies.

Personally, I don't feel we should ever "unite with the "socialist" state" and disband from anarchism and I'm of the opinion that as long as we can do it with no repression then we should build up a duel power situation by helping create and maintaining institutions of actual working class power (i.e. worker's councils and/or neighborhood assemblies) and if repression does come then we should fight the "socialist" state just as we would do against any other state.

These are just my thoughts.

[pranabjyoti]

In my opinion, they may work together before and some time after the revolution, but start to oppose when the issue of dictatorship of proletariat will arise. Because, at that time, not only the bourgeoisie but also the petty-bourgeoisie will also suffer. May be the peasants will deny to take part in the collectivization, small business holders will want to hold their "right" to cheap labor of the unemployed youth and also oppose establishment of big shopping stores, because that will throw them out of market.
The problem with anarchists is that, they often talked about workers, but actually they support the petty-bourgeoisie section in the name of workers.
During the dictatorship of the proletariat period, not only the bourgeoisie, but also the petty-bourgeoisie will be oppressed and abolished as we are going towards a classless society. I think that anarchists at that time, will oppose dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Durruti's Ghost]

The problem with anarchists is that, they often talked about workers, but actually they support the petty-bourgeoisie section in the name of workers.


Prove it. Keep in mind that anarchism is more than just Proudhon.

[Pogue]

Prove it. Keep in mind that anarchism is more than just Proudhon.

This is one of those things that come out in the party sessions on Anarchism, its mindless slander and you'd best just ignore it mate.

[FSL]

Yeah what's wrong with that?

Big industry is a state-capitalist construct, we've had the technology to support localised/decentralised production since the 20's but of course that all interferes with the bourgeoise's ill gotten gains so they keep suppressing it and using advertising and cultural pressure to keep people hooked on big business.

A million things are wrong with that, predominantly that I don't want to make a revolution to end up starving.


Well, if you do know something than you know that anarchist don't have anything against the industry as long as it's in the workers hands and there's no class system and hierarchy. Big industry can also be about needs not profit.


Anarchist tendency war! GOGOGO

[FSL]

This is one of those things that come out in the party sessions on Anarchism, its mindless slander and you'd best just ignore it mate.


Otherwise, you might even have to answer!


Small owners who are threatened by big capital as much as the workers but who feel the same way about a collectivised economy often present an "anarchist" platform, like it happened in Kronstadt. It's not mindless slander when it has happened and when all anarchists continue to support said actions to this day.
The whole anti-organisation, just-don't-bother-me mentality is petty bourgeois to the core. To this day anarchists are mostly students or intellectuals, with workers feeling the "centralized" "undemocratic" leninism a much better way to fight.

[Zanthorus]

A million things are wrong with that, predominantly that I don't want to make a revolution to end up starving.

Big business is the only way to go! All bow before the paleotechnics!

This was written by Ralph Borsodi in 1933 -

"I discovered that more than two-thirds of the things which the average family now buys could be produced more economically at home than they could be bought factory made;

--that the average man and woman could earn more by producing at home than by working for money in an office or factory and that, therefore, the less time they spent working away from home and the more time they spent working at home, the better off they would be;

--finally, that the home itself was still capable of being made into a productive and creative institution and that an investment in a homestead equipped with efficient domestic machinery would yield larger returns per dollar of investment than investments in insurance, in mortgages, in stocks and bonds...."

Technology has advanced in leaps and bounds since then and gotten smaller and more efficient. People aren't going to starve if they have localised production and distribution. Arguably they'd be better off since decentralised production schemes are more efficient.


Small owners who are threatened by big capital as much as the workers but who feel the same way about a collectivised economy often present an "anarchist" platform, like it happened in Kronstadt. It's not mindless slander when it has happened and when all anarchists continue to support said actions to this day.
The whole anti-organisation, just-don't-bother-me mentality is petty bourgeois to the core. To this day anarchists are mostly students or intellectuals, with workers feeling the "centralized" "undemocratic" leninism a much better way to fight.

I guess that explains why Leninism is so popular right now then :rolleyes:

[FSL]

Big business is the only way to go! All bow before the paleotechnics!



I guess that explains why Leninism is so popular right now then?



1) Please, please, please try that! Please! I beg you!
2) Leninism is now and has always been many times more popular among workers than anarchism. Next time you claim this thesis is wrong provide an argument, I have party memberships backing me.

[Zanthorus]

Leninism is now and has always been many times more popular among workers than anarchism. Next time you claim this thesis is wrong provide an argument, I have party memberships backing me.

Personally I haven't really seen much enthusiasm for anything further left than democratic socialism among workers. Not to mention that this is essentially an argument ad populum and not really worth debating anyway.

[Pogue]

1) Please, please, please try that! Please! I beg you!
2) Leninism is now and has always been many times more popular among workers than anarchism. Next time you claim this thesis is wrong provide an argument, I have party memberships backing me.

Actually that would differ from country to country and by period. It also depends on what you mean by leninist.

I don't think party membership numbers or popularity proves how good an ideology is, although you have a point on how valid anarchism has been seen in places, something Makhno focused on and one of the motivations behidn platformism (russian anarchists falling behind the bolsheviks).

[manic expression]

Big industry is a state-capitalist construct, we've had the technology to support localised/decentralised production since the 20's but of course that all interferes with the bourgeoise's ill gotten gains so they keep suppressing it and using advertising and cultural pressure to keep people hooked on big business.

"We" have had the technology to support localized production since the 10th Century, and most people call it feudalism. That's basically the point being made: anarchists reject the march of history in this case and in others, in that centrally-planned economies are the method of working-class control of the means of production; decentralizing everything until class itself is abolished does little positive.

Threads like these are helpful tools in determining who supports working-class state power and who opposes it. Just something to think about.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Small owners who are threatened by big capital as much as the workers but who feel the same way about a collectivised economy often present an "anarchist" platform, like it happened in Kronstadt. It's not mindless slander when it has happened and when all anarchists continue to support said actions to this day.

I think you know your claims are completely ridiculous and unfounded and are just posting to create an argument.


The whole anti-organisation, just-don't-bother-me mentality is petty bourgeois to the core.

What is the point in arguing with other Leftists about their tendencies if you are going to present bourgeois strawman analysis as your criticisms?


To this day anarchists are mostly students or intellectuals, with workers feeling the "centralized" "undemocratic" leninism a much better way to fight.

Well honestly, working class people are quite fond of controlling the means of production and controlling their own lives. So your completely wrong about Leninism.

[TRS]

Utopian...

That's a word that's been used over and over again by Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and Maoists to describe anarchists.
I'll tell you what's "utopian" - the idea that creating a one party state wouldn't lead to totalitarianism and oppression of all classes on a massive scale! Giving one group of people total power has been tried before in history, and every time, it's led to dictatorship, oppression and mass murder.

Personally, I see state communism a deeply patronising ideology. Effectivly, you say that the workers are not clever enough to be able to organise to take power, therefore you must do it for them... once you start seeing one class of people as itellectually inferior to you, you start seeing them as sub human. Ever read 1984? Remember what the Party thought about the Proles? Well thats where you're heading.


Anarchism is about creating a fair society for all people, not just one chosen, special group of people, at the expense of all others.

[Pogue]

And a Leninist revolution wouldn't be a working class revolution. There will be no genuine revolution 'led' by a vanguard party, so we'd probably find oruselves in conflict with a new state which we would fight against advancing the interests of our class and social revolution.

[Zanthorus]

"We" have had the technology to support localized production since the 10th Century, and most people call it feudalism. That's basically the point being made

My point was that we can now sustain our current standard of living with localised production.


anarchists reject the march of history in this case and in others,

Oh yeah I forgot, Marx was a prophet who uncovered the iron law of history and was thus able to predict the future. Firstly even if Marx did uncover some ancient secret of the way that history plays out it doesn't mean that he didn't make a mistake in trying to figure what would happen next.

Secondly, historical materialism is bullshit. There, I said it. Anyone who claims to have found some kind of iron law of history should be regarded with immense suspicion. History is driven by different factors at different times.


in that centrally-planned economies are the method of working-class control of the means of production;

Oh yeah I forgot, the working class are going to take power by giving up their power into the hands of the state beuracracy who will manage the workers for the workers in the name of workers self-management. A fine socialism indeed 'comrade'.


Threads like these are helpful tools in determining who supports working-class state power and who opposes it. Just something to think about.

The masses can never control the reigns of state power because if they did then it would be no state at all.

[Mälli]

We are all trying to create a communist society. Why is there so much fighting about what will we call it, or in who's name we'll do it? Dont get stuck with your ideology so bad, that you can't do anything good unless it is not done exactly in you're way.

I understand there is differences between us about leadership, control and rights, but all we need is a workers society. Less bullshit inside the revolution! :star2::thumbup::star:

[Искра]

We are all trying to create a communist society. Why is there so much fighting about what will we call it, or in who's name we'll do it? Dont get stuck with your ideology so bad, that you can't do anything good unless it is not done exactly in you're way.

I understand there is differences between us about leadership, control and rights, but all we need is a workers society. Less bullshit inside the revolution! :star2::thumbup::star:
You should read history. Only good state capitalist is dead one :)

[Kayser_Soso]

That's a word that's been used over and over again by Leninists, Trotskyists, Stalinists and Maoists to describe anarchists.
I'll tell you what's "utopian" - the idea that creating a one party state wouldn't lead to totalitarianism and oppression of all classes on a massive scale! Giving one group of people total power has been tried before in history, and every time, it's led to dictatorship, oppression and mass murder.

Thank you Robert Conquest. Your check is in the mail.

Seriously, have you considered getting a job with the CATO institute?



Personally, I see state communism a deeply patronising ideology. Effectivly, you say that the workers are not clever enough to be able to organise to take power, therefore you must do it for them... once you start seeing one class of people as itellectually inferior to you, you start seeing them as sub human. Ever read 1984? Remember what the Party thought about the Proles? Well thats where you're heading.

Of course YOU see it that way, because you are terribly insecure and probably 15-16. 1984...seriously. I read 1984 when I was in 10th grade. It's a novel, not a history book. Grow the fuck up.

Nobody is saying that the workers are not "clever" enough; but it is physically impossible for every worker to know all the things they need to keep an entire economy going, plus everything needed to defend the revolution, plus everything needed to conduct foreign policy, etc. It doesn't matter how smart you are.

You anarchists always assume that vanguard must mean something patronizing, that it's always an insult. I rarely hear a single argument from an anarchist that isn't over-emotional, dogmatic, and idealistic.




Anarchism is about creating a fair society for all people, not just one chosen, special group of people, at the expense of all others.

Anarchism is also about not explaining how they plan to build that society, and assuming that there aren't going to be any conditions that prevent them from reaching that ideal immediately or even in the near future.

[manic expression]

My point was that we can now sustain our current standard of living with localised production.

So you want to sustain the working class' current standard of living? Figures.


Oh yeah I forgot, Marx was a prophet who uncovered the iron law of history and was thus able to predict the future. Firstly even if Marx did uncover some ancient secret of the way that history plays out it doesn't mean that he didn't make a mistake in trying to figure what would happen next.

Secondly, historical materialism is bullshit. There, I said it. Anyone who claims to have found some kind of iron law of history should be regarded with immense suspicion. History is driven by different factors at different times.

Marx wasn't a prophet, he simply analyzed society with a scientific perspective, and he's been proven right time and again. If you have something specific that you'd like to bring up instead of bad-mouthing the most influential revolutionary in history, do let us know.


Oh yeah I forgot, the working class are going to take power by giving up their power into the hands of the state beuracracy who will manage the workers for the workers in the name of workers self-management. A fine socialism indeed 'comrade'.

All ruling classes have had state bureaucracies in one form or another; you're practically implying that workers are less politically capable as rulers than capitalists, monarchs, slave-owners and other ruling classes throughout history. If you're not implying that, then there's no reason why workers shouldn't establish something that's inherent in any modern state.


The masses can never control the reigns of state power because if they did then it would be no state at all.

That makes no sense. At all. A state is simply a tool of class suppression through armed bodies of men, and so long as the bourgeoisie still exists, the state is still an historical necessity. Your logic would have us believe that the masses shouldn't organize to promote their interests, as this would naturally entail establishing state power for this end. Your logic is based on a moralizing perspective, so it makes perfect sense that you'd reject the scientific point of view.

[Kayser_Soso]

My point was that we can now sustain our current standard of living with localised production.

And to prove this you will offer...?




Oh yeah I forgot, Marx was a prophet who uncovered the iron law of history and was thus able to predict the future. Firstly even if Marx did uncover some ancient secret of the way that history plays out it doesn't mean that he didn't make a mistake in trying to figure what would happen next.

Funny you mention that, because if anything its anarchists who have the ability to see into the future and predict that once the state is smashed, workers are going to seamlessly manage their affairs, become progressive-minded people, and there won't be any insurgencies, intervention, subversion, etc.



Secondly, historical materialism is bullshit. There, I said it. Anyone who claims to have found some kind of iron law of history should be regarded with immense suspicion. History is driven by different factors at different times.

Saying historical materialism is bullshit is akin to saying the scientific method is bullshit. Historical materialism is a methodology, not a law. I think you are thinking of his concept of class struggle.




Oh yeah I forgot, the working class are going to take power by giving up their power into the hands of the state beuracracy who will manage the workers for the workers in the name of workers self-management. A fine socialism indeed 'comrade'.

What do you do when the material conditions don't exist for workers to run their own enterprises on a totally collective basis? What do you do when more people need education and training to do so? What to do when development in one part of the country is far behind, while another part is rich due to location, resources, etc. Who is going to manage all that? Just take a look at how many decisions need to be made economically and politically in any given country on any given day and ask yourself:

1. Do I really want to be responsible for all of those?

2. Is it even physically possible for me to be properly informed so as to make intelligent decisions on these matters?




The masses can never control the reigns of state power because if they did then it would be no state at all.

Straight from the Zen monastery. The state is an organization of repression of one class against another. You cannot just abolish it, declare everyone "free" and ignore the fact that you've just left a hell of a lot of angry, well-connected ruling class types plus their lackeys just walking around with all the same rights you have.

Trust me, we Marxist-Leninists all know how superior anarchism is to the system of the Soviet Union, Albania, etc., at least on paper. The problem is, your system seems to have a REALLY hard time existing for more than a year, and even then it was touch and go. See when folks like you criticize the Soviet system, always totally ignoring all the historical conditions surrounding it and acting like it was the way it was simply because the leaders were authoritarian dicks who willed it to be that way...I visualize the creators of all those wacky, failed flying machines in the early 20th century, laughing and gloating over the failure of the airplane after hearing about one plane crash.

The transition from one mode of production to another, from an inferior society to a superior society, will not be pretty, pleasant, or kind. It will often not be fair either. The USSR did not exist as it did because someone had the wrong theory, or was "evil", but because it existed under particular conditions, and people responded to those conditions, sometimes correctly, many times wrongly. But the point is that the USSR made progress, it gave us data and experience with which to work, not to mention the fact that it increased populations, created nations that hitherto didn't exist, and defeated fascism. Even if you claim that all the USSR can show us is what not to do- then you would still have benefited from that experience.

Anarchism has given us nothing, save for dreams and lame excuses. Our plane crashed- but yours never got off the ground.

[Mälli]

I was not talking about a state nor capitalism. I was talking about a communist society, not a state. And yes, state capitalism sucks too.

[TRS]

Thank you Robert Conquest. Your check is in the mail.

Seriously, have you considered getting a job with the CATO institute?

Because that's a brilliant arguement that refuted everything I said ¬_¬




Of course YOU see it that way, because you are terribly insecure and probably 15-16. 1984...seriously. I read 1984 when I was in 10th grade. It's a novel, not a history book. Grow the fuck up.

I'll thank you to leave out the personal insults. You're assumptions about my age and mental state are both wrong and insulting.

Also, if we're gonna get on about people's ages, the only Stalinists I've ever met are 12 year olds who only want to shock. It's the ideological equivalent of the movie Donkey Punch.

Also, no-one ever won an argument by yelling insults at the opposing party.



Nobody is saying that the workers are not "clever" enough; but it is physically impossible for every worker to know all the things they need to keep an entire economy going, plus everything needed to defend the revolution, plus everything needed to conduct foreign policy, etc. It doesn't matter how smart you are.

This arguement doesn't make sense... Not everybody would have to know every tiny bit of economic theory. As long as people grasp the basic theory behind anarchism then society would fuction. Capitalism works as intended by the elite, but not every worker knows the theorys of economic capitalism, eh?



You anarchists always assume that vanguard must mean something patronizing, that it's always an insult. I rarely hear a single argument from an anarchist that isn't over-emotional, dogmatic, and idealistic.


You should try listening to arguments from Anarchists, rather than insulting them. You might learn something about the well worked theory behind Anarchist-Communism




Anarchism is also about not explaining how they plan to build that society, and assuming that there aren't going to be any conditions that prevent them from reaching that ideal immediately or even in the near future.

So how would a Stalinist society work? I assume you'd model it on Stalin's rule, ie Secret Police and the murder of dissidents. Sounds like a perfect society to me!

[Zanthorus]

So you want to sustain the working class' current standard of living? Figures.

You know that isn't what I meant.


Your logic is based on a moralizing perspective, so it makes perfect sense that you'd reject the scientific point of view.

Right, so the only reason you support communism is the scientific reasons?


Saying historical materialism is bullshit is akin to saying the scientific method is bullshit. Historical materialism is a methodology, not a law. I think you are thinking of his concept of class struggle.

I'm pretty sure I mean historical materialism.

Shock! Horror! Things besides material conditions play a part in history! What will those crazy anarchists think of next!


A state is simply a tool of class suppression through armed bodies of men, and so long as the bourgeoisie still exists, the state is still an historical necessity.
The state is an organization of repression of one class against another.

Well then we've dived head first into the wonderful world of semantics. The state as far as I can tell is an institution that holds a territorial monopoly and force and defends private property.

[manic expression]

This arguement doesn't make sense... Not everybody would have to know every tiny bit of economic theory. As long as people grasp the basic theory behind anarchism then society would fuction.

And what happens when not everyone agrees with the basic theory behind anarchism? Further, as you will point out below, societies function as they are built, not as a consensual understanding of some critical mass of individuals.


Capitalism works as intended by the elite, but not every worker knows the theorys of economic capitalism, eh?

Right, the ruling class of bourgeois society controls and directs that society through state power. How do you propose the workers control and direct society without state power, especially when the bourgeoisie has proven that it will continue to promote its interests against the workers after revolutionary gains?


So how would a Stalinist society work? I assume you'd model it on Stalin's rule, ie Secret Police and the murder of dissidents. Sounds like a perfect society to me!

Generally, a Marxist-Leninist-led society would be led by the vanguard party and have the essential conditions of working-class societies: the abolition of private property, the illegalization of exploitation of man by man, among others. However, many socialist societies differ in the challenges arrayed against them, in the specific makeup of the organs of governance, in the historical events which help shape the worker state and otherwise. As an example, the USSR had no allies and was forced to undergo a century of industrialization and modernization on its own; Cuba, which underwent a revolution about 40 years later, had to face imperialist aggression as well but found key allies with which to develop political, military and economic ties. Lastly, leadership matters, and the leaders of the working class greatly affect the workings of socialism in that country.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Marx wasn't a prophet, he simply analyzed society with a scientific perspective, and he's been proven right time and again.


Scientific, eh? "Scientific" implies the use of the scientific method. The scientific method involves forming hypotheses, performing controlled experiments, and drawing conclusions from those experiments. The study of history is necessarily unscientific because it is impossible to perform controlled historical experiments unless you have godlike powers to manipulate conditions. I'm not saying that the theory of historical materialism is incorrect; however, it is disingenuous to call it "scientific."


That makes no sense. At all. A state is simply a tool of class suppression through armed bodies of men

For fuck's sake...

Look, when anarchists talk about the State, we aren't talking about something that is simply "a tool of class suppression." We're talking about a hierarchical organization that exists separately from the working class, performs actions that it would not allow its citizens to perform, and centralizes the exercise of authority into it's own hands. Obviously the bourgeoisie must be defeated and the revolution must be defended. We aren't debating that point. Rather, we are debating the form which the defense of the revolution will take.

[manic expression]

You know that isn't what I meant.

Then say what you mean if you didn't mean what you said.


Right, so the only reason you support communism is the scientific reasons?

I support revolution for many reasons, but the scientific method is what makes the ideas and principles of communism true and effective.

It would be like asking me if I support the theory of evolution ONLY because it's backed up by the scientific method.


Well then we've dived head first into the wonderful world of semantics. The state as far as I can tell is an institution that holds a territorial monopoly and force and defends private property.

Almost. The state defends the interests of whatever class is in power. In feudal and monarchist societies, it defends inherited property ordained by religion. In capitalist society, it defends privatized wage-labor and commodity production. In socialist society, it defends collectivized production and the interests of the working class.

The state is not inherently pro-private property, I'm not at all sure where you got that impression.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Things besides material conditions play a part in history! What will those crazy anarchists think of next!


I presume by "things" you mean "ideas"? For what it's worth, historical materialism does not deny the role of ideas in the shaping of history. It does make the claim that these ideas are primarily the result of material conditions, though. How is it inaccurate to say that someone whose material conditions are superior to those of another person will be more likely to adopt an ideology that defends the status quo?

[nuisance]

No, personally I not only see authoritarians of all stripes as a hinderance but actually as a threat to the emancipation of the working class.

[FSL]

And a Leninist revolution wouldn't be a working class revolution. There will be no genuine revolution 'led' by a vanguard party, so we'd probably find oruselves in conflict with a new state which we would fight against advancing the interests of our class and social revolution.


There are a bunch of things that are worthy of answering but I 'll only quote this since it'd be boring.

Anyway...

You are in a vanguard, even if you'd hate admitting it. You think in ways most workers don't about things they don't care. You participate in strikes when they don't/help in breaking them. You read anarchist/marxist literature etc etc.
A number of workers is "at the front of the movement". Not because they said so, not because they appointed themselves at that position but because they are. And history has shown time and time again that organizing does help. If forming a party helps, if that party being centered around "unity of action" helps, then this is what must happen. It's not the vanguard making the revolution, it is the workers with those forming the vanguard having done everything in their strength to raise awareness. As you aim to do with the only difference being that they chose a more effective way.



@Stranger than paradise

You can mention in what ways are my "claims" absurd? The Kronstadt uprising had among its demands the rights for individuals to own land and cattle, is that a lie? If that -small ownership- isn't the basis of petty bourgeois politics, what is?
And I didn't dismiss all anarchists as petty bourgeois. I argued that small owners often find anarchism, which is usually as much against big capital as it is against centralised, large-scale production, a much better alternative to communism. Surely, a larger than expected number of petty owners or youth identifying themselves as anarchists will have some part in shaping the ideology, stressing the importance of "individual freedom", won't it?


I'm talking about Leninism mainly in this instance focusing on the new party, a disciplined organization with internal democracy and unity in action.
And the point isn't simply a popularity contest. The working class is, due to its position in the economy, the revolutionary class. Working class revolutionary movements found mass support among the workers.
Communism isn't merely more "popular", it's genuinely working class. In a party petty-bourgeois tendencies can be found and expelled (the horror!). Not in anarchism where everyone is free beyond belief. As Lenin argued, when you're in a worker's organization and call out for more freedom it can only be because your positions are not of benefit to the working class.
Workers don't feel the "burden" of being in a party like that, because they're as free as they could possibly want. They would, however, feel the burden of marching next to someone who wants to destroy the factories they work in.

[manic expression]

Scientific, eh? "Scientific" implies the use of the scientific method. The scientific method involves forming hypotheses, performing controlled experiments, and drawing conclusions from those experiments. The study of history is necessarily unscientific because it is impossible to perform controlled historical experiments unless you have godlike powers to manipulate conditions. I'm not saying that the theory of historical materialism is incorrect; however, it is disingenuous to call it "scientific."

The study of society is not necessarily unscientific, and if we are to achieve a useful understanding of the dynamics of our day, then scientific analyses are a must. Experiments are simply a way of gathering evidence and information and data. We can do the same by studying history and the forces behind the events. Of course it's not exactly the same as burning magnesium in a laboratory and writing down what happens, but if a city is burning and you pinpoint the who, what, where, how and why, that is quite similar and serves the same relative purpose.


For fuck's sake...

Look, when anarchists talk about the State, we aren't talking about something that is simply "a tool of class suppression." We're talking about a hierarchical organization that exists separately from the working class,

Technically, the capitalist state does not "exist separately from the working class" because it oppresses workers in an intimate manner. But that's beside the point: if you mean that a state is defined as something which disenfranchises the working class, then your definition of the state does not apply to the socialist societies that Marxists defend. Thus, there is no reason to oppose the governments of the USSR, Cuba, etc., as they were the direct products of working-class revolution. The workers were enfranchised and their interests were promoted and defended. They were and are still states, though.

[FSL]

No, personally I not only see authoritarians of all stripes as a hinderance but actually as a threat to the emancipation of the working class.


Now, this is a typical example of petty-bourgeois anarchism. Against authoritarianism of all stripes.

How could ever a concious worker who wants to see his boss' business nationalized be drawn to this? How could he be against authoritarianism when he wants to force his opinions upon his employer without his will, when that's the very definition of authoritarianism?

[Durruti's Ghost]

The study of society is not necessarily unscientific, and if we are to achieve a useful understanding of the dynamics of our day, then scientific analyses are a must. Experiments are simply a way of gathering evidence and information and data. We can do the same by studying history and the forces behind the events. Of course it's not exactly the same as burning magnesium in a laboratory and writing down what happens, but if a city is burning and you pinpoint the who, what, where, how and why, that is quite similar and serves the same relative purpose.

I suppose we just have different conceptions of "scientific". For me, falsifiability and testability are key elements of scientific method. It doesn't really matter, though; I think historical materialism is, by-and-large, an accurate theory.



Technically, the capitalist state does not "exist separately from the working class" because it oppresses workers in an intimate manner.By "exists separately", I mean that it exists as an entity external to the working class. Even though the working class has some influence over the modern bourgeois state through elections and such, it is not controlled directly by and made up entirely of workers. Contrast, for example, a federation of workers' and community councils (a "soviet union") run in a directly democratic fashion with a central body made up of delegates subject to instant recall. This would not be a state because it would not exist external to the working class.


How could ever a concious worker who wants to see his boss' business nationalized be drawn to this? How could he be against authoritarianism when he wants to force his opinions upon his employer without his will, when that's the very definition of authoritarianism?

Semantics. Properly speaking, anarchism is not against "authority" (i.e., the exercise of power that is viewed as legitimate), but against inequalities of authority. "Against all authority!" makes a better slogan, though.

[FSL]

Semantics. Properly speaking, anarchism is not against "authority" (i.e., the exercise of power that is viewed as legitimate), but against inequalities of authority. "Against all authority!" makes a better slogan, though.


The anarchists who come from the working class/ are indeed in favour of a revolution won't be against legitimate authority exercised to defend the revolution. "Anarchists" asking for the right to own land and sell the products for the highest price possible to starving people as a civil war rages on would be against "authoritarians of all stripes".

Not having the ways and mechanisms to decide beforehand which opinions/actions are pro-worker and which aren't and deal with them is an objective weakness in the anarchist movement and one I can't ever see being dealt with unless it "degenerates" to leninism.


By "exists separately", I mean that it exists as an entity external to the working class. Even though the working class has some influence over the modern bourgeois state through elections and such, it is not controlled directly by and made up entirely of workers. Contrast, for example, a federation of workers' and community councils (a "soviet union") run in a directly democratic fashion with a central body made up of delegates subject to instant recall. This would not be a state because it would not exist external to the working class.


Of course the bourgeois state isn't controlled by workers. It is controlled by the bourgeoisie and is hardly creating any problems to it, right?

You then proceed to demonstrate how a worker's state is organised and end up with the conclusion that it isn't a state at all? Of course it is, it wouldn't be repressing workers anymore, but it would be a state nontheless. In the same way that the bourgeois state doesn't make rich people suffer but is a state.

[Zanthorus]

I presume by "things" you mean "ideas"? For what it's worth, historical materialism does not deny the role of ideas in the shaping of history. It does make the claim that these ideas are primarily the result of material conditions, though. How is it inaccurate to say that someone whose material conditions are superior to those of another person will be more likely to adopt an ideology that defends the status quo?

I've seen people with shitty material conditions vehemently defending the status quo and people with wealth attacking it.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Not having the ways and mechanisms to decide beforehand which opinions/actions are pro-worker and which aren't and deal with them is an objective weakness in the anarchist movement and one I can't ever see being dealt with unless it "degenerates" to leninism.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. Workers' control of the means of production is pro-worker. Control by someone other than the workers is anti-worker. What else is there?


You then proceed to demonstrate how a worker's state is organised and end up with the conclusion that it isn't a state at all?

Exactly. IF the "workers' state" is organized in this manner, it isn't a state as anarchists define "state". If it isn't organized in this manner, it IS a state. The USSR, at least after the early '20s, was not organized in this manner; therefore, it was not a "workers' state" but was, in fact, an actual state.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I've seen people with shitty material conditions vehemently defending the status quo and people with wealth attacking it.

It's not an absolute rule, but merely an expression of probability.

EDIT: Also, other factors can come into play; for example, people with wealth tend to be more educated and, therefore, are more likely to be exposed at some point to socialist theory than people without wealth. So it would be better to say that it is an expression of probability when all other variables are equal; between a wealthy person who's read Marx and a poor person who's read Marx, the poor person is more likely to be a Marxist.

[nuisance]

Now, this is a typical example of petty-bourgeois anarchism. Against authoritarianism of all stripes.
You what? Please don't be sad that people don't want to join your little Lenin fanboy vanguard, we can actually learn from history. Do you even know the differences between legitimate and illegitimate authority? You should know that anarchists do not reject authority that is consenusal between free and equal agents.
To quote Bakunin 'On the matter of boots, I defer authority to the bootmaker'


How could ever a concious worker who wants to see his boss' business nationalized be drawn to this? How could he be against authoritarianism when he wants to force his opinions upon his employer without his will, when that's the very definition of authoritarianism?
Anarchists oppose nationalisation anyway (you know we oppose the State, right?), so If this is worker did want this then they would be debated in attempt to swing them to our perspective. Bad analogy. That said, we are for social revolution to emancipate the working class, not liberals.

[manic expression]

By "exists separately", I mean that it exists as an entity external to the working class. Even though the working class has some influence over the modern bourgeois state through elections and such, it is not controlled directly by and made up entirely of workers. Contrast, for example, a federation of workers' and community councils (a "soviet union") run in a directly democratic fashion with a central body made up of delegates subject to instant recall. This would not be a state because it would not exist external to the working class.

That is quite a leap in logic. Why does that define a state? Most states throughout history had no modern proletariat at all, so why is this a defining factor? In fact, any definition of a state that includes pre-modern societies would be completely different because of this fact. Also, just because the institutions of the state are run democratically by workers doesn't change the fact that they're institutions of a state. Like Engels said, this is basically an attempt to re-label what is obviously a working-class state into something more comfortable.

Further, like I said, your definition doesn't apply to the USSR, Cuba or other socialist societies, because the voice of the working class was and is decisive in these countries.

[Durruti's Ghost]

That is quite a leap in logic. Why does that define a state? Most states throughout history had no modern proletariat at all, so why is this a defining factor? In fact, any definition of a state that includes pre-modern societies would be completely different because of this fact.

What are you talking about? Every single state in history has had a working class. In slave societies, the slaves composed the working class. In feudalism, the serfs composed the working class. In capitalism, the proletariat composes the working class.


Further, like I said, your definition doesn't apply to the USSR, Cuba or other socialist societies, because the voice of the working class was and is decisive in these countries.No, it wasn't and isn't. Prove me wrong. Show me evidence that the states of the USSR and Cuba were composed of directly democratic federations of workers' councils with central bodies made up of delegates subject to instant recall--according to FSL, this is how a workers' state is supposed to be organized, right?

[FSL]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Workers' control of the means of production is pro-worker. Control by someone other than the workers is anti-worker. What else is there?


There is this.

The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.


Which isn't workers' control of the means of production but is supported by any anarchist I've known.


Exactly. IF the "workers' state" is organized in this manner, it isn't a state as anarchists define "state". If it isn't organized in this manner, it IS a state. The USSR, at least after the early '20s, was not organized in this manner; therefore, it was not a "workers' state" but was, in fact, an actual state.


You might want to change that date a bit.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/04/19-2.htm

The state was indeed organized in that manner but not to everyone's liking. Revisionism was the political victory of non-workers* inside the party. Funnily enough, more years were needed to defeat socialism than workers had available to build it. A job well done it seems.


High level, educated workers, part of the intelligentsia, NEPmen, Kolkhozes (even more so their administration since they were "self-governed" and less tied by soviet laws like industrial enterprises) etc

[manic expression]

What are you talking about? Every single state in history has had a working class. In slave societies, the slaves composed the working class. In feudalism, the serfs composed the working class. In capitalism, the proletariat composes the working class.

The industrial proletariat has not always existed. Of course there have always been working classes, but the conditions today are not the same by a long shot, Marx made this very clear when first outlining the fundamental contradictions of capitalism: the bourgeoisie creates and fuels its own enemies out of necessity.


No, it wasn't and isn't. Prove me wrong. Show me evidence that the states of the USSR and Cuba were composed of directly democratic federations of workers' councils with central bodies made up of delegates subject to instant recall.Since this is better done with specifics, I'll choose Cuba because it's what I know best.

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm

http://emba.cubaminrex.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=18841

See the portion in the second link on recall elections. From what I've heard from someone who lived in Cuba and observed such meetings, every district participates in a recall process every six months. They're called "accountability sessions", and the community can decide to subject a representative to a recall vote within a few weeks or less.

Further reading (from a researcher who actually saw first-hand the Cuban electoral process):

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-1997-98-Elections-Arnold-August/dp/0968508405

And lastly, you're obviously forgetting the most important thing here. A country cannot be defined as socialist by political summaries alone. If capitalism has been abolished and if property has been collectivized, then political processes are secondary, for social relations make a society what it truly is. According to your logic, the Second French Empire wouldn't have been capitalist because the capitalists weren't in direct control of the state; obviously this is flawed reasoning.

[FSL]

You what? Please don't be sad that people don't want to join your little Lenin fanboy vanguard, we can actually learn from history. Do you even know the differences between legitimate and illegitimate authority? You should know that anarchists do not reject authority that is consenusal between free and equal agents.

That said, we are for social revolution to emancipate the working class, not liberals.

You shouldn't, social revolution means a ton of non-consensual authority exercised upon the poor lads overthrown.

And so cute that fanboy thing, do continue in that tone.

[nuisance]

You shouldn't, social revolution means a ton of non-consensual authority exercised upon the poor lads overthrown.

And so cute that fanboy thing, do continue in that tone.
:lol:
Are you stupid or purposely not reading the post!
As I said, anarchists oppose hierarchical structures (illegitimate authority) and strive for self-organisation based on free and equal actors- meaning legitimate authority can be exercised. Evidently this means that inorder to reach these ends, then it is necessary to destory the structures that coecre us everyday and maintain capitalist property relations. Comprehende?

[FSL]

:lol:
Are you stupid or purposely not reading the post!
As I said, anarchists oppose hierarchical structures (illegitimate authority) and strive for self-organisation based on free and equal actors- meaning legitimate authority can be exercised. Evidently this means that inorder to reach these ends, then it is necessary to destory the structures that coecre us everyday and maintain capitalist property relations. Comprehende?



If you have no problem opressing people dear Mr Anarchist you could have said so at the very beginning.

Always nice to see more people supporting the Moscow Trials or collectivization.

[nuisance]

If you have no problem opressing people dear Mr Anarchist you could have said so at the very beginning.

Always nice to see more people supporting the Moscow Trials or collectivization.
So you fall back on poor snipes when you cannot put forward a coherent position? This only highlights your inability and complete lack of understanding of anarchism. Congrats.
I suggest you respond properly with substaniated posts and not troll, or consider this a warning.

[Kayser_Soso]

What are you talking about? Every single state in history has had a working class. In slave societies, the slaves composed the working class. In feudalism, the serfs composed the working class. In capitalism, the proletariat composes the working class.

The proletariat is not the same as those working classes. For one thing, a slave master needs a return on his investment when he buys a slave, so he is forced to care for the slave's basic needs. Imagine if someone forced you to work, never paid you anything, but always made sure you had a roof over your head, food, and in some cases medical care.

Serfs are dependent on a master but the master also depends on them for various things(footmen, food, etc.), so there is a sort of mutual agreement, with the advantage being on the side of the lord of course. serfs are self-sustaining and communities of free serfs were able to sustain themselves by working common lands.

By contrast, the proletariat, the working class we speak of is not self-sustaining. We have no choice but to sell our labor power to the capitalist, and he has no bond to us whatsoever.




No, it wasn't and isn't. Prove me wrong. Show me evidence that the states of the USSR and Cuba were composed of directly democratic federations of workers' councils with central bodies made up of delegates subject to instant recall--according to FSL, this is how a workers' state is supposed to be organized, right?

There is a difference between how a workers' state is supposed to be organized and what actually happens once you try to make that a reality. One would think anarchists more than anyone else would appreciate that.

Actually if you look at the Soviet 1936 constitution, it becomes very clear that the problem wasn't so much the law, it was the way it was enforced/not enforced.

[Durruti's Ghost]

The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.


Which isn't workers' control of the means of production but is supported by any anarchist I've known.


Isn't it? Aren't peasants workers--people who produce value through their labor and do not exploit the surplus value of others' labor?



The industrial proletariat has not always existed. Of course there have always been working classes, but the conditions today are not the same by a long shot, Marx made this very clear when first outlining the fundamental contradictions of capitalism: the bourgeoisie creates and fuels its own enemies out of necessity.

I agree.


Since this is better done with specifics, I'll choose Cuba because it's what I know best.

http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutc...504elecsys.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.cubasolidarity.com/aboutcuba/topics/government/0504elecsys.htm)

http://emba.cubaminrex.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=18841 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://emba.cubaminrex.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=18841)

See the portion in the second link on recall elections. From what I've heard from someone who lived in Cuba and observed such meetings, every district participates in a recall process every six months. They're called "accountability sessions", and the community can decide to subject a representative to a recall vote within a few weeks or less.

Further reading (from a researcher who actually saw first-hand the Cuban electoral process):

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-1997.../dp/0968508405 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-1997-98-Elections-Arnold-August/dp/0968508405)

I want to give this the time that it deserves (that goes for FSL's link too), but I don't have that time right now. I'll read the sources and make a full response later.


And lastly, you're obviously forgetting the most important thing here. A country cannot be defined as socialist by political summaries alone. If capitalism has been abolished and if property has been collectivized, then political processes are secondary, for social relations make a society what it truly is. According to your logic, the Second French Empire wouldn't have been capitalist because the capitalists weren't in direct control of the state; obviously this is flawed reasoning.

I agree that it is the economy that is most important. However, what characterizes a socialist economy is worker control of the means of production. If the state controls the means of production, then the political form DOES matter very much; the workers must control the state for state control to translate into worker control.

[Kayser_Soso]

:lol:
Are you stupid or purposely not reading the post!
As I said, anarchists oppose hierarchical structures (illegitimate authority) and strive for self-organisation based on free and equal actors- meaning legitimate authority can be exercised. Evidently this means that inorder to reach these ends, then it is necessary to destory the structures that coecre us everyday and maintain capitalist property relations. Comprehende?


Who decides if the authority is legitimate or or illegitimate? And if you intend to destroy the structures that maintain capitalist property relations, how are you going to stop them from arising again? Hopefully no coercive measures!

[Kayser_Soso]

I'll thank you to leave out the personal insults. You're assumptions about my age and mental state are both wrong and insulting.

You mean you're older? That's even worse!



Also, if we're gonna get on about people's ages, the only Stalinists I've ever met are 12 year olds who only want to shock. It's the ideological equivalent of the movie Donkey Punch.

Well since I don't consider myself a "Stalinist", nor do I acknowledge the existence of any ideology known as "Stalinism", I must not be in it for the shock value huh?




This arguement doesn't make sense... Not everybody would have to know every tiny bit of economic theory.

They would need to have a firm background in any major decision that needs to be made.



As long as people grasp the basic theory behind anarchism then society would fuction. Capitalism works as intended by the elite, but not every worker knows the theorys of economic capitalism, eh?

Damn this is just bizarre. So if you just understand anarchism, you have all you need to directly influence any given decision that would come up in a future society. Great. With anarchism being such a magical theory of that sort, one wonders why they were so unsuccessful up to this point.

Capitalism works as intended, and DOESN'T REQUIRE every worker to know the economic theories of capitalism because it prevents, forbids, or at least drastically limits the workers' participation in politics.





You should try listening to arguments from Anarchists, rather than insulting them. You might learn something about the well worked theory behind Anarchist-Communism

I've been all ears for years now, and I keep seeing the same arguments. Anarchism's theory is wonderful- it's practice is pretty pathetic.





So how would a Stalinist society work? I assume you'd model it on Stalin's rule, ie Secret Police and the murder of dissidents. Sounds like a perfect society to me!

First of all there is no such thing as a Stalinist society, but then again at least dissidents in the USSR got trials of some sort, rather than being shot out of hand like in Ukraine or anarchist regions of Spain. Second, attempts to copy past revolutions, societies, and states, are completely out. These states are of interest to us, only insofar as they provide us information about what works and what doesn't work. Unlike anarchists, we do not dream up our ideal society. We make plans, projections, but we focus mainly on analysis of the past and present, particularly the latter, ready to adapt to the situation as needed. If anything, the failure of the socialist bloc was a failure to adapt to the new methods of counter-revolution in the post WWII era.

[Искра]

I really adore how Anti-Revisionists (aka. Stalinists) argue, in the way that 1st they get personal, then they attack you about source of information, then they attack you with utopia vs. realism argument and in the end they say nothing :rolleyes:

[Kayser_Soso]

I really adore how Anti-Revisionists (aka. Stalinists) argue, in the way that 1st they get personal, then they attack you about source of information, then they attack you with utopia vs. realism argument and in the end they say nothing :rolleyes:

Oh dear, we ask for sources!! Damn us for respecting the evil bourgeois science of historiography! And damn us again for being realists rather than just assuming that after some magical revolution, workers will all conform to our wildest dreams according to our "deep theory".

[nuisance]

Who decides if the authority is legitimate or or illegitimate?
Again, weak.
The defintion of legitmate and illegitimate authority, for anarchists atleast, is based around years of theory and practice but excusing that the concept is clearly understandable by the use of the words. Illegitimate meaning authority that is held above and you should know the rest. Basically it's a fact, nothing abstract, as you are intending to imply.


And if you intend to destroy the structures that maintain capitalist property relations, how are you going to stop them from arising again? Hopefully no coercive measures!
Society and free individuals have the right to protect their interests from those that intend to upsurp it. The decision on how to act against the problem would presumbebly be decided by society and individuals self-organisating through various organs of direct democracy.


Hopefully no coercive measures!
Aww! So cute and uninformed!

[nuisance]

And damn us again for being realists rather than just assuming that after some magical revolution, workers will all conform to our wildest dreams according to our "deep theory".
Who thinks this? :blink:

[coda]

hey Keyser soso! if you think anarchism is a utopian fairytale, then by default you're admitting to the fact that Marxist-Leninist-Mao-ect. is a dystopian horror show!! :thumbup1:

ps. I bet I'm old enough to be yo mama

[Kayser_Soso]

Again, weak.
The defintion of legitmate and illegitimate authority, for anarchists atleast, is based around years of theory and practice but excusing that the concept is clearly understandable by the use of the words. Illegitimate meaning authority that is held above and you should know the rest. Basically it's a fact, nothing abstract, as you are intending to imply.

This requires everyone to assume the anarchist view toward authority. What happens when workers disagree with it?

I have a far more factual, accurate description of "legitimate" authority, which thankfully is backed up by years...no wait, the entire history of human civilization. It basically goes like this: Legitimate authority is that which establishes(or is established) and sustains its position.



Society and free individuals have the right to protect their interests from those that intend to upsurpp.

Society and free individuals? Which one has more right? Furthermore, does not the capitalist, the petit bourgeoisie type, and perhaps the radical reactionary also have a right to his or her interests?



The decision on how to act against the problem would presumbebly be decided by society and individuals self-organisating through various organs of direct democracy.

Well looking at Ukraine and Catalonia that didn't work out to well. So for every problem we need self-organization, direct democracy, etc. And we will do ALL of that, without any problems from the surrounding capitalists, while simultaneously maintaining a higher standard of living than our current one. Sounds like a great plan.



Aww! So cute and uninformed!

Not an answer. Try again.

[Kayser_Soso]

Who thinks this? :blink:

You guys apparently, since apparently everything under anarchism is going to work a certain way, backed up by years of anarchist theory.

[Kayser_Soso]

hey Keyser soso! if you think anarchism is a utopian fairytale, then by default you're admitting to the fact that Marxist-Leninist-Mao-ect. is a dystopian horror show!! :thumbup1:

ps. I bet I'm old enough to be yo mama

Wow, with logic like that I can't imagine why anarchists haven't been more successful in the past.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Your problem (OP) is in your first sentence.

You assume that whichever sectarian group you belong to can enact and lead a revolution by its own means and endeavours. That is folly.

A revolution must encompass the entire working class and all associated movements. It must represent the majority of a nation's populace, else unnecessary authoritarianism will rule.

The real question you should be asking is, how can Communists and Anarchists unite to enact revolution, because to be sure, there will not be revolution in any developed nation with working class, socialist unity.

[nuisance]

This requires everyone to assume the anarchist view toward authority. What happens when workers disagree with it?
It's a anarchist defintion, so presumebly in a libertarian society this would be shared.


I have a far more factual, accurate description of "legitimate" authority, which thankfully is backed up by years...no wait, the entire history of human civilization. It basically goes like this: Legitimate authority is that which establishes(or is established) and sustains its position.
You not know what definition of legitimacy is? Try wiki.


Society and free individuals? Which one has more right? Furthermore, does not the capitalist, the petit bourgeoisie type, and perhaps the radical reactionary also have a right to his or her interests?
A free society consists of free individuals. And since were talking about a libertarian society this is obvious. In a communist organised economy a person can own property if it doesn't hinder others free access to things.


Well looking at Ukraine and Catalonia that didn't work out to well. So for every problem we need self-organization, direct democracy, etc. And we will do ALL of that, without any problems from the surrounding capitalists, while simultaneously maintaining a higher standard of living than our current one. Sounds like a great plan.
OK, I'll comment more on this when I have a spare minute. Maintaining the basic structures of society is to keep legitimacy and avoid majority/minority conflicts. Quite why it is positive to side step this and why it would hinder combatting reactionaries, who knows?
But to keep the tone of this debate, Russia went well ;)



Not an answer. Try again.
The answer was above.
'The decision on how to act against the problem would presumbebly be decided by society and individuals self-organisating through various organs of direct democracy.'
Please try and keep up, it'll make this all work much smoother.

[nuisance]

You guys apparently, since apparently everything under anarchism is going to work a certain way, backed up by years of anarchist theory.
Show me then.

[FSL]

So you fall back on poor snipes when you cannot put forward a coherent position? This only highlights your inability and complete lack of understanding of anarchism. Congrats.
I suggest you respond properly with substaniated posts and not troll, or consider this a warning.


Good one, just noticed you moderate around here. How's this? Trash it if you want, ban me or whatever, but don't threaten me please. Way too ridiculous.
Now, instead of just saying us that any actions will be decided through organs of direct democracy, could you say what will you actually be proposing in said organs? Just to clarify whether you indeed are an authoritarian of a certain stripe or instead actively against any revolutionary change.


Isn't it? Aren't peasants workers--people who produce value through their labor and do not exploit the surplus value of others' labor?

No, in the same way shopkeepers who own and run their shops aren't communism in practice but petty bourgeoisie. Because they individually own the means of production, they individually own the product and they aim in selling that product to a market, treating as a commodity that has as its purpose not satisfying popular needs but maximizing their earnings.

[Kayser_Soso]

It's a anarchist defintion, so presumebly in a libertarian society this would be shared.

Ah...presumably, presumably. Now how do you intend to establish such a society?



You not know what legitimacy means?

Yes, do you?





A free society consists of free individuals. And since were talking about a libertarian society this is obvious. In a communist organised economy a person can own property if it doesn't hinder others free access to things.

So technically then, a capitalist could still own a factory, and his capital, and pay workers to work for him?




OK, I'll comment more on this when I have a share minute.
But to keep the tone of this debate, Russia went well ;)

Far better than anarchist experiments. Even with the devastation since the break-up, most of the hospitals, schools, cultural centers, monuments, alphabets, and other achievements of the USSR still exist today. Where are the anarchist achievements?




The answer was above.
'The decision on how to act against the problem would presumbebly be decided by society and individuals self-organisating through various organs of direct democracy.'
Please try and keep up, it'll make this all work much smoother.

Again, there's that word "presumably" again. Did it ever occur to you how much extra work this is going to put on the individual worker? At least capitalism gives him cheap consumer goods and doesn't require him or her to read up on every issue, form ad hoc organizations, and vote on every issue big or small. In case you didn't notice, the vast majority of people HATE politics, and not without good reason. Forming a society where everybody is involved in politics is going to take some transition time, and in the mean time, there will have to be various bodies that handle some of these decisions. Obviously they should be fully subjected to democratic procedures, such as but not limited to recall, short term limits, selection by lot

One more thing, do you mind dropping the elitist tone? I'm only asking simple questions that any worker would probably ask, and rightfully so. The irony is that people like you ***** about the "vanguard concept"(and even I reject the 1917 style vanguard) as though it is patronizing, and then you patronize anyone who questions your precious theories.

The fact is, 90% if not all of the things you are telling me I have already heard from anarchists before. What I haven't heard, are satisfactory answers to questions about those concepts. I don't mean to brag but I'm a very well-read guy who has been interested in politics since the age of 9, so if anarchism is truly above my head I don't have much hope for the average depoliticized workers of today.

[#FF0000]

There are some shitty arguments in this thread, I have to say.

EDIT: Hey now I never mentioned any names. Lets not be hasty and start, you know, thanking my post thinking I'm backing you up

[nuisance]

Ah...presumably, presumably. Now how do you intend to establish such a society?
I can only presume because this hasn't happened before, so how could I possibly give a concrete answer.Revolution?
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html


Yes, do you?
:rolleyes:


So technically then, a capitalist could still own a factory, and his capital, and pay workers to work for him?
No, that would limit access to the means of the production. Try and read.


Far better than anarchist experiments. Even with the devastation since the break-up, most of the hospitals, schools, cultural centers, monuments, alphabets, and other achievements of the USSR still exist today. Where are the anarchist achievements?
In regards to moving towards a liberated society, experiments along libertarian lines have far out done that of the USSR. Just bedcause something lasts and can maintain itself doesn't mean it's preferable. If that's your logic, then why aren't you a diehard capitalist?


Again, there's that word "presumably" again.
Because I don't know how the society would act? I don't see this as a surprise when we're talking about a community that doesn't actually exist.


Did it ever occur to you how much extra work this is going to put on the individual worker? At least capitalism gives him cheap consumer goods and doesn't require him or her to read up on every issue, form ad hoc organizations, and vote on every issue big or small. In case you didn't notice, the vast majority of people HATE politics, and not without good reason. Forming a society where everybody is involved in politics is going to take some transition time, and in the mean time, there will have to be various bodies that handle some of these decisions. Obviously they should be fully subjected to democratic procedures, such as but not limited to recall, short term limits, selection by lot
Again a misunderstanding. Can't be bothered to type a response so try this:
http://infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci54


One more thing, do you mind dropping the elitist tone? I'm only asking simple questions that any worker would probably ask, and rightfully so. The irony is that people like you ***** about the "vanguard concept"(and even I reject the 1917 style vanguard) as though it is patronizing, and then you patronize anyone who questions your precious theories.
I'll happily respond in a reasonable tone when the postion I'm discussing with isn't making false assertations based on petty prejudice.
Also, I'm representative with of the anarchist movement? Cool.


The fact is, 90% if not all of the things you are telling me I have already heard from anarchists before. What I haven't heard, are satisfactory answers to questions about those concepts. I don't mean to brag but I'm a very well-read guy who has been interested in politics since the age of 9, so if anarchism is truly above my head I don't have much hope for the average depoliticized workers of today.
Fooled me, for one.

[Kayser_Soso]

I can only presume because this hasn't happened before, so how could I possibly give a concrete answer.Revolution?



:rolleyes:

You don't see a problem with such an idealistic theory based on so many presumptions?



No, that would limit access to the means of the production. Try and read.

So you will take their property and then limit their access to the means of production?




In regards to moving towards a liberated society, experiments along libertarian lines have far out done that of the USSR.

If they don't last, what good are they? To be fair, I have never doubted that when believing anarchists get together, they can form a successful commune and if they are dedicated, it can sustain itself. I know of at least one commune that has been doing so for at least thirty years now(though the members don't call themselves anarchists or subscribe to any particular political ideology).

The thing is, we are talking about entire populations here. Not everyone is going to agree with what you want to do, regardless of how much freedom you offer them. Hell, how many times do they hear that snake oil already?



Just bedcause something lasts and can maintain itself doesn't mean it's preferable. If that's your logic, then why aren't you a diehard capitalist?

I didn't say the Soviet Union was preferable either. What I said is that the Soviet Union actually produced things. It made an impact on the world today that is obvious just by looking at a map. Anarchist hasn't given us any of that.



Because I don't know how the society would act? I don't see this as a surprise when we're talking about a community that doesn't actually exist.

Now we are starting to make progress- you don't know how a society would act. Did it ever occur to you, that perhaps people like Lenin and Stalin didn't know how a society would act either? The thing is, we both share more or less similar if not nearly identical end-goals, but our side is more realistic about how we are going to get there. When you base everything on a set of ideals and try to hammer reality to fit, problems are bound to ensue, which is exactly why anarchists in Spain and Ukraine frequently violated their own stated principles.



Again a misunderstanding. Can't be bothered to type a response so try this:
http://infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci54

Yeah I read this and I'm not to reassured by it.




I'll happily respond in a reasonable tone when the postion I'm discussing with isn't making false assertations based on petty prejudice.
Also, I'm representative with of the anarchist movement? Cool.

Again, if your movement is so nebulous and your theories so esoteric, perhaps workers don't have the time to deal with this. I'm not making false assertions, I am asking questions that are apparently inconvenient for you to answer. Obviously if I wanted to be a dick I could invent all kinds of potential scenarios and the like, but that's a waste of time. I am asking the same kinds of questions the average worker would rightfully ask, and mine are softballs in comparison really.




Fooled me, for one.

Textbook ad hominem right there.

[Искра]

Wow, with logic like that I can't imagine why anarchists haven't been more successful in the past.
And who was successful?

[Kayser_Soso]

And who was successful?

Again you guys don't seem to understand the difference between total success and making successful progress. It's the same thing I have to explain to capitalism-supporters when they gleefully shout "socialism failed!" Imagine if every time an invention failed, we just gave up on it. Where would we be in such a situation? To use William Blum's analogy, imagine if those who saw the failed experiments at flight were to automatically conclude that man would never fly.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I don't we should be asking who was successful, it only leads to endless debates. Instead, ask this, who has done something? You can argue (pointlessly) about who has achieved socialism/Communism 'till the cows come home, but history tells us all that we need to know. Anarchism remains a dream.

[Искра]

Again you guys don't seem to understand the difference between total success and making successful progress. It's the same thing I have to explain to capitalism-supporters when they gleefully shout "socialism failed!" Imagine if every time an invention failed, we just gave up on it. Where would we be in such a situation? To use William Blum's analogy, imagine if those who saw the failed experiments at flight were to automatically conclude that man would never fly.
1st anarchists understand quite good what's total success and what's making successful progress. Soviet Union or any other state capitalist regime wasn't success or successful progress. Successful progress was Russian revolution until 1918, Spanish revolution until 1937, etc.

And 2nd, I'm not sensible nor sympathetic, but I think that it's quite sick to compare Soviet Union or any other state capitalist regime with just experiment. Experiment is when you test medics on mouses, because you believe that this medic will save people from some disease. After that you make experiment once again and again until medicine is 100% safe and good. But, here you can't put "soviet experiment". Why? Because if you have at least little intelligence in your head you'll see that no one wants this regime once again. You can't experiment on people. Why would we have another Soviet Union, or other state capitalist regime? Thank you very much capitalism is to much for me, I don't need Stalin over my head or Cheka/KGB in front of my door. Also, working class is not tool of some lunatics to play with it. Ask your mother to buy you a Lego.

[Искра]

I don't we should be asking who was successful, it only leads to endless debates. Instead, ask this, who has done something? You can argue (pointlessly) about who has achieved socialism/Communism 'till the cows come home, but history tells us all that we need to know. Anarchism remains a dream.
You haven't done anything.

End of discussion?

[Kayser_Soso]

1st anarchists understand quite good what's total success and what's making successful progress. Soviet Union or any other state capitalist regime wasn't success or successful progress. Successful progress was Russian revolution until 1918, Spanish revolution until 1937, etc.

So in other words, your measure of success is one year in two different places, great. And as for the USSR, eliminating illiteracy in the largest country on earth, building cities and developing national literature for nations that never had such a thing, in fact creating those nations, means nothing. Wonderful.



And 2nd, I'm not sensible nor sympathetic, but I think that it's quite sick to compare Soviet Union or any other state capitalist regime with just experiment. Experiment is when you test medics on mouses, because you believe that this medic will save people from some disease. After that you make experiment once again and again until medicine is 100% safe and good. But, here you can't put "soviet experiment". Why? Because if you have at least little intelligence in your head you'll see that no one wants this regime once again.

Wow it's funny you mention that because neither I, nor the rest of us "Stalinists" want that regime again. We also don't want failed attempts at an instant Communist society that last about a year at best and involve a great deal of the same things you criticize Bolsheviks for doing.



You can't experiment on people. Why would we have another Soviet Union, or other state capitalist regime? Thank you very much capitalism is to much for me, I don't need Stalin over my head or Cheka/KGB in front of my door. Also, working class is not tool of some lunatics to play with it. Ask your mother to buy you a Lego.

Wait a minute- who's the guy in this thread arguing for a carbon copy of the Soviet Union of the 1930s? I must have missed his post.

Again, you criticize, but you side hasn't produced any results. So while I'm sure anarchist society is far superior to Soviet society(which by the way, many people today were quite happy with, including those who lived through the Stalin era), your anarchist society only exists in your heads, so it isn't really very helpful huh?

[Искра]

So in other words, your measure of success is one year in two different places, great. And as for the USSR, eliminating illiteracy in the largest country on earth, building cities and developing national literature for nations that never had such a thing, in fact creating those nations, means nothing. Wonderful.
Spanish did the same in South America. Was that progressive also?



Wow it's funny you mention that because neither I, nor the rest of us "Stalinists" want that regime again. We also don't want failed attempts at an instant Communist society that last about a year at best and involve a great deal of the same things you criticize Bolsheviks for doing.

Like exploiting the working class, colloborating with imperialists, acting imperialist and conquering territory like some middle age warlords?


Wait a minute- who's the guy in this thread arguing for a carbon copy of the Soviet Union of the 1930s? I must have missed his post.
Who?


Again, you criticize, but you side hasn't produced any results. So while I'm sure anarchist society is far superior to Soviet society(which by the way, many people today were quite happy with, including those who lived through the Stalin era), your anarchist society only exists in your heads, so it isn't really very helpful huh?
Funny thing that people like you are called Marxists. Anarchists want communism. I think that's all about, isn't it? About class free society.
I can't see any progress towards that in you "realistic" state capitalist. regimes.
My side hasn't produced any results? Hm... do you think that your did? Uh... very nice results.
Also, about people being happy etc. of course that they were happy... Haven't you heard for word: indoctrination? People were happy because they used to have only one thing which they don't have today and that's illusion of freedom.

[pranabjyoti]

Isn't it? Aren't peasants workers--people who produce value through their labor and do not exploit the surplus value of others' labor?
No, peasants may work, but they ARE NOT WORKING CLASS as far as dialectic materialism concerned. As per the Marxists-Leninists, a workers is a person, who just have the right to sell his labor and nothing more. During his/her working period, he/she don't have any right regarding taking decisions, which isn't true for the peasants. A peasant have full right to farm, which crop he/she want. But, a worker don't have any right what he/she can produce. A BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PETTY-BOURGEOISIE AND WORKING CLASS, WHICH MOST ANARCHISTS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND YET.
I rather want to start the debate on the basis of dialectic materialism here, but on some threads see that some people here even don't bother about Marx. So, I think it is a waste of time to debate with such men.

[coda]

>>Wow, with logic like that I can't imagine why anarchists haven't been more successful in the past.>>

you truly must see the irony?!!??

Okay, so, if it's so successful ( Your L-S-M regime) why does it only last some 50-odd years, then bowing out before ever achieving a free communist state and then reverting back to capitalism!!!! Every time!!!!!

And 50 plus years (and counting) Come on!! They never had any intention.

[Durruti's Ghost]

No, peasants may work, but they ARE NOT WORKING CLASS as far as dialectic materialism concerned. As per the Marxists-Leninists, a workers is a person, who just have the right to sell his labor and nothing more. During his/her working period, he/she don't have any right regarding taking decisions, which isn't true for the peasants. A peasant have full right to farm, which crop he/she want. But, a worker don't have any right what he/she can produce. A BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PETTY-BOURGEOISIE AND WORKING CLASS, WHICH MOST ANARCHISTS FAILED TO UNDERSTAND YET.


I never claimed they were proletarians. Obviously they weren't. Peasants composed the working class in feudal society, though. And they didn't own the means of production--the landlord for whom they worked did. It seems to me, then, that transferring control over the land from the landlords to the peasants who worked the land would indeed constitute a transition to workers' control of the means of production. This fact matters when we are considering an attempt at installing socialism in what is still essentially a semi-feudal society--such as Tsarist Russia, for example.

[nuisance]

You don't see a problem with such an idealistic theory based on so many presumptions?
I consider it idealistic to be able to formulate a plan that will be adhered to completely in practice. Come social revolution we shall not know what is exactly going to happen and how- just how Lenin didn't follow his program that was laid out in 'State and Revolution'. All we know is what we want the basic structures of the society to be that replaces capitalism. Since this is ultimately up to the workers to decide, we shall agitate and fight reactionaries with our class. This said, anarchists have tried to formulate stratergies and the most productive ways to act in a revolutionary situation- for example the text I linked to.
However, what are these idealistic assumptions anarchists make?


So you will take their property and then limit their access to the means of production?
It takes away the potenial for them to exploit others and reestablish capitalist property relations. Access to the property won't be limited as they will have full access to it to produces what they wish, as would everyone else in a society based around sercuing and maintaining political and economic equality.


If they don't last, what good are they? To be fair, I have never doubted that when believing anarchists get together, they can form a successful commune and if they are dedicated, it can sustain itself. I know of at least one commune that has been doing so for at least thirty years now(though the members don't call themselves anarchists or subscribe to any particular political ideology).
What good are they? They show the potenial of the class to self-organise and create libertarian organs that can feasibly be used to run a revolutionised society. Obviously these forms of organisation are, and have been, destroyed by the capitalist class once they had retaken power. If the capitalists don't destory them, then it is safe to say that the structures birthed weren't that revolutionary at all.
Well if you're looking towards organisations that are sympathetic to anarchist structures, then there are plenty. Squats and social centres, housing co-ops, the British Lifeboat Association, Free Party movement and so on.


The thing is, we are talking about entire populations here. Not everyone is going to agree with what you want to do, regardless of how much freedom you offer them. Hell, how many times do they hear that snake oil already?
In revolutionary situations councils and assemblies have naturally sprung up, so quite why you don't think these organs are representative of the revolutionary class I don't know. But yes, to work a great deal of people must see the structures as the way forward.


I didn't say the Soviet Union was preferable either. What I said is that the Soviet Union actually produced things. It made an impact on the world today that is obvious just by looking at a map. Anarchist hasn't given us any of that.
We have, as I've previously stated in this reply.


Now we are starting to make progress- you don't know how a society would act. Did it ever occur to you, that perhaps people like Lenin and Stalin didn't know how a society would act either?
Of course they didn't.


The thing is, we both share more or less similar if not nearly identical end-goals, but our side is more realistic about how we are going to get there.
I really don't think you have a leg to stand on with this statement. Anyone can claim to be realistic but it doesn't actually bolster their arguement in anyway. I consider it to be realistic, based on the artocities of state socialism/capitalism aswell as general theory, that the State (or a State) controlled by a enlightened minority can lead the class to emancipation.


When you base everything on a set of ideals and try to hammer reality to fit, problems are bound to ensue, which is exactly why anarchists in Spain and Ukraine frequently violated their own stated principles.
Examples? Also what reality do anarchists attempt to morph?


Yeah I read this and I'm not to reassured by it.
Fair, but that doesn't surprise me.



Again, if your movement is so nebulous and your theories so esoteric, perhaps workers don't have the time to deal with this. I'm not making false assertions, I am asking questions that are apparently inconvenient for you to answer. Obviously if I wanted to be a dick I could invent all kinds of potential scenarios and the like, but that's a waste of time. I am asking the same kinds of questions the average worker would rightfully ask, and mine are softballs in comparison really.
I have no problem articulating my ideas and opinions to others, but you must remember that isn't a conversation between a revolutionary and, perhaps, an unpolitical worker. So, forgive me if I'm being rash.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I would support the revolution, but I ain't joining any party or vanguard nonsense after its over.

[Kayser_Soso]

>>Wow, with logic like that I can't imagine why anarchists haven't been more successful in the past.>>

you truly must see the irony?!!??

Okay, so, if it's so successful ( Your L-S-M regime) why does it only last some 50-odd years, then bowing out before ever achieving a free communist state and then reverting back to capitalism!!!! Every time!!!!!

And 50 plus years (and counting) Come on!! They never had any intention.


Yes, anything that takes a long time isn't worth doing, transforming civilization from one mode of production should take little time and not involve massive bloodshed(like every other time in history), and if something doesn't work, you should stop trying it altogether(unless you're an anarchist, in which case next time it will work perfectly).

[manic expression]

I agree that it is the economy that is most important. However, what characterizes a socialist economy is worker control of the means of production. If the state controls the means of production, then the political form DOES matter very much; the workers must control the state for state control to translate into worker control.

Yes and no, in my mind. Working-class control of the means of production does not inherently entail fully democratic mechanisms; the working class can control society through a vanguard party. After all, not every capitalist has a position (or even a significant voice) in the capitalist state. I agree that it is the ultimate goal of revolutionaries to establish the deepest forms of democratic processes for working-class rule, but I don't think it defines the basis of society if this is not met, and if a society that may have shortcomings in some areas of governance still defends working-class victories and working-class interests against capitalism, then that matters a great deal.

[Kayser_Soso]

I consider it idealistic to be able to formulate a plan that will be adhered to completely in practice.

This is an unrealistic expectation though.



Come social revolution we shall not know what is exactly going to happen and how- just how Lenin didn't follow his program that was laid out in 'State and Revolution'.

Exactly. But anarchists often condemn Lenin for this, though they often resorted to the same if no occasionally worse methods of coercian in the Ukrainian "Free Territory". People were conscripted, people were executed on Makhno's personal order without trial and over protest from the local people. It was a capital crime not to accept the money the anarchists printed, which read "feel free to forge this."



All we know is what we want the basic structures of the society to be that replaces capitalism. Since this is ultimately up to the workers to decide, we shall agitate and fight reactionaries with our class. This said, anarchists have tried to formulate stratergies and the most productive ways to act in a revolutionary situation- for example the text I linked to.


Ok but what gives you the right to fight those "reactionaries" within our class, what makes your authority over them legitimate by anarchist standards? You see, we M-Ls don't reduce things down to concepts like hierarchy, authority, freedom, etc. So we don't have to make any excuse for suppressing reactionaries and fighting counter-revolution. We just have to find more effective ways to do it.





It takes away the potenial for them to exploit others and reestablish capitalist property relations. Access to the property won't be limited as they will have full access to it to produces what they wish, as would everyone else in a society based around sercuing and maintaining political and economic equality.

First of all to comment on this more I have to get a basic run-down of how you see a revolution taking place.



Well if you're looking towards organisations that are sympathetic to anarchist structures, then there are plenty. Squats and social centres, housing co-ops, the British Lifeboat Association, Free Party movement and so on.

Again, anarchist communes work fine when the people who live there want to live that lifestyle and believe in the ideals. The problem is the vast majority of the world's population prefer the status quo, minor reforms, or at least do not even consider the total abolishment of capitalism and its structures.



In revolutionary situations councils and assemblies have naturally sprung up, so quite why you don't think these organs are representative of the revolutionary class I don't know. But yes, to work a great deal of people must see the structures as the way forward.

Many things "naturally spring" up that aren't exactly conducive to communism. The problem is that wherever there is a revolution, there will be a period of vulnerability, economic and military, where the capitalist nations and governments surrounding the area have the advantage in resources, money, know-how, and propaganda. They may subvert the councils, play them off against one another, try to influence one economic sector against the others, brain drain, etc. There needs to be some kind of structure that can keep track of these attempts, ensure that there is uniform rule of law being applied uniformly, that the country is being developed in an even manner, and so on. All it takes is for one sizable group to feel that they are getting screwed, and they'll be willing to listen to foreign capital.




I really don't think you have a leg to stand on with this statement. Anyone can claim to be realistic but it doesn't actually bolster their arguement in anyway. I consider it to be realistic, based on the artocities of state socialism/capitalism aswell as general theory, that the State (or a State) controlled by a enlightened minority can lead the class to emancipation.

We do not put forth such a view, nor this idea of an "enlightened minority". That the Leninist vanguard was small was a matter of historical cultural conditions of the time. A literate, technically proficient workforce means that this kind of thing is no longer necessary, but not all workers are politically active, nor do they all have the same experience, ergo a vanguard in the form of a party is still necessary. However I am a supporter of the "Hoxhaist" idea that party members and anyone in a position of authority should be required to continue doing productive work of some sort throughout their term. I also take this further, supporting short terms, so that people can't make a career out of the party.

This is called finding solutions to historical problems rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and adopting a theory that has never been seriously tested.



Examples? Also what reality do anarchists attempt to morph?

Again look to Spain and "Free Ukraine". Neither territory was rather "free" by anarchist standards.





I have no problem articulating my ideas and opinions to others, but you must remember that isn't a conversation between a revolutionary and, perhaps, an unpolitical worker. So, forgive me if I'm being rash.

Forgiveness Granted.

[Decommissioner]

By "exists separately", I mean that it exists as an entity external to the working class. Even though the working class has some influence over the modern bourgeois state through elections and such, it is not controlled directly by and made up entirely of workers. Contrast, for example, a federation of workers' and community councils (a "soviet union") run in a directly democratic fashion with a central body made up of delegates subject to instant recall. This would not be a state because it would not exist external to the working class.




I hate to drop in the middle and nitpick this one excerpt, but I was under the impression that what you describe here does constitute a state, that is if we assume the councils are willing to defend their revolutionary gains from reactionaries with means of force if necessary. This seems to me to be the very definition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

But this seems to boil down to semantics. I identify with the marxian definition of the state, that is as a means of one class to suppress another.

[pranabjyoti]

>>Wow, with logic like that I can't imagine why anarchists haven't been more successful in the past.>>

you truly must see the irony?!!??

Okay, so, if it's so successful ( Your L-S-M regime) why does it only last some 50-odd years, then bowing out before ever achieving a free communist state and then reverting back to capitalism!!!! Every time!!!!!

And 50 plus years (and counting) Come on!! They never had any intention.
At least it had sustained for 50-60 years. Kindly cross that limit with your pro-worker anarchist society and then criticize please.
They wouldn't last for more than 50-60 years because of the excessive pressure from imperialism worldwide and lack of assistance from proletariat and oppressed people from the others parts of the world.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I hate to drop in the middle and nitpick this one excerpt, but I was under the impression that what you describe here does constitute a state, that is if we assume the councils are willing to defend their revolutionary gains from reactionaries with means of force if necessary. This seems to me to be the very definition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

But this seems to boil down to semantics. I identify with the marxian definition of the state, that is as a means of one class to suppress another.

I don't think there are many anarchists that would oppose the councils defending the revolution. Maybe pacifist anarchists. However, you're very much correct; it is possible for an organization to fulfill the Marxist definition of the State but not the anarchist definition. Thus, it is possible to arrive at a synthesis of anarchism and Marxism--something that I've been leaning more and more toward recently.

[leninpuncher]

I wouldn't join a Leninist revolution. Revolutions are very volatile, and the overwhelming majority end up sabotaging themselves. You can't hand a small group of people an army, a police force and a general monopoly on violence and production, and expect to be able to hold them to account. It's a ridiculous idea.

For me, anarchism is more of a tactical issue than an ideological issue.

[Kayser_Soso]

I wouldn't join a Leninist revolution. Revolutions are very volatile, and the overwhelming majority end up sabotaging themselves. You can't hand a small group of people an army, a police force and a general monopoly on violence and production, and expect to be able to hold them to account. It's a ridiculous idea.

For me, anarchism is more of a tactical issue than an ideological issue.


Might as well give up now and become a liberal.

[Uppercut]

Those are very informative articles, Manic. I actually got into an argument with my Euro teacher the other day when she caught me reading "Marxism after Marx".

Her: "Tell me one communist country where the workers actually own the means of production and don't say Russia because you're wrong..." etc. etc. I know that was off topic but please, go on. I'm getting lots of different opinions.

[Kayser_Soso]

Those are very informative articles, Manic. I actually got into an argument with my Euro teacher the other day when she caught me reading "Marxism after Marx".

Her: "Tell me one communist country where the workers actually own the means of production and don't say Russia because you're wrong..." etc. etc. I know that was off topic but please, go on. I'm getting lots of different opinions.


The workers owned the means of production collectively through the state, at least in the beginning. I know this is going to cause major butthurt with the anarchists, but you have to consider that they often had far more say in the workplace than they did in Tsarist Russia or in many capitalist countries.

You should also point out that there was collective/cooperative property, which was not state owned but owned by the collectives.

[Uppercut]

Oh I know, Kayser. It's just that we were at a World Affairs conference at the David Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh at the time, and I really didn't want to start a heated debate right there in the peanut gallery while a presentation was going on.

Otherwise, I would've thrown down facts and showed her that communists still know a thing or two. Of course..."I grew up during the Cold War and you didn't, so you don't have any room to talk. You don't understand..." blah blah blah...Actually, that means I missed out on all the one-sided Cold War propaganda so that's more of a positive than a negative.
She's a libertarian, by the way.

[leninpuncher]

Might as well give up now and become a liberal.
Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If the choice is between madness and liberalism, I'd choose liberalism.

[Uppercut]

Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If the choice is between madness and liberalism, I'd choose liberalism.


"leninpuncher"...? Seriously...?

[nuisance]

Origional post got deleted, so here's a rehash.


This is an unrealistic expectation though.
So we agree on something.


Exactly. But anarchists often condemn Lenin for this
Not necessairly personally, but the structures he employed as anarchists, Bakunin infact during the times of Marx, predicted that a 'workers State' would never be able to liberate the class and infact bring about a new barbarity- which is what happened.


though they often resorted to the same if no occasionally worse methods of coercian in the Ukrainian "Free Territory". People were conscripted, people were executed on Makhno's personal order without trial and over protest from the local people. It was a capital crime not to accept the money the anarchists printed, which read "feel free to forge this."
Suspiciously I've never heard this money problem before, perhaps because in the free territory property and land was socialised and wagedom opposed.
Reactionaries were executed, it was a war, as were Makhnovists whom attacked unarmed peasants, looted and encouraged progroms.
The conscriptions claim is just outright bogus-

"The Makhnovist insurrectionary army was organised according to three fundamental principles: voluntary enlistment, the electoral principle, and self-discipline.

"Voluntary enlistment meant that the army was composed only of revolutionary fighters who entered it of their own free will.
"The electoral principle meant that the commanders of all units of the army, including the staff, as well as all the men who held other positions in the army, were either elected or accepted by the insurgents of the unit in question or by the whole army. "Self-discipline meant that all the rules of discipline were drawn up by commissions of insurgents, then approved by general assemblies of the various units; once approved, they were rigorously observed on the individual responsibility of each insurgent and each commander."

Anyway, these accusations are nothing compared to the artocities of the Red Army.


Ok but what gives you the right to fight those "reactionaries" within our class, what makes your authority over them legitimate by anarchist standards? You see, we M-Ls don't reduce things down to concepts like hierarchy, authority, freedom, etc. So we don't have to make any excuse for suppressing reactionaries and fighting counter-revolution. We just have to find more effective ways to do it.
To end exploitation and free ourselves from the domination of capital and State. Freedom is something we aspire to create, which can only be done through free access to the means of production and equal say in matters of persoanal issue. Structures that prevent authoritrians from ceasing control ought to be created to maintain the true revolutionary gains of the class. 'They have taken what they possess by force, and by force we shall take it from them'- Malatesta.


First of all to comment on this more I have to get a basic run-down of how you see a revolution taking place.
I linked to Kropotkins 'The Conquest of Bread'. Expropriation, socialisation, militias, federal coordinating councils etc.


Again, anarchist communes work fine when the people who live there want to live that lifestyle and believe in the ideals. The problem is the vast majority of the world's population prefer the status quo, minor reforms, or at least do not even consider the total abolishment of capitalism and its structures.
The examples of libertarian organisation weren't anarchist communes. So your point doesn't stand up. This shows that working people, in the here and now, can and do organise along anarchist lines- voluntary association and free agreement, when possible. However, yes, class conciousness is necessary for any revolution to take place. We are social revolutionaries afterall, desiring a complete transformation of society and destruction of hierarchical structures- not merely a political revolution exchanging one party for another.


Many things "naturally spring" up that aren't exactly conducive to communism.
So, local organising councils and assemblies- linked in federation, aswell as the socialisation of property, are not the organs of a communist society?


The problem is that wherever there is a revolution, there will be a period of vulnerability, economic and military, where the capitalist nations and governments surrounding the area have the advantage in resources, money, know-how, and propaganda.
Obviously.


They may subvert the councils, play them off against one another, try to influence one economic sector against the others, brain drain, etc. There needs to be some kind of structure that can keep track of these attempts, ensure that there is uniform rule of law being applied uniformly, that the country is being developed in an even manner, and so on. All it takes is for one sizable group to feel that they are getting screwed, and they'll be willing to listen to foreign capital.
Yes, structures are needed to protect revolutionary gains but this by no means implies that the dictorial rule of a party is the way to go. If people are feeling discontent with the revolution, then something is clearly going wrong and they may not be participating fully in the creation of the new structures of organisation. However this may also mean that they are infact want to implement property rights or impede on private social actions and so on, meaning that they are counter-revolutionaries and will quite possibly pick up arms. It's a war afterall and can be dealt with by local militias/federal militias.


We do not put forth such a view, nor this idea of an "enlightened minority". That the Leninist vanguard was small was a matter of historical cultural conditions of the time.
Is that why Leninism is still in a small shitty situation in the industrialised west?


This is called finding solutions to historical problems rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater and adopting a theory that has never been seriously tested.
Anarchist methods have been 'seriously tested' and though not perfect, have worked- so why throw that out and take up a ideology that has historically failed as being better?


Again look to Spain and "Free Ukraine". Neither territory was rather "free" by anarchist standards.
The communes were born out of conflict. Plus the accusations, unsubstaniate or even stated don't stand up. Anyway, you seem to be acting of some false belief that anarchism believes in some Utopia.

[coda]

<<At least it had sustained for 50-60 years. Kindly cross that limit with your pro-worker anarchist society and then criticize please.
They wouldn't last for more than 50-60 years because of the excessive pressure from imperialism worldwide and lack of assistance from proletariat and oppressed people from the others parts of the world. >>

it only sustained the same well-oiled machine that maintains capitalist-imperalism and all workers in it's submission--power, state, and class and it's convoluted accoutrements and substructures. from that they all succumbed to their own internal problems brought upon by lack of communist organization and ethics, particularly the SU which at the time was a global superpower.

[manic expression]

It's funny to see some anarchists here sighing in relief at the fall of the USSR. Not because it was good for the workers of the Soviet Union (because it wasn't), but because it can easily be turned into a cheap, petty and insipid rhetorical ploy against Marxists. "It only lasted 70 years!" these anarchists exclaim, "we have now been vindicated!" Capitalism's victory, it seems, is celebrated as anarchism's victory by many of its adherents.

Beyond this, the criticisms brought against socialist societies are quite ineffective. I think Durruti's Ghost put forward substantive critiques of the USSR and other socialist states, but the majority of the anarchist arguments boils down to "it was tyranny!" and "it was capitalist!" Now, the second of these is wrong on its face, and this has been illustrated time and again: the ownership of private property and the exploitation of workers that comes with it was not permitted in the Soviet Union, and lucid, thoughtful anarchists will recognize this. The first of those criticisms, however, is infinitely subjective, impossible to quantify in any meaningful way.

Do the anti-Soviet posters grasp the fact that overthrowing a class and its defenders stems from the very opposite of a democratic consensus? Are they aware of the fact that flexibility among socialists is of the utmost importance in revolutionary situations? Many posters here must ask themselves these questions and others if they are to comprehend the basic dynamics of revolution. To be brief, it isn't a dinner party.

[Искра]

At least it had sustained for 50-60 years. Kindly cross that limit with your pro-worker anarchist society and then criticize please.
They wouldn't last for more than 50-60 years because of the excessive pressure from imperialism worldwide and lack of assistance from proletariat and oppressed people from the others parts of the world.
Is this argument for feudalism?
It lasted few centuries.

[manic expression]

Jurko, if you were a feudal noble or otherwise a feudalist, then the longevity of feudalist society would likely be a good argument for the feudalist state. Likewise, if you are a socialist, then the relative longevity of the USSR is a good argument for working-class state power after capitalism is overthrown. States promote the interests of the class that controls them; this is no different when it comes to the working class.

[Искра]

Capitalism's victory, it seems, is celebrated as anarchism's victory by many of its adherents.
I doubt that there's any anarchist which claims this.
We are claiming that system haven changed it was and it is capitalist. Only thing that have changed is who's in power. So instead of strong state controlled by few hight positioned Party's members, now we have strong capitalists lobby and few bourgeoisie idiots who "run the country".


Beyond this, the criticisms brought against socialist societies are quite ineffective. I think Durruti's Ghost put forward substantive critiques of the USSR and other socialist states, but the majority of the anarchist arguments boils down to "it was tyranny!" and "it was capitalist!" Now, the second of these is wrong on its face, and this has been illustrated time and again: the ownership of private property and the exploitation of workers that comes with it was not permitted in the Soviet Union, and lucid, thoughtful anarchists will recognize this. The first of those criticisms, however, is infinitely subjective, impossible to quantify in any meaningful way.
I think that it's quite funny that talk about anarchists in this way, especially when your "anti-revisionist" comrades gave the most idiotic "arguments"??? ever.
Also, regarding your comment on Soviet Union: Private property was prohibited in the laws, but still who was taking care of high Party members and their property? Expensive cars, expensive flats, art collections etc. They didn't own factories, state owned them, but they managed those factories and used to have bigger salaries than workers. Inside of those factories there was capitalism.


Do the anti-Soviet posters grasp the fact that overthrowing a class and its defenders stems from the very opposite of a democratic consensus? Are they aware of the fact that flexibility among socialists is of the utmost importance in revolutionary situations? Many posters here must ask themselves these questions and others if they are to comprehend the basic dynamics of revolution. To be brief, it isn't a dinner party.

Mao tse Tung quote = priceless.
Who's here for consensus? I'm anarchist and I think that consensus is not democratic.
Cooperation among socialists is not important, that's true. Above all, revolution is act of working class not some vanguard party.

[Искра]

Jurko, if you were a feudal noble or otherwise a feudalist, then the longevity of feudalist society would likely be a good argument for the feudalist state. Likewise, if you are a socialist, then the relative longevity of the USSR is a good argument for working-class state power after capitalism is overthrown. States promote the interests of the class that controls them; this is no different when it comes to the working class.
Since my "blood is filthy" is was peasant in feudalism. Those centuries where not so good for my back.
Since I'm part of working class those decades of state capitalist regime were not so good for my back either. Same goes for capitalism.
Every class society is not good "for my back" and for the "backs" of my "class mates".

[manic expression]

We are claiming that system haven changed it was and it is capitalist. Only thing that have changed is who's in power.

Right, I guess all those privatizations of industry didn't happen. I suppose the drastic declines in living standards for workers was just a figment of my imagination. I assume the lack of support to progressive movements around the world is just a triviality.

Honestly, the more you blatantly deny historical facts, the better you make your opponents look.


Also, regarding your comment on Soviet Union: Private property was prohibited in the laws, but still who was taking care of high Party members and their property? Expensive cars, expensive flats, art collections etc. They didn't own factories, state owned them, but they managed those factories and used to have bigger salaries than workers. Inside of those factories there was capitalism.

So which "high Party member" employed workers in private enterprise? Who assumed the economic and social roles inseparable with bourgeois society? Oh, right, no one, meaning your argument is hot air and nothing else. Having someone manage a factory, someone who isn't employing anyone, someone who isn't in control of any form of ownership (neither de facto nor de jure), someone who isn't treating labor as a commodity...is actually proof that capitalism had been abolished in the USSR. If you took any of those facts into account for five seconds, you'd agree.

Also, you're not going to get out of this one by throwing around vague charges. Make a specific condemnation based on a specific privilege and we'll have something to work with. Until then, see my above conclusion.


Mao tse Tung quote = priceless.
Who's here for consensus? I'm anarchist and I think that consensus is not democratic.

Then what problem do you have with the processes of the Soviet government?


Cooperation among socialists is not important, that's true. Above all, revolution is act of working class not some vanguard party.

Every act of every vanguard party is the act of the workers, and is thus a revolutionary act. That is what revolutions are made of.

[manic expression]

Since my "blood is filthy" is was peasant in feudalism. Those centuries where not so good for my back.
Since I'm part of working class those decades of state capitalist regime were not so good for my back either. Same goes for capitalism.
Every class society is not good "for my back" and for the "backs" of my "class mates".

What better reason to conquer state power? Until you adopt this fundamentally revolutionary principle, history will continue to walk all over your back as it leaves you and your morals behind. In fact, it already has, and it's not coming back.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's funny to see some anarchists here sighing in relief at the fall of the USSR. Not because it was good for the workers of the Soviet Union (because it wasn't), but because it can easily be turned into a cheap, petty and insipid rhetorical ploy against Marxists. "It only lasted 70 years!" these anarchists exclaim, "we have now been vindicated!" Capitalism's victory, it seems, is celebrated as anarchism's victory by many of its adherents.This is such a straw man argument, if you believe, as I do that the USSR did not have worker's power and that the ruling class of the USSR represented a different class, then it is possible to both celebrate the end of fake-socialism in the USSR and imposed socialism in much of the rest of the "socialist world" while also condemning the neo-liberal alternatives that replaced state-capitalism with regular old market-capitalism.

It's true that the working class has suffered greatly in this period, as they also suffered under state capitalism. Ironically, some of the former Stalinist CPs have shown their true stripes after the end of the USSR by fully backing neoliberal plans in the 90s and being, at best, social-democratic parties.


Now, the second of these is wrong on its face, and this has been illustrated time and again: the ownership of private property and the exploitation of workers that comes with it was not permitted in the Soviet Union, and lucid, thoughtful anarchists will recognize this. The first of those criticisms, however, is infinitely subjective, impossible to quantify in any meaningful way.And thoughtful socialists should also realize that state-ownership by itself is not socialism in the Marxist sense of workers controlling the means of production. Because the state-capitalist countries have said that state-ownership is what makes a country "socialist" we have seen half a century of derailment of the worker's movement.


Do the anti-Soviet posters grasp the fact that overthrowing a class and its defenders stems from the very opposite of a democratic consensus? :rolleyes: If the USSR was defending the working class, I'd hate to see what happens if they attacked them. How exactly was the leadership defending the working class? By preventing actual worker councils, by putting international competition with capitalist counties above the interests and needs of working people?


Are they aware of the fact that flexibility among socialists is of the utmost importance in revolutionary situations? Many posters here must ask themselves these questions and others if they are to comprehend the basic dynamics of revolution. To be brief, it isn't a dinner party.You're right, it isn't a dinner party and things must be viewed based on the conditions on the ground and the circumstances... but if you, as a worker are the main course, it's time to go to a different party.

[Искра]

Right, I guess all those privatizations of industry didn't happen. I suppose the drastic declines in living standards for workers was just a figment of my imagination. I assume the lack of support to progressive movements around the world is just a triviality.
Ok, let's talk about terminology.

State capitalism is capitalist system in which only capitalist is The State, which is run by small clique of high Party members. There's still wage system. The State owns whole enterprises and whole profit goes to it.

Liberal capitalism is capitalist system with private property and State is run by capitalist clique.

So, what's good about it?

To answer on your questions:
Privatisation. Check
Declinings of living standards. It depends where. You can't compare Serbia or Croatia with Slovakia or Slovenia.

Which progressive movements? Those reactionary thugs Naxalites? FARC which is selling drugs? Those Turkish Maoists which train 7 year old kids to shoot?



Honestly, the more you blatantly deny historical facts, the better you make your opponents look.
Regarding the deaning of historical facts are you admitting contra revolutionary behaviour of Bolsheviks? Or should we continue with Stalin and his works in Spain (1936.), pre-WW2 imperialism, after WW2 imperialism etc. Are you admitting that North Korea and Cuba are not socialist?


So which "high Party member" employed workers in private enterprise? Who assumed the economic and social roles inseparable with bourgeois society? Oh, right, no one, meaning your argument is hot air and nothing else. Having someone manage a factory, someone who isn't employing anyone, someone who isn't in control of any form of ownership (neither de facto nor de jure), someone who isn't treating labor as a commodity...is actually proof that capitalism had been abolished in the USSR. If you took any of those facts into account for five seconds, you'd agree.

Also, you're not going to get out of this one by throwing around vague charges. Make a specific condemnation based on a specific privilege and we'll have something to work with. Until then, see my above conclusion.

You are funny.
Capitalism is best seen in relation between capital and labour.
Workers don't own a shit besides their labour and they work for capitalist who is accumulating capital. So, if we "jump" to USSR, or as I'll rather pick Yugoslavia (because I have good examples for you here), workers still owned a shit but their labour. There was this new class which took place of capitalist one and that was class of bureaucrats. Those fellows run the State. Therefore whole capital went into their hands and they decided what will they do. Wedge system is also good proof of capitalism.

And now regarding this "high party members" clique, go and take a look on Soviet photos. Look how those high party members are dressed (for example), read about how many of them have servants at home or personal drivers... Compare that to "decent ordinary working class fellow".

Also, let's jump to Yugoslavia.
My grandfather was high party member. I have his picture with Mao tse Tung (and also Little Red Book on Serbo-Croatian singed by Mao).
After WW2 he got a flat owned by one Ustaša officer, who took that flat from one Jew family. He used to manage few enterprises, even he was politician not economist or something like that. He used to have good car, he used to go to vacation, he used to go to Trst, and he could leave the country whenever he wanted. Now, let's look at my neighbour who worked for my grandfather. He's one nice 90 year old man. He didn't have money to go to sea, he didn't have a car until 80's, he couldn't go out of the country and he was never in the Trst. Today his son works in the same enterprise my grandfather used to run. Boos drives nice car, boss has nice flat which he took from one Party member during 90's, boss can go to sea, boss can go to Brussels (since who cares about Trst today)... His son drives Zastava, lives in small flat with his big family, he has never been to the sea, etc.
When you drop your illusions and talk to real people, not some internet 0 and 1, you have to ask yourself: What have changed?


Then what problem do you have with the processes of the Soviet government?
There's huge difference between not being for consensus and approving some authoritarian organ which works against of benefit of working class.


Every act of every vanguard party is the act of the workers, and is thus a revolutionary act. That is what revolutions are made of.
Is that reason why the half of party members are ex aristocrats (like Cheka guy) or bourgeoisies?

[ls]

Exactly. But anarchists often condemn Lenin for this, though they often resorted to the same if no occasionally worse methods of coercian in the Ukrainian "Free Territory". People were conscripted, people were executed on Makhno's personal order without trial and over protest from the local people. It was a capital crime not to accept the money the anarchists printed, which read "feel free to forge this."

Please start another thread about Ukraine if we're to discuss it, sources for all this please as soon as you start it, straight away.


Ok but what gives you the right to fight those "reactionaries" within our class, what makes your authority over them legitimate by anarchist standards? You see, we M-Ls don't reduce things down to concepts like hierarchy, authority, freedom, etc. So we don't have to make any excuse for suppressing reactionaries and fighting counter-revolution. We just have to find more effective ways to do it.

You have to correctly identify what reactionaries and counterrevolution is, something that is largely left unclarified.

For example, there are people on this board massively confused about the conflicts in Nepal and India, even MLs find themselves supporting different factions in both countries and what's more? The leading parties in India and Nepal actually seem to denounce each other as being revolutionary. Hoxhaists and Maoists could well find themselves in conflict and denounce each other as counterrevolutionary and start executing each other too, it has happened before. Even Maoists fighting each other has happened.


First of all to comment on this more I have to get a basic run-down of how you see a revolution taking place.

There are lots of examples of this, why does he need to provide more?


Again, anarchist communes work fine when the people who live there want to live that lifestyle and believe in the ideals. The problem is the vast majority of the world's population prefer the status quo, minor reforms, or at least do not even consider the total abolishment of capitalism and its structures.

What makes you think communes require a "lifestyle"?


Many things "naturally spring" up that aren't exactly conducive to communism. The problem is that wherever there is a revolution, there will be a period of vulnerability, economic and military, where the capitalist nations and governments surrounding the area have the advantage in resources, money, know-how, and propaganda. They may subvert the councils, play them off against one another, try to influence one economic sector against the others, brain drain, etc. There needs to be some kind of structure that can keep track of these attempts, ensure that there is uniform rule of law being applied uniformly, that the country is being developed in an even manner, and so on. All it takes is for one sizable group to feel that they are getting screwed, and they'll be willing to listen to foreign capital.

Of couse there needs to be a structure. This can be achieved either by the more anarchist form of federalism or via adoption of the non-revisionist, original form of democratic centralism IMO, I'm sure this doesn't need explaining to you.


We do not put forth such a view, nor this idea of an "enlightened minority". That the Leninist vanguard was small was a matter of historical cultural conditions of the time. A literate, technically proficient workforce means that this kind of thing is no longer necessary, but not all workers are politically active, nor do they all have the same experience, ergo a vanguard in the form of a party is still necessary. However I am a supporter of the "Hoxhaist" idea that party members and anyone in a position of authority should be required to continue doing productive work of some sort throughout their term. I also take this further, supporting short terms, so that people can't make a career out of the party.

Do you support recallable delegates? That is the most important thing in my mind.


Again look to Spain and "Free Ukraine". Neither territory was rather "free" by anarchist standards.

Other than the Mennonite atrocities, which are probably overplayed to a large extent, but nonetheless tragic, I don't think you have substantiated many of your claims against Ukraine, nor do many of them have great substantiation. Even the Trotskyists at International Socialist Review don't overplay anything, they do condemn the Mennonite atrocities and they allege that there were few communes, despite totally inconclusive evidence that this was the case in Ukraine and confusion as to their extent in size - please make another thread for this if you want to discuss it in detail though.

As for Spain, we've gone over this and a lot of crap has been refuted in other threads, this one should not go off-topic based on Spain please, if you want to start another thread on Ukraine then please go ahead, but this isn't the thread for it (as a sidenote, I do apologise for dragging the american party of labour thread off-topic, it probably wasn't fair on you Hoxhaists).

Anywayz, I think that communists and anarchists could and have united before, there are always good elements no matter what they call themsevles, in every movement. Whether they label themselves marxist-leninists, trotskyists, anarchists or whatever is immaterial, it is the concrete political principles that matter.

Also, there's been some bashing of what revolutionary events have been supported by anarchists.
I think many anarchists would generally agree that the following, while maybe not all of them led to a revolution, were indisputably revolutionary:

Paris 1871
America 1905-1924
Russia 1917-(disputed, possibly to 1922 depending on your view)
Ukraine 1918-1921
Germany 1918-1919
Hungary 1919 (http://libcom.org/history/1890-1924-anarchism-in-hungary) & 1956 (http://libcom.org/library/Hungary5622) .. (http://libcom.org/history/1956-the-hungarian-revolution)
Spain 1936-1937
France 1968-disputed
Italy 1968-disputed
Portugal 1974-1975 (http://libcom.org/history/1974-1975-the-portuguese-revolution)
UK 1984-1985

I've missed so many more out, but anyways these should outline the fact that most anarchists are not sectarian and understand revolutionary potential and revolution where it occurs, no matter whether it's "communist" or whatever label it is under. Of course, I invite anarchists to come out and dispute these in any way they want. :p

[red cat]

For example, there are people on this board massively confused about the conflicts in Nepal and India, even MLs find themselves supporting different factions in both countries and what's more? The leading parties in India and Nepal actually seem to denounce each other as being revolutionary. Hoxhaists and Maoists could well find themselves in conflict and denounce each other as counterrevolutionary and start executing each other too, it has happened before. Even Maoists fighting each other has happened.



UCPN(M) has consistently upheld CPI(Maoist), and the latter has upheld the former and advised it on some possibly wrong steps.

Maoists view MLM as the only line proposed till now, that can lead to communism. However, as far as revolutionary Maoists parties are concerned, armed conflict with Hoxhaists, or people belonging to any other tendency etc. does not happen until they actively oppose the PPWs.

Genuine Maoist parties cooperate when they share areas of operation. Due to the presence of revisionists inside the party, or due to misunderstanding within the base level party-cadres, conflicts might happen, but these are quickly resolved through negotiation.

[Nubilosus]

I've been contemplating this for a while. How would the anarchists respond if we overthrew our government and established a workers' state? Would they break down and join the party or would they take up arms and fight us?

I've talked to a few of my anarchist friends at school about this question. A couple said they'd join us commies if our party actually represents proletarian interests. Another said he wouldn't put up with a state at all. "I won't take your hand and marry the state," etc. etc.

So, comrades, feel free to discuss. I want to see what anarchists think, as well.

You know what is both funny and very sad? The above 7 pages of posts perfectly give an answer to your question; No way.

It took exactly 5 posts before this topic changed into 'What is better, communism or anarchism', and another 10 posts before the arguments went to 'You're probably a 15 year old'.

How can you ever hope to see Anarchists and Communists united if they can't even talk about the subject without ending throwing insults at each other.

[pranabjyoti]

You know what is both funny and very sad? The above 7 pages of posts perfectly give an answer to your question; No way.
It took exactly 5 posts before this topic changed into 'What is better, communism or anarchism', and another 10 posts before the arguments went to 'You're probably a 15 year old'.
How can you ever hope to see Anarchists and Communists united if they can't even talk about the subject without ending throwing insults at each other.
It is due to the fact the both represent two separate classes. The anarchists represent the petty-bourgeoisie class and the communists working class. Before the revolution, they were and are friends, but after the revolution they become enemies.
It's a legacy of Marx and Engels. If you have studied Marx and his writings well, you can easily find out that Marx himself concentrated more on countering philosophies that are seeming CLOSER to the working class. He just overlooked the bourgeoisie philosophy and its champions. To him, putting the philosophy of the working class on a solid scientific basis is the first and foremost important task and that's why he and Engels fought vigorously against any kind of UNSCIENTIFIC INTRUSION into the philosophy of the working class.
If you study the posts on this thread, you can find some thread that even denounced Marx and dialectic materialism.

[Kayser_Soso]

You know what is both funny and very sad? The above 7 pages of posts perfectly give an answer to your question; No way.

It took exactly 5 posts before this topic changed into 'What is better, communism or anarchism', and another 10 posts before the arguments went to 'You're probably a 15 year old'.

How can you ever hope to see Anarchists and Communists united if they can't even talk about the subject without ending throwing insults at each other.

Hey at least the guy got an empirical answer right? How often does that happen on any forum?

[red cat]

If a revolution is led by communists, then anarchists can join, but due to mass-involvement in the communist-party, the line of the anarchists as well as any other revolutionary group, will be subordinated to the communist( = proletarian) line. Class-dictatorship of the proletariat, which it will implement through its vanguard-party, must be accepted as a pre-condition to the unity of all revolutionary organizations, because otherwise the revolution itself is bound to fail.

[Rakhmetov]

Read, pause, and reflect


http://www.revleft.com/vb/dr-michael-parenti-t114609/index.html?t=114609

[manic expression]

State capitalism is capitalist system in which only capitalist is The State, which is run by small clique of high Party members. There's still wage system. The State owns whole enterprises and whole profit goes to it.

This is anti-materialistic and silly for a lot of reasons. A capitalist enterprise inherently entails owners running something for their own direct and personal profit; bureaucrats and party members did no such thing, and had no form of ownership over production. Capitalist enterprises buy and sell labor and resources as commodities; the societies you're referring to did no such thing (and thus, had no commodity production in any significant measure). Capitalist enterprises run off the rule of the market; socialist societies operate off the rule of the law of value. Clearly, you haven't given this enough thought.

The only line of similarity you have is that both capitalism and socialism produce stuff. Sorry, that's a terrible line of reasoning because you have a terrible line to start with.


So, what's good about it?

To answer on your questions:
Privatisation. Check
Declinings of living standards. It depends where. You can't compare Serbia or Croatia with Slovakia or Slovenia.

What are you talking about? Privatization only occurred as the Soviet Union was falling.

Decline of living standards happened in the vast majority of former socialist countries. Some countries didn't get hit as hard because of different reasons, but that does nothing to change the facts you so desperately want to avoid.


Which progressive movements? Those reactionary thugs Naxalites? FARC which is selling drugs? Those Turkish Maoists which train 7 year old kids to shoot?

The anti-apartheid struggle in Africa, revolutionary movements in El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, Palestine, Vietnam, Laos and elsewhere.

Keep slandering revolutionaries from your armchair, you're just proving how useless and clueless most anarchists are. Yeah, FARC is just a drug cartel, if you believe the imperialist media and their anarchist friends.


Regarding the deaning of historical facts are you admitting contra revolutionary behaviour of Bolsheviks? Or should we continue with Stalin and his works in Spain (1936.), pre-WW2 imperialism, after WW2 imperialism etc. Are you admitting that North Korea and Cuba are not socialist?[/QUUOTE]

More tangential arguments as a last attempt to distort the issue. Deal with what happened after the fall of the USSR, because you've been giving a big thumbs-up to life getting worse for workers this entire thread. In response, you bring up the Spanish Civil War, as any brainless hack would. To address your manufactured indignity:

The USSR supported the Republican side with weapons, advisers, 50,000 internationalist fighters, equipment and other forms of aid.

North Korea and Cuba are socialist.

The USSR never engaged in imperialism, and to imply as much you'd have to have a pretty stupid definition of imperialism, which I'm sure you have memorized.

[QUOTE]Capitalism is best seen in relation between capital and labour.
Workers don't own a shit besides their labour and they work for capitalist who is accumulating capital. So, if we "jump" to USSR, or as I'll rather pick Yugoslavia (because I have good examples for you here), workers still owned a shit but their labour. There was this new class which took place of capitalist one and that was class of bureaucrats. Those fellows run the State. Therefore whole capital went into their hands and they decided what will they do. Wedge system is also good proof of capitalism.

Was labor bought and sold as a commodity? No, it wasn't. Nice try.


And now regarding this "high party members" clique, go and take a look on Soviet photos. Look how those high party members are dressed (for example), read about how many of them have servants at home or personal drivers... Compare that to "decent ordinary working class fellow".

Workers had access to nice clothes, who told you otherwise?

Further, if you have a job which demands longer hours, what are you supposed to do, fly back to your house in the middle of a diplomatic mission to France and dust your room? Privileges stemming from occupational demands are fully compatible with socialism. You deny that only because you're a moralizing puritan. Or do you have an argument beyond "I don't like the way it feels"?


When you drop your illusions and talk to real people, not some internet 0 and 1, you have to ask yourself: What have changed?

A lot has changed. Let's jump to Yugoslavia. Well, they had a little civil war and a lot of people were killed for no reason. That's one change. They also split the country about a dozen times over, fracturing what used to be a country with some sense of national unity. That's another change. Real wages in Croatia collapsed by 41% during the first six months of 1990. That's yet another change.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9904a/yugodismantle.html

Have fun explaining away history.


There's huge difference between not being for consensus and approving some authoritarian organ which works against of benefit of working class.

It seems you can't even figure out what you stand for, much less state what a post-revolutionary society would look like. You have the political substance of John Lennon.


Is that reason why the half of party members are ex aristocrats (like Cheka guy) or bourgeoisies?

Stop being purposefully vague. And every revolution has traitors to their class, you should know.

[Pawn Power]

I don't know where all this communist/anarchist conflict is. In my neck of the wood anarchists and communist work and struggle together all the time.

[pranabjyoti]

I don't know where all this communist/anarchist conflict is. In my neck of the wood anarchists and communist work and struggle together all the time.
To understand it, you have to understand the nature and reality of class conflict between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. Petty-bourgeoisie is half-worker, half-bourgeoisie. Before the revolution, they are very much revolutionary because the big bourgeoisie stand in their way of being a BIG BOURGEOISIE, but after the revolution, they become counter revolutionaries because the revolution and the revolutionary society stands in their way to becoming big bourgeoisie.
The problem with anarchism, a petty-bourgeoisie ideology is that, it directly rejects state as a representative of class. To them, State itself the main evil and abolishing it will end up all repression and exploitation. But, they are just unable to see that State is nothing but a tool of exploitation and repression of a class. WITHOUT DESTROYING THE CLASS BASED SOCIETY, YOU CAN'T ABOLISH A STATE.
Basically, the problem with anarchism is that, due to its own nature, petty-bourgeoisie itself can not become a ruling class. It thinks itself as the referee, but in reality it is the football. The lack of ability of the petty-bourgeoisie to organize itself as a class is the root of anarchist ideology. As they can not organize as a class, therefore holding power and ruling is beyond its ability. So, they just want to go to the Stateless society by avoiding the unavoidable "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, where the workers will become the ruling class.

[Plagueround]

Religious people are hilarious.

[AntifaArnhem]

When we look at the Spanish civilwar we saw that communists and anarchists worked together untill Stalin told the commies to turn their back on the anarchists. During the Russian revolution Lenin assasinated the anarchists aswell. I'm not saying it's impossible but it will be very difficult because of the diffrences between both political streams. Communists believe in parties and laws when Anarchist believe that every power corrupts and that there shouldn't be laws, only agreements but as long as people agree with them.

That's why I can't say a defenitely yes or no to this statement. I do think the Anarchists and Communists can work together during the revolution but I think there will be troubles between the groups afterwards because of their differences.

[Kayser_Soso]

When we look at the Spanish civilwar we saw that communists and anarchists worked together untill Stalin told the commies to turn their back on the anarchists.

Uh..no.



During the Russian revolution Lenin assasinated the anarchists aswell. I'm not saying it's impossible but it will be very difficult because of the diffrences between both political streams.

And vice versa. I think if you read an accurate, objective account of life under Makhno's military dictatorship(which is precisely what it was), you wouldn't romanticize it so much.



Communists believe in parties and laws when Anarchist believe that every power corrupts and that there shouldn't be laws, only agreements but as long as people agree with them.

We do not "believe", we accept a scientific analysis that shows the state and its laws are a form of class dictatorship, and as long as classes exist, a state must necessarily exist as well.

[pranabjyoti]

When we look at the Spanish civilwar we saw that communists and anarchists worked together untill Stalin told the commies to turn their back on the anarchists. During the Russian revolution Lenin assasinated the anarchists aswell. I'm not saying it's impossible but it will be very difficult because of the diffrences between both political streams. Communists believe in parties and laws when Anarchist believe that every power corrupts and that there shouldn't be laws, only agreements but as long as people agree with them.

That's why I can't say a defenitely yes or no to this statement. I do think the Anarchists and Communists can work together during the revolution but I think there will be troubles between the groups afterwards because of their differences.
Exactly, because as I have said before, they actually represent two different classes. The petty-bourgeoisie class, the base of the anarchists, are friends before the revolution but enemy after the revolution. Why? I have my explanation in this thread previously.
Marxism, as a science, is flourishing and new thoughts and practices have been added on a regular basis. I am curious to know how far the anarchist ideology has gone after Bakunin. Is it flourishing with regular additions in theory and practice?

[Pawn Power]

To understand it, you have to understand the nature and reality of class conflict between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. Petty-bourgeoisie is half-worker, half-bourgeoisie. Before the revolution, they are very much revolutionary because the big bourgeoisie stand in their way of being a BIG BOURGEOISIE, but after the revolution, they become counter revolutionaries because the revolution and the revolutionary society stands in their way to becoming big bourgeoisie.
The problem with anarchism, a petty-bourgeoisie ideology is that, it directly rejects state as a representative of class. To them, State itself the main evil and abolishing it will end up all repression and exploitation. But, they are just unable to see that State is nothing but a tool of exploitation and repression of a class. WITHOUT DESTROYING THE CLASS BASED SOCIETY, YOU CAN'T ABOLISH A STATE.
Basically, the problem with anarchism is that, due to its own nature, petty-bourgeoisie itself can not become a ruling class. It thinks itself as the referee, but in reality it is the football. The lack of ability of the petty-bourgeoisie to organize itself as a class is the root of anarchist ideology. As they can not organize as a class, therefore holding power and ruling is beyond its ability. So, they just want to go to the Stateless society by avoiding the unavoidable "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, where the workers will become the ruling class.

Sounds like Chemistry. :lol:

I don't think society is that cut and dry. I think you are on a dangerous path by regurgitating these dogmas at the expense of solidarity and breaking down atomization.

Instead of utilizing frameworks of the past we should be looking at what we need today. We shouldn't be limited to old 'formulas' but we create what we need in the situation we are in.

I think those in power would be very happy to hear what you are saying-- it is divisive, exclusive, and dogmatic. Three things we don't need in the struggle for new world.

[ls]

The anti-apartheid struggle in Africa, revolutionary movements in El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua, Palestine, Vietnam, Laos and elsewhere..

I think most people on this forum realise you're just a Brezhnevite, you probably don't know anything about those places you mentioned there except that you support them. Well done.

[nuisance]

It is due to the fact the both represent two separate classes. The anarchists represent the petty-bourgeoisie class and the communists working class.
Oh, do explain.

[pranabjyoti]

Sounds like Chemistry. :lol:

I don't think society is that cut and dry. I think you are on a dangerous path by regurgitating these dogmas at the expense of solidarity and breaking down atomization.

Instead of utilizing frameworks of the past we should be looking at what we need today. We shouldn't be limited to old 'formulas' but we create what we need in the situation we are in.

I think those in power would be very happy to hear what you are saying-- it is divisive, exclusive, and dogmatic. Three things we don't need in the struggle for new world.
Sorry man, the way you are defining "dogmatism", pretty seems that all scientists are dogmatic. Though I am glad that my writings seems like chemistry to you, at least means that I have gone a little bit closer to be scientific.
Marxism and dialectic materialism is science and you should follow a "dogmatic" err. scientific path to explain the present situation of the society. The problem with science is that you just can not discard anything by just saying "it's old and we want something new". You have to explain everything based on facts.
The very essence of Marxism and dialectic materialism is that the evolution of human society is "natural" process i.e. it has some laws behind it like other fields of nature. "Old" Marxist theories are still good enough to explain the present situation of the world.

[pranabjyoti]

Oh, do explain.
Kindly go through my previous posts in this thread.

[Pogue]

Kindly go through my previous posts in this thread.

Its a long thread. I'm also interested in what you have to say. Could you repeat it for the benefit of me and EP who have only just joined this thread?

[Durruti's Ghost]

Oh, do explain.

To be fair, he already has.


To understand it, you have to understand the nature and reality of class conflict between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. Petty-bourgeoisie is half-worker, half-bourgeoisie. Before the revolution, they are very much revolutionary because the big bourgeoisie stand in their way of being a BIG BOURGEOISIE, but after the revolution, they become counter revolutionaries because the revolution and the revolutionary society stands in their way to becoming big bourgeoisie.
The problem with anarchism, a petty-bourgeoisie ideology is that, it directly rejects state as a representative of class. To them, State itself the main evil and abolishing it will end up all repression and exploitation. But, they are just unable to see that State is nothing but a tool of exploitation and repression of a class. WITHOUT DESTROYING THE CLASS BASED SOCIETY, YOU CAN'T ABOLISH A STATE.
Basically, the problem with anarchism is that, due to its own nature, petty-bourgeoisie itself can not become a ruling class. It thinks itself as the referee, but in reality it is the football. The lack of ability of the petty-bourgeoisie to organize itself as a class is the root of anarchist ideology. As they can not organize as a class, therefore holding power and ruling is beyond its ability. So, they just want to go to the Stateless society by avoiding the unavoidable "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, where the workers will become the ruling class.

The problem with this, of course, is that a true working class revolution--even if it did not consolidate itself as a state--would not leave the petit-bourgeoisie un-expropriated.


Though the petite bourgeois may buy the labor power of others, in contrast to the haute bourgeoisie (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haute_bourgeoisie&action=edit&redlink=1), they typically work alongside their own employees; and although they generally own their own businesses, they do not own a controlling share of the means of production. More importantly, the means of production in the hands of the petite bourgeoisie do not generate enough surplus to be reinvested in production; as such, they cannot be reproduced in an amplified scale, or accumulated, and do not constitute capital properly.

The workers at the shops/etc. of the petit-bourgeoisie would take over said shops and the petit-bourgeoisie would be integrated into the working class. So an anarchist revolution really isn't in the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie except in the long run, and it's in everyone's interests in the long run.

[Pogue]

To understand it, you have to understand the nature and reality of class conflict between petty-bourgeoisie and proletariat. Petty-bourgeoisie is half-worker, half-bourgeoisie. Before the revolution, they are very much revolutionary because the big bourgeoisie stand in their way of being a BIG BOURGEOISIE, but after the revolution, they become counter revolutionaries because the revolution and the revolutionary society stands in their way to becoming big bourgeoisie.
The problem with anarchism, a petty-bourgeoisie ideology is that, it directly rejects state as a representative of class. To them, State itself the main evil and abolishing it will end up all repression and exploitation. But, they are just unable to see that State is nothing but a tool of exploitation and repression of a class. WITHOUT DESTROYING THE CLASS BASED SOCIETY, YOU CAN'T ABOLISH A STATE.
Basically, the problem with anarchism is that, due to its own nature, petty-bourgeoisie itself can not become a ruling class. It thinks itself as the referee, but in reality it is the football. The lack of ability of the petty-bourgeoisie to organize itself as a class is the root of anarchist ideology. As they can not organize as a class, therefore holding power and ruling is beyond its ability. So, they just want to go to the Stateless society by avoiding the unavoidable "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, where the workers will become the ruling class.


Anarchists believe in the working class exerting its political power during the course of a revolution. We don not believe that we will go 'straight to a classless stage', i.e. communism. This is the main area of confusion in critiques of anarchism.

Our revolutionary period will be when the old society is completely attacked on all fronts. It wil be before we have reached a stage of communism, but when old capitalist relations are no longer in place. So the workers are in the process of gaining full democratic control of industry, there is still alot of open class conflict, etc. We don't think the revolution is over until we have completely gotten rid of capitalism and the state.

In this period, obviously, as the working class will be exerting its will, there will be combat against the petit bourgeoisie.

To call anarchism petit bourgeoisie is absurd. Firstly, even by your 'justification' anarchism wouldn't be petit bourgeoisie, it would just be inadequate at combatting the petit bourgeoisie. Thats the same as calling the Republican government fascist because it failed to effectively combat fascism early on in the war, etc etc.

But as i have said, anarchism is opposed to the interests of the middle classes, the petit bourgeoisie. We are for advancing the interests of the working class and building the class power of this class. Hence our advocacy of working class means of attack and defence (unions, councils, workplace resistance groups if you follow the AFed position).

Your terminology is flawed. If you think anarchism can be criticised because you think the lack of a state stage will lead to the itnerests of other classes superseding those of the working class, just say that, rather than labelling the idea petit bourgeoisie, which is needless slander that just provokes angry reactions.

[pranabjyoti]

Anarchists believe in the working class exerting its political power during the course of a revolution. We don not believe that we will go 'straight to a classless stage', i.e. communism. This is the main area of confusion in critiques of anarchism.
Anarchists often talk about "bureaucratic control" of the party. But, how can a class rule without any vanguard and representatives. The capitalists have their representatives and rarely they complain about "bureaucratic control", specifically when the govt., on public demand, have to put some control over their greed.

Our revolutionary period will be when the old society is completely attacked on all fronts. It wil be before we have reached a stage of communism, but when old capitalist relations are no longer in place. So the workers are in the process of gaining full democratic control of industry, there is still alot of open class conflict, etc. We don't think the revolution is over until we have completely gotten rid of capitalism and the state.
For that, you first have to put workers control over the society by "dictatorship of proletariat". Do you agree with this idea?

In this period, obviously, as the working class will be exerting its will, there will be combat against the petit bourgeoisie.
How will end fight and put and end to petty-bourgeoisie without any kind of repressive means? The petty-bourgeoisie will fight vigorously against the technological advancement when they will see that this advancement will end their existence and remember, they are the MASS.

To call anarchism petit bourgeoisie is absurd. Firstly, even by your 'justification' anarchism wouldn't be petit bourgeoisie, it would just be inadequate at combatting the petit bourgeoisie. Thats the same as calling the Republican government fascist because it failed to effectively combat fascism early on in the war, etc etc.
Basically Anarchism is a petty-bourgeoisie ideology because it opposes "dictatorship of proletariat".

But as i have said, anarchism is opposed to the interests of the middle classes, the petit bourgeoisie. We are for advancing the interests of the working class and building the class power of this class. Hence our advocacy of working class means of attack and defence (unions, councils, workplace resistance groups if you follow the AFed position).
Please, make it clear that if you are really pro-working class, then do you support "dictatorship of proletariat".

Your terminology is flawed. If you think anarchism can be criticised because you think the lack of a state stage will lead to the itnerests of other classes superseding those of the working class, just say that, rather than labelling the idea petit bourgeoisie, which is needless slander that just provokes angry reactions.
As per my terminology, there wouldn't be any kind of stateless stage without a classless stage. When all classes will be abolished, state will be automatically abolished, because there wouldn't be any need of that. Please don't say that Anarchists believe "dictatorship of proletariat", because in that case wouldn't be Anarchists.
Can anybody explain, if the Anarchists are really pro-worker, why they oppose "dictatorship of proletariat" so vigorously.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Anarchists often talk about "bureaucratic control" of the party. But, how can a class rule without any vanguard and representatives.

Umm...directly? Without any vanguard or representatives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy


For that, you first have to put workers control over the society by "dictatorship of proletariat". Do you agree with this idea?

Depends. What is the "dictatorship of the proletariat"? If it is simply proletarian class rule, all anarchists support it. If it is rule by a hierarchical bureaucracy that subjugates the entirety of the proletariat without their consent, then we oppose it.


How will end fight and put and end to petty-bourgeoisie without any kind of repressive means?

We take the means of production from the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie. If they attack us, we start shooting. Clear enough?


Please don't say that Anarchists believe "dictatorship of proletariat", because in that case wouldn't be Anarchists.

We don't define the State the way you do. Anarchists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, provided it is simply an instrument of class rule (i.e., a federation of revolutionary unions and workers' councils cooperating voluntarily to fight the capitalist reaction) and not a hierarchical bureaucracy (i.e., a State).

[manic expression]

I think most people on this forum realise you're just a Brezhnevite, you probably don't know anything about those places you mentioned there except that you support them. Well done.

I've been to El Salvador and met with members (and elected officials) of FMLN there. I've also met members of other revolutionary socialist organizations in Latin America but that's all I'm going to say on that topic. I will be visiting Laos this January, I'll let you know how it is from a Marxist perspective. Oh, and I've worked closely with Palestinian activists for the liberation of the Palestinian nation.

So what were you saying? I thought so.

[bcbm]

I am curious to know how far the anarchist ideology has gone after Bakunin. Is it flourishing with regular additions in theory and practice?

nope, nobody's written a lick on the subject since bakunin kicked it.

[manic expression]

Umm...directly? Without any vanguard or representatives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

Even the Paris Commune, praised so highly by Bakunin himself, had a vanguard and representatives.


We take the means of production from the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie. If they attack us, we start shooting. Clear enough?

They can attack you without attacking you so overtly, though.


We don't define the State the way you do. Anarchists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, provided it is simply an instrument of class rule (i.e., a federation of revolutionary unions and workers' councils cooperating voluntarily to fight the capitalist reaction) and not a hierarchical bureaucracy (i.e., a State).

By the same token, if workers form an army, is it no longer an army? If workers form a system of judging those accused of crimes, is it no longer a judicial system? If workers form a group to enforce laws passed by their class, is it somehow not a police force? You can call it something different, but that doesn't change the nature of the thing. The same goes for the state.

[Plagueround]

nope, nobody's written a lick on the subject since bakunin kicked it.

I've been putting a book together, but I'm really terrible with glue.

[Devrim]

To go back to the original point, I think that in a revolutionary situation some who call themselves anarchists and some who call themselves Marxists will be on both the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary sides. The counter revolution itself will dress itself up in left-wing slogans just as it did in Russia, Germany, and Spain, and those defending capital against the working class, and it must be remembered that it is the working class that make revolutions not anarchists or Marxists, will spout the most left wing sounding slogans.

I also think that a revolutionary party doesn't exist today, and will need to be forged in the struggles ahead. Times of crisis war, and revolution test the revolutionary credentials of political organisations, and I believe the vast majority of todays organisations will be found wanting.

Devrim

[Pawn Power]

Sorry man, the way you are defining "dogmatism", pretty seems that all scientists are dogmatic. Though I am glad that my writings seems like chemistry to you, at least means that I have gone a little bit closer to be scientific.
Marxism and dialectic materialism is science and you should follow a "dogmatic" err. scientific path to explain the present situation of the society. The problem with science is that you just can not discard anything by just saying "it's old and we want something new". You have to explain everything based on facts.
The very essence of Marxism and dialectic materialism is that the evolution of human society is "natural" process i.e. it has some laws behind it like other fields of nature. "Old" Marxist theories are still good enough to explain the present situation of the world.

Anyone who has read even the slightest bit of Marx (and actually comprehended it) would know that Marxism is not science.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Well it depends, if you create a totalitarian government like the ussr then we will fight you till the end. Pure communism and most forms of anarchism are the same, a state free, class free, and capitalist free society.

[Kayser_Soso]

Well it depends, if you create a totalitarian government like the ussr then we will fight you till the end. Pure communism and most forms of anarchism are the same, a state free, class free, and capitalist free society.

"State free, class free, capitalist free"...and EXISTENCE free too.

Totalitarian is a meaningless word picked up by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of equating socialism and fascism based on superficial similarities without taking into account the fundammental differences. Moreover, the USSR and its allies existed in the context of a particular historical era and conditions, and thus nobody, including Marxist-Leninists, plans to build a government resembling that of the USSR. Still, the USSR was a hell of a lot better society than anything anarchists ever created.

100% failure rate, anarchists- when are we going to hear some explanation beyond "the Bolsheviks fucked us?"

[ls]

Uh..no.

And vice versa. I think if you read an accurate, objective account of life under Makhno's military dictatorship(which is precisely what it was), you wouldn't romanticize it so much.

Still, the USSR was a hell of a lot better society than anything anarchists ever created.

100% failure rate, anarchists- when are we going to hear some explanation beyond "the Bolsheviks fucked us?"

So.. when are you going to substantiate your claims about anarchists, you could've made another thread (like I asked if you were gonna continue) but you haven't and it might prove interesting as well, you claim to know a lot about history but you refuse to substantiate any of that?

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I fear the anarchists would use the situation directly after the Revolution to start a rebellion against us Communists. That's what they did after the October Revolution for example: anarchist armies during the Russian Civil War fought the Bolsheviks.
They will probably help in overthrowing the capitalist state, and than continue to fight the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as they don't reckon the necessity of this form of protection of the Revolution. I fear many anarchists would just start fighting both the counter-revolution AND the Revolution itself, as happened i.e. in Russia.

Personally I have no problems with anarchists if they are willing to cooperate, but I would say: don't hope for it.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Well it depends, if you create a totalitarian government like the ussr then we will fight you till the end. Pure communism and most forms of anarchism are the same, a state free, class free, and capitalist free society.
With the difference that we know we can only create that society after we have secured and ensured the Revolution, through means of Socialism and leadership of the Proletariat, something anarchists oppose.

We don't believe in the naive idea that we can overthrow the capitlists and than abolish the state. Because, frankly, who would defend the Revolution against the reactionaries in such chaos?

[Kayser_Soso]

So.. when are you going to substantiate your claims about anarchists, you could've made another thread (like I asked if you were gonna continue) but you haven't and it might prove interesting as well, you claim to know a lot about history but you refuse to substantiate any of that?

LOL WUT

The question which dominated the Regional Congresses was that of defending the area from those who might seek to establish their control over it. The Second Congress, meeting on February 12, 1919, voted in favour of "voluntary mobilization," which in reality meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were required to serve when called up. The delegates also elected a Regional Military Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers, and Insurgents to carry out the decisions of the periodic congresses. The new council encouraged the election of "free" Soviets in the towns and villages - that is, Soviets from which members of political parties were excluded. Although Makhno's aim in setting up these bodies was to do away with political authority, the Military Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local Soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Gulyai-Pole.

Like the Military Revolutionary Council, the Insurgent Army of the Ukraine, as the Makhnovist forces were called, was in theory subject to the supervision of the Regional Congresses. In practice, however, the reins of authority rested with Makhno and his staff. Despite his efforts to avoid anything that smacked of regimentation, Makhno appointed his key officers (the rest were elected by the men themselves) and subjected his troops to the stern military discipline traditional among the Cossack legions of the nearby Zaporozhian region. Yet the Insurgent Army never lost its plebeian character. All its officers were peasants or, in a few cases, factory or shop workers. One looks in vain for a commander who sprang from the upper or middle classes, or even from the radical intelligentsia.

And this is coming from the rather pro Makhno "Nestor Makhno: The Man and the Myth" by Paul Avrich.

"But was Makhno in fact an anarchist, or merely another "primitive" rebel from the southern frontier, harking back to Razin and Pugachev with their vision of Cossack federalism and rough-and-ready democracy? The answer is that he was both. Nor is there any contradiction, for the Cossack-peasant rebellions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries possessed a strong egalitarian and anti-statist character, their participants mounting an all-out attack upon the nobility and bureaucracy and detesting the state as an evil tyranny which trampled on popular freedoms. Makhno's anarchism was compatible with these sentiments and with peasant aspirations in general. The peasants wanted the land, and then to be left alone by gentry, officials, tax collectors, recruiting sergeants, and all external agents of authority. These were to be replaced by a society of "free toilers" who, as Makhno expressed it, would "set to work to the tune of free and joyous songs which reflected the spirit of the revolution."[9]"

A petit-bourgeoisie idea apparently. I highly doubt many modern anarchists would find the Cossack lifestyle to be very egalitarian or libertarian for that matter.

"In his efforts to reconstruct society along libertarian lines, Makhno also encouraged experiments in workers' self-management whenever the occasion offered. For example, when the railway workers of Aleksandrovsk complained that they had not been paid for many weeks, he advised them to take control of the railroad and charge the users what seemed a fair price for their services. Such projects, though they call for a closer examination by historians, were of limited success. They failed to win over more than a minority of workers, for, unlike the farmers and artisans of the village, who were independent producers accustomed to managing their own affairs, factory hands and miners operated as interdependent parts of a complicated industrial machine and floundered without the guidance of technical specialists. Furthermore, the peasants and artisans could barter the products of their labour, whereas the workers depended on wages for their survival. Makhno, moreover, compounded the confusion when he recognized all paper money issued by his predecessors - Ukrainian nationalists, Whites, and Bolsheviks alike. He never understood the complexities of an urban economy, nor did he care to understand them. In any event, he found little time to implement his economic programs. He was forever on the move. His army was a "republic on tachanki," as Volin described it, and "the instability of the situation prevented positive work."[14]"

Good one, Nestor! It's a good thing Makhno did not succeed with his peasant petit-bourgeois project, or Ukraine would be an incredibly backward place today.

How could someone who cared so little for the proletariat be an inspiration for so-called "working-class" anarchists today? His answer to what to do about little issues like food and survival was "go solve it yourself".


"In one area, however, Makhno made a significant compromise with his libertarian principles. As a military leader, it has been noted, he was compelled to inaugurate a form of conscription in order to replenish his forces; and he is known on occasion to have imposed strict measures of military discipline, including summary executions. His violent tendencies, some maintain, were accentuated by bouts with alcohol. Volin underscores Makhno's drinking and carousing nature, and Victor Serge describes him as "boozing, swashbuckling, disorderly and idealistic."[15] Hostile observers have compared him to a Chinese warlord, insisting that his army was libertarian only in name. This, however, is not a true picture. Although military considerations inevitably clashed with Makhno's anarchistic doctrines, his army was more popular both in organization and social composition than any other fighting force of his day."

"At all levels of policy except the military, Bat'ko Makhno showed himself to be ill-equipped to deal with practical problems. He declared all currencies, Red or White, Ukrainian or Russian, to be legal tender, and distributed the contents of banks to the population. ... There was no attempt at imposing price controls, and when the Makhnovites occupied a town food and money were distributed without question until they ran out. Tranport questions, industrial relations, financial policy- any economic problem above the level of family agriculture, were treated in exactly the same cavalier manner."

"Myth of Nestor Makhno" Colin Darch

[pranabjyoti]

Most dangerous part of the debate is that, some here even dare to say that MARXISM ISN'T SCIENCE.

[RedSonRising]

I think that a Vanguard Party pursued by Leninists would (and should) most likely include Anarchists and other leftists in a multi-tendency fashion for the sake of success and cross-coordination, and democratic centralism would turn out a little less central. I don't think all, or maybe even a majority of anarchists would collaborate if they perceived it as just another privileged bureaucracy ready to mandate everything in society in the name of the working class, however such a party would have to probably include inclusive political mechanics that allow Anarchists, Trotskyists, etc. to participate meaningfully and retain a limited but felt sense of autonomy, perhaps through the individual parties melting into the larger one (with an eye out for factionalism of course.)

If each side gives a little, cooperation is possible. As long as sectarian biases don't start coming out after the revolution, the political process would consist of worker-councils and groups with different tendencies ensuing in healthy debate (likely circling around centralization vs decentralization of certain aspects of the economy/institutional setup) while protecting the gains of the revolution and never losing sight of the proletarian priority. Progress towards a stateless and classless society depends on this balance. Since the working class will be mobilized and afterwords empowered, differences in specific philosophy I think would be much more diluted and less relevant with the decreased emphasis of jargon-spitting party spokesmen/leaders.

Now that I think about it, I don't see how a revolution is 1. possible, or 2. even desirable unless the working class is mobilized through the cooperation and ideological dialogue between Leninists and Anarchists.

[Pawn Power]

Most dangerous part of the debate is that, some here even dare to say that MARXISM ISN'T SCIENCE.

That's because it isn't.

[pranabjyoti]

That's because it isn't.
Can anybody ban or stop this troll?

[ls]

Note that I asked you to start another thread.


The question which dominated the Regional Congresses was that of defending the area from those who might seek to establish their control over it. The Second Congress, meeting on February 12, 1919, voted in favour of "voluntary mobilization," which in reality meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were required to serve when called up. The delegates also elected a Regional Military Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers, and Insurgents to carry out the decisions of the periodic congresses.

As much as I'm not a fan of conscription, it was chosen by and accountable to the "all-ukrainian regional workers' and peasants' congresse". http://www.marx.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1920/telegraph.htm. There is some dispute about it as well, for instance leaflets found from the time "are in the nature of appeals to join up, not instructions." [Nestor Makhno in the Russian Civil War. by Michael Malet p105] and Trotsky is quoted "Makhno does not have general mobilisations, and indeed these would be impossible, as he lacks the necessary apparatus." [Malet p106]


Like the Military Revolutionary Council, the Insurgent Army of the Ukraine, as the Makhnovist forces were called, was in theory subject to the supervision of the Regional Congresses. In practice, however, the reins of authority rested with Makhno and his staff. Despite his efforts to avoid anything that smacked of regimentation, Makhno appointed his key officers (the rest were elected by the men themselves) and subjected his troops to the stern military discipline traditional among the Cossack legions of the nearby Zaporozhian region.

Avrich doesn't provide that much evidence for this, although it's generally accepted that he was a good military commander and not resented by his military, unless you can prove otherwise outside of Bolshevik propaganda. Darch also seemingly questions this but never elaborates beyond "The .. claims are that .. the economic, social and military decisions of the movement were taken according to a coherent revolutionary ideology which the Makhnovites maintained in a principled way. What the third claim amounts to is that Makhno was an honourable revolutionary betrayed on various occasions by an unscrupulous and ruthless opponent, the Bolshevik party." and he doesn't make that much of an argument about Makhno being "dishonourable".


Yet the Insurgent Army never lost its plebeian character. All its officers were peasants or, in a few cases, factory or shop workers. One looks in vain for a commander who sprang from the upper or middle classes, or even from the radical intelligentsia.

So I suppose you think it's better they did come from any of those other classes? :rolleyes:


And this is coming from the rather pro Makhno "Nestor Makhno: The Man and the Myth" by Paul Avrich.

Being pro-whateverist doesn't automatically make him right on every single point, he and Darch even later clarify that there is known haze on some points.


"But was Makhno in fact an anarchist, or merely another "primitive" rebel from the southern frontier, harking back to Razin and Pugachev with their vision of Cossack federalism and rough-and-ready democracy? The answer is that he was both. Nor is there any contradiction, for the Cossack-peasant rebellions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries possessed a strong egalitarian and anti-statist character, their participants mounting an all-out attack upon the nobility and bureaucracy and detesting the state as an evil tyranny which trampled on popular freedoms. Makhno's anarchism was compatible with these sentiments and with peasant aspirations in general. The peasants wanted the land, and then to be left alone by gentry, officials, tax collectors, recruiting sergeants, and all external agents of authority. These were to be replaced by a society of "free toilers" who, as Makhno expressed it, would "set to work to the tune of free and joyous songs which reflected the spirit of the revolution."[9]"

Paul cites his own book on citation 9: Paul Avrich, ed., The Anarchists in the Russian Revolution (Ithaca, 1973), p. 132.", on that one quote. Good book as well but he doesn't cite much for the first part of what he's saying.


In his efforts to reconstruct society along libertarian lines, Makhno also encouraged experiments in workers' self-management whenever the occasion offered. For example, when the railway workers of Aleksandrovsk complained that they had not been paid for many weeks, he advised them to take control of the railroad and charge the users what seemed a fair price for their services. Such projects, though they call for a closer examination by historians, were of limited success.

At least Avrich is honest, then again both Avrich and Darch have to steady themselves on many of their citations and assertions.


They failed to win over more than a minority of workers, for, unlike the farmers and artisans of the village, who were independent producers accustomed to managing their own affairs, factory hands and miners operated as interdependent parts of a complicated industrial machine and floundered without the guidance of technical specialists. Furthermore, the peasants and artisans could barter the products of their labour, whereas the workers depended on wages for their survival.

Makhno outlined his views on workers and attempted to get them to do what the peasants did, which was not the best move, but Darch does contradict this abit.
in discussing Makhno's attitude to workers, Malet falls back on the defence that Makhno 'genuinely believed' (p. 125) in theworker-peasant alliance, but did not occupy any towns long enough to establish good relations. It does not seem to have occurred tohim that systematic commodity exchange between industry and agriculture is the economic basis for the alliance, and that this cannot
Page 7
be established by bartering train-loàds of grain when the peasants happen to have a surplus (pp. 119—20). The problem is precisely that it is the kulaks who are most likely to benefit from such an exchange, since it is they, with their large-scale capitalist production, who dispose of marketable surpluses.

Yeah, so Makhno didn't handle it so well, he caused trouble for his own communes by sending grain to Moscow. Of course you missed out the part where Darch also states:
Unfortunately there is a lack of concrete information on Makhnovite political administration. The role of the soviets was outlined in a pamphlet entitled Osnovye polozheniia o vol'nom trudovom Sovet (proekt) ['Draft basic statute' on free workers' soviets] (Vo-line, 1947 p. 542; Arshinov, 1923 p. 176), and Skirda prints adocument on 'La conception makhnoviste des Soviets' (pp. 471—3). According to the 'draft basic statute' the soviets should be independent of the political parties, should operate within a socio-economic system based on real equality, and should include only workers, serving their interests and obeying their will. The activists in the soviets should not be trusted with any executive power (Voline, 1947 p. 542 ; Arshinov, 1923 p. 80). The document printed by Skirda is a speech given at a meeting of the 'free soviet of Guliai-Pole.' It defines the free workers'soviet as free because it is independent of central authority, and as a workers' soviet because it includes only workers, serves their interests, and allows of no other political influence.

He even points out:
But for Malet and Skirda, these are not crippling weaknesses. Indeed, Malet concludes that if the Makhnovites 'helped to create confusion .. they also alleviated it [sic] by generous grants to those in need, with a minimum of red tape' (p. 113).

He did give out goods freely as you've sourced, perhaps not efficiently. He only requisitioned what the Black Army needed (Of course, there were things the peasants could not supply, such as shoes, trousers or other articles. These had to be "requisitioned." But Makhno gave strict orders never to take from private persons more than was absolutely necessary for the needs of the men engaged in the search... (http://www.ditext.com/nomad/makhno.html)) and he attempted to establish free communes as Darch also notes (and there is more to that:
The Russian communists had signedan agreement with the Ukrainian nationalist government in Kiev,promising non-interference in the affairs of the Ukrainian republic.5But in the complex political and military situation of late 1918and early 1919 the agreement broke down, and the UkrainianDirectory declared war on Soviet Russia, hoping for support fromFrench forces in Odessa. The French conditions for assistancewere so humiliating, however, that agreement was never reached,and the Bolshevik armies occupied Kiev. The collapse of the Directory gave Makhno and his followersanother period of relative stability in the interior of the area undertheir control around the village of Guliai-Pole in the southeast.They reached an agreement on a modus vivendi with the Bolsheviksof Ekaterinoslav, and the Red Army seemed content at the begin-ning of 1919 to concentrate on seizing the major cities and townsof the northern Ukraine. Makhno knew that the Directory hadbeen negotiating with the nearby Don cossacks, but it no longerhad a military presence in the southeast (Makhno, 1937 p. 168).Nor were the communists capable of setting up an efficient admini-strative system, for they were compelled to concentrate on moreurgent military and political problems. Thus in early 1919 the peasants returned to the system of com-munes which they had adopted in 1917—18. Anarchist commenta-tors are careful to distinguish these working or free communes,from the traditional obshchina or from the Bolshevik exemplarycommunes, but do so in the vaguest of terms. 'These were realworking communes of peasants . . . ' wrote Arshinov, . . . each found there whatever moral and material support heneeded. The principles of brotherhood and equality permeatedthe communes. Everyone — men, women and children —
Page 6
The myth of Nestor Makhno 529 worked according to his or her abilities ... It is evident thatthese communes had these traits because they grew out ofa working milieu and that their development followed a natur-al course. (1923, pp. 85—6; translation by L. and F. Perlman,from the English edn, Detroit, 1974)

Additionally, there is proof right there by both Darch and Avrich saying it is hard to clarify how the Black Army's political authorities operated in concrete terms.


Makhno, moreover, compounded the confusion when he recognized all paper money issued by his predecessors - Ukrainian nationalists, Whites, and Bolsheviks alike. He never understood the complexities of an urban economy, nor did he care to understand them. In any event, he found little time to implement his economic programs. He was forever on the move. His army was a "republic on tachanki," as Volin described it, and "the instability of the situation prevented positive work."[14]"

And Volin is correct, he also had little time to implement a DOTP as Darch notes:
The collapse of civil administration and the chaos of militaryoccupation and civil war gave the Makhnovsh china a couple of brief intervals in which to try to organize anarchist production communes.

I would say given the massive strain and constant pushing and pulling he did pretty well.


Good one, Nestor! It's a good thing Makhno did not succeed with his peasant petit-bourgeois project, or Ukraine would be an incredibly backward place today.

Peasant petit-bourgeois project. :rolleyes: Darch wrote "It is evident thatthese communes had these traits because they grew out ofa working milieu and that their development followed a natur-al course" which I just quoted, oh yeah a real thumbs up, you sure got me there, what absolute tosh, so despite the fact Makhno sent aid to Moscow during a time of need to help the Bolsheviks and collaborated to crush the Whites, stopping their advance towards Moscow, you wish the revolution was crushed? Nice one, good to see your priorities. http://www.ditext.com/nomad/makhno.html.

Wait, weren't you going on about anti-fascist priorities before? :cool:


How could someone who cared so little for the proletariat be an inspiration for so-called "working-class" anarchists today? His answer to what to do about little issues like food and survival was "go solve it yourself".

Whereas the Bolsheviks did so much better for Ukrainian peasants? Stop the hypocrisy please. No one is claiming either the Black Army or the Bolsheviks are perfect, you are just intent on baselessly slandering the Black Army so I thought it was only fair to point out you are talking absolute wank on a few accounts.


At all levels of policy except the military, Bat'ko Makhno showed himself to be ill-equipped to deal with practical problems. He declared all currencies, Red or White, Ukrainian or Russian, to be legal tender, and distributed the contents of banks to the population.

What was it you keep repeating? Oh yeah, the myth that Makhno forced currency that said "feel free to forge this" on people otherwise they'd be shot? :rolleyes: You are such an inconsistent hypocrite. :cool:


There was no attempt at imposing price controls, and when the Makhnovites occupied a town food and money were distributed without question until they ran out. Tranport questions, industrial relations, financial policy- any economic problem above the level of family agriculture, were treated in exactly the same cavalier manner."

Unsurprising given the unstability in Ukraine with Denikin attacking and with the Bolsheviks attacking at different times, his callout was: http://www.marx.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1920/telegraph.htm which you can all see there. Sure, he was mistaken when he thought that urban industrialworkers could collectively sell their labour, but he relied on the establishment of communes to let that happen, he was travelling too much to help concretely set them up in the cities such as Kyiv either.

This is also tells well how badly he was hunted down by the Bolsheviks: http://www.day.kiev.ua/274932/then again I wouldn't be surprised if you've seen before but simply ignored all of that.

[Kayser_Soso]

I see, so if someone writes that historical data is vague, or not so concrete, it must necessarily mean that it is wrong, and we need to stick only to pro-anarchist sources on Makhno. If you knew anything about historiography, would would know that many things can rarely be explained 100%, and there are often minor contradictions in the historical narrative. Nothing you claim here invalidates what these writers wrote. It is clear that you won't accept anything that doesn't uphold the romantic, unrealistic view of Makhno.

[ls]

I see, so if someone writes that historical data is vague, or not so concrete, it must necessarily mean that it is wrong, and we need to stick only to pro-anarchist sources on Makhno. If you knew anything about historiography, would would know that many things can rarely be explained 100%, and there are often minor contradictions in the historical narrative. Nothing you claim here invalidates what these writers wrote. It is clear that you won't accept anything that doesn't uphold the romantic, unrealistic view of Makhno.

What.. on.. earth are you talking about?

Most of my quotes and sources from both of those same authors - Darch and Avrich that you have been quoting? :confused: You honestly make me wonder whether you even read my post.

When did I denounce everything they said as wrong? And if I did, then I would hardly quote them myself would I?

[Pogue]

I see, so if someone writes that historical data is vague, or not so concrete, it must necessarily mean that it is wrong, and we need to stick only to pro-anarchist sources on Makhno. If you knew anything about historiography, would would know that many things can rarely be explained 100%, and there are often minor contradictions in the historical narrative. Nothing you claim here invalidates what these writers wrote. It is clear that you won't accept anything that doesn't uphold the romantic, unrealistic view of Makhno.

Emphasis mine. Its ironic you would say this when you're just as stubborn at accepting anything which protrays Makhno for what he was, even when its sourced to authors you yourself deem fit to quote from.

[Uppercut]

Wow...this thread has pretty turned into a giant flame war...I guess this just shows how hypocritical we are all, bickering like children.

[Honggweilo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGQrFwsU-Vw

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I suppose we just have different conceptions of "scientific". For me, falsifiability and testability are key elements of scientific method. It doesn't really matter, though; I think historical materialism is, by-and-large, an accurate theory.

Human sciences are scientific, but in a slightly different way. In history, hypotheses are generally not tested in controlled environments because that's not possible in most cases. That doesn't mean that a scientific approach isn't possible. There isn't only one methodology. Methods vary accord to what field is being dealt with.

[The Feral Underclass]

Please can people refrain from the hostile tone. Also, a reminder that it is not permitted to post joke/comedy pictures or youtube videos in forums for serious debate. Please use chit chat for that. Anyone who does so will receive administrative action.

[PRC-UTE]

Prove it. Keep in mind that anarchism is more than just Proudhon.

Yeah but one can point to entire periods of anarchism in which it was largely if not exclusively based on petit bourgeois layers of society, the Ukrainian Makhnovists being the best example of this. So it's not mere slander. What's often forgotten in these tendency arguments is that political groups are shaped as much by their constituency's outlook and needs as their organisation's formal political ideology. It's not an accident of history that anarchists developed the way they did- it was an influence (up to a point) from the decaying petit bourgeoisie who opposed modernisation and urbanisation.

Although I do acknowledge that anarchism has also played a signficant role in class struggle in many parts of the world- once again it's what social group their struggle was based on. That's why I think it would be wise for most serious anarchists to reject the whole Makhnovist thing, which was backwards.

At the same time, anarchism in many countries would probably mix more readily with communists than ever before. There's less to disagree about than before, imo.

[Pogue]

Yeah but one can point to entire periods of anarchism in which it was largely if not exclusively based on petit bourgeois layers of society, the Ukrainian Makhnovists being the best example of this. So it's not mere slander. What's often forgotten in these tendency arguments is that political groups are shaped as much by their constituency's outlook and needs as their organisation's formal political ideology. It's not an accident of history that anarchists developed the way they did- it was an influence (up to a point) from the decaying petit bourgeoisie who opposed modernisation and urbanisation.

Although I do acknowledge that anarchism has also played a signficant role in class struggle in many parts of the world- once again it's what social group their struggle was based on. That's why I think it would be wise for most serious anarchists to reject the whole Makhnovist thing, which was backwards.

At the same time, anarchism in many countries would probably mix more readily with communists than ever before. There's less to disagree about than before, imo.

Peasants clearly are not 'petit-bourgeoisie'. I never understood this marxist rejection of the peasantry, as if they are doing something wrong by working the land. They were dirt poor and revolutionary, not some sort of placated property owning middle class.

[Kayser_Soso]

Emphasis mine. Its ironic you would say this when you're just as stubborn at accepting anything which protrays Makhno for what he was, even when its sourced to authors you yourself deem fit to quote from.

I would not have chosen those authors had I not believed that they were representing Makhno in a realistic fashion. Avrich in particular seems very sympathetic, but still realistic and not romantic. And apparently anarchists find it agreeable as I got it from an anarchist site.

[Kayser_Soso]

Peasants clearly are not 'petit-bourgeoisie'. I never understood this marxist rejection of the peasantry, as if they are doing something wrong by working the land. They were dirt poor and revolutionary, not some sort of placated property owning middle class.


That depends on the peasants actually. Peasants (which are disappearing all over the world these days) often did own some property. They can sustain themselves, and they can often sell their wares for money. In a market situation, like during the NEP period, they can potentially enrich themselves. When the peasants were feeling the crunch of the landlords, they flocked to the Bolsheviks. Later on when the USSR abandoned NEP and went on to constructing socialism, some peasants(some who had managed to become kulaks thanks to NEP policies) were drawn to support the kulaks and engage in grain speculation.

Of course this is largely irrelevant today; big agribusiness totally beats small farmers.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

That depends on the peasants actually. Peasants (which are disappearing all over the world these days) often did own some property. They can sustain themselves, and they can often sell their wares for money. In a market situation, like during the NEP period, they can potentially enrich themselves. When the peasants were feeling the crunch of the landlords, they flocked to the Bolsheviks. Later on when the USSR abandoned NEP and went on to constructing socialism, some peasants(some who had managed to become kulaks thanks to NEP policies) were drawn to support the kulaks and engage in grain speculation.

Of course this is largely irrelevant today; big agribusiness totally beats small farmers.

Yes but obviously kulaks would not be revolutionary. Those who work the land but don't own any land themselves is the people I think Pogue was referring to.

[Pawn Power]

Can anybody ban or stop this troll?
:lol:

Actually, you could be banded for proselytizing.

[pranabjyoti]

:lol:

Actually, you could be banded for proselytizing.
Better try that.:blink:

[danny bohy]

im an anarchist and if there was a serious marxist revolution i would most definately be on your side and i think most anarchists would be. its better than capitalism and thats our worst enemy.

most of the anarchists who just call them selves anarchist because they are radical and left but havent really connected with any movement yet, would definately join a marxist movement.
Alot of people who knew che' guevera said he was an anarchist before meeting castro and becoming a socialist.

[ls]

Yeah but one can point to entire periods of anarchism in which it was largely if not exclusively based on petit bourgeois layers of society, the Ukrainian Makhnovists being the best example of this

But this isn't really based on fact as there is nothing to suggest that most of the Black Army was made of middle peasants or kulaks, nor that the "All-Ukrainian workers and peasants congresses" or indeed the Soviets in the countryside regions mostly consisted of them either. Poorer peasants are not "petit-bourgeois" as that would be a mind bogglingly weird thing to say. Sure, the USSR was more wary of kulaks and mid peasants but Kayser correctly points out that the USSR worked with kulaks at a point too. If a movement starts in the countryside, what better force is going to be able to take control than the poorer peasants?


I would not have chosen those authors had I not believed that they were representing Makhno in a realistic fashion. Avrich in particular seems very sympathetic, but still realistic and not romantic. And apparently anarchists find it agreeable as I got it from an anarchist site.

That doesn't make either Darch or Avrich right on every point (which is all I said, I never dismissed them, I think there's a lot of good in their works -espesh by Avrich). I thought what you emphasised from their work needed, well, countenacing with more of their own work in the same book both later on and before what you quoted, plus there's nothing wrong with countenancing it with a few other materials too (hey, I based it on sourced evidence where I could, for instance not just Malet saying "hey I love makhno" but stuff like the leaflet thing). Darch compares himself on Voline and Malet which was cool to see, he doesn't really refute their opinions when he points them out though, he merely points out they are romantic near the beginning.


That depends on the peasants actually. Peasants (which are disappearing all over the world these days) often did own some property. They can sustain themselves, and they can often sell their wares for money. In a market situation, like during the NEP period, they can potentially enrich themselves. When the peasants were feeling the crunch of the landlords, they flocked to the Bolsheviks. Later on when the USSR abandoned NEP and went on to constructing socialism, some peasants(some who had managed to become kulaks thanks to NEP policies) were drawn to support the kulaks and engage in grain speculation.

Of course this is largely irrelevant today; big agribusiness totally beats small farmers.

Indeed, it is irrelevant today. It's odd though that you are bashing the Black Army for inadvertently helping out the richer peasants over the poorer ones when, as you point out yourself, the NEP did that too. Plus, you must take into account that the Black Army was started rurally by poorer peasants and if it started as a workers' based movement in Kyiv for example, then yeah I don't think anyone denies that things would've panned out much better for everyone except the Whites. It's a fact there were anarchist workers movements in cities in many other countries at that time too, so you can hardly claim anarchism is a "richer peasants' movement" or something, it's just not a claim based on fact.

[PRC-UTE]

Peasants clearly are not 'petit-bourgeoisie'. I never understood this marxist rejection of the peasantry, as if they are doing something wrong by working the land. They were dirt poor and revolutionary, not some sort of placated property owning middle class.

revolutionary in what sense? what was their goal?

Think before answering, none of this 'they were poor and revolutionary' rhetoric.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Wow...this thread has pretty turned into a giant flame war...I guess this just shows how hypocritical we are all, bickering like children.And the answer to the questioned posed is thus...

no.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think that a Vanguard Party pursued by Leninists would (and should) most likely include Anarchists and other leftists in a multi-tendency fashion for the sake of success and cross-coordination, and democratic centralism would turn out a little less central. I don't think all, or maybe even a majority of anarchists would collaborate if they perceived it as just another privileged bureaucracy ready to mandate everything in society in the name of the working class, however such a party would have to probably include inclusive political mechanics that allow Anarchists, Trotskyists, etc. to participate meaningfully and retain a limited but felt sense of autonomy, perhaps through the individual parties melting into the larger one (with an eye out for factionalism of course.)

If each side gives a little, cooperation is possible. As long as sectarian biases don't start coming out after the revolution, the political process would consist of worker-councils and groups with different tendencies ensuing in healthy debate (likely circling around centralization vs decentralization of certain aspects of the economy/institutional setup) while protecting the gains of the revolution and never losing sight of the proletarian priority. Progress towards a stateless and classless society depends on this balance. Since the working class will be mobilized and afterwords empowered, differences in specific philosophy I think would be much more diluted and less relevant with the decreased emphasis of jargon-spitting party spokesmen/leaders.

Now that I think about it, I don't see how a revolution is 1. possible, or 2. even desirable unless the working class is mobilized through the cooperation and ideological dialogue between Leninists and Anarchists.

In many respects this would make a lot of sense, but the problem comes when you implement many of the key operating mechanics of the vanguard party. How do you reconcile differences over, say, democratic centrism, much less questions about how to internationalize the movement? There are certain irreconcilable differences on the basic level of how to run the party, that I don't see a multi-tendency party of the sort you describe as being able to do anything. In this respect, strategic alliances of convenience to defeat a common enemy are probably the best one could hope for.


Human sciences are scientific, but in a slightly different way. In history, hypotheses are generally not tested in controlled environments because that's not possible in most cases. That doesn't mean that a scientific approach isn't possible. There isn't only one methodology. Methods vary accord to what field is being dealt with.


I'd also worth point out that "sciences" like astronomy, geophysics/atmospheric sciences, paleontology, and even most areas of genetics do not rely on testing in ideal laboratory conditions - in fact, they have many of the same restrictions history has about reproducibility etc...

[pranabjyoti]

Peasants clearly are not 'petit-bourgeoisie'. I never understood this marxist rejection of the peasantry, as if they are doing something wrong by working the land. They were dirt poor and revolutionary, not some sort of placated property owning middle class.
Peasants clearly ARE petty-bourgeoisie. Because they owe some means of production. One may be poor, but that doesn't mean he/she belongs to the working class. He/she may be poor due to lack of productivity of the process, by which he/she is connected with production. As for example, a blacksmith is poorer than a iron and steel factory worker, but he is a petty-bourgeoisie. He is poor, because his tools and machinery are backdated and less productive than the factory machinery of an iron and steel factory. By this method, small peasants, though they may be poor, don't belong to the working class. Their poverty is a result of their backward machinery and process, by which they are producing grain.

[red cat]

Peasants clearly ARE petty-bourgeoisie. Because they owe some means of production. One may be poor, but that doesn't mean he/she belongs to the working class. He/she may be poor due to lack of productivity of the process, by which he/she is connected with production. As for example, a blacksmith is poorer than a iron and steel factory worker, but he is a petty-bourgeoisie. He is poor, because his tools and machinery are backdated and less productive than the factory machinery of an iron and steel factory. By this method, small peasants, though they may be poor, don't belong to the working class. Their poverty is a result of their backward machinery and process, by which they are producing grain.
Firstly, there are landless peasants, and many of them are bound to a piece of land that they don't even own.

Secondly, peasants who own small stretches of land have to work a fixed amount of time(for free) in the land holdings of the feudal lords.

And thirdly, lower peasants are oppressed and the relations of production they experience is feudal. They are a motive force in a new democratic revolution.

For these reasons I think that it is not justified to call them petit-bourgeois.

[pranabjyoti]

Firstly, there are landless peasants, and many of them are bound to a piece of land that they don't even own.

Secondly, peasants who own small stretches of land have to work a fixed amount of time(for free) in the land holdings of the feudal lords.

And thirdly, lower peasants are oppressed and the relations of production they experience is feudal. They are a motive force in a new democratic revolution.

For these reasons I think that it is not justified to call them petit-bourgeois.
Well, they are petty-bourgeoisie in a classical Marxist view. The conditions, that you are saying about is present in a semi-feudal country, where capitalism is not properly established. And there is no debate in the fact to fight against feudalism and its remains, they can certainly take a revolutionary role. And as per Marxist and Leninist view, peasants, like other petty-bourgeoisie has a dual character. The poorer they become, the more closer they get to the workers. As their conditions improved, they more close they feel to petty-bourgeoisie. Even Mao, on an interview with Edgar Snow, clearly said that EVERY PEASANT DREAMS TO BE A BOURGEOISIE CAPITALIST.
Just remember, the fierce opposition from a section of the medium scale farmers during the collectivization period in USSR.

[red cat]

Well, they are petty-bourgeoisie in a classical Marxist view. The conditions, that you are saying about is present in a semi-feudal country, where capitalism is not properly established. And there is no debate in the fact to fight against feudalism and its remains, they can certainly take a revolutionary role. And as per Marxist and Leninist view, peasants, like other petty-bourgeoisie has a dual character. The poorer they become, the more closer they get to the workers. As their conditions improved, they more close they feel to petty-bourgeoisie. Even Mao, on an interview with Edgar Snow, clearly said that EVERY PEASANT DREAMS TO BE A BOURGEOISIE CAPITALIST.
Just remember, the fierce opposition from a section of the medium scale farmers during the collectivization period in USSR.You are right, but we should differentiate between peasants under semi-colonial semi-feudal mode and those under the capitalist mode of production.

Under the capitalist mode, former landless and small-land owning peasants transform into the proletariat. So, then a petit-bourgeois peasant will generally own more land and other agricultural equipments than a middle peasant in a SFSC society.

[Искра]

This thread should be closed. This is 100% off topic. :rolleyes:

[Cowboy Killer]

(Getting back on topic)
I would unite (for the moment) if they had a chance at destroying capitalism, but after they took power I would resist them. I don't think I would ever want to have a ruling class.

[ls]

Firstly, there are landless peasants, and many of them are bound to a piece of land that they don't even own.

Secondly, peasants who own small stretches of land have to work a fixed amount of time(for free) in the land holdings of the feudal lords.

And thirdly, lower peasants are oppressed and the relations of production they experience is feudal. They are a motive force in a new democratic revolution.

For these reasons I think that it is not justified to call them petit-bourgeois.

Strange to see me agreeing with red cat on something for once! But I'm surprised people such as pranabjyoti and PRC-UTE do not see these fundamental class differences myself.

I would add one note on new democratic revolutions; they call upon the urban petit-bourgeois, I have outlined this in other threads before - in fact I quoted Bhattarai going into quite a lot of detail about it.

[Devrim]

Peasants clearly are not 'petit-bourgeoisie'. I never understood this marxist rejection of the peasantry, as if they are doing something wrong by working the land. They were dirt poor and revolutionary, not some sort of placated property owning middle class.

The question isn't about whether they are doing something 'wrong' or not. It is about class interests not morality.

To put it very basically the workers interest is contradictory to that of his employer, in that for the employer to make profits, and remember the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, he is constantly forced to increase the rate of exploitation, put in very basic terms make the worker work harder for less money.

The peasants interest is not at all opposed to his employer. He doesn't have one. He is self employed, which is the classic definition of the petit-bourgeoisie.


Firstly, there are landless peasants, and many of them are bound to a piece of land that they don't even own.

They are generally called rural proletarians in the Marxist schema.

Devrim

[Durruti's Ghost]

They are generally called rural proletarians in the Marxist schema.

Devrim

Isn't the proletarianization of the landless peasantry a central part of the transition from feudalism to capitalism? How can this class become part of the proletariat if it was already proletarian to begin with?

[red cat]

Isn't the proletarianization of the landless peasantry a central part of the transition from feudalism to capitalism? How can this class become part of the proletariat if it was already proletarian to begin with?
Good point. Being subject to capitalist relations of productions is necessary condition for a class to be a part of the proletariat.

[syndicat]

if petit bourgeoisie means capitalists with very little capital, then they must have employees. as Marx pointed out, capitalism is defined by the capital/wage labor relation. That is, no employees, not a capitalist. Hence a self-employed peasant isn't a capitalist, hence not a small capitalist. whether the peasant owns some land isn't really the issue, except to the extent it enables them to start hiring landless farmers as employees...then they become a small time capitalist farmer...a petit bourgeois.

also peasant agriculture tends to have a large element of subsistence to it, that is, meeting one's own needs and only selling a surplus on the market. this isn't a fully capitalist type of agriculture yet, but may be embedded in a larger society in which capitalist social relations have become dominant.

in regard to the fighters in Makhno's army, the Soviet government did a study of their property holdings when they were decommissioned. very few had any property at all. the army was made up mostly of landless peasant (farm laborers) and urban workers. Skirda gives the data on the fate of the kulak class...it was largely destroyed in the revolution in Ukraine. The Makhnovist army tended to take away their excess lands so that they would not be able to be capitalist farmers, exploiting farm laborers. so the Makhnovist army was in fact at odds with the rural petit bourgeoisie.

the army itself was accountable in principle to the administrative council elected by the People's Congresses of the Dnieper River area. this council was a diverse group, including representatives of the Left SRs, maximalists, syndicalists, Nabat federation (Makhno's political group) and at one time even the Bolshevik party. the Congresses included representatives of local soviets, unions, peasant communities.

the thing that makes Leninism incompatible with any sort of libertarian socialist view would be the aim of building an administrative layer in which to centralize planning, control over the military and control over production. this is inconsistent with self-management of industry and popular self-management of public affairs, rooted in direct democracy. so there are incompatible aims.

[pranabjyoti]

if petit bourgeoisie means capitalists with very little capital, then they must have employees. as Marx pointed out, capitalism is defined by the capital/wage labor relation. That is, no employees, not a capitalist. Hence a self-employed peasant isn't a capitalist, hence not a small capitalist. whether the peasant owns some land isn't really the issue, except to the extent it enables them to start hiring landless farmers as employees...then they become a small time capitalist farmer...a petit bourgeois.
WRONG AGAIN. Small capital doesn't always means they have small employees. Even they can have no employee at all. A petty-bourgeoisie is someone, who HAVE TO GIVE LABOR TO LIVE BUT DON'T HAVE TO SELL HIS/HER LABOR for a living. By the word "labor", I mean to say some kind of action which produces something and which is repetative. A small farmer, shop-keeper, who may or may not has employee(s), but he/she isn't selling his labor but he/she retains the right of his to him/her.

[The Red Next Door]

Why not? If they don't decide to be a bunch of authoritarian fucks and betray the people.

[AntifaArnhem]

(Getting back on topic)
I would unite (for the moment) if they had a chance at destroying capitalism, but after they took power I would resist them. I don't think I would ever want to have a ruling class.

I would also work together with any radical left winged group to get rid of the capitalist ruling class as seen today. It wouldn't be my favorite scenario to work together with communist because of their beleives in ruling classes etc. I just don't want to be overuled by any political form.

I already do work together with communist, socialsts etc. because in the Netherlands (at least in my hometown) we don't really have a choice due to the few radical left groups here.

[Devrim]

Isn't the proletarianization of the landless peasantry a central part of the transition from feudalism to capitalism? How can this class become part of the proletariat if it was already proletarian to begin with?

Yes, but the landless peasantry lived under completely different conditions than the rural proletariat of today. There is a huge difference between the relations experienced by the Russian serf, and the Russian agricultural labourer today. Landless peasants weren't proletarian during the period of transition. It doesn't make any sense today as a category though.


Good point. Being subject to capitalist relations of productions is necessary condition for a class to be a part of the proletariat.

The peasantry is subject to capitalist relations today though. Although there may be feudal remnants within society, it no longer exists as an economic system. The world is capitalist.



if petit bourgeoisie means capitalists with very little capital, then they must have employees. as Marx pointed out, capitalism is defined by the capital/wage labor relation. That is, no employees, not a capitalist. Hence a self-employed peasant isn't a capitalist, hence not a small capitalist. whether the peasant owns some land isn't really the issue, except to the extent it enables them to start hiring landless farmers as employees...then they become a small time capitalist farmer...a petit bourgeois.

WRONG AGAIN. Small capital doesn't always means they have small employees. Even they can have no employee at all. A petty-bourgeoisie is someone, who HAVE TO GIVE LABOR TO LIVE BUT DON'T HAVE TO SELL HIS/HER LABOR for a living. By the word "labor", I mean to say some kind of action which produces something and which is repetative. A small farmer, shop-keeper, who may or may not has employee(s), but he/she isn't selling his labor but he/she retains the right of his to him/her.

I hate to say it, but I think the Maoist is right on this one. :(

Devrim

[pranabjyoti]

I hate to say it, but I think the Maoist is right on this one. :(
Devrim
Maoists were and are right on many other cases too.
Regarding Makhnovites, I am curious to know what % of landless peasants and city workers were with them. If the maximum number, then in my opinion, instead of the Bolshevik party, they themselves become the revolutionary organization. Makhno's army may consist of landless peasants and workers, but perhaps they were the scum of the class.

[Devrim]

Regarding Makhnovites, I am curious to know what % of landless peasants and city workers were with them. If the maximum number, then in my opinion, instead of the Bolshevik party, they themselves become the revolutionary organization. Makhno's army may consist of landless peasants and workers, but perhaps they were the scum of the class.

I don't know. It is not something I know so much about. I have read a few books about it, but a long time ago.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

The peasants interest is not at all opposed to his employer. He doesn't have one. He is self employed, which is the classic definition of the petit-bourgeoisie.I don't think the reason that only the working class can introduce socialism is because workers have employers and peasants don't. As Devrim points out there are people in the countryside who are not considered peasants because they do not own land, rather, they are landless labourers who sell their labour power to a member of the rich peasant or landlord elite, which is why we call them rural proletarians. There are however also poor peasants who own their own land but are forced to rent land or to sell their labour power for a certain amount of time each year in order to supplement the income they get from the land that they do own. We can also identify an additional category of people who only rent land, and they are distinct from rural proletarians but not part of the peasantry proper because they do not own the means of production that they use to sustain themselves - in this sense they are somewhat similar to the workers who engaged in putting-out during the early stages of capitalism, and they face the persistent danger of being forced to become rural proletarians. There is a divergence of interests between all of these groups and the landlord elites who stand in a position of domination over them. The reason this divergence of interests cannot lead to socialism, even when we are concerned with rural proletarians, who do have employers, is that the main resource that both poor peasants and rural proletarians are seeking to gain when they enter into conflict with landlords and rich peasants is land, and land is something that can be divided up - so that if poor peasants and rural proletarians are given a chance to change the distribution of land in their local community they are likely to divide it up equally so that each and every family or individual becomes a petty-bourgeois producer, or gains more land than they had before, each having a patch of land that is enough to live off without having to enter into relations of dependence with other members of the community, which means that private property is maintained.

If you are a worker in a factory or an office on the other hand, then an assembly line is not something that can be divided up - the only way it can be owned or managed in a way that is different from private property is by placing it under collective control, which is why Marxists look to the working class as the agent of socialist revolution.

This, amongst other things, is why the Maoist strategy of organizing peasants is deeply flawed.

[syndicat]

Bob Kindles:
The reason this divergence of interests cannot lead to socialism, even when we are concerned with rural proletarians, who do have employers, is that the main resource that both poor peasants and rural proletarians are seeking to gain when they enter into conflict with landlords and rich peasants is land, and land is something that can be divided up - so that if poor peasants and rural proletarians are given a chance to change the distribution of land in their local community they are likely to divide it up equally so that each and every family or individual becomes a petty-bourgeois producer, or gains more land than they had before, each having a patch of land that is enough to live off without having to enter into relations of dependence with other members of the community, which means that private property is maintained.


Most proletarians don't work in factories. Some means of production could be owned inndividually, such as trucks or taxis. This is why some employers in U.S. have been forcing truck drivers to lease or own trucks so as to regard them as "independent contractors", to escape labor laws. FedEx uses this strategy persistently. But it's a scam because of the dominance of the employer, who controls the dispatch system, warehouse etc.

Even if the land could be divided up, it doesn't follow that is the practice peasants will pursue. Moreover, it also doesn't follow that there might not be a collective form of organization dominant in the rural area through which the farm workers gain access to equipment, distribution of their product, services and so on. A more important question is: Have the peasantry developed practices of collective struggle? In the Russian revolution this didn't happen, except for the Makhnovist movement, which seems to have been rooted in the poorer peasants and farm laborers. In the Spanish revolution there was a long tradition of rural worker unionism, and a strong tendency towards collectivization of the land, not dividing it up. There were exceptions, such as the citrus orchard peasants in Valencia and the vineyard peasants in Catalonia...which are relatively more developed forms of agriculture and these peasants in both cases had been supporters of nationalist parties...populist in Catalonia and quasi-fascist in Valencia. Spain's agriculture at that time was more fully on a capitalist basis than Russia's had been in 1917, and this went hand in hand with a revolutionary rural worker unionism.

The Maoist writes:
A petty-bourgeoisie is someone, who HAVE TO GIVE LABOR TO LIVE BUT DON'T HAVE TO SELL HIS/HER LABOR for a living. By the word "labor", I mean to say some kind of action which produces something and which is repetative. A small farmer, shop-keeper, who may or may not has employee(s), but he/she isn't selling his labor but he/she retains the right of his to him/her.

There were various pre-capitalist systems where people didn't "sell their labor". They're not capitalists if they are not entering into the capital/wage labor relation, and this requires a certain kind of social order. Also, workers don't sell their labor, they rent out chunks of their life. What the employer buys is merely their capacity to work...but it's up to the capitalist to try to make use of it to make a profit. To be a capitalist a person must be exploiting the labor-power of others.

You can simply repeat your Marxist dogma about the self-employed being "petit bourgeois" but it's just that, dogma. Owning some means of production COULD become a path to that person becoming a capitalist...if they become prosperous enough to hire others. But until then they're not capitalists. The guy who used to repair the plumbing in my house was a self-employed plumber. He owned his own truck and tools. But he had no employees. Now, he could have BECOME a capitalist if he growed his business to the point of hiring people. But as long as he worked on his own, he was in a kind of class no-man's land, no longer a wage-worker but not yet a capitalist. This is important because if they don't have employers or employees, they're outside the class struggle, so to speak.

[ls]

Regarding Makhnovites, I am curious to know what % of landless peasants and city workers were with them.

I'm not sure what 'percentage' you can claim to this, but Malet says the peasantry was:
The poorest 40% who could not live off their land or had none
A middle 40% who could live off it except in years with a bad harvest
A rich 20% (the Kulaks) who were relatively well off with a fraction of this 20% who were very well off

Even Colin Darch writes:
In this first period of experimentation little can have been achieved before the arrival of the invaders. Nevertheless, in the only description we have, Makhno makes some far-reaching claims. The redistribution of livestock and farming equipment was undertakenby demobilised soldiers, under the supervision of a committee of anarchists.

It is also accepted that Makhno stole documents from the landlords by both Malet and Skirda:



1917

..He founded a Peasants union within a week and soon the propaganda of the anarchist group became popular enough that the Serbian Machine Gun company quartered in Hulyai Pole joined the May Day parade. In this period he also played a role in the strike of wood and metal workers and peasant rent strike in June. In August he initiated a meeting of local landlords and took all their ownership documents, a district peasant meeting then decided to divide all land equally.

During the Konilov affair the anarchists in Hulyai Pole organised a "committee for the Salvation of the Revolution" and the seizure of weapons off the local army. [1] By the 25 Sept./8 Oct. final last of the land was taken off the landlords and divided between the peasants.

There followed a brief period when constructive activity was begun, also marked by the first major military operation when on 29 Dec./11 January 1918 Makhno led 800 from Hulyai Pole to Olexandrivske to aid in the disarming of Cossacks. Some 250,000 roubles were taken from banks for distribution to the peasants and significantly a food for textiles transfer arranged with a Moscow factory.

Also, note that they only liberated two cities; Olexandrivske/Dnipropetrovsk and Katerynoslav/Zaporizhzhia. It's not an unfair criticism to say they didn't offer the solidarity workers needed (in Alexandrovsk at least)..
In Olexandrivsk they held two initial conferences and urged the workers to restart production under their own self-management and to open up direct exchange with the peasantry. The workers however looked to the Makhnovista to pay them wages, including back pay for the period under the whites. Makhno responded in the case of the rail workers that they get the trains running and change sufficient tariffs to generate their wages. However he exempted military traffic from this tariff which was of course unpopular as most of the traffic was military.

Despite these problems some trains were got running and a few factories reopened. However the problems were multiplied by the Olexandrivske congress when the unions only sent observers, 1/3 of whom walked out after Makhno called them "lapdogs of the bourgeoise". After the congress 18 plant committees stated that they and their unions would disclaim all connection with the congress. Makhno responded by calling those delegates who had walked out "thieves and cowards". At this stage the Makhnovista left Olexandrivske in the face of Red Army assaults.

Katerynoslav saw some minor successes, the tobacco workers won a collective agreement that had long been refused, the bakery workers where importantly there was an anarcho-syndicalist influence undertook the socialisation of the industry, drawing up plans to feed


If the maximum number, then in my opinion, instead of the Bolshevik party, they themselves become the revolutionary organization. Makhno's army may consist of landless peasants and workers, but perhaps they were the scum of the class.

What is the 'maximum number' and also what does 'scum of the class' mean? This makes little sense. The areas where they were based (mostly in the countryside) had a massive base of support, even Trotsky said "The liquidation of Makhno does not mean the end of the Makhnovschyna, which has its roots in the ignorant popular masses", unless you are calling most poor peasants in the countryside scum then.. yeah.

[syndicat]

In regard to the 1/3 of unions in Alexandrovsk who walked out of the Congress and refused to affiliate. They were Right Mensheviks and Right SRs. It was at that Congress that a Bolshevik representative was elected to the regional administrative council, to which Makhno's army was supposed to be accountable.

[Devrim]

You can simply repeat your Marxist dogma about the self-employed being "petit bourgeois" but it's just that, dogma. Owning some means of production COULD become a path to that person becoming a capitalist...if they become prosperous enough to hire others. But until then they're not capitalists. The guy who used to repair the plumbing in my house was a self-employed plumber. He owned his own truck and tools. But he had no employees. Now, he could have BECOME a capitalist if he growed his business to the point of hiring people. But as long as he worked on his own, he was in a kind of class no-man's land, no longer a wage-worker but not yet a capitalist. This is important because if they don't have employers or employees, they're outside the class struggle, so to speak.

It might seem like dogma to you, but I would say that your plumber is petit-bourgeois.

Devrim