Can Anarchists Create Factions?

[New Tet]

I offer this as a working definition of "factions" and "factionalism" not as an attempt to answer the question:

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

[Raúl Duke]

I offer this as a working definition of "factions" and "factionalism" not as an attempt to answer the question:

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

It's doesn't seem impossible.

In a broad anarchist federation, or let's say in a anarchist society in formation, factions can developed usually on ideological sub-sectional grounds. Anarcho-Communists might argue more towards neighborhood assemblies and federations as the main political formation instead of the worker council/syndicate as main politcal formation view of Anarcho-Syndicalists. Some may argue for a fusion of both or divide both into certain spheres (i.e. worker's council deal with the economic aspects while neighborhood assemblies deal with political and community issues that are not tottaly in the realm of economics),etc. There's also the concern about communism. Obviously, Anarcho-Communists would place a large emphasize towards how to work out the transition of an early social anarchist society towards communism then certain other anarchists. Some anarchists may not put much importance to this or may be opposed to the idea (market anarchists).

Also, and it's likely, factionalism can develop in the forms of groupings behind certain people, whether dead or alive.

[New Tet]

It's doesn't seem impossible.

In a broad anarchist federation, or let's say in a anarchist society in formation, factions can developed usually on ideological sub-sectional grounds. Anarcho-Communists might argue more towards neighborhood assemblies and federations as the main political formation instead of the worker council/syndicate as main politcal formation view of Anarcho-Syndicalists. Some may argue for a fusion of both or divide both into certain spheres (i.e. worker's council deal with the economic aspects while neighborhood assemblies deal with political and community issues that are not tottaly in the realm of economics),etc. There's also the concern about communism. Obviously, Anarcho-Communists would place a large emphasize towards how to work out the transition of an early social anarchist society towards communism then certain other anarchists. Some anarchists may not put much importance to this or may be opposed to the idea (market anarchists).

Also, and it's likely, factionalism can develop in the forms of groupings behind certain people, whether dead or alive.

What you say is pretty clear, at least to me, thank you.

However, what I had in mind when I posed the question was something like "can anarchists form factions in the present, before the question of how to organize a liberated society becomes an imperative? If so, how and why?

[syndicat]

It wasn't entirely clear to me from that Wiki piece if any political organization is counted as a faction. Certainly anarchists can and do create political organizations. There also have been anarchist or anarchist-inspired factions within mass organizations. For example, we could regard both the treintistas and the FAI as anarchist factions inside the revolutionary syndicalist CNT unions in Spain in the '30s. But these "factions" were organized as political organizations.

[New Tet]

It wasn't entirely clear to me from that Wiki piece if any political organization is counted as a faction. Certainly anarchists can and do create political organizations. There also have been anarchist or anarchist-inspired factions within mass organizations. For example, we could regard both the treintistas and the FAI as anarchist factions inside the revolutionary syndicalist CNT unions in Spain in the '30s. But these "factions" were organized as political organizations.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, anarchists creating political organizations?

[The Ben G]

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, anarchists creating political organizations?

In anarchy, anything is possible. Anarchy is more abstract than simply destroying power, though that is one of the major points.

[9]

Yes, I think they obviously can; there are anarchists who support national liberation, who generally support the (IMO, very good) positions of genuine Trotskyists, but they still consider themselves anarchists. Then there are the anarchists who are more like left communists... I think there may actually be more ideological variation within "anarchism" than there is within any of the other 'tendencies' on the left. So I certainly think they can create factions. However, because of the common lack of a theoretical analysis and historical method, differences may be less pronounced in times of low class struggle (now).

[syndicat]

So I certainly think they can create factions. However, because of the common lack of a theoretical analysis and historical method, differences may be less pronounced in times of low class struggle (now).

But there are more ideological differences among self-avowed "anarchists" in the USA today than in Spain in the '30s when anarchism was the dominant revolutionary left ideology. So this contradicts your assertion here. I think the fact of "anarchists" being all over the map in USA today has to do with the lack of a clear organized anarchist tradition here.

And, no, there is no contradiction in having anarchist organizations...that is a prejudice of bourgeois anti-anarchist propaganda, to think that it means being against organization. Rather, what libertarian socialists or social anarchists (these can be regarded as equivalent terms) advocate is self-managed organization...organization collectively controlled by the members, rather than a hierarchical or top-down type of organization such as a "democratic centralist" Leninist party.

There does exist in USA currently a strong differentiation between those "anarchists" who are against formal organization -- they think in terms of ad hoc comings together in actions -- versus the pro-organizational working class and mass struggle oriented anarchists. Thus there is one national organization and four regional organizations of the pro-organizational, class struggle-oriented wing of anarchism in the USA. Workers Solidarity Alliance (workersolidarity.org) is the one national organization and the oldest. The regional organizations are Amanecer (California), Common Action (Pacific Northwest), North East Federation of Anarchist Communists, and Solidarity & Defense (Michigan).

These various organizations recently had a joint Class Struggle Anarchist Conference in Detroit, and share similar politics. But these anarchist political organizations are different than anti-organizational, primitivist, "insurrectionist" and "post-Left" anarchists.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, anarchists creating political organizations?

Why do you say that? Anarchists aren't opposed to organisation, organisation is a necessity.

[Искра]

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, anarchists creating political organizations?
If you think of political organisation as party than it is contradiction.
Unfortunately parties are not only political organisations in the world. Anarchist political organisations are anarchist syndicates, propaganda groups, federations, confederations, .... etc.

[syndicat]

Quite a few anarchists are "dual organizational." This means they favor both political (or ideological) organization and also mass organization (such as worker unions, tenant unions etc). For example, my organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance, is dual organizational. But partyism is inconsistent with libertarian socialism. Partyism is a strategy of a political organization trying to capture a state to implement is program top-down thru the hierarchies of the state. Libertarian socialism is anti-partyist. But just because we are against parties taking state power, it doesn't follow that we are against political organization, or against mass organization. For most social anarchists or libertarian socialists historically, it is thru the mass organizations of the oppressed and exploited that the revolution and liberation are to come about.

[ComradeMan]

I think that anarchism does sometimes tend to suffer from an over-intellectualisation that can lead to endless -isms all over the place I put this down to its very "free thinking" and "open-minded" principles, it's not particularly doctrinaire and therefore it's bound to create many different factions etc- but that is not necessarily a bad thing and I see it as more of a creative force as long as we don't lose site of the basic underlying principles....okay, even I can be a little bit doctrinaire!!! :)

My "issue" with Marxists in general is that they are very dogmatic and docrtinaire on matters of policy to my anarchist way of thinking.... that doesn't mean we can't be friends though!:)

[ellipsis]

North East Federation of Anarchist Communists
I encountered them briefly and their organization is based on all the members agreeing with the points of unity of the Federation. This suggests to me that they recognize that ideological difference are inevitable and should not divide them as a party.

[Pogue]

Well the answer is no. Our group structures don't allow for factions to exist, they are mainly a means used by Leninist parties to try and make it clear who is on whose side and as a means of debate, its a construct you wont see in anarchist groups. Alot of them work by consensus which would negate the need for factions, whereas my group, L&S, and other platformists, wouldn't agree with the faction idea, we just vote on policy and then adhere to it.

[btpound]

In an anarchist society I can see a great deal of political tumult and spiting into factions.

Anarchism already has a large cross-section of factions and they haven't even created this society without government yet. You have the traditional Proudhonists, who believe that only the means of production should be communal, while maintaining full ownership of that which they produce, still allowing for a surplus and therefore classes. This ideology can sometimes border on Anarcho-Capitalism, since people with a surplus could theoretically hire other people to produce for him since there is no "law" forbidding it. You have the Anarcho-Primitivists who will try to bring about a more "natural" society, by bringing back society to something similar to the commons in England, (serfdoms with no serf). No mass communication, no mass transportation, and no system to replace it. Back to square one. Anarcho-sydiclists will try to actively unionize the whole of society, while not haveing a central government to regulate trade, the union commitees decide everything. Because there is no planned economy, and since what the union produces the union owns, this will bring rise to competition, class, and a system very similar to capitalism. Anarcho-Communism is the closest to hitting the mark in my opinion. They have a little better plan for the running of society, but I don't think it could ever amass itself as a revolutionary force. If this theoretical society existed, you would have all these factions competeing with eachother. And since Anarchists usually resort to terrorism and assassinations as their primary tactics i think the reuslt would be total chaos and gurrila warfare. The final result, whatever the outcome, inevitably looking just like capitlism.

[Искра]

Anarchism already has a large cross-section of factions and they haven't even created this society without government yet.
All I have to say to this is: Marxists-Leninists, Trotskyists, Left Communist, Council Communists, Anarcho-Communists, Hoxhaists, Titoists, Guevarists, Stalinists, Maoists,.....

Where's communism?

[ComradeMan]

All I have to say to this is: Marxists-Leninists, Trotskyists, Left Communist, Council Communists, Anarcho-Communists, Hoxhaists, Titoists, Guevarists, Stalinists, Maoists,.....

Where's communism?


Good point.


But let's face it, we are all factions of the First International anyway!:tt2:

[Pogue]

In an anarchist society I can see a great deal of political tumult and spiting into factions.

Anarchism already has a large cross-section of factions and they haven't even created this society without government yet. You have the traditional Proudhonists, who believe that only the means of production should be communal, while maintaining full ownership of that which they produce, still allowing for a surplus and therefore classes. This ideology can sometimes border on Anarcho-Capitalism, since people with a surplus could theoretically hire other people to produce for him since there is no "law" forbidding it. You have the Anarcho-Primitivists who will try to bring about a more "natural" society, by bringing back society to something similar to the commons in England, (serfdoms with no serf). No mass communication, no mass transportation, and no system to replace it. Back to square one. Anarcho-sydiclists will try to actively unionize the whole of society, while not haveing a central government to regulate trade, the union commitees decide everything. Because there is no planned economy, and since what the union produces the union owns, this will bring rise to competition, class, and a system very similar to capitalism. Anarcho-Communism is the closest to hitting the mark in my opinion. They have a little better plan for the running of society, but I don't think it could ever amass itself as a revolutionary force. If this theoretical society existed, you would have all these factions competeing with eachother. And since Anarchists usually resort to terrorism and assassinations as their primary tactics i think the reuslt would be total chaos and gurrila warfare. The final result, whatever the outcome, inevitably looking just like capitlism.

What are you actually talking about?

[Искра]

But let's face it, we are all factions of the First International anyway!:tt2:
No all.
First international was consisted of original Marxsists, anarcho-syndicalists, proudhonists, anarcho-individualists, social-democrats... etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong :)

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction, anarchists creating political organizations?
No.

And since Anarchists usually resort to terrorism and assassinations as their primary tactics i think the reuslt would be total chaos and gurrila warfare. The final result, whatever the outcome, inevitably looking just like capitlism.
Lolwut. How many assassinations carried out by anarchists can you think of in the last, say, 60 years or so?

[syndicat]

Anarcho-sydiclists will try to actively unionize the whole of society, while not haveing a central government to regulate trade, the union commitees decide everything. Because there is no planned economy, and since what the union produces the union owns, this will bring rise to competition, class, and a system very similar to capitalism.

You don't know what you're talking about. The Spanish anarcho-syndicalists in the revolution in Spain in 1936 did advocate, and try to build, a planned economy. But it is to be built from below by the working class, and planning proposals are to filter up from below, not imposed top down as under Soviet central planning.

Governance is rooted in two building blocks: Assemblies in the workplaces and assemblies in the neibhborhoods or towns. The neighborhood assemblies are the basis of the local city or town government, called "free municipalities" by the Spanish anarchists. Plans and decisions that apply to whole nations or regions are to be made through congresses of delegates from the base assemblies.

Although social anarchism is opposed to the state, it is opposed because the state is an institution of class domination and is a hierarchical, top down form of government that can't be effectively controlled by the masses. Some anarchists say they are "against government" but not all do. Some of us would say the form of government we're for is popular power, built up from the assemblies.

You seem to think anarcho-syndicalism advocates collective private ownership of means by production by groups of workers. This is false. Anarcho-syndicalism advocates that the land and other means of production be owned in common by the whole society. We don't advocate a market society, so your claims are mistaken.

WSA is a U.S. organization in the anarcho-syndicalist tradition and you can read our political views in our "where We Stand" statement at:

http://workersolidarity.org/?page_id=78

In regard to the issue of internal factions within an anarchist political organization, when we formed WSA in 1984 the constitution did allow for formal tendencies. We recently removed this language from the constitution because it was never made use of. Although we also "vote on things and then carry it out", as the person from Liberty & Solidarity above states, we also have internal differences of opinion which are consistent with agreement to our statement of principles. For example, some members consider themselves "anarcho-communists" but others are not. but we don't have organized political tendencies. We're not a "Platformist" anarchist organization but some members are platformists.

In the case of mass organizations in which anarchists played a role, as I pointed out before, the CNT mass union organiszation in Spain in the '30s had competing anarchist factions within it, the FAI and the treintistas.

Some anarchist political organizations are loose networks or federations of collectives who may have different and even incompatible views. Other anarchist political organizations are unitary in the sense they have a single perspective that defines the politics of the organization and people join on the basis of agreement with that. For example my organization WSA is a unitary organization in this sense.


And since Anarchists usually resort to terrorism and assassinations as their primary tactics i think the reuslt would be total chaos and gurrila warfare.

This is also completely false...a rank political smear worthy of some bourgeois scandal sheet. Pro-organizational anarchists...the dominant tradition historically...advocate the building of mass organizations such as unions and the development of collective action developed by democratic mass social movements. This is inconsistent with terrorism as a method.

[New Tet]

No.

Lolwut. How many assassinations carried out by anarchists can you think of in the last, say, 60 years or so?

The Unibomber. The murder of Dr. Tiller.

[syndicat]

The Unibomber was a nutjob who belonged to no political organization. There have been assasins in history of all different kinds of ideological beliefs, from Marxist-Leninist to anarchist to Christian to nationalist to whatever. This proves nothing about anarchism. Unibomber was a whacked out follower of the anti-civilization, primitivist type of "anarchism." This is light years away from working class social anarchism. To say all anarchists advocate terrorism on the basis of this individual is the worst sort of smear tactic.

The murderer of Dr Tiller was a right-wing anit-abortion nutcase. Anarchists support gender equality and reproductive freedom. Looks like another smear job.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by New Tet


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ungovernable Farce
No.

Lolwut. How many assassinations carried out by anarchists can you think of in the last, say, 60 years or so?The Unibomber. The murder of Dr. Tiller. Umm, Ted Kaczynski was a mentally-disturbed Luddite, not an anarchist. He never called himself an anarchist, if you read his "manifesto", he doesn't have anarchist ideas - I don't know where you got the idea that he's an anarchist. I believe two primitivist anarchist philosophers came to his defense after he was thrown in prison; but those were primmies, and as far as I know they were the only "anarchists" that had anything good to say about that wackjob.

As for the murderer of Dr. George Tiller, he was a former member of a Christian Patriot group called the Montana Freemen, and then a member of the "Sovereign Citizen Movement" - neither of which were anarchist. Also, I know of no anarchists who are anti-abortion, or who would murder a doctor in cold blood. Please don't toss out slander when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Raúl Duke]

Let's not be harsh comrades...

While this is posted in theory, the person who is posting it is probably attempting to learn something about anarchism (and no, I don't care nor am I pushing that we should try to convince the OP that "anarchism is better"...I just want the poster to learn a bit since it's good to know, have background knowledge, of the various ideologies of the left.)

About the terrorism thing I'm doubtful (although I wouldn't rule it out...but I think it's very unlikely and if did appear it probably only some types of anarchists would carry it out. Social anarchists are now usually opposed to individual action especially of the "propaganda of deed" kind). If it did occur I would probably see mostly anarcho-primitivists try (in which case it could come to the point where, as long as the commune approves or perhaps as long as certain anarchist organizations approve, they would be seen as "enemies of the revolution" and fought with by other anarchists) and maybe some anarcho-individualists (probably of the Max Stirner type who might dislike the communal political formations that social anarchists advocate as "limiting the individual/ego" or something of that sort.)

[btpound]

All I have to say to this is: Marxists-Leninists, Trotskyists, Left Communist, Council Communists, Anarcho-Communists, Hoxhaists, Titoists, Guevarists, Stalinists, Maoists,.....

Where's communism?

I never said that Anarchism has all these factions that communism doesn't, my point is that "anarchism" has a broad cross section of ideologies from the get go. Of course communism does too, but these variations have more in common than not, (to varying degrees).


What are you actually talking about?

What I am talking about is New Tet's question. She(?) asked if anarchism could create factions, that is groupings of people under this new society with distinct interests. The answer is absolutely. Anarchist have huge differences in their though between them. The original anarchism, aka proudhonism, is a petty bourgeois philosophy. He proposed that only the means of production are collectively owned and peolpe prodice what they can. A peasant philosophy that leaves every one to their own devides pretty much and a leaize-faire economy. It has grown out of that into differing forms of radicalism from neoluddism to communism.


You don't know what you're talking about. The Spanish anarcho-syndicalists in the revolution in Spain in 1936 did advocate, and try to build, a planned economy. But it is to be built from below by the working class, and planning proposals are to filter up from below, not imposed top down as under Soviet central planning.

Yes they had a planned economy, but they had union leaders they would elect. That is why that revolution failed. Was because the international bourgeoisie bought off the leaders at the top, and there program became, "just pretend the government isn't there. This is tant amount to what every anarchist revolution has advocated (the few that have occured). They deveolped a planned economy, but only for Madrid and Aragonm which were the only areas they were able to occupy. The leadership abandoned them, and the only people who were putting forward a program for the revolutionary taking of power were the marxists. The anarchists shrunk at even the conception of taking the power of the state into their own hands, and that is why they don't succeed. I have yet to see an anarchist program for a sucessful revolution.


You seem to think anarcho-syndicalism advocates collective private ownership of means by production by groups of workers. This is false. Anarcho-syndicalism advocates that the land and other means of production be owned in common by the whole society. We don't advocate a market society, so your claims are mistaken.

What anarcho-sydiclism also advocates is the diffrent arms of industry being broken up into the diffrent unions of workers who run them. Coal miners control the coal market, train operators control the trains, etc. With no central body to coordinate them all. Because of this arrangement, the diffrent unions have a practical monopoly on their own profession. in other words, the coal miners could set their price for coal and the union with the most precious materials would be the "top-dog" so to speak. And with no higher body to regulate them, it would degenerate into someting like capitalism.


This is also completely false...a rank political smear worthy of some bourgeois scandal sheet. Pro-organizational anarchists...the dominant tradition historically...advocate the building of mass organizations such as unions and the development of collective action developed by democratic mass social movements. This is inconsistent with terrorism as a method.

What about Alexander Berkman killing Henry Clay Frick, the boss of a factory abusing the workes in NYC? What about Leon Czolgoz killing William McKinnley? What about anarchist group of itallian immigrants linked with Sacco and Vanzetti who would distribute bomb-making pamphlets to the workers under the guise of health books? What about propoganda by the deed? I know that anarchists don't advocate only this tactict, but you cant pretend this is not a large part of anarchist philosophy. It's not "some bourgeois scandal sheet" it's the facts. They didn't get the approval of the entire working class before they did these things, they just did them.

[New Tet]

Umm, Ted Kaczynski was a mentally-disturbed Luddite, not an anarchist. He never called himself an anarchist, if you read his "manifesto", he doesn't have anarchist ideas - I don't know where you got the idea that he's an anarchist. I believe two primitivist anarchist philosophers came to his defense after he was thrown in prison; but those were primmies, and as far as I know they were the only "anarchists" that had anything good to say about that wackjob.

As for the murderer of Dr. George Tiller, he was a former member of a Christian Patriot group called the Montana Freemen, and then a member of the "Sovereign Citizen Movement" - neither of which were anarchist. Also, I know of no anarchists who are anti-abortion, or who would murder a doctor in cold blood. Please don't toss out slander when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Actions speak louder than words.

Just because someone doesn't wear a black flag on his lapel, a T-shirt with a big "A" emblazoned on it or marches around his coffee table making silly speeches doesn't mean they are not an anarchist. In fact, I think these "direct action" "whack-jobs" are more consistent with he spirit of anarchism than most of the self-described anarchists in this forum.

You see, I believe that anarchism is just like its basic definition: A rejection of all governmental control and political formations and a reliance on individual action to effect social change.

The responses so far offered confirm in my mind that many of the so-called anarchists that come here are just like the rest of the Leninist left in that they too tend to group around cliques and leaders into exclusive, self-congratulatory clubs and that they generally invent little nostrums that separate and distinguish them from others.

[syndicat]

What I am talking about is New Tet's question. She(?) asked if anarchism could create factions, that is groupings of people under this new society with distinct interests. The answer is absolutely. Anarchist have huge differences in their though between them. The original anarchism, aka proudhonism, is a petty bourgeois philosophy. He proposed that only the means of production are collectively owned and peolpe prodice what they can. A peasant philosophy that leaves every one to their own devides pretty much and a leaize-faire economy. It has grown out of that into differing forms of radicalism from neoluddism to communism.

Proudhon was not an anarchist in sense of modern organized social anarchism. Proudhon was an individualist. He was opposed to unions, opposed to direct action and revolution. He was opposed to equality of the sexes.

Modern anarchism derives from the libertarian socialist tendency that emerged around Mikhail Bakunin, Anselmo Lorenzo and others in the first international in the 1860s and 1870s. The libertarian socialists in the first international allied with the Marxists to defeat the influence of the Proudhonists. Libertarian socialism is based on the development of mass unions and other mass organizations of the oppressed. It is based on collective direct action such as strikes. The libertarian socialist tendency in the first international were for equality of the sexes.

Thus Proudhon had little to do with modern social anarchism. You can learn more about this in the book "Black Flame" which is a history of the modern social anarchist and syndicalist tradition. They exclude Proudhon for the sort of reasons I've referred to here. So associating Proudhon with modern pro-organizational social anarchism is false.



What anarcho-sydiclism also advocates is the diffrent arms of industry being broken up into the diffrent unions of workers who run them. Coal miners control the coal market, train operators control the trains, etc. With no central body to coordinate them all. Because of this arrangement, the diffrent unions have a practical monopoly on their own profession. in other words, the coal miners could set their price for coal and the union with the most precious materials would be the "top-dog" so to speak. And with no higher body to regulate them, it would degenerate into someting like capitalism.

This is completely false. It's a common Marxist-Leninist smear. As I said before, anarcho-syndicalism advocates an economy where all the means of production and land are owned in common by all the people, and the economy is geared to produce for the social good. It is not geared to make profit for specific groups of workers in particular industries.

In the Spanish revolution the immediate aim of the anarcho-syndicalist union federation was to equalize all wages, and, as I said, federate together the worker-expropriated industries so as to create a common plan through worker congresses. In the proposal of the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists coordination would occur through regional and national Economics Councils and plans would be devised through the worker congresses.


Yes they had a planned economy, but they had union leaders they would elect. That is why that revolution failed. Was because the international bourgeoisie bought off the leaders at the top, and there program became, "just pretend the government isn't there. This is tant amount to what every anarchist revolution has advocated (the few that have occured). They deveolped a planned economy, but only for Madrid and Aragonm which were the only areas they were able to occupy. The leadership abandoned them, and the only people who were putting forward a program for the revolutionary taking of power were the marxists. The anarchists shrunk at even the conception of taking the power of the state into their own hands, and that is why they don't succeed. I have yet to see an anarchist program for a sucessful revolution.

You are very confused. The Spanish anarcho-syndicalist movement was never able to construct a planned economy for the whole of Spain, tho they did do this in Aragon, as you note, but not in Madrid. To create a planned economy for Spain, they would have had to consolidate the political and economic power of the working class in Spain, which they were unable to do. In regard to the question of political power, it's necessary to understand what the two alternatives were that were starkly posed in Spain in the summer of 1936.

The Communists were beating the drum for rebuilding the old hierarchical Republican state and a hierarchical army and police, because their plan was to gain control of the officer positions and use their control of the army and police to gain state power over a nationalized economy run by a bureaucratic ruling class.

The anarcho-syndicalists saw this coming and in Sept 1936 proposed the creation of a proletarian government, a revolutionary council controlled jointly by the socialist UGT and anarcho-syndicalist CNT labor federations, that is, by the organized working class. The parliament would be replaced by a national workers congress. As an alternative to the topdown military proposed by the Communists, they proposed a revolutionary people's militia jointly controlled by the two labor organizations, that is, by the organized working class, excluding the pro-capitalist Republican and Basque Nationalist parties. They proposed this as an alliance to the Left Socialists, headed by Largo Caballero.

At that time the Left Socialists controlled the UGT union executive and were the largest Marxist tendency in Spain to the left of the Communist Party. But the Left Socialists veto'd the anarchosyndicalist proposal for a proletarian goverenment in favor of propping up the hierarchical Republican state, and retaining the influence of the pro-capitalist Republican and Basque Nationalist Parties.

Durruti at that point proposed that the CNT take power in the regions were it was a majority, to force the Left Socialists to go along, but the revolutionaries around Durruti did not have majority support in the CNT. So when the CNT joined the Popular Front government, they were the last Left political tendency to do so. They resisted this direction whereas ALL the Marxist parties were gung-ho for the Popular Front and the naive project of trying to win over the "western democracies" to give them aid.

Hence you have things exactly backwards. No Marxist party in Spain put forward a revolutionary program for the working class to take political power. They all wanted seats in the Republican Popular Front government. It was only the anarcho-syndicalists who proposed replacing the old capitalist state with a working class political power.

If the business about "being bought off by the international bourgeoisie" refers to the CNT joining the Popular Front government in Nov 1936, I would point out the following:

1. There was no longer any bourgeoisie in Spain since the workers had expropriated it.

2. If the anarcho-syndicalists were thus "bought off by the international bourgeoisie" this applies even more so to every Marxist party in Spain since they were all much more gung-ho about the Popular Front than the CNT was. The CNT only joined because they forced into that situation by the timidity and conservatism of the Marxist parties.


What about Alexander Berkman killing Henry Clay Frick, the boss of a factory abusing the workes in NYC? What about Leon Czolgoz killing William McKinnley? What about anarchist group of itallian immigrants linked with Sacco and Vanzetti who would distribute bomb-making pamphlets to the workers under the guise of health books? What about propoganda by the deed? I know that anarchists don't advocate only this tactict, but you cant pretend this is not a large part of anarchist philosophy. It's not "some bourgeois scandal sheet" it's the facts. They didn't get the approval of the entire working class before they did these things, they just did them.

Berkman was an immigrant from Russia. When he attempted the attack on Frick he wasn't yet a social anarchist, I think, and wasn't a member of any anarchist group. He was following in the tradition of the Russian populists.

When he became a famous anarcho-communist later, he also repudiated the method of assassination and "propaganda by the deed" of his younger years.



A rejection of all governmental control and political formations and a reliance on individual action to effect social change.

Again, you're making assertions out of thin air, not based on anything. There are some anarchists who say they are against all government and are extreme individualists. Those people are individualist anarchists. They are not of the same political tendency as social anarchists. Would you confuse liberals with socialists or the ISO with the Revolutionary Communist Party?

For social anarchists, it is a question of a mass movement of the working class & the oppressed for their collective self-liberation. Social anarchists believe in the principle of the first international: "the emanicipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." This happens through a collective mass movement, not thru individualistic actions or stunts.

If you don't believe me, take a look at the principles of social anarchist organizations. I already posted a link to the statement of principles of my organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by New Tet
Just because someone doesn't wear a black flag on his lapel, a T-shirt with a big "A" emblazoned on it or marches around his coffee table making silly speeches doesn't mean they are not an anarchist.

That's just insulting, frankly.


Originally posted by New Tet
In fact, I think these "direct action" "whack-jobs" are more consistent with he spirit of anarchism than most of the self-described anarchists in this forum.

You see, I believe that anarchism is just like its basic definition: A rejection of all governmental control and political formations and a reliance on individual action to effect social change.

A rejection of government control, yes, but political formations? "Individual action"? Are you just choosing to ignore the entire history of anarchist political organization? Cause even if you cover your eyes, it's still there. This is a classic example of Humpty-Dumptyism - words mean exactly what you want them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

Individualist anarchists, who you are unsuccessfully trying to lump together with social anarchists, are the "truest" to anarchism in the same way that Stalinists are the "truest" to communism; which is to say, they aren't. We social anarchists want nothing to do with primmies and individualists for the most part. Just because someone is against government doesn't make them part of the same political tendency as us. Objectivists and right-libertarians are against government and for "individual action" - would you call them just another faction of anarchist?


Originally posted by New Tet
The responses so far offered confirm in my mind that many of the so-called anarchists that come here are just like the rest of the Leninist left in that they too tend to group around cliques and leaders into exclusive, self-congratulatory clubs and that they generally invent little nostrums that separate and distinguish them from others.

No more so than any other leftist tendency. Just because anarchist ideas are diverse doesn't imply that anarchists inherently form "self-congratulatory clubs", "cliques", and "little nostrums." The same goes for Leninists. There is nothing inherent in the ideas of either tendency that inclines people to factionalism. In fact, I would argue that it is not the supposedly "individualist" ideas of anarchism that create so many different sects, but rather the fact that the definition of anarchy leaves so much room for additions. Anarchy simply means "no leaders." There are exactly one gajillion ways you can manifest a society without leaders. Communism, on the other hand, has a much more specific definition, and most anarchists combine the ideas of anarchy with communism. You and a social anarchist/anarcho-communist/anarcho-syndicalist probably have much more in common between you than an individualist anarchist has with either of you.



Originally posted by New Tet
Actions speak louder than words.

Exactly. Ted Kaczynski and Dr. Tiller's killer both proved that they weren't anarchists by their actions.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

What about Alexander Berkman killing Henry Clay Frick, the boss of a factory abusing the workes in NYC? What about Leon Czolgoz killing William McKinnley? What about anarchist group of itallian immigrants linked with Sacco and Vanzetti who would distribute bomb-making pamphlets to the workers under the guise of health books? What about propoganda by the deed? I know that anarchists don't advocate only this tactict, but you cant pretend this is not a large part of anarchist philosophy. It's not "some bourgeois scandal sheet" it's the facts. They didn't get the approval of the entire working class before they did these things, they just did them.
As I said, what examples can you name from the last 60 years or so? This tactic was advocated by some anarchists in the early part of the 20th century, it failed and was discredited, and no contemporary anarchists uphold it. Now, are you going to defend Pol Pot, or do you agree that just because someone calls themself a Marxist or an anarchist doesn't mean that they agree with everything anyone who has ever used that word has ever done?


Just because someone doesn't wear a black flag on his lapel, a T-shirt with a big "A" emblazoned on it or marches around his coffee table making silly speeches doesn't mean they are not an anarchist. In fact, I think these "direct action" "whack-jobs" are more consistent with he spirit of anarchism than most of the self-described anarchists in this forum.

Trying to paint Scott Roeder as an anarchist is utter bullshit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Roeder). Even going by your own definition:

After being charged with murder, Roeder called the Associated Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press) from the county jail to counter his having been characterized in the press as having been anti-government. Roeder told the reporter, "I want people to stop and think: It is not anti-government, it is anti-corrupt-government."So, even if we treat the primo whackjob Kaczynski as an anarchist (and I don't think he is), that's... a grand total of one person from the last sixty years. Hardly enough to smear an entire movement of many thousands and thousands of people, is it?

[Raúl Duke]

What about Alexander Berkman killing Henry Clay Frick, the boss of a factory abusing the workes in NYC? What about Leon Czolgoz killing William McKinnley? What about anarchist group of itallian immigrants linked with Sacco and Vanzetti who would distribute bomb-making pamphlets to the workers under the guise of health books? What about propoganda by the deed? I know that anarchists don't advocate only this tactict, but you cant pretend this is not a large part of anarchist philosophy. It's not "some bourgeois scandal sheet" it's the facts. They didn't get the approval of the entire working class before they did these things, they just did them.

I'm not seeing anyone denying these historical events...but the issue is that is the past. Today, most anarchists do not advocate propaganda of the deed. Even the list you have points towards that...Nothing like those events have been caused by an actual anarchists in the U.S. for about after 1950.

[ComradeMan]

No all.
First international was consisted of original Marxsists, anarcho-syndicalists, proudhonists, anarcho-individualists, social-democrats... etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong :)

Well most of us then, afterall the things you name did give rise to later developments... as a point of departure is what I meant.:cool:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

You see, I believe that anarchism is just like its basic definition: A rejection of all governmental control and political formations and a reliance on individual action to effect social change.


Why would there be 'political formations' all around the world which align as Anarchist if we don't agree with political formation. Why would we advocate workers revolution if we believed in individual action?

[New Tet]

Why would there be 'political formations' all around the world which align as Anarchist if we don't agree with political formation. Why would we advocate workers revolution if we believed in individual action?

Obviously a contradiction. Anarchism accepts no majority rule or consensus. It subordinates itself only to the individual self.

Again, that's why I think that those wearing the label of anarchism who belong to organizations requiring a consensus or a majority vote either, are NOT anarchists or are semi-anarchist growing out of it.

[Pogue]

Obviously a contradiction. Anarchism accepts no majority rule or consensus. It subordinates itself only to the individual self.

Again, that's why I think that those wearing the label of anarchism who belong to organizations requiring a consensus or a majority vote either, are NOT anarchists or are semi-anarchist growing out of it.

No. Just no. You have no idea what you are talking about and can't expect anyone here to respond to this seriously.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Obviously a contradiction. Anarchism accepts no majority rule or consensus. It subordinates itself only to the individual self.

Again, that's why I think that those wearing the label of anarchism who belong to organizations requiring a consensus or a majority vote either, are NOT anarchists or are semi-anarchist growing out of it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kXnVoQ9ZFkQ/SaIk1LTuwOI/AAAAAAAAHuM/2zk8XVCnmys/s400/kill+yourself+time.jpg

[syndicat]

Obviously a contradiction. Anarchism accepts no majority rule or consensus. It subordinates itself only to the individual self.

Again, that's why I think that those wearing the label of anarchism who belong to organizations requiring a consensus or a majority vote either, are NOT anarchists or are semi-anarchist growing out of it.

Sorry but you simply don't know what you are talking about. What you're saying is that all the anarchist political organizations and anarcho-syndicalist unions, which work usually via majority vote, sometimes via consensus aren't "really" anarchist...and why? because you say so?

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I get to decide what anarchism is, and I officially declare that the only person ever to have been true anarchy is a weirdo pro-life fundamentalist Christian. Also, the earth is flat.
Fixed.

[CELMX]

i think new tet is confusing all anarchism with a specific branch of anarchism:


Individual Anarchists: Those who are instinctively against all forms of authority and organization; believing organized power of any kind is a contradiction with anarchist principles. Individual anarchists usually follow two distinct paths of practice: (1) Reformists (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/r/e.htm#reformist) who stress the need for education and social awareness to reform society and achieve a mutualistic, laissez-faire capitalism to promote completely free competition. While they may support strikes and various social protests, they do so spontaneously — they are against organizing groups or parties to carry out such actions. (2) Terrorists ("propaganda of the deed") who seek to arouse revolutionary terror in the masses and government, to introduce periodic states of anarchy to instruct and convince the masses to spontaneously participate in overthrowing the government.
Individual anarchists of both types believe that being a part of a community is equivalent to losing their freedom. Max Stirner explained: “Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, to wit, on the generality or collectivity . . . [which is] a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 257]
Communists are opposed to both types of individual anarchists, terrorists because they are isolated from the masses but violently impose their will on the whole of society, the end result of which has always been the alienation of workers, an increasingly repressive government, and the destruction of revolutionary organizations, leaving the mass of the population unprotected by a now sharper and more brutal government. Communists oppose anti-authoritarians as in essence allowing capitalist government to exist by preventing the working class from organizing into a powerful enough structure to overthrow the capitalists. Communists also oppose their concept that community deprives freedoms; pointing out that since the beginning of human evolution community has been necessary not only for survival, but for the production of such technology that would allow humans to actually achieve communism.


anarcho-syndicalism is ALL ABOUT ORGANIZATION. hence the syndicalism in front of anarcho. It's all about the working together to come to a consensus, with majority vote.

[New Tet]

No. Just no. You have no idea what you are talking about and can't expect anyone here to respond to this seriously.

Maybe it's you who don't know what I'm talking about and are unequipped to serve up a better response than a call to disrupt this discussion.

That's consistent with your faux-anarchism, but not with your charge as moderator.

[New Tet]

Sorry but you simply don't know what you are talking about. What you're saying is that all the anarchist political organizations and anarcho-syndicalist unions, which work usually via majority vote, sometimes via consensus aren't "really" anarchist...and why? because you say so?

Because it's a fact. Look at history, especially the history the Paris Commune, where most, if not all, the anarchist "leadership" acquiesced to political form out of sheer survival instinct.

"Consensus" and "majority rule" are indispensable political categories for a working class revolution, and every anarchist that yields to them surrenders the cornerstone of his ideology.

I say "hurray!" to that!

[New Tet]

Originally Posted by New Tet http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1618082#post1618082)
I get to decide what anarchism is, and I officially declare that the only person ever to have been true anarchy is a weirdo pro-life fundamentalist Christian. Also, the earth is flat.

Fixed.

Falsify all you want. Here it only demonstrates that you're unable to come up with a good response.

[Pogue]

Because it's a fact. Look at history, especially the history the Paris Commune, where most, if not all, the anarchist "leadership" acquiesced to political form out of sheer survival instinct.

"Consensus" and "majority rule" are indispensable political categories for a working class revolution, and every anarchist that yields to them surrenders the cornerstone of his ideology.

I say "hurray!" to that!

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6878/waitwut.jpg (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/waitwut.jpg/)

[New Tet]

Fixed.


i think new tet is confusing all anarchism with a specific branch of anarchism:


anarcho-syndicalism is ALL ABOUT ORGANIZATION. hence the syndicalism in front of anarcho. It's all about the working together to come to a consensus, with majority vote.

The definition you offer is, on the whole, correct but I don't believe for a moment that syndicalism is an anarchist invention.

[Pogue]

Because it's a fact. Look at history, especially the history the Paris Commune, where most, if not all, the anarchist "leadership" acquiesced to political form out of sheer survival instinct.

"Consensus" and "majority rule" are indispensable political categories for a working class revolution, and every anarchist that yields to them surrenders the cornerstone of his ideology.

I say "hurray!" to that!

Anarchism is actually an ideolgoy which calls for the destruction of capitalism and the state in place of a society made up of a free associations of collectively owned institutions which gear production and distribution according to need. Anarchists seek to acheive this through a social revolution by the working class.

Examples of anarchist movements: The Makhnovists in Ukraine, the Spanish Revolution in Spain.

Examples of anarchist organisations today: Anarchist federation of Britain and Ireland, Workers Solidarity Movement, NEFAC.

All of this organising either work on consensus or direct democract and want to acheive what I mentioned above.

Now, what the fuck are you actually talking about?

[New Tet]

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/6878/waitwut.jpg (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/waitwut.jpg/)

Buy a dictionary.

BTW, somewhere I recall seeing an admonition by one of your fellow 'moderators' to the effect that it was not correct to post irrelevant pictures or videos in threads outside of Chit-Chat. Didn't you see that, Pogue?

[Pogue]

Buy a dictionary.

BTW, somewhere I recall seeing an admonition by one of your fellow 'moderators' to the effect that it was not correct to post irrelevant pictures or videos in threads outside of Chit-Chat. Didn't you see that, Pogue?

I strongly suggest you stop this petulent trolling, new Tet. Your provocations in this thread totally stop you from being able to accuse me of not knowing the rules.

[New Tet]

Anarchism is actually an ideolgoy which calls for the destruction of capitalism and the state in place of a society made up of a free associations of collectively owned institutions which gear production and distribution according to need. Anarchists seek to acheive this through a social revolution by the working class.

Examples of anarchist movements: The Makhnovists in Ukraine, the Spanish Revolution in Spain.

Examples of anarchist organisations today: Anarchist federation of Britain and Ireland, Workers Solidarity Movement, NEFAC.

All of this organising either work on consensus or direct democract and want to acheive what I mentioned above.

Now, what the fuck are you actually talking about?

That those people who accept and participate in collective struggle within a democratically-based organization are not really anarchists.

One piece of evidence is their tendency to invent tendencies, fractions, sects, parties, organizations and, in some cases, appoint, elect, nominate and otherwise choose leaders among themselves.

Anarchists accept no authority, I do believe.

[Pogue]

That those people who accept and participate in collective struggle within a democratically-based organization are not really anarchists.

One piece of evidence is their tendency to invent tendencies, fractions, sects, parties, organizations and, in some cases, appoint, elect, nominate and otherwise choose leaders among themselves.

Anarchists accept no authority, I do believe.

Once more, you base this on absolutely nothing. You're arguing from a position of absolute ignorance. Read your theory and your hsitory on anarchist organisation.

[New Tet]

I strongly suggest you stop this petulent trolling, new Tet. Your provocations in this thread totally stop you from being able to accuse me of not knowing the rules.

I've been on topic, you idiot, from the very start.

Trolling? Provocation? Look at your first "contribution" to this discussion.

[New Tet]

Once more, you base this on absolutely nothing. You're arguing from a position of absolute ignorance. Read your theory and your hsitory on anarchist organisation.

Actually, if you disagree so strongly then it behooves you, not me, to rebut with something more than just disparaging remarks and veiled threats.

If what I say is incorrect avail yourself of the "theory" (ha!) and "history" you presumably know.

[Pogue]

Actually, if you disagree so strongly then it behooves you, not me, to rebut with something more than just disparaging remarks and veiled threats.

If what I say is incorrect avail yourself of the "theory" (ha!) and "history" you presumably know.

Erm, I already did? The Spanish Revolution? Makhnovists? The countless anarhcist organisations around today? Any work of anarchist theory? University textbooks on anarchism?

[New Tet]

Erm, I already did? The Spanish Revolution? Makhnovists? The countless anarhcist organisations around today? Any work of anarchist theory? University textbooks on anarchism?

So the "authority" you invoke is the final word on the subject? I think not.

I stand on what Marx, Engels, De Leon and even Lenin wrote on the subject. Their experiences with anarchists and anarchism were real and their conclusions profound and far-reaching.

Maybe those are the ones we ought to be citing here, no?

[Pogue]

So the "authority" you invoke is the final word on the subject? I think not.

I stand on what Marx, Engels, De Leon and even Lenin wrote on the subject. Their experiences with anarchists and anarchism were real and their conclusions profound and far-reaching.

Maybe those are the ones we ought to be citing here, no?

No, because I just cited you evidence of anarchists organising colelctively into groups, which blows your point out of the water, because you said anarchists don't do this.

[bcbm]

Their experiences with anarchists and anarchism were real

presumably pogue's are as well.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists accept no authority, I do believe.

OH DEAR.

I can't believe that some Marxists are still peddling this line.

It's totally false. Even the most minimal amount of research would show this. Bakunin himself denied it.

Anarchists are against illegitimate authority.

[New Tet]

No, because I just cited you evidence of anarchists organising colelctively into groups, which blows your point out of the water, because you said anarchists don't do this.

Real anarchists don't. I said that before. Faux-anarchists, sentimentally attached to the Utopian slogans of "no authority", "no political power" and "no-government" (such as the ones who join all manner of groups and accept the basic principle of 'leadership' or have it imposed on them) are just that, faux-anarchists.

Originally I posed this question: "Can Anarchists create factions?" So far, the answer has been a resounding "YES!", especially from many identifying themselves as anarchists, including yourself.

Factions are political categories, sir.

How in the fuck do intelligent anarchists--if there be any--reconcile this contradiction? This, Pogue, is the implication and objective of my first question.

[New Tet]

OH DEAR.

I can't believe that some Marxists are still peddling this line.

It's totally false. Even the most minimal amount of research would show this. Bakunin himself denied it.

Anarchists are against illegitimate authority.

This is exactly what Marx pointed out. Bakunin's contradiction was irreconsilable, so his followers, in almost every instance that they were called upon to side with workers' uprisings took the exact opposite direction of what Bakunin claimed to believe: "Eschew political [organization]."

Re-read Marx's The Civil War In France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

Addenda: In place of "organization" I meant to write "authority". Sorry.

[New Tet]

OH DEAR.


Anarchists are against illegitimate authority.

You mean unelected and/or arbitrarily imposed authority? In that case you are no different than Marxists, right?

[Os Cangaceiros]

You mean unelected and/or arbitrarily imposed authority? In that case you are no different than Marxists, right?

There are many anarchists who differ with Marxists only in that they reject the political institution of the nation-state. The tendencies aren't that far apart ideologically.


This is exactly what Marx pointed out. Bakunin's contradiction was irreconsilable, so his followers, in almost every instance that they were called upon to side with workers' uprisings took the exact opposite direction of what Bakunin claimed to believe: "Eschew political organization."

Re-read Marx's The Civil War In France (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

And a good deal of Marx's followers strayed from what he believed when they embraced despotism.

Re-read Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy :rolleyes:

[New Tet]

There are many anarchists who differ with Marxists only in that they reject the political institution of the nation-state. The tendencies aren't that far apart ideologically.

If a Marxist defends the establishment or preservation of the "nation-state" he is either a faker or a real Marxist caught between a rock and a hard place (1917).




And a good deal of Marx's followers strayed from what he believed when they embraced despotism.

Re-read Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy :rolleyes:

I've never read it (I think). What in particular should I look for? Enrich this thread; post a link!

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Anarchists accept no authority, I do believe.
You believe wrong (http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html).

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant.

[New Tet]

You believe wrong (http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html).
[/FONT]

And political authority?

[syndicat]

There is a distinction that social anarchists make between a state and a governance structure, such as a form of popular power, such as a town assembly and elected town council. Any feasible society requires institutions through which it governs itself. What anarchism is opposed to is concentration of decision-making authority into a few, who rule through top-down hierarchies.

The state, as Engels points out in "The Origin of Family, Private Property and the State", is a bureaucratic apparatus that is separated from control by the mass of the people. It needs to be separated from popular control if it is to serve the interests of dominating and exploiting classes. Thus a form of direct popular power, which is not separated from the mass of the people, but is the rule of the mass of the people, is not a state, even if it has political authority in its territory. Again, there is not opposition to authority in itself but to top-down, hierarchical forms of authority such as a state, or hierarchies of managers presiding over workers in industry.

[Raúl Duke]

political authoritythat of the working class, through neighborhood/communal assemblies and/or worker's councils.

The issue with the state, as we normally see it (if you want to call the anarchist government framework a "state" go ahead the issue is partly semantical; if you want to call it the "dictatorship of the proletariat" even better), is that it allows or opens the opportunity for a certain group of people, once place in state positions, an unequal amount of political power relative the rest of the population.

Whether they are or not working class, by being placed in a state position they are placed in a social environment that would change their social position and even consciousness (being preceded consciousness) and thus cease to be working class.

Anarchists, at least today, do not really have much of issue with "authority" but more with hierarchy. The word anarchist itself implies an anti-hierarchical stance ("no-leaders"). The only authority we oppose is that of hierarchical elites (i.e. the capitalist class, the state bureaucrats, etc) who would wish to enforce it against the will of the masses.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

If a Marxist defends the establishment or preservation of the "nation-state" he is either a faker or a real Marxist caught between a rock and a hard place (1917).
So all "anti-imperialist" Marxists who defend the establishment of, say, a nation-state in Palestine are fakers then?

And political authority?
That's not what you said.

[New Tet]

So all "anti-imperialist" Marxists who defend the establishment of, say, a nation-state in Palestine are fakers then?

Not what I said, comrade. Note that I gave a date in which a group of Marxist revolutionaries set out to 'unsqueeze' themselves and their country from a 'rock and a hard place'.


That's not what you said.You're right. At some points during the discussion I unwittingly omitted that exception.

On occasion I tried to return to it by arguing that consensus building and decision-making are, by [their] very nature political acts that require a political process of persuasion and subordination, especially if the formula for achieving consensus is some form or mixture of majority rule.

[New Tet]

You believe wrong (http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html).
[/FONT]


Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or the engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant.

The rule of the 'savant'. Better known today as "Technocracy".

Besides, Farse, it's POLITICAL authority we are arguing here about, democratic and otherwise.

[New Tet]

that of the working class, through neighborhood/communal assemblies and/or worker's councils.

The issue with the state, as we normally see it (if you want to call the anarchist government framework a "state" go ahead the issue is partly semantical; if you want to call it the "dictatorship of the proletariat" even better), is that it allows or opens the opportunity for a certain group of people, once place in state positions, an unequal amount of political power relative the rest of the population.

How can you prevent that if, after the workers have taken possession of the economy, political power and 'state positions' continue to exist?


Whether they are or not working class, by being placed in a state position they are placed in a social environment that would change their social position and even consciousness (being preceded consciousness) and thus cease to be working class.

You're a little far ahead of me here. I won't speculate so far in advance because I feel we haven't yet gotten to the point where we can all start organizing our new hypothetical government.


Anarchists, at least today, do not really have much of issue with "authority" but more with hierarchy. The word anarchist itself implies an anti-hierarchical stance ("no-leaders"). The only authority we oppose is that of hierarchical elites (i.e. the capitalist class, the state bureaucrats, etc) who would wish to enforce it against the will of the masses.

They don't 'wish' it, the actually do, comrade; you know this.

As to hierarchies, I can only say that I view the concept as a neutral one. IOW, hierarchies can exist (i.e., horizontal) that can prevent an imbalance of relative power and authority to exist. But you're correct in saying that it's the structure of past and present social and economic hierarchies that the problem exists.

A momentary distraction:

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

[syndicat]

The word "hierarchy" has different meanings. It's therefore useless here to quote dictionaries if you're discussing what libertarian socialists/social anarchists say about hierarchy. In this case we're talking about the relative concentration of decision-making authority, & expertise needed for such decision-making, into the hands of a few. There is no such thing as a "horizontal" hierarchy. That is a contradiction in terms, accorcding to the definition I just gave.

[New Tet]

The word "hierarchy" has different meanings. It's therefore useless here to quote dictionaries if you're discussing what libertarian socialists/social anarchists say about hierarchy. In this case we're talking about the relative concentration of decision-making authority, & expertise needed for such decision-making, into the hands of a few. There is no such thing as a "horizontal" hierarchy. That is a contradiction in terms, accorcding to the definition I just gave.


A hierarchy can link entities either directly or indirectly, and either vertically or horizontally. The only direct links in a hierarchy, insofar as they are hierarchical, are to one's immediate superior or to one of one's subordinates, although a system that is largely hierarchical can also incorporate other organizational patterns. Indirect hierarchical links can extend "vertically" upwards or downwards via multiple links in the same direction, following a path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_%28graph_theory%29). All parts of the hierarchy which are not linked vertically to one another nevertheless can be "horizontally" linked through a path by traveling up the hierarchy to find a common direct or indirect superior, and then down again. This is akin to two co-workers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-worker) or colleagues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleague); each reports to a common superior, but they have the same relative amount of authority.

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

[syndicat]

There are different uses of the word "hierarchy." Libertarian socialists/social anarchists have a specific concept in mind, which is not the same as just any meaning of "hierarchy." So it is irrelevant to start quoting dictionaries.

As social anarchists understand "hierarchy," a hierarchy creates subordination and/or concentrates power into the hands of a few. That's why a horizontal hierarchy is impossible...given that concept of hierarchy.

I know there are other uses of the word "hierarchy." Consider the word "bank." It can refer to either the side of a river or a financial institution. If you say you are going to deposit checks at the bank, it would be irrelevant for me to start talking about rivers.

[New Tet]

There are different uses of the word "hierarchy." Libertarian socialists/social anarchists have a specific concept in mind, which is not the same as just any meaning of "hierarchy." So it is irrelevant to start quoting dictionaries.

As social anarchists understand "hierarchy," a hierarchy creates subordination and/or concentrates power into the hands of a few. That's why a horizontal hierarchy is impossible...given that concept of hierarchy.

I know there are other uses of the word "hierarchy." Consider the word "bank." It can refer to either the side of a river or a financial institution. If you say you are going to deposit checks at the bank, it would be irrelevant for me to start talking about rivers.

Not sure I understand the bank/river analogy, but I think I understand your objection.

True, the word hierarchy can have several definitions but only one true meaning: the order of importance, priority or value of a thing or things in relation to other things.


hi·er·ar·chy (hº“…-rär”k¶, hº“rär”-) n., pl. hi·er·ar·chies. 1. A body of persons having authority. 2.a. Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status. b. The group so categorized. 3. A series in which each element is graded or ranked. 4.a. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above. b. Religious rule by a group of ranked clergy. 5. One of the divisions of angels.

[syndicat]

Wrong. There is not just "one true definition" of "hierarchy." It is used to refer to different things. You're not responding to the argument I gave. If you're talking about "hierarchy" as this is understood by social anarchists, then you need to use the concept they are talking about...otherwise you're babbling on about something irrelevant.

[New Tet]

Wrong. There is not just "one true definition" of "hierarchy." It is used to refer to different things. You're not responding to the argument I gave. If you're talking about "hierarchy" as this is understood by social anarchists, then you need to use the concept they are talking about...otherwise you're babbling on about something irrelevant.

Are we reading what each other writes?

I clearly said "many definitions, one true meaning". The meaning of hierarchy embraces all of its current definitions, including yours and mine.

That's why I said It was a "neutral" concept, meaning always the same thing but whose definition changes according to the context in which it is applied: A hierarchy of angels and a hierarchy of tasks are alike only in that it orders each individual object according to categories of relative importance or priority one to the other; sideways and/or 'up-and-downways'.

But I understand what you want and, I think, I want the same thing: The abolition of a system that creates and perpetuates unjust and anti-social hierarchies based on arbitrary, unelected power and privilege emanating from the private ownership of the industries and the exploitation of labor as a commodity.

[syndicat]

No, there is no one "true" meaning that all uses of "hierarchy" exhibit. That mystifies language. Words are used to track things in reality. Sometimes the same word is used to track different things. "Bank" can be used to talk about financial institutions, or things that go on along the sides of rivers. There is no one "true" meaning of "bank" that they both are part of. Same with "hierarchy."


But I understand what you want and, I think, I want the same thing: The abolition of a system that creates and perpetuates unjust and anti-social hierarchies based on arbitrary, unelected power and privilege emanating from the private ownership of the industries and the exploitation of labor as a commodity.

It's not just private ownership of property that is the problem. The capitalists are not the only dominating class. There are also relative concentrations of decision-making authority & expertise relevant to making decisions into the hands of managers, and others who work with them to plan production, design equipment and job processes to control workers, defend the legal interests of the firm, etc. So there is a professional-managerial hierarchy in corporations and the state. These people generally don't own much in the way of means of production. They have to rent out their time to employers, just as the working class does.

But they are not a part of the working class. They are a dominating class, a bureaucratic or techno-managerial class. Both the state and corporations can be a basis for varying levels of power of this class...tho within capitalism they are subordinate to the rich, the owning class.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Anarchist Federation (which is a political organisation, would you believe it :ohmy:) allows factions to exist within it, providing they declare themselves and their intentions.

[ZeroNowhere]

Read your theory and your hsitory on anarchist organisation.It is worth noting that this does not translate into, "Read shitty SLP pamphlets."


So all "anti-imperialist" Marxists who defend the establishment of, say, a nation-state in Palestine are fakers then?That is probably not what was being referred to, given that there are anarchists who support 'nat-lib' struggles.

[MarxSchmarx]

But I understand what you want and, I think, I want the same thing: The abolition of a system that creates and perpetuates unjust and anti-social hierarchies based on arbitrary, unelected power and privilege emanating from the private ownership of the industries and the exploitation of labor as a commodity.


It's not just private ownership of property that is the problem. The capitalists are not the only dominating class. There are also relative concentrations of decision-making authority & expertise relevant to making decisions into the hands of managers, and others who work with them to plan production, design equipment and job processes to control workers, defend the legal interests of the firm, etc. So there is a professional-managerial hierarchy in corporations and the state. These people generally don't own much in the way of means of production. They have to rent out their time to employers, just as the working class does.

But they are not a part of the working class. They are a dominating class, a bureaucratic or techno-managerial class. Both the state and corporations can be a basis for varying levels of power of this class...tho within capitalism they are subordinate to the rich, the owning class.

Right, but the point is rather that all such dominant classes reflect a more fundamental distinction between the producers and the exploiters. The coordinating class, to be sure, has its own interests. However, it cannot exist without exploitation of the working class, and as such its interests are intricately tied with the interests of exploiting classes everywhere. As such, it is merely one of many branches of the exploiting class competing (often surprisingly unsuccessfully) along side, say, the clergy, for a share of the surplus labor.

Even under the Soviet Union, which is traditionally viewed as a rule by the techno-managerial bureaucracy, this class actually served the interests of a military and political elite.

[syndicat]

no, the political apparatchiks in the USSR were part of the techno-managerial or coordinator class. The power of this class is based on a relative monopolization of decision-making authority and of expertise that is useful to the exercize of this decision-making authority. In the old Soviet Union this included Gosplan elite planners, political party hacks, big industry managers, generals and admirals in the armed forces.

Within capitalism this class is subordinate to the dominant owning class. But both classes participate in the domination and exploitation of the working class. That's because exploitation is made possible by class domination. The lion's share of the income and wealth go to the capitalists at the top, but the techno-managerial class also scarfs down unwarranted income and enjoys the privileges associated with power.

[Forward Union]

How in the fuck do intelligent anarchists--if there be any--reconcile this contradiction? This, Pogue, is the implication and objective of my first question.

What exactly is the contradiction?

Anarchism is supposed to be a political position very similar to Socialism with an emphasis on building the grassroots power of the working class (trade union branches and residents associations) and transforming them into the basis of power and organisation of a workers dictatorship. This is their strategy as opposed to the Leninist one, which is to take the leadership positions of Unions etc and lead them via a political organisation or "party"

Given this, it's quite possible for there to be political factions within Anarchist Federations or Syndicalist Unions, or whatever form of organisation the Anarchists utilize. There are several. Some divides exist on say, the issue of Partyism vs Cadreism, Anarchist Unions or Entryism into mainstream unions.

I'm not really sure what you're fussing about, or why you are so irrationally angry about it.

[MarxSchmarx]

no, the political apparatchiks in the USSR were part of the techno-managerial or coordinator class. The power of this class is based on a relative monopolization of decision-making authority and of expertise that is useful to the exercize of this decision-making authority. In the old Soviet Union this included Gosplan elite planners, political party hacks, big industry managers, generals and admirals in the armed forces.

Within capitalism this class is subordinate to the dominant owning class. But both classes participate in the domination and exploitation of the working class. That's because exploitation is made possible by class domination. The lion's share of the income and wealth go to the capitalists at the top, but the techno-managerial class also scarfs down unwarranted income and enjoys the privileges associated with power.

Well, I agree with your analysis of the role of this class under capitalism.

I think we can agree to disagree about the situation in the USSR. The problem with the distinction that's trying to be made is that it ignores the stratification you note within the apparatchnik. This upper segment effectively were in positions similar to share-holders boards or modern CEO with a heavy ownership stake in the company. Whether one calls that "a real capitalist" I think is somewhat a matter of semantics. But the power of entities like corporate boards derive from their ultimately control of the means of production, and that's precisely what the power of the upper planners, generals/admirals/etc... in the USSR derived off of. I think they are generally what we would consider capitalists. The point is is that the capitalist class is not as "hands-off" as a class, and many behave like the coordinators at very top.

The more apt analogy to the coordinator class would be mid-level planners, military officers, technicians etc... that implemented many of the decisions, not unlike middle managers or engineers under capitalism.

[syndicat]

I don't think so. It's good to keep in mind that in class societies each class tends to be internally hierarchical. The working class for example has wide inequality within it due to things like skill & education, being part of a racialized group, gender.

There was no capitalism in the USSR because there was no process of private wealth accumulation through capital ownership. As Marx makes plain, capital is a power relationship. Possession of capital enables you go out into factor markets and acquire what you need to run production...hire workers and managers and engineers, buy or rent land and buildings and equipment, and then you accrue the surplus of revenue over expenses (if any). In the USSR this couldn't happen as there weren't the relevant kinds of markets.

The political leaders were involved in overall social planning and decision-making, at the very highest policy level. This is different than in capitalism because the coordinator class isn't at the top, so they don't control the highest levels of planning. But a techno-managerial ruling class would be able to do so.

That differentiates the situation of coordinators under capitalism versus in USSR where they were the ruling class. Plant managers and generals in the army and the like were maybe lower rungs of that dominant class, but still an important part of it. When the conversion to capitalism came about, they were able to do this because there had developed a consensus at the various levels of the coordinator class in Russia proper to go that route...but there was less support for this in the outlying provinces, so they had to break up USSR and jettison the "republics." See "Revolution from Above".

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't think so. It's good to keep in mind that in class societies each class tends to be internally hierarchical. The working class for example has wide inequality within it due to things like skill & education, being part of a racialized group, gender.

Right but these differences do not dirrectly translate into control over the means of production as the differences between coordinators did in the USSR.



There was no capitalism in the USSR because there was no process of private wealth accumulation through capital ownership. As Marx makes plain, capital is a power relationship. Possession of capital enables you go out into factor markets and acquire what you need to run production...hire workers and managers and engineers, buy or rent land and buildings and equipment, and then you accrue the surplus of revenue over expenses (if any). In the USSR this couldn't happen as there weren't the relevant kinds of markets.


The salient point of Marx's analysis of capital, though, was that capital does not per se need markets to function. Indeed, this is how "state capitalism" even became a possibility, because the potential for reinvestments and to pursue all the things you note, does not, if the state is a capitalist, require teh market to pursue. Thus, whether capital relied on markets, slave labor, or indeed the power of the state, it still managed to find its own unique interests and exploit workers in the same fashion it did in a market economy.

One can legitimately question whether Marx foresaw such an outcome. What is clear, though, is that many analysts working in the Marxian tradition, including Lenin and many founders of the soviet system, openly embraced this sort of "state capitalism".




The political leaders were involved in overall social planning and decision-making, at the very highest policy level. This is different than in capitalism because the coordinator class isn't at the top, so they don't control the highest levels of planning. But a techno-managerial ruling class would be able to do so.

That differentiates the situation of coordinators under capitalism versus in USSR where they were the ruling class.
Plant managers and generals in the army and the like were maybe lower rungs of that dominant class, but still an important part of it.

Again, the issue is whether the political/military ruling class of the USSR could be put in the same category as run of the mill engineers and technocrats. Their control and decision making powers set them qualitatively apart from these other groups like plant managers in contemporary capitalism, and in that they resembled capitalists in the west more than managers and somesuch. They had much in common like they do under capitalism, to be sure, but that doesn't make them analogous.



When the conversion to capitalism came about, they were able to do this because there had developed a consensus at the various levels of the coordinator class in Russia proper to go that route...but there was less support for this in the outlying provinces, so they had to break up USSR and jettison the "republics." See "Revolution from Above".

I agree with this basic historical analysis.

[syndicat]

Again, the issue is whether the political/military ruling class of the USSR could be put in the same category as run of the mill engineers and technocrats. Their control and decision making powers set them qualitatively apart from these other groups like plant managers in contemporary capitalism, and in that they resembled capitalists in the west more than managers and somesuch. They had much in common like they do under capitalism, to be sure, but that doesn't make them analogous.


But my point is that within a class there can be quite a bit of difference in degree of power. Consider the difference in the working class between a homeless guy collecting bottles on the street and an RN or community college instructor or aircraft mechanic...jobs involving quite a bit of expertise and fairly highly remunerated. But all are part of the working class.

In the coordinator class in USA this runs from highly paid top engineers, corporate lawyers, judges, and medical specialists down to supervisors, the local manager at 7-eleven or a cop on the beat.

Simiarly, in the USSR, the coordinator class went from political party leaders at various levels of government and elite Gosplan planners and top generals down to plant level middle-managers and engineers.

What you need to ask yourself is: What is the basis of their class power? The basis of the class power of the coordinator class is not ownership of assets but relative monpolization over decision-making authority and key kinds of expertise used in political and economic administration and planning. This applied to the people at the top in the USSR.

Marx didn't use the phrase "state capitalism" by the way, tho Engels did use it to refer to things like the post office in Germany. If a state-owned corporate entity behaves the same way as a capitalist firm, and enters into a competitive market economy where the economy is driven by the pursuit of surplus of revenue over expenses, then it makes at least some sense. In the economy of the USSR it made no sense.