Marxists (and Leninists) on Anarchism.

[Искра]

I made this topics with critics of anarchism from Marxism, and latter Bolshevism. I hope that this will help to some one. I would also like that other people contribute in this, by posting other stuff, which I have probably missed.

Also, the reason why I made this is to gather critics on one place so that my comrades could read them and answer to them.

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed because a lot of these critics are based on Proudhon and Stirner (who are not anarchists) and on Bakunin, while I don't see any critique of class struggle anarchism.

Marx & Engels letters
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/subject/anarchism.htm




Marx to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. May 5 1846 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_05_05.htm)
Engels to the Communist Correspondence Committee. Sep 16 1846 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_09_16.htm)
Marx to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov. Dec 28 1846 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm)
Marx to Engels. 29 November 1848 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/letters/48_11_29.htm)
Marx to Engels. 13 July 1851 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1851/letters/51_07_13.htm)
Marx to Engels. 8 August 1851 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1851/letters/51_08_08.htm)
Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer. 5 March 1852 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05.htm)
Engels to Marx. 18 March 1852 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_18.htm)
Engels to Rudolf Engels. 10 January 1865 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_10.htm)
Marx to Engels. 7 November 1868 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_11_07.htm)
Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann. 5 December 1868 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_05.htm)
Engels to Marx. December 18 1868 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_18.htm)
Marx to Hermann Jung. 28 December 1868 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_28.htm)
Marx to Engels. 13 January 1869 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_01_13.htm)
Marx to Paul and Laura Lafargue. 15 February 1869 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_02_15.htm)
Marx to Engels. 1 March 1869 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_03_01.htm)
Marx to Engels. 5 March 1869 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_03_05.htm)
Marx to Engels. 30 October 1869 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_10_30.htm)
Marx to Engels. March 24 1870 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_03_24.htm)
Marx to Beesly. 19 October 1870 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_10_19.htm)
Marx to Bolte. 23 November 1871 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_11_23.htm)
Engels to Theodore Cuno. January 24 1872 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/letters/72_01_24.htm)
Marx to Nikolai Danielson. 15 August 1872 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/letters/72_08_15.htm)
Marx to Nikolai Danielson. 12 December 1872 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/letters/72_12_12.htm)
Engels to Bebel. June 20 1873 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/letters/73_06_20.htm)
Engels to Sorge. September 12 1874 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/letters/74_09_12.htm)
Marx to Bracke. May 5 1875 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_05_05.htm)
Marx to Sorge. November 5 1880 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/letters/80_11_05.htm)
Marx to Domela Nieuwenhuis. February 22 1881 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm)
Engels to Eduard Bernstein. Nov 2-3, 1882 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1882/letters/82_11_02.htm)
Engels to Van Patten. April 18 1883 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/letters/83_04_18.htm)
Engels to Eduard Bernstein. Dec 29 1884 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/letters/84_12_29.htm)
Engels to Laura Lafargue. April 28 1886 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_04_28.htm)
Engels to Florence Kelley Wischnewetsky. January 27 1887 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/letters/87_01_27.htm)

The Conflict between Marx and Bakunin
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/bakunin-conflict.htm
Program of International Alliance of Socialist Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1868/iasd-program.htm),
Bakunin, Oct 1868



Founding of the Worker's International (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/wrksint.htm),

Bakunin Revolutionary Catechism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/catechism.htm), Bakunin 1866

National Catechism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1866/national-catechism.htm), Bakunin 1866
Marginal notes on Bakunin's program (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1868/iasd-comment.htm), Marx 15 Dec 1868
IWMA General Council on the Alliance (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1868/bakunin-resolution.htm), 22 December 1868
The Program of the International Brotherhood (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm), Bakunin 1869
The Policy of the International Workingmen's Association (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/policy-iwma.htm), Bakunin 1869
The Policy of the Council (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch01.htm), Bakunin 1869
The Organization of the International (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch02.htm), Bakunin 1869
General Council letter to Alliance (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1869/bakunin-letter.htm), 9 March 1869
Confidential communication (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/03/28.htm), Marx 28 March 1870
The Activity of the Alliance of Socialist Democracy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/18.htm), Marx 18 Sep 1871
Politicial Action and the Working Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-speech.htm), Marx 20 Sept 1871
On the Program of the Alliance (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/program.htm), Bakunin 1871
On the Paris Commune (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/paris-commune.htm), Bakunin 1871
Fictitious Splits in the International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/03/fictitious-splits.htm), Marx & Engels, Jan-March 1872
Report on the Alliance at the Hague Congress (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/bakunin-report.htm), Engels 2-7 Sep 1872
Bakunin on the Program of the Alliance (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/program.htm), 1871
HAGUE CONGRESS COMMISSION ON THE ALLIANCE (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-commission/index.htm), 5 September 1872
Bakunin's Response (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/karl-marx.htm)
The Bakuninists at Work (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm), Engels 31 Oct 1873
On Social Relations in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/refugee-literature/ch05.htm), Engels 1874
Preconditions for a Social Revolution in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm#s3), Bakunin 1873
Programme of the Blanquist Commune Emigrants (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm), Engels Jun 1874

Bolshevik Writings on Anarchism
Source: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm

Leon Trotsky


My First Exile (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch09.htm), My Life
Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1909/xx/tia09.htm), 1909
The July Days (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch24.htm), History of the Russian Revolution
The Makhno Movement (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch49.htm), 1919
Makhno’s Coming Over to the Side of the Soviets (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch69.htm), 1920
How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch73.htm), 1920
Contradictions Between the Economic Successes of the Ussr and the Bureaucratization of the Regime (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1932-ger/next03.htm#s11), 1932

Lenin


Anarchism and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/31.htm), 1901
Guerilla Warfare (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/gw/index.htm), 1906
Socialism and War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s+w/ch01.htm), 1914
State & Revolution. Controversy with the Anarchists (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2), 1917

J. V. Stalin
Anarchism or Socialism? (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)


Marxism-Leninism-Maoism vs. Anarchism (by user redwinter)

Bob Avakian


Doing Away with Classes and What a Proletarian State Is Good For (http://www.anonym.to/?http://revcom.us/a/v19/910-19/919/anar1.htm), August 17, 1997
Learning and Leading (http://www.anonym.to/?http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/920/anar2.htm), August 24, 1997
Why Do We Need A Vanguard Party (http://www.anonym.to/?http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/921/anar3.htm), August 31, 1997
Why You Need a Revolutionary Army in Socialist Society (http://www.anonym.to/?http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/922/anar4.htm), September 7, 1997
Making Revolution for Real in the Real World (http://www.anonym.to/?http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/923/anar5.htm), September 14, 1997

[Muzk]

Lol @ Stalin,


We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies.
Messieurs the Anarchists confused these two mutually negating dictatorships and thereby put themselves in a ridiculous position: they are fighting not Marxism but the figments of their own imagination, they are fighting not Marx and Engels but windmills, as Don Quixote of blessed memory did in his day. . . .
Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists.

:D

[mosfeld]

Hey yeah, let's play that game where we'll pretend you didn't take those Stalin quotes out of context with the intention of demonizing him!

[Red Saxon]

I don't know, Anarchists are pretty noisy :laugh:

[FSL]

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed because a lot of these critics are based on Proudhon and Stirner (who are not anarchists) and on Bakunin, while I don't see any critique of class struggle anarchism.





The need for you to make a distinction between Proudhon or Bakunin and what you name "class struggle anarchism" isn't by itself worthy of criticizing?

Things like CNT, groups with real ties to the working class, aims and a plan to achieve them, strong numbers, at least some organizing differ from small peasants or craftsmen who hated the big capitalists as much as they hated the state that taxed them. Or modern day anarcho-syndicalist unions differ from teenagers or 20somethings who are not a part of working class, who don't even bother to get in touch with it and just demonstrate their free spirit in various ways.

The further away people move from "pure" anarchism as it orinated the more relevant they become. That's not to say that anarchosyndicalism doesn't regard as true many of the essentially petty-bourgeois positions of early anarchism. More steps are needed for it to evolve to a working class current, to communism.

[Muzk]

Hey yeah, let's play that game where we'll pretend you didn't take those Stalin quotes out of context with the intention of demonizing him!


They weren't. He always writes small sentences, dunno why, maybe he has problems with writing a full text.

[bricolage]

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed because a lot of these critics are based on Proudhon and Stirner (who are not anarchists)

Ok fair enough on Stirner but you can't just go around saying Proudhon wasn't an anarchist (especially as he was the first to use the term anarchist). Anarchism can be two things 1. a vague philosophical position or literal translation encompassing anything 'against government' (in this case even Stirner is an anarchist, so are anarcho-capitalists) or 2. a specific political trend of theory, practice and action, in this case it is a trajectory of Proudhon through Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Malatesta etc etc. Proudhon might have been a shit anarchist but he was an anarchist nonetheless.

[core_1]

Hey yeah, let's play that game where we'll pretend you didn't take those Stalin quotes out of context with the intention of demonizing him!
Good god, is every Stalin quote taken out of context these days? Maybe, just maybe these quotes expose the illogical and anti-proletarian attitude of Stalin. Just a thought though.

[Искра]

Hey yeah, let's play that game where we'll pretend you didn't take those Stalin quotes out of context with the intention of demonizing him!
Could we please stick to topic and not to troll the topic from the beginning?
If you (and similar posters) can't post here without starting trollish tendency war then don't write.

Same goes to Muzk. Something might be funny to you (well, Stalin's work is funny to me also), but If you know that this will cause trollish tendency war please don't post... Could we have discussion once?



Originally Posted by FSL:
Things like CNT, groups with real ties to the working class, aims and a plan to achieve them, strong numbers, at least some organizing differ from small peasants or craftsmen who hated the big capitalists as much as they hated the state that taxed them. Or modern day Anarcho-Syndicalist unions differ from teenagers or 20somethings who are not a part of working class, who don't even bother to get in touch with it and just demonstrate their free spirit in various ways.
If I hate something, regarding forum & internet communication/discussion, then that are people who post a priori dogmatic shits.
Do you even know anything about anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism, or do you just stick to your dogma?
Regarding modern day Anarcho-Syndicalism I would like sources four your pathetic lies. My organisation, for example, exists only one year but we made actions with working class (although, working class are not only factory workers, you know), we get in touch with them etc. We helped the and people know us for that. One year. Now, what do you think that CNT in Spain or USI in Italy, who are much bigger organisations and who are unions (who are consisted of working class people) have achieved?


The further away people move from "pure" anarchism as it orinated the more relevant they become. That's not to say that anarchosyndicalism doesn't regard as true many of the essentially petty-bourgeois positions of early anarchism. More steps are needed for it to evolve to a working class current, to communism.
Boring. :rolleyes:
What's pure anarchism? Who's book?


Originally Posted by Barabbas:
Ok fair enough on Stirner but you can't just go around saying Proudhon wasn't an anarchist (especially as he was the first to use the term anarchist). Anarchism can be two things 1. a vague philosophical position or literal translation encompassing anything 'against government' (in this case even Stirner is an anarchist, so are anarcho-capitalists) or 2. a specific political trend of theory, practice and action, in this case it is a trajectory of Proudhon through Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Malatesta etc etc. Proudhon might have been a shit anarchist but he was an anarchist nonetheless.
I can do everything if I give you argument - right ;)
To me anarchism is only one thing - political ideology. But, I don't know is this the way this discussion should go on? Tell me if you want to discuss this and we could do this on PM or make another topic.
Regarding Proudhon, he was the first man to call himself an anarchist, but that period didn't last long. If you read his books he was never really against the State. In his later works he was advocating the State. Also, he wasn't against private property and if you read him you know that his economic theory was a quite mess. I agree with Marx's critics of Proudhon, but I give him credit for actualising anarchism, for developing one of the first theories of "federalism"... I think of him as one of the major influences to anarchism, but not as anarchist.

Now, regarding my sources. I read the most of them and I can say that Trotsky's work on terrorism has nothing to do with anarchism. Also, I would like to ask if anyone have any other sources and critics...

[Andropov]

Marxists are the enemies of such a dictatorship, and they fight such a dictatorship far more stubbornly and self-sacrificingly than do our noisy Anarchists.
I wonder did they shout "No gods no masters" back then too?


Good god, is every Stalin quote taken out of context these days?
No, not really.

Maybe, just maybe these quotes expose the illogical and anti-proletarian attitude of Stalin. Just a thought though.
Ehh no.
There is nothing illogical about Stalin's writings or his actions, he was coming from a purely material marxist perspective.
And certainly nothing anti-proletarian in analysing the world through this material marxist perspective.
Im not a "Stalinist" and I dont agree with all of his actions, I think some were flawed but when blatant lies and distortions are handed out here against Stalin sometimes they need to be rectified.

[FSL]

If I hate something, regarding forum & internet communication/discussion, then that are people who post a priori dogmatic shits.
Do you even know anything about anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism, or do you just stick to your dogma?
Regarding modern day Anarcho-Syndicalism I would like sources four your pathetic lies. My organisation, for example, exists only one year but we made actions with working class (although, working class are not only factory workers, you know), we get in touch with them etc. We helped the and people know us for that. One year. Now, what do you think that CNT in Spain or USI in Italy, who are much bigger organisations and who are unions (who are consisted of working class people) have achieved?



You most certainly fail in reading comprehension.

[Искра]

You most certainly fail in reading comprehension.
No I haven't.

teenagers or 20somethings who are not a part of working class, who don't even bother to get in touch with it and just demonstrate their free spirit in various ways.

Didn't you said that?
Sources, please?

Can people on revleft stop making such idiotic claims and try to discuss?

And to Andropov. If you want to discuss Stalin, could we discuss his work on anarchists? Instead this will become just another Stalin threat and I think that you and I can agree that there are to much of such threads.

[nuisance]

You most certainly fail in reading comprehension.
Don't troll. This is a verbal warning.

[FSL]

No I haven't.

teenagers or 20somethings who are not a part of working class, who don't even bother to get in touch with it and just demonstrate their free spirit in various ways.

Didn't you said that?
Sources, please?

Can people on revleft stop making such idiotic claims and try to discuss?

And to Andropov. If you want to discuss Stalin, could we discuss his work on anarchists? Instead this will become just another Stalin threat and I think that you and I can agree that there are to much of such threads.


The part you forgot "modern day anarcho-syndicalist unions differ ".

Some people are unbelievable.

Also: If someone was kind enough to point to a place where I can safely complain on the trigger-happy moderator, that would be great.

[Искра]

The part you forgot "modern day anarcho-syndicalist unions differ ".

Some people are unbelievable.

And what about it?

[FSL]

And what about it?


You have got to be kidding. Anyway, nevermind.

[Искра]

You have got to be kidding. Anyway, nevermind.
if you have a point explain it better. I can't read your mind I'm not Borg.

[redwinter]

Would also add this series:

MLM vs. Anarchism by Bob Avakian

1 Doing Away with Classes and What a Proletarian State Is Good For (http://revcom.us/a/v19/910-19/919/anar1.htm), August 17, 1997
2 Learning and Leading (http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/920/anar2.htm), August 24, 1997
3 Why Do We Need A Vanguard Party (http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/921/anar3.htm), August 31, 1997
4 Why You Need a Revolutionary Army in Socialist Society (http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/922/anar4.htm), September 7, 1997
5 Making Revolution for Real in the Real World (http://revcom.us/a/v19/920-29/923/anar5.htm), September 14, 1997

[Искра]

So these are Maoist critics?
I edited first post.

[Искра]

Ok, I read the most of this and besides Marx's critiques of Proudhon and Stirner I don't find anything useful.

The most of these critics are a priori critics of people who only read Engels and his critique of anarchism, but they haven't actually read any anarchist book. I'm referring to Lenin (even he read Bakunin), Trotsky, Stalin and Bob Avakain (who's work is full of paradoxes and oxymoron's).

I'm personally really disappointed when I see that maximum of Marxsist criticism is in saying anarchism is peti-bourgeoisie movement, they are not aware of class relations etc. while that's not true... especially if you read books about anarcho-syndicalism...

Also, isn't it kind of stupid when Marxists accuse anarchists for being peti-bourgeoisie for not supporting political (aka. parlamtary) "struggle" (read: reformism) when it's the same parliamentary politics who's is bourgeoisie. That's called oxymoron.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Hey yeah, let's play that game where we'll pretend you didn't take those Stalin quotes out of context with the intention of demonizing him!

It's not that hard to demonize him regardless of context.

[Ravachol]

Ok, I read the most of this and besides Marx's critiques of Proudhon and Stirner I don't find anything useful.

The most of these critics are a priori critics of people who only read Engels and his critique of anarchism, but they haven't actually read any anarchist book. I'm referring to Lenin (even he read Bakunin), Trotsky, Stalin and Bob Avakain (who's work is full of paradoxes and oxymoron's).

I'm personally really disappointed when I see that maximum of Marxsist criticism is in saying anarchism is peti-bourgeoisie movement, they are not aware of class relations etc. while that's not true... especially if you read books about anarcho-syndicalism...

Also, isn't it kind of stupid when Marxists accuse anarchists for being peti-bourgeoisie for not supporting political (aka. parlamtary) "struggle" (read: reformism) when it's the same parliamentary politics who's is bourgeoisie. That's called oxymoron.

I hate it when the word 'petit-bourgois' is thrown around carelessly, like 'fascism' often is. Words need to be used in the correct context applying to the correct subject or not at all. Calling anarchism, which is an EXTREMELY diffuse movement 'petit-bourgois' is laughable. Sure, there are petit-bourgois sentiments within some anarchist thought but that goes just as much for some forms of Marxism.

As for the 'political' struggle. I fail to see how the economic and the political differ. The distinction between the two is completely artificial and counter-productive. No real, constructive anarchist would object to political struggle. To parliamentary struggle, yes, but not to 'political' struggle.

[Искра]

As for the 'political' struggle. I fail to see how the economic and the political differ. The distinction between the two is completely artificial and counter-productive. No real, constructive anarchist would object to political struggle. To parliamentary struggle, yes, but not to 'political' struggle.
Off course, anarchists are not against political struggle. They are against parliamentary struggle which is actually bourgeoisie.

Political struggle of anarchists is called direct action and no it's not, terrorism. (http://infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca218)

[Andropov]

Also, isn't it kind of stupid when Marxists accuse anarchists for being peti-bourgeoisie for not supporting political (aka. parlamtary) "struggle" (read: reformism) when it's the same parliamentary politics who's is bourgeoisie. That's called oxymoron.
No not really that funny.
Your assumption that all Parliamentaryism as purely being "reformism" is where we differ.
So hence because Marxists dont recognise all Parliamentaryism as "reformist" your conclusion that its an oxymoron fails.

[Andropov]

It's not that hard to demonize him regardless of context.
Demonise from what perspective of course?

[Искра]

No not really that funny.
Your assumption that all Parliamentaryism as purely being "reformism" is where we differ.
So hence because Marxists dont recognise all Parliamentaryism as "reformist" your conclusion that its an oxymoron fails.
Ok, here we have feudalism and king. Who brought parliamentary system? Bourgeoisie - rich traders and owners of manufactures.

After French and American Revolution that system was slowly established everywhere.

Parlamtentarism = bourgeoisie.

Working class has nothing to do in that system. If you look at history when communists (then called social-democrats) started to participate in parliamentary politics they started to become reformist. First thing they gave up in order to keep their position were revolutionary change and communism (which they labeled as utopia).

But this is not a discussion about parlamentarism or is parliamentary struggle good or not, this is about Marxists labelling anarchists as peti-bourgeoisie because we are against bourgeoisie parliamentary politics. That's stupid and that's oxymoron (how can you something you are against? - It's like I say to you: you are a sexist, because you are for emancipation of women) I know that this is not the only reason why Marx labelled anarchism as pet-bourgeoisie (he was referring to individuals and his critics had sense), but if we look up Marxists like Lenin, Trotsky and the gang, we will can see that they haven't actually read any book by some anarchist they are not referring to stuff they don't like in anarchist theory or practice which they read in their books (and that's what Marx used to do - he used to read Proudhon, Stirner and Bakunin, and he would probably read Kropotkin if he was alive) they are just repeating some stuff Engels said. That's quite stupid.

Also, I see this way of functioning here on revleft. For example I have actually read Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Therefore, I criticize what I have read. I haven't meet a single one Marxists-Leninist who read books by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker or Pouget and make his critics. Only thing I have read here, including Bob Avkain's text, is dogmatic repeating of Lenin's (Engels) words.

And turning every thread in "Stalin thread" is idiotism... stop doing this. (it's not directed to you Andropov)

[LeninBalls]

I haven't meet a single one Marxists-Leninist who read books by Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker or Pouget and make his critics

I have. While I respect their thinking, I think it sucks.

Happy now?

[ZeroNowhere]

First thing they gave up in order to keep their position were revolutionary change and communism (which they labeled as utopia).You talk as if a proletarian revolution has ever been successful. Though in general, they had more or less given that up before being elected anyway. In which case the problem comes down to there not being enough commies, which is still a problem for other strategies (even moreso for the general strike).


Ok, here we have feudalism and king. Who brought parliamentary system? Bourgeoisie - rich traders and owners of manufactures.Like industry, you mean?

[Искра]

You talk as if a proletarian revolution has ever been successful. Though in general, they had more or less given that up before being elected anyway. In which case the problem comes down to there not being enough commies, which is still a problem for other strategies (even moreso for the general strike).
No, you missed the point.
It was about certain ideological aspect which are essential to communist ideology - like revolutionary change for example.
Problem is with participation in parliamentary politics, because its job [of parliament] is to run the bourgeoisie state and you can't change it form "inside" - it's will change you and make you compromise until you become liberal.


Like industry, you mean?
I don't understand... Could you explain what are you asking me?


Originally Posted by LeninBalls:
Happy now?

Well if your critics is they suck, I am.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm fairly sure industry had some connection, however small, with the bourgeoisie. I mean, if you wish to say that the political state is set up in a way that facillitates things for the bourgeoisie, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it must be avoided at all costs in the event of a revolution, let alone that the idea of using it (or even just disabling it) to get rid of capitalism is bourgeois. I mean, tactics like the general strike generally rely on the bourgeois state to hand over the means of production, which doesn't leave a whole lot of un-bourgeois tactics. And, for that matter, plenty of insurrections have been made by 'communists', which ended in the building of capitalism, so that is probably unworkable too.


It was about certain ideological aspect which are essential to communist ideology - like revolutionary change for example.
Problem is with participation in parliamentary politics, because its job [of parliament] is to run the bourgeoisie state and you can't change it form "inside" - it's will change you and make you compromise until you become liberal.So what you're saying is that you see a certain method of revolution as unworkable, and therefore advocating revolutionary change through that method is abandoning the principle of revolutionary change?


It's like I say to you: you are a sexist, because you are for emancipation of women) I know that this is not the only reason why Marx labelled anarchism as pet-bourgeoisie (he was referring to individuals and his critics had sense), but if we look up Marxists like Lenin, Trotsky and the gang, we will can see that they haven't actually read any book by some anarchist they are not referring to stuff they don't like in anarchist theory or practice which they read in their books (and that's what Marx used to do - he used to read Proudhon, Stirner and Bakunin, and he would probably read Kropotkin if he was alive) they are just repeating some stuff Engels said.It shouldn't surprise you, most of 20th Century Marxism consisted of repeating some stuff Engels said, and also asserting that Marx believed it too (just 'cos).

Edit: Actually, perhaps it would be worth clarifying what is meant by 'parliamentarism' here before going further.

[syndicat]

I mean, tactics like the general strike generally rely on the bourgeois state to hand over the means of production, which doesn't leave a whole lot of un-bourgeois tactics.

As used by syndicalists, a transformative mass strike or revolutionary general strike, is about the workers themselves taking over the means of production, and re-organiizing social production under their own control. It's not about having "the state hand over the means of production." The transformative general strike, as a revolutionary situation, is also where, from a libertarian socialist syndicalist point of view, the state gets dismantled and replaced by a new form of popular power, rooted in the assemblies.

[Искра]

I'm fairly sure industry had some connection, however small, with the bourgeoisie.
Of course.


I mean, if you wish to say that the political state is set up in a way that facillitates things for the bourgeoisie, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean it must be avoided at all costs in the event of a revolution, let alone that the idea of using it (or even just disabling it) to get rid of capitalism is bourgeois.
I wasn't saying that using the State is bourgeois.
I wasn't talking about using the State in the first place. I was talking about critics which I find stupid and not true.
One of them is that anarchism is pet-bourgeoisie, because we reject parliamentary "struggle" which is essentially bourgeoisie.


I mean, tactics like the general strike generally rely on the bourgeois state to hand over the means of production, which doesn't leave a whole lot of un-bourgeois tactics. And, for that matter, plenty of insurrections have been made by 'communists', which ended in the building of capitalism, so that is probably unworkable too.
I think that user syndicate answered to this quite good and I agree with him.


So what you're saying is that you see a certain method of revolution as unworkable, and therefore advocating revolutionary change through that method is abandoning the principle of revolutionary change?

As I said somewhere before: I didn't want to talk about parliamentary "struggle", but about critics of anarchism from Marxist point of view. And trying to start a debate I "touched" one of this and in that context I mentioned this "parliametray struggle".
But, yes I see this method unworkable, but I don't see it as a revolutionary method. I see it as reformist method. Regarding "abandoning the principle of revolutionary change" I'm not saying that if you advocate revolutionary change trough parliamentary struggle you instantly abandon revolution or communism as goal. I was just saying that this have happened before (after the split of 1st International, with development of so called social-democratic parties) and that this will happen from time to time, because if you gathered some small "pieces of cake" you want to keep them. Only way in which you can do such things is by giving up from the most radical or extreme ideals and goals. For example "original" social-democrats were for revolutionary change and for communism. Today they are for free marked, strong state and social partnership.


It shouldn't surprise you, most of 20th Century Marxism consisted of repeating some stuff Engels said, and also asserting that Marx believed it too (just 'cos).
Yeah, I know that they just repeat stuff which Engles or Marx said and that's stupid, especially in cases like this, when critics of anarchism is based on Engels while it should be based on works of anarchists.


Edit: Actually, perhaps it would be worth clarifying what is meant by 'parliamentarism' here before going further.
Maybe we should create another topic for this?
Parliamentarism = Participating in elections/competing for parliament (congress, constitutional assembly, "sabor", "skupština", or any other assembly which has legislature function within the bourgeoisie State) and participating in the work of the same body.

[Andropov]

Ok, here we have feudalism and king. Who brought parliamentary system? Bourgeoisie - rich traders and owners of manufactures.
After French and American Revolution that system was slowly established everywhere.
Parlamtentarism = bourgeoisie.
Parliamentarism is but a means to control.
Your logic is so utterly flawed here.
Just because Parliamentarism was brought with the Bourgeois epoch does not mean we should not work within the system as much as outside the system to undermine its credibility.
Your bizarre logic is concluding that because you work within the system means that you are incapable to differentiate between yourself and your Marxist-Leninist Politics and thus must become Reformist.
No Marxist-Leninist is suggesting to use Parliamentarism to bring Revolution only to discredit it with the masses and gain credibility for yourself so your conclusion that "Parliamentarism = Bourgeois" is just bizarre when you clearly dont understand the manner in which this form would manifest itself.
Just applying blinf absolutes which is a form of dogmatism which is quite ironic since you are accusing Marxist-Leninists of dogmatism.

Working class has nothing to do in that system. If you look at history when communists (then called social-democrats) started to participate in parliamentary politics they started to become reformist. First thing they gave up in order to keep their position were revolutionary change and communism (which they labeled as utopia).
Now Jurko what you are venturing into here is of course reformist Parliamentrism.
Of course I know the history of Parliamentarism with regaurds reformism but what the likes of Lenin was suggesting is actually a completely different kettle of fish.
I would suggest you read "Left Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder" because you really dont seem to comprehend what Marxist-Leninists are suggesting with regaurds Parliamentarism.

[Искра]

Could you maybe once answer to me without bringing this to a personal level? I would appreciate that and I think that discussion could be much better.


Parliamentarism is but a means to control.
Your logic is so utterly flawed here.
How's that?


Just because Parliamentarism was brought with the Bourgeois epoch does not mean we should not work within the system as much as outside the system to undermine its credibility.
Parliament has legislature function which means that it brings the laws, and we all know what laws are, right? Law are acts which work in the benefit of ruling class and against working class. And here we have typical social-democrat aka. reformist answer to this: but we also pass the act which are in the interest of working class. Ok, but those acts are like a rain drop in Atlantic Ocean and what's worst is that you have to fight every second for that drop and give up of your radical and extreme tensions. What's parliamentarian struggle comparing to revolution? Nothing. Is it working towards revolution? No, it's not. Here we just have party who's member are fighting to protect what they get instead of fighting for revolution. Parliament is just another tool of bourgeoisie politics it's opium for masses, it's tries to make essential economical (class) differences disperse (or become less important).


Your bizarre logic is concluding that because you work within the system means that you are incapable to differentiate between yourself and your Marxist-Leninist Politics and thus must become Reformist.
It's not my bizarre logic. It's history. If it wasn't Marxism-Leninism involved I'm sure that you'll apply it also. Also, aim ever political party in parliament is to win the power on elections, alone or within some coalition. This means that just another minority has won the power and it means just another rule of privileged minority about majority of the people (Bakunin). This means that only people on functions are changing instead of people changing the whole system. But, I have gone too far, right? I don't think, and I never said that all Marskist- Leninist want to become reformist or that it's their aim, but I think that this will happen and that they can't do nothing about it, because system changes them and they can't change system from inside. System can be changed only from outside by working class.



No Marxist-Leninist is suggesting to use Parliamentarism to bring Revolution only to discredit it with the masses and gain credibility for yourself so your conclusion that "Parliamentarism = Bourgeois" is just bizarre when you clearly dont understand the manner in which this form would manifest itself.
Just applying blinf absolutes which is a form of dogmatism which is quite ironic since you are accusing Marxist-Leninists of dogmatism.

1st I said that Marxsist-Leninist stance on anarchism is dogma, because it's based on Lenins works, such as Socialism and anarchism, instead of anarchist works.
2nd Parliamentarism is bourgeois because then invented it and they have benefit from it. It makes their system alive.
3rd How can my stance against parliament be dogma if I can explain it?


I would suggest you read "Left Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder" because you really dont seem to comprehend what Marxist-Leninists are suggesting with regaurds Parliamentarism.

I read it and what about it?

Now, I suggest to you to make another topic. In politics for example about parliamentray struggle. I think that more people would get involved.
Do you agree??

[ls]

Parliamentarism is but a means to control.
Your logic is so utterly flawed here.
Just because Parliamentarism was brought with the Bourgeois epoch does not mean we should not work within the system as much as outside the system to undermine its credibility.
Your bizarre logic is concluding that because you work within the system means that you are incapable to differentiate between yourself and your Marxist-Leninist Politics and thus must become Reformist.
No Marxist-Leninist is suggesting to use Parliamentarism to bring Revolution only to discredit it with the masses and gain credibility for yourself so your conclusion that "Parliamentarism = Bourgeois" is just bizarre when you clearly dont understand the manner in which this form would manifest itself.

What you are saying makes almost no sense, would you please rephrase this portion of your post? I don't mean this nastily I just really want to know what you mean. Nepal is a perfect example (which most marxist-leninists support), where parliamentarianism was used and has apparently been discredited and now an armed insurrection is supposedly going to take place soon?

[FSL]

Parliament has legislature function which means that it brings the laws, and we all know what laws are, right? Law are acts which work in the benefit of ruling class and against working class. And here we have typical social-democrat aka. reformist answer to this: but we also pass the act which are in the interest of working class. Ok, but those acts are like a rain drop in Atlantic Ocean and what's worst is that you have to fight every second for that drop and give up of your radical and extreme tensions. What's parliamentarian struggle comparing to revolution? Nothing. Is it working towards revolution? No, it's not. Here we just have party who's member are fighting to protect what they get instead of fighting for revolution. Parliament is just another tool of bourgeoisie politics it's opium for masses, it's tries to make essential economical (class) differences disperse (or become less important).



It's not the parliament that brings laws, it's people in it. Last time I checked laws proposed by communists weren't met with cheers and joy and legislation brought forth by reactionaries wasn't accepted by communists either. The parliamentarian "struggle" is just one of the things you do to get to revolution. Quite a few people pay attention to it. It's like being given a major media at your disposal and not using it because media are organs of bourgeois propaganda.
It goes without saying of course that someone who thinks socialism can be brought through a bourgeois parliament stops being a communist at that very moment, in the same way that if someone agrees on the need of a proletarian state he stops being an anarchist.




It's not my bizarre logic. It's history. If it wasn't Marxism-Leninism involved I'm sure that you'll apply it also. Also, aim ever political party in parliament is to win the power on elections, alone or within some coalition. This means that just another minority has won the power and it means just another rule of privileged minority about majority of the people (Bakunin). This means that only people on functions are changing instead of people changing the whole system. But, I have gone too far, right? I don't think, and I never said that all Marskist- Leninist want to become reformist or that it's their aim, but I think that this will happen and that they can't do nothing about it, because system changes them and they can't change system from inside. System can be changed only from outside by working class.



The communist party's goal is the communist revolution. That's what it says in the party's programme. There is not one mention of a need of winning elections.

The government isn't the rulling class, the people who own the means of production are. The landowners had absolute faith that the monarch wouldn't just socialize their land and capitalists have the same trust in bourgeois politicians when it comes to protecting their property. A state doesn't form a minority rulling upon the majority. A state is part of the superstructure and it merely reflects the things that happen in actual life, in production. The state is not to be "feared".

Also, you can't be possibly blaming Lenin, Luxembourg or Stalin for turning liberal? They all thought that parliament was a legitimate tool.

[Искра]

It's not the parliament that brings laws, it's people in it.
Semantics. :rolleyes:
If there was no parliament how would they make laws in this 'democratic' way?


Last time I checked laws proposed by communists weren't met with cheers and joy and legislation brought forth by reactionaries wasn't accepted by communists either.
So? What's your point? What are then communist doing in parliament if they do nothing?


The parliamentarian "struggle" is just one of the things you do to get to revolution.
Really? Always?
And how does parliamentarian struggle lead us (or you) to a revolution?
Revolution is an act of working class, not parliamentarian elite with no balls.


Quite a few people pay attention to it. It's like being given a major media at your disposal and not using it because media are organs of bourgeois propaganda.
You can't compare participating in the parliamentarian struggle and medias.
If you participate in parliament you acknowledge and accept the way that things are. You are giving legitimacy to parliament. If you don't do that you wouldn't be there in the first place.


The communist party's goal is the communist revolution. That's what it says in the party's programme.
Communist parties in parliament don't have communist revolution in programme because they wouldn't be in parliament then (the State won't let them). Also, who gives a shit about what is written in some programme? Words mean shit if there's no action.
Also, we remember anecdote with April's thesis.


The government isn't the rulling class, the people who own the means of production are.
Government is, as Marx put it in Communist Manifesto, a steering committee of bourgeoisie.
Or do you think that people who don't own the means of production can be government or near the government?


The landowners had absolute faith that the monarch wouldn't just socialize their land and capitalists have the same trust in bourgeois politicians when it comes to protecting their property.
That's true, but still those politicians are part of the ruling class.
Regarding their income, there are 2 kinds of politicians, as Max Weber put it: (i) those who came with big income into politics and (ii) those who came into politics to made a big income.
Now, (i) are pretty much owners of the means of production, because where would they get capital to be in politics?


A state doesn't form a minority rulling upon the majority. A state is part of the superstructure and it merely reflects the things that happen in actual life, in production. The state is not to be "feared".
This is true, but it's too much of a simplification.
State is to be feared, because it's apparatus of repression and oppression. It's above all, as Max Weber put it, only apparatus which can use coversion on one theoritory.
After all we did witnessed the power of the State and in what it turned revolution in Russia.



Also, you can't be possibly blaming Lenin, Luxembourg or Stalin for turning liberal? They all thought that parliament was a legitimate tool.
But I can Kautsky, Plehov and company.
And Stalin is a liberal :)

I hope you don't mind my referring to Max Weber, above all I'm Politics student.

[Andropov]

Could you maybe once answer to me without bringing this to a personal level? I would appreciate that and I think that discussion could be much better.
I havent got personal with you at all so dont try and fly that one.

How's that?
Because you are concluding that tactics and political beliefs are one and the same.

Parliament has legislature function which means that it brings the laws, and we all know what laws are, right? Law are acts which work in the benefit of ruling class and against working class. And here we have typical social-democrat aka. reformist answer to this: but we also pass the act which are in the interest of working class.
Yes laws are made to benefit the ruling class of course.
But if you fight those laws in their chambers of power then you can not only discredit the system but you can also awaken working class consciosness and indeed win over your politics to the working class.
Now we are not suggesting that this is the be all and end all of our plan, this is but a tactic in it, one of many. So it is not reformist its Revolutionary because the contexts of said struggles are poles apart.

Ok, but those acts are like a rain drop in Atlantic Ocean
If you are indeed a capable organisation in mobilising and undermining the system and its laws then it will be far more than just "a rain drop in Atlantic Ocean". It is of course not going to be massive gains, nobody is suggesting that we still conclude that the struggle will be fought primarily in the streets but as I pointed out earlier it is but a branch of the struggle, just another tactic to undermine the institutions of bourgeois power.

and what's worst is that you have to fight every second for that drop
You must fight for every working class gain but as is the nature of Revolutionary politics.
So be it, its not easy politics but it is indeed correct Revolutionary politics.

and give up of your radical and extreme tensions.
Not at all.
You stay loyal to your politics, there is absolutely no need to abandon your Revolutionary politics because you are merely there to undermine the system and gain what advantages we can, we do not conclude we must win popular support through these institutions we merely utilise it as another mode to voice our politics. Yet again you are muddling this up with Reformist politics, your startling lack of differentiation to both strands of actions in Bourgeois instutions has led to your confusion.

What's parliamentarian struggle comparing to revolution? Nothing. Is it working towards revolution? No, it's not.
Of course its working towards the revolution.
Why else would we use these institutions?
That conclusion is just miles off, yet again your analysis is misguided.
Using their institutions to undermine their structures of power is Revolutionary.

Here we just have party who's member are fighting to protect what they get instead of fighting for revolution.
No no we dont, yet again wrong Jurko.
We are not fighting to take the scraps off the borugeois table.
We use these institutions to voice our Revolutionary politics to undermine the establishment and further raise class awareness of the working class to see how shallow the bourgeois parliaments really are.
Its but another step in our Revolutionary politics to undermine the establishment from within and to gain greater credibility with the working class thus raising their class consciousness.
All vital steps in Revolution.

Parliament is just another tool of bourgeoisie politics
Yes of course we have concluded on that already.

it's opium for masses, it's tries to make essential economical (class) differences disperse (or become less important).
Of course it does so all the more reason for a radical Marxist party to voice its Revolutionary politics in these halls of power to undermine this system and fight in the halls of power as we do on the streets.

It's not my bizarre logic. It's history. If it wasn't Marxism-Leninism involved I'm sure that you'll apply it also.
Ohh god, no it isnt Jurko, your so wrong here its not even funny.
And making the claim that I only support it because its part of Marxist-Leninist theory is just absurd.
How about look at what the Bolsheviks achieved through Parliamentarism?
Or how about look at what the founder of my party Seamus Costello achieved in Bray County Council.
He brought all the homeless people of Bray into the council chamber and demanded they be housed and he was thrown out of the council for doing so.
This shows how he was using the institutions of power to undermine the establishment and raise class awarness of the proletariat.

Also, aim ever political party in parliament is to win the power on elections, alone or within some coalition.
Ok you obviously havent read "Left Communism an infantile disorder".
This is not our goal what so ever.
It is to use these bourgeois instutions against the establishment but Revolution will only occur through the working class not through bourgeois institutions.
As I have stated numerous times parliamentarism is but a tactic for the Revolutionarys, achieving power through these institutions is not.

This means that just another minority has won the power and it means just another rule of privileged minority about majority of the people (Bakunin).
Yes I know that but since Marxist-Leninists dont believe in achieving the Revolution through these institutions then that point is redundant.

This means that only people on functions are changing instead of people changing the whole system.
I actually dont have a clue what that is ment to mean.

But, I have gone too far, right? I don't think, and I never said that all Marskist- Leninist want to become reformist or that it's their aim, but I think that this will happen and that they can't do nothing about it,
Ughh this is painfull to read.
Of course we dont want to become reformist and we wont if we are a genuine Revolutionary Marxist party who applys Marxist-Leninist theory to the undermining of bourgeois institutions.
There are examples of reformists but there are also examples of Revolutionary Marxists using bourgeois institutions to undermine the system.

because system changes them and they can't change system from inside.
Hence why we are not trying to change the system from inside.
That is why we are their to undermine its credibility.
Im just repeating myself at this stage.

System can be changed only from outside by working class.
Of course I agree with that.
But I never argued against that line, your just throwing out Ad hominems at this stage.

1st I said that Marxsist-Leninist stance on anarchism is dogma, because it's based on Lenins works, such as Socialism and anarchism, instead of anarchist works.
Ehh no its not.
It is based on a Rational Materialistic Marxist analysis of a flawed theory IMO.

2nd Parliamentarism is bourgeois because then invented it and they have benefit from it. It makes their system alive.
All the more reason to undermine the system from within for our own Revolutionary goals.

3rd How can my stance against parliament be dogma if I can explain it?
No you cant.
Your understandin is full of misconceptions and just wild assertions.

I read it and what about it?
You obviously dont understand it.

Now, I suggest to you to make another topic. In politics for example about parliamentray struggle.I think that more people would get involved.Do you agree??
What are you on about?

[Andropov]

What you are saying makes almost no sense, would you please rephrase this portion of your post? I don't mean this nastily I just really want to know what you mean. Nepal is a perfect example (which most marxist-leninists support), where parliamentarianism was used and has apparently been discredited and now an armed insurrection is supposedly going to take place soon?
Im not sure what part you misunderstand.
Parliamentarism is used to undermine the system, expose the inherent weakness's of the system, the contradictions of capitalism so to speak and the institutions which delegate it.
It is not used to gain power, to administer power for Revolutionary purposes.
All Marxist-Leninists know that real Revolutionary power may only be attained through the working class but parliamentarism is but a tactic in gaining credibility with the working class, undermining the power institutions and furthering the goals of the revolution.
I dont mean to be rude either but im not sure how much further I can break this down for you.

[ls]

Im not sure what part you misunderstand.
Parliamentarism is used to undermine the system, expose the inherent weakness's of the system, the contradictions of capitalism so to speak and the institutions which delegate it.
It is not used to gain power, to administer power for Revolutionary purposes.
All Marxist-Leninists know that real Revolutionary power may only be attained through the working class but parliamentarism is but a tactic in gaining credibility with the working class, undermining the power institutions and furthering the goals of the revolution.
I dont mean to be rude either but im not sure how much further I can break this down for you.

OK, now I understand. You wrote "No Marxist-Leninist is suggesting to use Parliamentarism to bring Revolution only to discredit it with the masses and gain credibility for yourself so your conclusion that "Parliamentarism = Bourgeois" is just bizarre when you clearly dont understand the manner in which this form would manifest itself." which was missing something like a full stop in a very important place. :p

[Andropov]

OK, now I understand. You wrote "No Marxist-Leninist is suggesting to use Parliamentarism to bring Revolution only to discredit it with the masses and gain credibility for yourself so your conclusion that "Parliamentarism = Bourgeois" is just bizarre when you clearly dont understand the manner in which this form would manifest itself." which was missing something like a full stop in a very important place. :p
Haha no problemo. :thumbup:

[Comrade Martin]

As a former Leninist, reading Leninists talk about Anarchism makes me physically ill.

It makes me want to hurt them, just so they will shut up.

Anyone who has really understood the paradigm established by Marx and Engels can find themselves in one position and one position only: in favor of class struggle Anarchism.

READ ON:

Marx, Theoretician of Anarchism by Maximilien Rubel
http://libcom.org/library/marx-theoretician-anarchism

The Civil War in France: The Paris Commune by Karl Marx
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm

[LeninistKing]

To tell you the truth: Anarchism is real democracy. Because most people both in the left and right are greedy bastards who are into politics and want to rise to government possitions for personal wealth. Only a real anarchism system in this world could bring real liberty for each individual. As long as there are governments there will be concentration of wealth in a few, and poverty in the majority.

.

.


I made this topics with critics of anarchism from Marxism, and latter Bolshevism. I hope that this will help to some one. I would also like that other people contribute in this, by posting other stuff, which I have probably missed.

Also, the reason why I made this is to gather critics on one place so that my comrades could read them and answer to them.

I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed because a lot of these critics are based on Proudhon and Stirner (who are not anarchists) and on Bakunin, while I don't see any critique of class struggle anarchism.

Marx & Engels letters
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/subject/anarchism.htm
The Conflict between Marx and Bakunin
Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/bakunin-conflict.htm Bolshevik Writings on Anarchism
Source: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm

Leon TrotskyLeninJ. V. Stalin
Anarchism or Socialism? (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)


Marxism-Leninism-Maoism vs. Anarchism (by user redwinter)

Bob Avakian