Communism Vs Anarcho-Communism

[RED LAND]

What exactly is the difference between communists and anarcho-communists..? Isn't it the same thing considering under communism there is no state?

[anticap]

What exactly is the difference between communists and anarcho-communists..? Isn't it the same thing considering under communism there is no state?

Depends on your definition of "communism." If you define it in the simplest terms as a classless and, therefore, stateless society, then the ends are identical; but the means to achieve that society will differ from those advocated by anarcho-communists depending on which non-ancom tendency you investigate.

[core_1]

yes pretty much. You could say that Anarcho-communism is a specific tendency withing the communist movement (or a communist tendency in the anarchist movement). However large 'C' Communism usually refers to Marxist Communism which advocates a transitional state being used to supress the bourgeois. Anarcho-Communists do not support a transitional state between capitalism and communism. They both have different ideas of the means to achieve Communism.

[Tablo]

So in short the only major difference is the means by which we wish to achieve Communism. Not so much the end result.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So in short the only major difference is the means by which we wish to achieve Communism. Not so much the end result.

Exactly!

Anarcho-Communists see the State as something that is needing to be eliminated immediately in order to gain Communism, while Communists (Marxists-Leninists-Maoists) see the State as a tool through socialism, in which will wither away gradually towards the gain of Communism. Other than that, Communists & Anarcho-Communists are pretty much the same. If you read Kropotkin, you'd realize how similar he was to Marx.

[Tablo]

Very true. There are a great deal of similarities, but from my experience the less educated Leninists have a more authoritarian view of what Communism actually entails, but those who understand their theory are spot on.. those who have actually read Marx will realize that we all want the same thing.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Very true. There are a great deal of similarities, but from my experience the less educated Leninists have a more authoritarian view of what Communism actually entails, but those who understand their theory are spot on.. those who have actually read Marx will realize that we all want the same thing.

Most people who follow Lenin don't even get Lenin right, & like you said, have this authoritarian view on things. To me, Anarchists & Leninists would get along fine if they just realized the common grounds we are all seeking here. Fuck this "Leninist vs Anarchist" or "Stalinist vs Trotskyist" b.s. What matters is the goal set forth to us & how we're all comrades here in this struggle we're waging through Class War.

[anticap]

If you read Kropotkin, you'd realize how similar he was to Marx.

Not to be contrarian, but in The Conquest of Bread (one of my favorite works, incidentally), Kropotkin was quite critical of Marx (unfairly, I think, and seemingly based on an incomplete understanding), and dismissive of the LTV (wrongly, I think, and seemingly based on an association fallacy). But nobody's perfect!

At any rate, the fact remains that communism is anarchy. To quote the defunct Maoist Internationalist Movement (who I understand are regarded as crackpots, but I used to enjoy lurking their site) "Anarchism is the goal - but how to get there?"

[The Vegan Marxist]

Not to be contrarian, but in The Conquest of Bread (one of my favorite works, incidentally), Kropotkin was quite critical of Marx (unfairly, I think, and seemingly based on an incomplete understanding), and dismissive of the LTV (wrongly, I think, and seemingly based on an association fallacy). But nobody's perfect!

At any rate, the fact remains that communism is anarchy. To quote the defunct Maoist Internationalist Movement (who I understand are regarded as crackpots, but I used to enjoy lurking their site) "Anarchism is the goal - but how to get there?"

Very true. Mao was a some-what supporter of Anarchism. He just didn't agree with Anarchists on how to achieve it. Either way, Anarchism=Communism ; Communism=Anarchism, whether you're a Anarchist or a Communist.

[revolution inaction]

Most people who follow Lenin don't even get Lenin right, & like you said, have this authoritarian view on things. To me, Anarchists & Leninists would get along fine if they just realized the common grounds we are all seeking here. Fuck this "Leninist vs Anarchist" or "Stalinist vs Trotskyist" b.s. What matters is the goal set forth to us & how we're all comrades here in this struggle we're waging through Class War.
leninsts are not my comrades :cursing:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

leninsts are not my comrades :cursing:

I think that is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. I've met Leninists who are very agreeable for the most part. I think Anarchists tend to remember the historical connotations of Leninism for Anarchists.

[revolution inaction]

I think that is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. I've met Leninists who are very agreeable for the most part. I think Anarchists tend to remember the historical connotations of Leninism for Anarchists.

no its not, it doesn't matter how agreeable they are, there politics are completely incomparable with mine.

[The Vegan Marxist]

no its not, it doesn't matter how agreeable they are, there politics are completely incomparable with mine.

Then you will die during the revolution because of your lack of cooperating with your fellow Comrades, who more than likely will be a Leninist.

[revolution inaction]

Then you will die during the revolution because of your lack of cooperating with your fellow Comrades, who more than likely will be a Leninist.

leninst are not my comrades like i said before and they can only play a counter revolutionary roll in a revolutionary situation.
and don't fucking threaten me

[Stranger Than Paradise]

leninst are not my comrades like i said before and they can only play a counter revolutionary roll in a revolutionary situation.
and don't fucking threaten me

How are we supposed to overcome Leninism's influence to leftist politics? As much as I would want a revolution which is directly in line with Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist beliefs I don't think this is possible. Most likely Leninism will have significant support within a revolutionary movement and I don't see how this can be avoided.

[The Vegan Marxist]

leninst are not my comrades like i said before and they can only play a counter revolutionary roll in a revolutionary situation.
and don't fucking threaten me

It's not a threat, it's the truth of what will happen if you don't trust fellow comrades surrounding you, fighting with you. And I don't care if you don't see them as your comrades, because they see you as a comrade. I'm a Marxist-Leninist & I see every anarchist as a comrade of mine. Leninists are the fags to you as a U.S. soldier. Biased to the end & stuck in the past.

[Ovi]

Then you will die during the revolution because of your lack of cooperating with your fellow Comrades, who more than likely will be a Leninist.
But of course. The only problem is that you define anarchists cooperating with leninists as anarchists submitting to your authority. We might fight together against reactionary elements but it will all go to shit once we win since there are no common grounds on what should be done next.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But of course. The only problem is that you define anarchists cooperating with leninists as anarchists submitting to your authority. We might fight together against reactionary elements but it will all go to shit once we win since there are no common grounds on what should be done next.

Where the hell did you get that? I know plenty of Marxist-Leninist-Maoists who would fight with the Anarchists if an Anarchist revolution took place. So by your logic, while you're cooperating with Leninist "authority", we're cooperating with Anarchist "authority".

Edit: Also, to radicalgraffiti, I don't like the comment you left me because of the truth I'm telling you here. Of course, like every other person who doesn't debate intellectually with others, they choose profanity as their counterargument. I feel sorry for you.

[Jacobinist]

the State as a tool through socialism, in which will wither away gradually towards the gain of Communism.


Boys does that usually work out great!!!:rolleyes:


But yeah, Vegan Marxist nailed it; I would say.




leninsts are not my comrades :cursing:


Well, I use to feel the same way. But there are a lot of Leninists who despise the USSR and its 'bureaucratic deformations.' So, be more reasonable, really.



Then you will die during the revolution because of your lack of cooperating with your fellow Comrades, who more than likely will be a Leninist.


Look at the Left-SR's and anarchists in the 3rd revolution in Russia. Not too friendly the vanguard was.




The only problem is that you define anarchists cooperating with leninists as anarchists submitting to your authority.


^ Exactly.

[Ovi]

Where the hell did you get that? I know plenty of Marxist-Leninist-Maoists who would fight with the Anarchists if an Anarchist revolution took place. So by your logic, while you're cooperating with Leninist "authority", we're cooperating with Anarchist "authority".

You didn't get me. There are no common grounds between a centralized dictatorial state and a decentralized confederation between stateless self governing communes. I'd be happy to be on the side fighting against right wingers and nationalists no matter who I'm supposedly cooperating with but there is no way I'll ever support any of your vanguard shit.

[revolution inaction]

How are we supposed to overcome Leninism's influence to leftist politics? As much as I would want a revolution which is directly in line with Anarcho-Communist and Syndicalist beliefs I don't think this is possible. Most likely Leninism will have significant support within a revolutionary movement and I don't see how this can be avoided.

We need to argue for anarchist communist politics within the workers movement.
I don't see how a revolution could happen if the working class don't adopt anarchist communism. The majority of workers will not be anarchist communists when the revolution begins but if they don't adopt these polotics it will fall like every revolution so far.
We can't work with leninists in a revolution because there have compleatly different ideas about what a revolution is and how it should be carried out.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

We need to argue for anarchist communist politics within the workers movement.
I don't see how a revolution could happen if the working class don't adopt anarchist communism. The majority of workers will not be anarchist communists when the revolution begins but if they don't adopt these polotics it will fall like every revolution so far.
We can't work with leninists in a revolution because there have compleatly different ideas about what a revolution is and how it should be carried out.

What is it that they see as revolution that we don't?

[revolution inaction]

It's not a threat, it's the truth of what will happen if you don't trust fellow comrades surrounding you, fighting with you.

if they fight with me i will certanily fight back.



And I don't care if you don't see them as your comrades, because they see you as a comrade. I'm a Marxist-Leninist & I see every anarchist as a comrade of mine.

you don't apper to understand what anarchism is



Leninists are the fags to you as a U.S. soldier. Biased to the end & stuck in the past.
wtf?

[revolution inaction]

What is it that they see as revolution that we don't?

a coup, where there party sizes power.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

a coup, where there party sizes power.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a Leninist to say that on this board.

[danyboy27]

so, if we dont do has the vanguard say, we will die?

http://www.alanhendrick.com/details/iraqi_vote_slip.gif

[The Vegan Marxist]

so, if we dont do has the vanguard say, we will die?

http://www.alanhendrick.com/details/iraqi_vote_slip.gif

Wow, you're not getting what I'm saying. I said he'll die probably if he doesn't cooperate with his fellow comrades. The revolution is not an armed battle, but a battle of numbers & how well those numbers cooperate, no matter how much weaponry we may possess.

[revolution inaction]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a Leninist to say that on this board.

find one that doesn't support the Bolshevik seizure of power as a revolution.

[danyboy27]

Wow, you're not getting what I'm saying. I said he'll die probably if he doesn't cooperate with his fellow comrades. The revolution is not an armed battle, but a battle of numbers & how well those numbers cooperate, no matter how much weaponry we may possess.

you know, saying it differently dosnt make it less horrible to hear.

[Argument]

In a communist society, would I be allowed to start my own company if I wanted to*? Would I be allowed to leave the society if I wanted to?

*Not saying that I would want to, I'm just asking to see if there's a difference between an anarcho-communist society and a communist society.

[The Vegan Marxist]

In a communist society, would I be allowed to start my own company if I wanted to*? Would I be allowed to leave the society if I wanted to?

*Not saying that I would want to, I'm just asking to see if there's a difference between an anarcho-communist society and a communist society.

There is no difference between a "anarcho-communist" society & a communist society. Once we gain communism, there will be no difference between those who were anarcho-communists & those who were communists during the revolution. Communism is communism, as laid out by many scholars & theorists, & will be the homeland for all comrades. Whether you're an anarchist, marxist, leninist, maoist, etc.

[Zanthorus]

find one that doesn't support the Bolshevik seizure of power as a revolution.

Ah yes, the Russian Revolution was just your standard coup de-tat where absolutely nothing of any importance or relevance to the struggles of the working class. Certainly not anything as path-breaking as the creation of a system of soviet councils through which for a brief period of time the working classes exercised political power...

[Argument]

Not all anarchists are communists, though. Some are collectivists, some are syndicalists, some are individualists. What happens to them in an ideal communist society, would they be allowed to leave the society and start their own societies, societies that might still have wage labor and money?

"That being the ideal of Anarchism, its economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires." - Emma Goldman

[Zanthorus]

In a communist society, would I be allowed to start my own company if I wanted to?

No, the "freedom" to start a company is simultaneous with and inseperable from the "freedom" to exploit.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think that is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. I've met Leninists who are very agreeable for the most part. I think Anarchists tend to remember the historical connotations of Leninism for Anarchists.

What else should we do? Forget them? Why would we do that?

[The Vegan Marxist]

What else should we do? Forget them? Why would we do that?

I demand the elimination of the infraction you gave me! You put down the reason of infraction was "Prejudice Language". I was NOT being prejudice whatsoever. I said, "Leninists are the fags to you as a U.S. soldier" - I said this because he made the comment that he would not fight with a Leninist, even during the revolution, mainly because he was a Leninist. So I said that because that's the same fucking excuse the military uses against homosexuals. They call them fags & say that they will not fight with them, even if they do save their lives, just because, to them, they are fags. So I've shown how I was not being prejudice one bit! I don't see how I could be when my own best friend is bi-sexual! So I demand that it's taken off because it's complete b.s. that I was given such an infraction or, like I said to you on p.m., unless this was put on me from you trying to help out your Anarchist buddies.

ADMIN NOTE: The use of words like "fag" are expressly forbidden on the board. Read the guidelines. I don't give a flying fuck whether your "best friend" is a fucking drag queen called Saddie-Mai, you're not permitted to use prejudice language. End of story.

If you respond to this administrative message in this thread, then it will constitute derailment and you'll be issued with further warnings.

^:thumbup:

[syndicat]

i've never been entirely sure what "anarcho-communism" refers to. anyway, communism is a somewhat vague word that was used in the late 19th century by both marxists and anarchists and syndicalists to refer to society without classes, without domination or exploitation.

differences with Marxists are over strategy. the mass/class struggle form of anarchism, which was mostly syndicalist in form historically, emphasized the mass organizations of the oppressed being the vehicle or means to their liberation, and that in a period of transition the mass of the people should build new organs of ecnomic and social self-management to replace capital and the state.

official Marxism, however, adopts a partyist strategy. that is, the primary aim is to "win the battle of democracy" as Marx and Engels put it, by a creating a workers party that would take over the running of a state, either an existing one or a new one. the party's program would then be implemented through this state, which they call a "workers state."

mass struggle oriented socialist anarchists on the other hand hold that the mass of the people through their direct rule can defend the revolution and organize production without requiring a state.

in the Russian revolution both the Marxist parties and libertarian socialists, syndicalists, anarchists partiipated in soviets. but major soviets formed by Mensheviks and other state socialists tended to be top down and dominated by the intelligentsia. the Russian libertarian left advocated horizontal soviets, controlled by the rank and file, and direct workers management. there never really was workers power in Russia because the new government set up in Oct 1917 wasn't really controllable by the masses of the people. but it's not accurate to call it a "coup d'etat" either because anarchists, syndicalists, libertarian socialists also supported the transfer of power to the Soviet Congress from the "provisional government." It's just that it didn't work out as they had hoped.

[Uppercut]

in the Russian revolution both the Marxist parties and libertarian socialists, syndicalists, anarchists partiipated in soviets. but major soviets formed by Mensheviks and other state socialists tended to be top down and dominated by the intelligentsia. the Russian libertarian left advocated horizontal soviets, controlled by the rank and file, and direct workers management. there never really was workers power in Russia because the new government set up in Oct 1917 wasn't really controllable by the masses of the people. but it's not accurate to call it a "coup d'etat" either because anarchists, syndicalists, libertarian socialists also supported the transfer of power to the Soviet Congress from the "provisional government." It's just that it didn't work out as they had hoped.

I don't agree here. Immediately after 1917, workers' and soldiers soviets governed the local happenings through autonomous councils. These councils still existed after nationalization, but they were more joined together, and more established through state representation and their Council of Soviets. This form of government (Proletarian Dictatorship) is a state I would not have a problem with, generally speaking.
And the Unions in each individual workplace gave workers much more of a say than during tsarist or feudalist times, and managers were elected directly by those workers. 35% of what that enterprise gained in revenue was invested in social programs and cultural institutions for the workers.

[Argument]

No, the "freedom" to start a company is simultaneous with and inseperable from the "freedom" to exploit.Then the final stage of communism isn't the same as anarcho-communism, where you would be allowed to start a company.

[syndicat]

I don't agree here. Immediately after 1917, workers' and soldiers soviets governed the local happenings through autonomous councils. These councils still existed after nationalization, but they were more joined together, and more established through state representation and their Council of Soviets. This form of government (Proletarian Dictatorship) is a state I would not have a problem with, generally speaking.

And how were the local soviets structured? The major soviets in St Petersburg and Moscow and many others were entirely top down affairs, with power concentrated in the presidium or executive committee. The plenary meetings of delegates were usually treated as rubber stamp. See "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution" by labor historian Pete Rachleff.

There were some more grassroots soviets, like the one at Kronstadt, where the worker and soldier delegates were really in control, as described by Israel Getzler in "Kronstadt 1917-21". but the libertarian left was in control there. And these were the exception. But the Communists seized control in Kronstadt by summer of 1918 and destroyed the grassroots control. For example, there had been assemblies on the ships and in workplaces and these elected their own committees. That was abolished by the Bolsheviks in latter part of 1918.

and in the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks started seizing power by force in cities where they lost elections to the soviets.



And the Unions in each individual workplace gave workers much more of a say than during tsarist or feudalist times, and managers were elected directly by those workers. 35% of what that enterprise gained in revenue was invested in social programs and cultural institutions for the workers.

You're confusing things. Most Russian unions were highly centralized in their paid bureaucracies at the national leve. They played virtually nil role in the revolution. The factory committee movement was behind most seizures by workers but they were independent of the unions. Management committees were elected only in the 300 to 400 firms where the factory committee had been strong. After nationalization in summer 1918, these committees no longer had control and managers were appointed from above by the state. There were no longer any elected management committees by 1920. That is the point to the revolt of the "Workers Opposition".

Given that worker organization had been illegal under the czarist police state, it is no doubt true that workers had more say initially in 1917-18, which say they seized through their own efforts. The Bolsheviks did nothing but legalize what the workers had accomplished on their own. But after June 1918 the hierarchical state gained total control.

[syndicat]

Then the final stage of communism isn't the same as anarcho-communism, where you would be allowed to start a company.

you have a strange notion of "communism." communism was developed in the anarchist movement in opposition to mutualism which is a form of market socialism.

I think the majority of social anarchists would be likely to agree that libertarian communism has the following features:

1. land and means of production are owned in common by the whole society

2. workers manage their work & workplaces. but workers do not privately own the means of production but use the socially owned means of production as a kind of subcontract or responsbility granted to them by society.

3. workers cannot accrue surpluses, that is, they do not own the product. the product is owned by the whole society just as the means of production are. among libertarian socialists people differ about whether there would be remuneration but among those who do hold there would be remuneration, it is held to be something that workers receive out of the socially owned output, not through a private profit of a firm confiscated by the workers.

4. there is free social provision of at least a large number of goods and services to meet people's needs, such as health care, education. housing. this free sector may or may not be the whole economy -- views differ -- but it would exist. the more extreme view is that free distribution covers everything but there are also libertarian communists who don't agree with that.

[Argument]

you have a strange notion of "communism."Yes, but still. Say if I live in an anarcho-communist society, I would be allowed to start a company. They would probably ignore me, but they wouldn't try to stop me, I think, unless I try to force them to work for me.

"That being the ideal of Anarchism, its economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires." - Emma Goldman

[syndicat]

Yes, but still. Say if I live in an anarcho-communist society, I would be allowed to start a company. They would probably ignore me, but they wouldn't try to stop me, I think, unless I try to force them to work for me.

"That being the ideal of Anarchism, its economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires." - Emma Goldman

Emma Goldman was an individualist.

Libertarian communism is a planned economy. It is not a market economy. So what would it mean for you to "start a company"? Hiring people to be your wage slaves would be illegal. And means of production would be socially owned and allocated.

Now, you could "start a company" in the sense that you could organize a group who propose to the community the use of socially owned means of production to produce some new product. But neither you nor your group would own the means of production or own the product.

In a libertarian socialist society there is a governance system where the basic rules are made for the society, and these can be and would be enforced. The governance system is made up of institutions such as workplace assemblies & councils, neighborhood assemblies & councils, regional congrresses of delegates and elected administrative councils. these bodies have at their disposal a militia, if necessary, to defend the existing social order against any violent challenge. the governance system is the direct rule of the people over their own common affairs.

[anticap]

Suppose we achieve communism: the land and its resources, and the means of production, are controlled by all, because they are needed by all.

But suppose you want to re-institute capitalism, which depends on private property: what are your options? You're not entitled to lay claim to a portion of the limited resources as yours alone, as this would require force (remember: private property is a doctrine of exclusion), which the others who depend on them would be entitled to resist, just as any other species would do.

To recognize that "all is for all," as Kropotkin put it, is to recognize a natural fact, not a mere ideological preference; it is no more coercive than the changing of the seasons, though you may find both to be irritating. The coercion came when someone invented private property and the concepts of "some is for one," and, at the height of medieval hubris, "all is for one."

Adapting yourself to "all is for all" is no different from adapting yourself to seasonal changes. It is to realize that you may have the power to build a dam across a river (for example), but not necessarily the right (rights being human conventions that are granted by your fellows and may be revoked by them -- not inviolable force-fields inherent to your person); you are not entitled to take actions that will greatly impact others, without consulting them.

To violate the natural state of "all is for all," as would be required to re-institute capitalism (and I haven't even touched on the inherently exploitative nature of that barbaric system), would not likely be tolerated within communism.

[Uppercut]

And how were the local soviets structured? The major soviets in St Petersburg and Moscow and many others were entirely top down affairs, with power concentrated in the presidium or executive committee. The plenary meetings of delegates were usually treated as rubber stamp. See "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution" by labor historian Pete Rachleff.

This may have been partially true during the Civil War, as resources were mostly pulled for the war effort and discipline was very rough. However, when things settled down and the Great Invasion was over, things were eased up quite a bit. The 1936 Constitution allowed for public organizations of all types to put forth candidates and hold debates on who was to be elected to either the soviets or the supreme soviet.
And in regards to autonomous workers' councils and committees, they have proven to be ineffective at best. The thing is, if you abolish discipline and production guidelines, things get messy and out of hand. The local soviets were essentially workers' councils, yes, but with actual discipline and guidelines to follow.


There were some more grassroots soviets, like the one at Kronstadt, where the worker and soldier delegates were really in control, as described by Israel Getzler in "Kronstadt 1917-21".

The Krondstadt rebellion was a response to the policies of war communism, yes. But if 14 countries invade, there aren't many options on the table. I believe the Bolsheviks weighed their options rationally and were forced to take down the rebellion. Times were tough and the country was in no condition to just brush off the imperialist powers. If Russia went anarchist, the revolution would have been short-lived.



After nationalization in summer 1918, these committees no longer had control and managers were appointed from above by the state. There were no longer any elected management committees by 1920. That is the point to the revolt of the "Workers Opposition".

You don't seem to understand the conditions facing Russia at the time. Management was appointed from above in order to get things up and running again. As you probably know, by the end of the Civil War, production levels dropped below 1913 levels. This was a terrible time to allow "self-management" as an overall plan and economic structure was absolutely essential to rebuilding the nation's industry. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical or critical of state power, but you need to understand that not every government structure has to be elitist or exploitative.

[syndicat]

me:
And how were the local soviets structured? The major soviets in St Petersburg and Moscow and many others were entirely top down affairs, with power concentrated in the presidium or executive committee. The plenary meetings of delegates were usually treated as rubber stamp. See "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution" by labor historian Pete Rachleff.
uppercut:

This may have been partially true during the Civil War

I was talking about 1917. Things got much worse from spring of 1918 on. In the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks lost elections to soviets in many cities and overthrew the soviets with military force or refused to recognize the elections, and continued to rule, based on force.
me:

There were some more grassroots soviets, like the one at Kronstadt, where the worker and soldier delegates were really in control, as described by Israel Getzler in "Kronstadt 1917-21".
u:

The Krondstadt rebellion was a response to the policies of war communism, yes.

No. it was an action in solidarity with strikes in St Petersburg and Moscow at that time.



But if 14 countries invade, there aren't many options on the table.

the Kronstadt rebellion occurred after the whites were defeated. moreover, any revolution will most likely lead to civil war or war. so you've just provided a ready made excuse as to why a bureaucratic class group should hold power, not workers.

you assume without any argument that the organized working class is incapable of building and controlling its own armed forces. why should that be so?

me:

After nationalization in summer 1918, these committees no longer had control and managers were appointed from above by the state. There were no longer any elected management committees by 1920. That is the point to the revolt of the "Workers Opposition".

u:

You don't seem to understand the conditions facing Russia at the time. Management was appointed from above in order to get things up and running again. As you probably know, by the end of the Civil War, production levels dropped below 1913 levels. This was a terrible time to allow "self-management" as an overall plan and economic structure was absolutely essential to rebuilding the nation's industry.

you're apparently unaware that every study of workers self-management shows that it generates higher productivity that bureaucratic managerial control. again, you're just churning out apologetics for the bureaucratic class.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

What is it that they see as revolution that we don't?

Keeping the State.

As much as I would love to see Marxists and Anarchists fighting together on the front lines, these kind of revolutions don't have a very successful track record. The only one that didn't resort to Marxist v.s. Anarchist violence at some point was the Paris Commune and they probably just didn't last long enough to get the chance.

I don't mind fighting capitalism with Marxists, but when the revolution comes I plan on getting rid of the state and keeping it that way.

[Zanthorus]

Keeping the State.

As much as I would love to see Marxists and Anarchists fighting together on the front lines, these kind of revolutions don't have a very successful track record. The only one that didn't resort to Marxist v.s. Anarchist violence at some point was the Paris Commune and they probably just didn't last long enough to get the chance.

I don't mind fighting capitalism with Marxists, but when the revolution comes I plan on getting rid of the state and keeping it that way.

This is only a problem between anarchists and the Marxist groups that believe in a "socialism" with a state that occurs between the dictatorship of the proletariat and the "higher stage of communism" and is synonymous with Marx's "lower stage of communism". Other Marxist tendencies see this as a distortion made by Lenin to Marx's own thoughts in the state, since for Marx "communism" and "socialism" are synonymous terms for the stateless, classless, moneyless society which comes directly after the dictatorship of the proletariat. The only difference then would be on the question of wether to turn the state against itself during the revolutionary period or to attack it from the outside. But even there things aren't completely clear.

First of all, for Marx the revolutionary state is not just the capitalist state controlled by the workers party but "...the proletariat organised as the ruling class." (Manifesto of the Communist Party) Second of all in the 18th Brumaire and the Civil War in France he talks about all previous revolutions having strengthened the state but the precondition for all proletarian revolutions is that the beuracratic state is smashed for a brief period after which the working class uses "forceful hence governmental means" (Conspectus on Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy) before finally "there [is]... no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society." (Poverty of Philosophy)

Apart from the word "state" I don't really see much that anarchists would have to disagree with Marx here. Personally I think the word "state" is far too ambiguous and we should stop talking about it and start talking about specific visions of the organisational structure of a post-revolutionary society without the loaded terms. Engels mentioned this in his letter to Bebel:


All the palaver about the state ought to be dropped, especially after the Commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the term.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_03_18.htm

Unfortunately we never did and we're still here a hundred and thirty five years later and not quite sure what we're actually supposed to be arguing about yet somehow still at each others throats over some semantics surrounding the word "state" and because all Marxists are by definition authoritarian dictators and all anarchists are by definition infantile petit-bourgeois dittelante's.

[Old Man Diogenes]

Then you will die during the revolution because of your lack of cooperating with your fellow Comrades, who more than likely will be a Leninist.

Jesus Christ, thanks for setting up the Leninist line of argument though comrade, disagree with us and we will kill you. :thumbup1:

[ZeroNowhere]

And I don't care if you don't see them as your comrades, because they see you as a comrade. I'm a Marxist-Leninist & I see every anarchist as a comrade of mine. Leninists are the fags to you as a U.S. soldier. Biased to the end & stuck in the past. Fascists are the homosexuals to you as a US soldier. Biased to the end & stuck in the past.

[this is an invasion]

It's not a threat, it's the truth of what will happen if you don't trust fellow comrades surrounding you, fighting with you. And I don't care if you don't see them as your comrades, because they see you as a comrade. I'm a Marxist-Leninist & I see every anarchist as a comrade of mine. Leninists are the fags to you as a U.S. soldier. Biased to the end & stuck in the past.
worst. analogy. ever.

[Nolan]

Hmm. I'm willing to work with any leftist but to be honest this thread is sort of a shock to me. Guess we gotta bury 'em with the ancaps. So unfortunate.

[Nolan]

Jesus Christ, thanks for setting up the Leninist line of argument though comrade, disagree with us and we will kill you. :thumbup1:

Nuh-uh. Get in our way.

Trash this thread.

[Agnapostate]

leninsts are not my comrades :cursing:

I hang out with the PSL and have gone to the occasional RCP function. It's a matter of being united in opposition to capitalism and rightism, with their support of state capitalism being irrelevant, since there's no possibility of its implementation here.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Guess we gotta bury 'em with the ancaps. So unfortunate.

All the proof I need.

[Nolan]

All the proof I need.

:lol: I don't want to...

[What Would Durruti Do?]

:lol: I don't want to...

Nobody wants to go to war with their enemies. The inevitable will happen though.

[Nolan]

Nobody wants to go to war with their enemies. The inevitable will happen though.

You can fire the first shot.

But I'd much rather this war be fought in the hearts and minds of the working class. Because we have a huge lead. ;)

[What Would Durruti Do?]

You can fire the first shot.

But I'd much rather this war be fought in the hearts and minds of the working class. Because we have a huge lead. ;)

In America? Hah. The Reds have had their chances and failed. I think the working class is looking for a new direction.

Whenever I have conversations with Tea Partiers they are much more willing to talk to me if I keep my conversation about anarchism rather than communism.

[Zanthorus]

Whenever I have conversations with Tea Partiers they are much more willing to talk to me if I keep my conversation about anarchism rather than communism.

That is really not a positive thing.

[Nolan]

In America? Hah. The Reds have had their chances and failed.

Not America. There is no left in America. Yet that and parts of western europe seem to be your stronghold.

Where I live, "anarchist" tends to evoke images of a high school goth kid with a bomb.



I think the working class is looking for a new direction.Indeed, they are. And it isn't yours.

But I have no desire to keep this sectarian pissing contest going, so I'll just leave you to your convictions/delusions.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Indeed, they are. And it isn't yours.

And it definitely isn't Leninism either then. So I guess we're both boned.

[Zanthorus]

Where I live, "anarchist" tends to evoke images of a high school goth kid with a bomb.

And where I live "communist" tends to evoke images of totalitarian states where your every move is watched by the red beuracracy.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

That is really not a positive thing.

It's not? Tea Partiers aren't working class? I've talked to many former union members and people involved in the workers struggle who are now a part of the Tea Party movement purely because there is no other alternative.

It's not like these people are going to become Bolsheviks. Lets be real. They are anti-state for a reason so obviously anarchism appeals more to them.

[Nolan]

And where I live "communist" tends to evoke images of totalitarian states where your every move is watched by the red beuracracy.

No doubt you help it along.

[Zanthorus]

It's not? Tea Partiers aren't working class? I've talked to many former union members and people involved in the workers struggle who are now a part of the Tea Party movement purely because there is no other alternative.

I don't pretend to understand the class dynamics of american movements since I'm not living in any proximity to judge.

But to be frank I don't care what particular ideas/politics the workers have at any particular historical moment. The real question is - What set of politics will the working-classes have to take up in order to secure their self-emancipation, which is the prerequisite for the destruction of all classes. I don't buy into the kind of crude "workerism" that says that every single political stance and act carried out by the working classes is automatically a step towards that goal. Some sections are far in advance politically of others.


No doubt you help it along.

How is this in anyway relevant to what I just said besides a lame jab at my anti-stalinist politics?

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I don't pretend to understand the class dynamics of american movements since I'm not living in any proximity to judge.

But to be frank I don't care what particular ideas/politics the workers have at any particular historical moment. The real question is - What set of politics will the working-classes have to take up in order to secure their self-emancipation, which is the prerequisite for the destruction of all classes. I don't buy into the kind of crude "workerism" that says that every single political stance and act carried out by the working classes is automatically a step towards that goal. Some sections are far in advance politically of others.

I hope you don't think I was saying that the Tea Party movement is a step towards our goals because it obviously is not. It is a completely reactionary movement.

However, it does have the support of the workers. A large number of American workers are disenfranchised with the current system and for good reason. They no longer have jobs and their families suffer while they watch the rich get richer and corporations use our "democratic" government for their own personal gain.

The strong anti-authoritarian/anti-government mentality of the Tea Party Movement is proof, IMO, that anarchism will be more readily accepted by the working class of the U.S. than Leninism/Bolshevikism ever will be.

If I approach one of these Tea Partiers with an explanation of communism or why the Soviet Union wasn't communist they will ignore me. But If I approach them to explain anarchism and my differences with Leninists/Reds they are EXCEPTIONALLY more open to conversation.

Why? Well I can only guess this is because there has never been a "Black terror" or "Black scare" or an infamous anarchist dictatorship that failed miserably to achieve the goals it claimed to be working towards.

I don't have a problem working with Reds here in the U.S. simply because I know their movement here is irrelevant and stands no chance of being accepted by the American people therefore in a post-revolutionary society we should have no problem with people trying to bring back the state or their "dictatorship of the proletariat" or "vanguard party" nonsense.

However, this does not mean they will not be an opposing force in a post-revolutionary society. Since we have two different ways of achieving our goals it is inevitable that our differences will lead to conflict. This is why I have no problem telling Reds that they are my enemy.

[Zanthorus]

I can only guess this is because there has never been a "Black terror" or "Black scare"

Actually there was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haymarket_affair&oldid=359449017#Trial.2C_executions_and_pardons

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Actually there was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haymarket_affair&oldid=359449017#Trial.2C_executions_and_pardons

True, but that's not really what I meant. In Eastern Europe the "Red Terror" is another term for Soviet Imperialism and the spread of "communism". Anarchism doesn't have this negative connotation attached to it. Likewise, here in the states "Red scare" refers to the paranoia of infiltration by Soviet/communist spies and agents trying to turn the U.S. into a Socialist Republic. Or could even refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis and other such things.

The Haymarket affair was a one time localized event which was less of a "scare" than it was an overreaction by the capitalists who wanted to punish people before things got worse.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Before we start shooting each other over whether or not we want to keep the State for a time after the revolution, perhaps we should define the word "State."

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Before we start shooting each other over whether or not we want to keep the State for a time after the revolution, perhaps we should define the word "State."

The Leninists aren't going to admit to wanting to keep the state. They will refer to it as the "vanguard" or the "dictatorship of the proletariat". This does not change the fact that it is a highly centralized power structure which includes hierarchies (not compatible with anarchism) with the power to control the workers and herd them in a certain direction as they please.

This is the opposite of anarchists who advocate a series of de-centralized autonomous communities run by systems of direct democracy and worker control rather than someone who claims to know whats best for the working class at the top who will refuse to ever relinquish their control while constantly telling the people "Don't worry, this is for your own good. You will be free eventually - just keep waiting."

[Agnapostate]

Where I live, "anarchist" tends to evoke images of a high school goth kid with a bomb.


And where I live "communist" tends to evoke images of totalitarian states where your every move is watched by the red beuracracy.

Where I live, it's both. :blushing:

[blackwave]

Jesus Christ, thanks for setting up the Leninist line of argument though comrade, disagree with us and we will kill you. :thumbup1:

I believe he was referring to a lack of solidarity resulting in defeat, not Leninists executing Anarchists.

[Agnapostate]

I'll be honest; defense against aggression is an entirely legitimate function of violence. If there is some faction or contingency aggressing against people and communities, it's entirely justifiable to imprison them, confiscate any weapons they may have, and the like. It ultimately functions as a reduction of coercion.

[Uppercut]

I was talking about 1917. Things got much worse from spring of 1918 on. In the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks lost elections to soviets in many cities and overthrew the soviets with military force or refused to recognize the elections, and continued to rule, based on force.

So you're going to say that from the get-go, the Bolsheviks were corrupt, dictatorial, and anti-working class in everyway...? Hmm....




any revolution will most likely lead to civil war or war. so you've just provided a ready made excuse as to why a bureaucratic class group should hold power, not workers.

Oh yes, because a bunch of scattered people's militias with no overall strategy or discipline can surely be more successful than any centralized army.


you assume without any argument that the organized working class is incapable of building and controlling its own armed forces. why should that be so?

I never said that. Organized people's militias can coexist alongside a Red Army, but they cannot be fully relied on to fight every battle. If the people arm themselves, great. If the state assists in army them, great as well. But pertaining to Krondstadt, I personally don't care. The socialist system needs time to consolidate, and dictatorial methods were sometimes used by the Bolsheviks to reach this. Russia was in no condition to allow ultra-democracy and self-management. Discipline needed to be instated, first and foremost.



you're apparently unaware that every study of workers self-management shows that it generates higher productivity

Care to give an example?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Oh yes, because a bunch of scattered people's militias with no overall strategy or discipline can surely be more successful than any centralized army.

I never said that. Organized people's militias can coexist alongside a Red Army, but they cannot be fully relied on to fight every battle. If the people arm themselves, great. If the state assists in army them, great as well.

More Red Army fetishization. Seems to be common around here.

Usually I don't like relying on other people's words to state my own position, but I really like this Dauvé quote on the matter:


Power does not come from the barrel of a gun any more than it comes from a ballot box. No revolution is peaceful, but the military dimension is not the central one. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armories, but whether they unleash what they are: commodified beings who no longer can and no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes the logic of capitalism. Barricades and machine guns flow from this "weapon". The more vital the social realm, the more the use of guns and the number of casualties will diminish. A communist revolution will never resemble a slaughter: not from any non-violent principle, but because it will be a revolution only by subverting more than by actually destroying the professional military.

I think *some people* on RevLeft have been gazing longingly at their Soviet propaganda posters for a bit too long.

[Uppercut]

I think *some people* on RevLeft have been gazing longingly at their Soviet propaganda posters for a bit too long.

Hey, thanks for misinterpreting my response. What i originally stated is that without a centralized army made up of workers and farmers, the revolution probably won't last too long. But that's not to say there can't be democracy in the army as well. Of course the people can take up arms and fight on their own free will. This is strongly encouraged. Feel free to join in, I say. The party or vanguard needs to be in charge, practicing democratic centralism from the bottom to the top. This ensures discipline and democracy, two opposites that are joined together. The army or militias must not be placed above the majority of the population, however. We don't want chaos or a military dictatorship.

[syndicat]

me:
I was talking about 1917. Things got much worse from spring of 1918 on. In the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks lost elections to soviets in many cities and overthrew the soviets with military force or refused to recognize the elections, and continued to rule, based on force. ]

u:

So you're going to say that from the get-go, the Bolsheviks were corrupt, dictatorial, and anti-working class in everyway...? Hmm....

That's not what I'm saying. I think Lenin and his followers were sincere. But Lenin was drawn from the upper class and many Bolshevik leaders were from the intelligentsia. Lenin had a rather statist and managerialist conception of socialism. And I think he was drawn to that by his interpretation of Marxism, the implication being that whatever the capitalists develop must be progressive. So he fallaciously inferred that the hierarchical apparatus of the state and repressive labor methods like Taylorism were somehow "neutral" and could be "wielded" by the working class.

They also believed that the control of the state by the "vanguard party" was the most essential thing for socialism to exist. Now, all of the assumptions I've referred to, together with their general preference for statist and centralist approach, drove them in a certain direction...and to the creation of a bureaucratic administrative layer that would become a new exploiting class.

One other feature of Bolshevism that is relevant is the cult of "hardness" of "not being sentimental", that "the end justifies the means", and so on.

Just put 2 and 2 together here and you'll see the logical consequences...



Oh yes, because a bunch of scattered people's militias with no overall strategy or discipline can surely be more successful than any centralized army.


that's a strawman argument. why do you suppose that there can't be a large and coordinated force that is, nonetheless, under the democratic control of the working class, via soviets, worker managed economic and social organization electing committees to oversee and coordinate their militia?

[Uppercut]

That's not what I'm saying. I think Lenin and his followers were sincere. But Lenin was drawn from the upper class and many Bolshevik leaders were from the intelligentsia.

There is such a thing as a revolutionary intellectual. Yes, Lenin was from a semi-bourgeoise family, but that does not necessarily he, himself, was bourgeoise. Some choose to use what their privileged lifestyle has taught them and utilize their education for the benefit of those less fortunate. That's just called having a good heart and a logical state of mind.


Lenin had a rather statist and managerialist conception of socialism. And I think he was drawn to that by his interpretation of Marxism, the implication being that whatever the capitalists develop must be progressive. So he fallaciously inferred that the hierarchical apparatus of the state and repressive labor methods like Taylorism were somehow "neutral" and could be "wielded" by the working class.

True, Taylorism was around for a period of time post-revolution.

"We must raise the question of piece-work and apply and test it in practice; we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system; we must make wages correspond to the total amount of goods turned out.” - Lenin

Hell, I'll even go a bit further and admit that the economic system that existed at that time was state-capitalist. However, given the backwardness of the economy and the slow pace of growth, there was little choice to be made. Yes, it was rough on the workers and things did not go as the Bolsheviks had hoped. But they economy just had to pick up again. And I honestly don't believe that Lenin intended for Taylorism to remain in place any longer than it was absolutely necessary.



They also believed that the control of the state by the "vanguard party" was the most essential thing for socialism to exist. Now, all of the assumptions I've referred to, together with their general preference for statist and centralist approach, drove them in a certain direction...and to the creation of a bureaucratic administrative layer that would become a new exploiting class.

The vanguard party was there to lead, not necessarily to interfere with every aspect of life. Other public organizations could put forth their candidates as well, and even have them run against the vanguard party's chosen candidates. The whole point of the vanguard party is to lead and to learn from the masses and their ideas, and this has been practiced in the USSR, China, and Albania to different extensions of success.
I know as an anarchist, you have staunch anti-state and anti-centralist views. I used to share those views as well. But it is the content, form, and decision-making process of a government which confirms whether that system is oppressive and exploitative or democratic and participatory. As for bureaucracy, yes, it was a problem throughout the entire USSR's history. However, Stalin and the Central Committee took extensive measures to decrease bureaucratic and slacker influence in the party.

"You think that there will be no election contests. But there will be, and I foresee very lively election campaigns. There are not a few institutions in our country which work badly. Cases occur when this or that local government body fails to satisfy certain of the multifarious and growing requirements of the toilers of town and country. Have you built a good school or not? Have you improved housing conditions? Are you a bureaucrat? Have you helped to make our labor more effective and our lives more cultured? Such will be the criteria with which millions of electors will measure the fitness of candidates, reject the unsuitable, expunge their names from candidates' lists, and promote and nominate the best. Yes, election campaigns will be lively, they will be conducted around numerous, very acute problems, principally of a practical nature, of first class importance for the people. Our new electoral system will tighten up all institutions and organizations and compel them to improve their work. Universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage in the U.S.S.R. will be a whip in the hands of the population against the organs of government which work badly. In my opinion our new Soviet constitution will be the most democratic constitution in the world."- Stalin



why do you suppose that there can't be a large and coordinated force that is, nonetheless, under the democratic control of the working class, via soviets, worker managed economic and social organization electing committees to oversee and coordinate their militia?

I'm not saying that there cannot be democracy in the army, nor am I saying that workers should not have any say in their militia or unit or whatever you want to call it. But when it comes to national or international defense, a formal organization will most likely be needed that involves some expertise in the field of warfare. Soldiers may consult with soldiers and soldiers may consult with their officers before any long-reaching decisions are made official.
Plus, who is to say that these soldiers cannot train the workers in the field of defense, as well as assisting in labor? This can bring defense and confidence must closer to the people and arouse their enthusiasm to participate.

[syndicat]

There is such a thing as a revolutionary intellectual. Yes, Lenin was from a semi-bourgeoise family, but that does not necessarily he, himself, was bourgeoise. Some choose to use what their privileged lifestyle has taught them and utilize their education for the benefit of those less fortunate. That's just called having a good heart and a logical state of mind.


Lenin didn't have to work due to the fact of his inheritance from his mother. His mother's family owned a big landed estate. So, it's a bit misleading to say he was "semi-bourgeois."

And, why propose that power in local soviets be concentrated in the hands of the party intelligentsia rather than them being advisors to worker plenaries? the worker plenaries were able to effectively govern in Kronstadt in 1917-18, why not elsewhere?


Hell, I'll even go a bit further and admit that the economic system that existed at that time was state-capitalist. However, given the backwardness of the economy and the slow pace of growth, there was little choice to be made. Yes, it was rough on the workers and things did not go as the Bolsheviks had hoped. But they economy just had to pick up again. And I honestly don't believe that Lenin intended for Taylorism to remain in place any longer than it was absolutely necessary.


I don't see any evidence of that. Moreover, your assumption is unmarxist. that's because it is unmarxist to assume that any dominating, exploiting class will ever give up its power voluntarily.

There was in fact a choice. instead of the top down centralized state planning they initiated in Nov 1917, before the civil war and economic collapse, they could have followed the proposals of the St Petersburg soviet of factory committees, for a national congress of factory committees to develop coordination and planning, controlled by workers.


I'm not saying that there cannot be democracy in the army, nor am I saying that workers should not have any say in their militia or unit or whatever you want to call it. But when it comes to national or international defense, a formal organization will most likely be needed that involves some expertise in the field of warfare. Soldiers may consult with soldiers and soldiers may consult with their officers before any long-reaching decisions are made official.

Plus, who is to say that these soldiers cannot train the workers in the field of defense, as well as assisting in labor? This can bring defense and confidence must closer to the people and arouse their enthusiasm to participate.

Sure, soldiers can train members of the militia. that's not the issue. the issue is one of power over a very important material force in society, the armed forces. Is the working class to retain direct control over it? And if not how can it secure its power in society?

The Spanish anarcho-syndicalists in 1936 faced the same problem, and built a labor militia, and proposed to unify all the militia groups into a single commmand...but controlled by committees elected by the mass union organizations, so that the armed forces would be directly under the control of the organized working class.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Before we start shooting each other over whether or not we want to keep the State for a time after the revolution, perhaps we should define the word "State."

Very true, Anarchists and Leninists both have different concepts of the state, this is one reason why our ideologies argue and are rarely unified in struggle. It isn't necessarily because Leninism is a counter-revolutionary ideology.

[ProudToBeFreek]

great thread!!! it helped me a lot :)