Why can't Authoritarian and Liberterian leftist revolution coincide

[StoneFrog]

I ask why does there seemingly have to be one tendency that "rules" the revolution and transition phase? Why must one group of the left be what everyone has to do?
Why does the will of a vanguard party have to be imposed onto a community of anarchists? The end goal is the same for them, why not just let them have their space?
The notion i find a lot from M-L are that its their way or the highway, why can't a libertarian society work along side the like of the vanguard party; without being consumed by it?

The only way we can make things work is if we make it work for all organizations of the left, if a community wants to be anarchist let them. There should be no reason for a M-L government to impose upon them. For if you do its no different than imperial colonization, and imposing your rule on the people.

And in turn anarchists do have the tendency to become aggressive towards tendencies that support the use of a party. If a community wants to be apart of such a system who are you to say they can't? Its their choice to do so.

[syndicat]

MLs and libertarian socialists often tend to disagree about how to organize in struggles. Libertarian socialists are opposed to hierarchical structures and control by parties. Also, MLs and libertarian socialists differ about what the aim would be in a revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation is about the struggle of the working class to free itself, and so it's a question about the whole social structure. So MLs will want to set up a "revolutionary state" throughout the revolutionary territory, but it is the view of the libertarian left that this will tend to genrate a new bureaucratic ruling class. I think this conflict is inevitable.

That said, it's likely that there will be a variety of radical tendencies and organizations within the vanguard. Hence there could exist alliances between, say, a particularly democratic Marxist organization and libertarian socialist organizations...as for example between the POUM and the CNT in the Spanish revolution. But it may be that that alliance was furthered by the fact that the CNT was the much more powerful organization.

[9]

I ask why does there seemingly have to be one tendency that "rules" the revolution and transition phase? Why must one group of the left be what everyone has to do?
Why does the will of a vanguard party have to be imposed onto a community of anarchists? The end goal is the same for them, why not just let them have their space?
The notion i find a lot from M-L are that its their way or the highway, why can't a libertarian society work along side the like of the vanguard party; without being consumed by it?

The only way we can make things work is if we make it work for all organizations of the left, if a community wants to be anarchist let them. There should be no reason for a M-L government to impose upon them. For if you do its no different than imperial colonization, and imposing your rule on the people.

And in turn anarchists do have the tendency to become aggressive towards tendencies that support the use of a party. If a community wants to be apart of such a system who are you to say they can't? Its their choice to do so.

I am not for one second an "M-L", but I think your question is more directed at Marxists in general.

Insofar as the working class is organizing itself, how exactly is it possible for it to forcibly overthrow the bourgeois states and impose its will on the other classes in a tolerant, “non-authoritarian” manner? Its seems a tremendous contradiction; revolution is an extremely “authoritarian” act, as it should be and must be IMHO.

[black magick hustla]

i think the problem with anarchism is that it was, in many senses, unable to break with liberal democratist discourse. when cnt militants were shooting priests for being "fascist sympathizers" and raping nuns one has to wonder if there is such thing as "democratic revolution".

[syndicat]

here we have "left communist" idiocy on display. the talk of CNT activists "raping nuns" was fascist fabrication. in regard to priests, you seem unaware that the Catholic church declared the fascist military campaign to be a "holy crusade". in towns taken over by the military, there would be a committee set up, with a priest, landowner, falange member, cop, military representative. they'd use the police lists of subversives to round up CNT and UGT members and others and murder them and dump the bodies in collective graves. in the '20s the death squads against CNT activists and officials were hired by the Free Union, which was formed by Catholic Carlist skilled workers, with church and employer funding, and backing of the police. The role of the Catholic church in Spain was pretty odious.

[black magick hustla]

here we have "left communist" idiocy on display. the talk of CNT activists "raping nuns" was fascist fabrication.

i think rapes happen in every military conflict. what do you do with millions of militiamen that are angry as fuck?




in regard to priests, you seem unaware that the Catholic church declared the fascist military campaign to be a "holy crusade". in towns taken over by the military, there would be a committee set up, with a priest, landowner, falange member, cop, military representative. they'd use the police lists of subversives to round up CNT and UGT members and others and murder them and dump the bodies in collective graves.

yes. the question arises if there is anything libertarian about rounding 4000 priests and shooting at them (regardless of their political crimes).

[syndicat]

rapes may happen in a military conflict, but you offer no evidence about this being peculiar to CNT members. as for your claim about raping nuns. as I said, that was a well-known fascist fairy tale.


the question arises if there is anything libertarian about rounding 4000 priests and shooting at them (regardless of their political crimes).

evidence of this occurring? the "discourse" (to use your academic lingo) about massacres by anarchists is a characteristic feature of liberal and conservative writing about the Spanish revolution.

in any event, anti-clericalism was endemic in the Spanish left of that era, not peculiar to anarchists. what you ignore is its class dimension and the class role of the Spanish Catholic Church. intead you blubber about "liberal discourse."

[StoneFrog]

Maybe it was a poor choice in word "Authoritarian" and "Libertarian", but i wasn't asking for reasons why each don't work or their defects but why can't they work along side each other.

Why can't there be both Anarchist communities and Marxist-Leninist communities within the same region; with out them fighting themselves?

[MarxSchmarx]

Why can't there be both Anarchist communities and Marxist-Leninist communities within the same region; with out them fighting themselves? The problem is that a lot of anarchist communities will see the ML groundwork being laid for the post-revolutionary society as effectively establish a new class structure - one overseen by the coordinating bureaucrats, with the state apparatus having its own interest independent from the working class.

Several strains of anarchism are of the opinion (quite reasonably, IMHO) that this will lead to the rebirth of class society, and ultimately the restoration of capitalism as the interests of the bureaucrats and "the state" start to become more capitalistic in nature. Such restorationist tendencies are incompatible with the construction of a new society.

Moreover, MLers have a host of complaints against anarchsits - that the election of officers weakens military prowess, that decentralized authority can revert to feudal prejudices, that the tolerance exhibited by anarchists can provide an opening for reactionary ideologies to resume, etc...

As such whilst anarchists and MLers can form tactical alliances of convenience against, say, fascist foes, they are ultimately quite incompatible to develop in parallel inspite their long term agreements.

[ComradeOm]

The end goal is the same for them, why not just let them have their space?The end goal is not the same. Marxists, of any stripe, do not advocate the immediate abolition of all hierarchical state structures and quite often have a very different conception of post-revolution society. Such areas of conflict are then amplified by different means of organisation

During the initial phase of the revolution (ie, the overthrow of the existing state) there is of course plenty of common ground. Talking of an "authoritarian" or "libertarian" revolution is meaningless in this regard. Even if, as in Russia, the influence of the vanguard party is overwhelming, it is still likely to be situated in a broader radical-left alliance


The only way we can make things work is if we make it work for all organizations of the left, if a community wants to be anarchist let them. There should be no reason for a M-L government to impose upon themWhich is a very anarchist view of society

Of course both sides could work together if Marxists suddenly abandoned the idea of a proletarian state or anarchists started enrolling in political parties. But then we're not talking about Marxists and anarchists any more

[Dimentio]

MLs and libertarian socialists often tend to disagree about how to organize in struggles. Libertarian socialists are opposed to hierarchical structures and control by parties. Also, MLs and libertarian socialists differ about what the aim would be in a revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation is about the struggle of the working class to free itself, and so it's a question about the whole social structure. So MLs will want to set up a "revolutionary state" throughout the revolutionary territory, but it is the view of the libertarian left that this will tend to genrate a new bureaucratic ruling class. I think this conflict is inevitable.

That said, it's likely that there will be a variety of radical tendencies and organizations within the vanguard. Hence there could exist alliances between, say, a particularly democratic Marxist organization and libertarian socialist organizations...as for example between the POUM and the CNT in the Spanish revolution. But it may be that that alliance was furthered by the fact that the CNT was the much more powerful organization.

I think it depends on where it is. I've seen anarchists and stalinists march together on several occasions. I just believe they distrust one another - for good reasons that be.