Post Revolutionary Cooperation Between Differing Ideologies

[autonomous bomb thrower]

In a post revolutionary situation what will be done about cooperation between other revolutionary leftist organizations? In the past marxists have been known to supress or crush our anarchist comrades and other non doctrine socialists. What does revleft percieve as the best method to coexist and work problems out with one another.

[ArrowLance]

Well this is an issue i think with the course of the revolution. If the anarchists get their way the state will be abolished more or less completely, while marxists would prefer to take the state and use it for various purposes until it eventually withers away. I believe most anarchists don't see that it is possible for the 'withering away' of the state and so from that point a view it is apparent the state can only be a hindrance.

But say the marxists take control and the state remains. Well then for the anarchists they still see that there is work to be done, their revolution requires the dissolution of the state since they see it as a danger to the revolution. Their work is not done so they want to continue it. But marxists see the state as a tool, and its abrupt disruption by the anarchists would be a danger to the revolution.

So I think that it is natural that the two groups, without some prior agreement or alliance due to fear of disunity, it is only natural that the two groups oppose each other. Other wise the side that backed down would be 'betraying the revolution' in their own mind.

[mosfeld]

For any revolution to succeed it needs to crush revisionist and bourgeois elements in society and the party. Revisionists brought down socialism in both the USSR and PRC, and we've learned valuable lessons from that experience; revisionists are counter-revolutionary, bourgeois capitalist roaders and should be dealt with ruthlessly if socialism is to be established and/or sustained. Revisionists hide behind a mask of revolutionary socialist rhetoric (no revisionist openly declares himself a revisionist) but unmasked you'll clearly see their ugly bourgeois counter-revolutionary faces. So anyways, no, for any post-revolutionary country to succeed and sustain socialism it should not tolerate revisionists, who often hide behind the mask of being "revolutionary leftists", which is why they've been crushed by genuine marxists in the past.

[iskrabronstein]

I think, no offense comrade, that that is a relatively simplistic analysis. The ideal means of socialist transitional government could easily incorporate directly democratic principles in its conception and expressions of policy. There is, at least in my mind, no direct conflict of interests between the goals of socialists and anarchists - I think that the implementation of policy could be cooperative rather than divisive, incorporating the best efforts of BOTH parties.

That is how we secure a revolution - by showing a united front to our enemies and developing policy critically and democratically within the ranks of the revolutionary movement, regardless of sect.

[ArrowLance]

I think, no offense comrade, that that is a relatively simplistic analysis. The ideal means of socialist transitional government could easily incorporate directly democratic principles in its conception and expressions of policy. There is, at least in my mind, no direct conflict of interests between the goals of socialists and anarchists - I think that the implementation of policy could be cooperative rather than divisive, incorporating the best efforts of BOTH parties.

That is how we secure a revolution - by showing a united front to our enemies and developing policy critically and democratically within the ranks of the revolutionary movement, regardless of sect.

This is the problem, different 'sects' have different ideas; some of those ideas oppose each other so strongly both sides think that it could cost the revolution. This means that they will be driven to extra-democratic measures if necessary. I am very skeptical as to how anarchists and Marxists can 'democratically' reach compromises.

[iskrabronstein]

Through parliamentary debate in soviets and party congresses? Through the development of a consistent, egalitarian system of law and adjudication between social interests?

[autonomous bomb thrower]

Through parliamentary debate in soviets and party congresses? Through the development of a consistent, egalitarian system of law and adjudication between social interests?
Say the newly founded socialist state adhered to marxism and anarchists win the majority of seats in the parliament. They would then take the state abolish it and establish communal ownership of the means of production dramatically altering the socio-economic system. Do you not think this constant drastic change would cause turmoil within the system?

[iskrabronstein]

Certainly, but given the relative performances of the Catalonian collectives and the rest of the Spanish republic, even under the conditions of Civil War, it is not at all unrealistic to think that such decentralization would not necessarily destroy the possibility of socialist self-government through soviets and similar workers' organizations that could conceivably reconstitute a centralized government if the need arose. The experience of a socialist state under anarchist rule would, in my mind, be analogous to the performance of the nascent American republic under the Articles of Confederation.

It is to be remembered that anarchism, like several variants of Left Communism, argues for the necessity of world revolution in order to secure the necessary economic and political conditions for the institution of true proletarian democracies. Our differences in policy are deep, true, but they are mostly abstract. Differing political conceptions do not have to preclude cooperation on the ground level of the revolution - we do not have to use bullets to settle our political differences with revolutionary comrades.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Relevant joke(?) from another thread:


"Comrade Hoxha, is it true that you collect political jokes?" — "Yes" — "And how many have you collected so far?" — "Three and a half labor camps."

[CChocobo]

I don't see how this would go over to well. I think the best thing would be us anarchists would need to form our communes in absence of the communists. If they want to implement communism they can, they just don't have the right to impose their ideas on any anarchist commune. It's unfortunate that that's the way it would have to be, but i really don't see how comrades can work together after the revolution. Before the revolution we can definitely work together against capitalism, and fascism. But after the revolution... well that's a whole different story..

[iskrabronstein]

Why could there not be a political plurality in the post-revolutionary state, with the anarchists playing the role of criticizing and streamlining policy, in the manner that bourgeois conservatives do in capitalist states?

Perhaps we have been assuming that the workers themselves will not switch factions among the revolutionary left as policies proposed by each sect prove their success or failure...

[autonomous bomb thrower]

I don't see how this would go over to well. I think the best thing would be us anarchists would need to form our communes in absence of the communists. If they want to implement communism they can, they just don't have the right to impose their ideas on any anarchist commune. It's unfortunate that that's the way it would have to be, but i really don't see how comrades can work together after the revolution. Before the revolution we can definitely work together against capitalism, and fascism. But after the revolution... well that's a whole different story..
If this were the case I find it very difficult in determinig how to allot land between one another. If a state grew and expanded rapidly it would quickly eat up the other absorbing it into its sphere of influence. Also another negative effect would be lack of resources, industry and agriculture in the seperate states but I believe this could be remedied by trade to a certain extent.

[autonomous bomb thrower]

Why could there not be a political plurality in the post-revolutionary state, with the anarchists playing the role of criticizing and streamlining policy, in the manner that bourgeois conservatives do in capitalist states?

Perhaps we have been assuming that the workers themselves will not switch factions among the revolutionary left as policies proposed by each sect prove their success or failure...
If the minority does not accept the majority a dissatisfaction in policies would arise causing a power struggle between different organizations hindering the progress of the state. Much in the way anarchists in the soviets attacked the government.

[The Vegan Marxist]

So are we implying that after the revolution, in which knocks out the Capitalist & Fascist elements, that there'll be one more after such? Anarchist vs. Communist? Why don't we just let "Deadliest Warrior" solve this for us & then go from there? :lol: :thumbup1:

[iskrabronstein]

So are we implying that after the revolution, in which knocks out the Capitalist & Fascist elements, that there'll be one more after such? Anarchist vs. Communist? Why don't we just let "Deadliest Warrior" solve this for us & then go from there? :lol: :thumbup1:

Exactly - it's ridiculous to assume that the development of socialism must be preceded by a bloodbath over which means of development are most effective. If we are truly supporters of workers' democracy, then we must view a post-revolutionary state as the only effective stage for pluralist democratic development of society.

[autonomous bomb thrower]

So are we implying that after the revolution, in which knocks out the Capitalist & Fascist elements, that there'll be one more after such? Anarchist vs. Communist? Why don't we just let "Deadliest Warrior" solve this for us & then go from there? :lol: :thumbup1:
Thats not what I was asking at all. Im not trying to say a blood bath is necessary I am trying to figure out how this or that doctrine socialist can settle their differences peacefully. For when I look back at past revolutions ex: Spain, Russia both communists and anarchists fought each other and it seems it has remained that way since.

[CChocobo]

If this were the case I find it very difficult in determinig how to allot land between one another. If a state grew and expanded rapidly it would quickly eat up the other absorbing it into its sphere of influence. Also another negative effect would be lack of resources, industry and agriculture in the seperate states but I believe this could be remedied by trade to a certain extent.

I could see where problems would still arise, and we would need to figure out how to resolve issues of "spheres of influence" for lack of a better term. I do think communes would obviously have established a form of trade. The only reason i see this working is that, it really would be impossible to have us all agreeing on how society would function. We can agree that anarchists and communists have similar enemies, are against a lot of the same things, but post revolution i just don't see it working to kind of throw everyone together and say "okay now what?"

I'm sure the anarchist collectives can respect the communists and vice versa, we'd have established trade with one another, and i'm sure if any
remanence of capitalists escaped and tried to commence a coup against us (anarchist or communist) i'm sure we'd have some sort of alliance to come to the aid of one another. (at least it'd be nice to assume so)

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is all I have to truly say on the matter. As a Marxist-Leninist, I don't care if an anarchist revolution took place. If one did, then I'll fight with them & help them as best as I could. If they destroyed the State immediately, under which is part of their revolutionary process to Communism, then I'll help them try & gain such, especially when major Capitalist powers will try & disrupt said process. I have nothing against Anarchists whatsoever. I use to be one! They are Comrades in my eyes. But here's where things get interesting. I know too many anarchists who are fucking stubborn! They don't view Marxist-Leninist's as their Comrades, even if the vice versa is true. If an anarchist revolution started, I'd fight with them, & after it, I'd help them build Communism their way. But if a Communist revolution took place, I would like for the Anarchists to show the same respect through workers solidarity & help us, after the revolution is won, build Communism under OUR way. Communism will never be achieved without an international communal group effort!

[syndicat]

It's best to keep in mind that the more coherent class struggle anarchists believe in workers power and in a form of popular power to replace the state. So it depends upon whether 1. the Marxist currents are willing to accept and support direct worker self-management of industry, and 2. a form of popular power based on direct participation of working class people and an open-ness to revolutionary pluralism.

after all, what the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists proposed in Sept 1936 was a revolutionary council in which all working class political tendencies would share power, because it would be working class power. if an ML group is vanguardist and insists on power for its party, that is a problem, but it's not a problem if widely shared working class power and free debate and discussion within the working class is respected.

[Tablo]

I feel it is certainly possible for Anarchists and Marxists to work together in a post revolutionary society working to develop Communism. As long as the Marxists allow the high level of democratic institutions Anarchist desire then things will work out good.

The whole issue is when we have a situation like the USSR. I am not a big fan of Leninism and I can't see Anarchists doing to well with Leninist Marxists if they try to establish a strong state.

It is quite depressing because we all want the same thing in the end, but the means to reach that end divide us to the point we have fought and killed one another in the past. I really can't support a "Workers State" and I wish that such a disagreement wouldn't cause so much conflict and bloodshed. This is one of the most depressing things with revolutionary struggle. We are all good guys fighting for true freedom, but we fight each other over the means by which to achieve our goal. :(

[S.Artesian]

I could see where problems would still arise, and we would need to figure out how to resolve issues of "spheres of influence" for lack of a better term. I do think communes would obviously have established a form of trade. The only reason i see this working is that, it really would be impossible to have us all agreeing on how society would function. We can agree that anarchists and communists have similar enemies, are against a lot of the same things, but post revolution i just don't see it working to kind of throw everyone together and say "okay now what?"

I'm sure the anarchist collectives can respect the communists and vice versa, we'd have established trade with one another, and i'm sure if any
remanence of capitalists escaped and tried to commence a coup against us (anarchist or communist) i'm sure we'd have some sort of alliance to come to the aid of one another. (at least it'd be nice to assume so)


Maybe we can let the workers decide this, rather than assume that we, Marxists, Communists, communists, anarchist individuals will be the ones to make the decision.

Maybe we participate in developing the organizations of such strong, democratic, revolutionary, insightful, workers' class rule [as a transition of course to the abolition of the class distinction of "workers" altogether] that the workers even allot "anarchist commune zones" within the economy, if the anarchists disagree with the central direction of the economy-- and everybody sees how that works out.

Maybe we keep in mind the experience of revolutions of the past, the English, the French, Russian, and Spanish-- that once the proclaimed or appointed, or even organic, leadership of the revolution condemns and executes its own left wing, then it's not long before the revolution, if itself not liquidated takes on the characteristics of those conditions that fomented the revolution in the first place.