Help in the transition from anarchism to traditional communism?

[fa2991]

I've been an anarcho-communist for a while now and I've been giving my philosophy a good hard look lately and for a number of reasons have been finding it empty.

I don't want to go into the reasons in too much detail, but I should give a couple of them a brief treatment.

For one thing, it seems to me that (in a way) anarchists are a barrier to anarchism in the sense that I understand anarchism - i.e. as practically synonymous with pure communism. The anarchist "movement" nowadays is, let's face it, almost entirely useless. My interests in anarchism ends where it stops being a theory of communist revolution, and in a world of anarchism dominated by Crimethinc-esque lifestyleism, what's the point? Modern anarchism has almost no penetration in the working class in any meaningful way and despite waving a few black flags, breaking a few windows, and producing a lot of repetitive literature, it has made almost no progress in any meaningful way in a long, long time. Marxists haven't exactly freed the world, but state socialism is making at least SOME gains. Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, the resurgence of pro-communist thought in Russia, and the Nepal revolution - that's something at least. And the state socialists still have respectable institutions, journals, and intellectuals, like the International Marxist Tendency, the International Socialist Review, and David Harvey. Anarchism has Noam Chomsky. That's about it. And you don't hear him talking about the wonders of anarchists much - he's too busy praising Chavez and their ilk. Even pre-Chomsky, anarchist theory hasn't really evolved at all since the days of Kropotkin, whereas Marxism seems to be constantly changing and expanding.

Secondly, in a less pragmatic objection, it seems to me that a logical theory of anarchism is very close to a traditional communist one, just less efficient. Any halfway intelligent anarchist will tell you how anarchists want a carefully organized and ordered society, etc. where alternate institutions will replace the state, like revolutionary trade unions. But wouldn't creating a worker's state be a much more efficient way to build alternate, libertarian institutions? Anarchism, after all, basically requires the building of massive alternative organizations pre-revolution, which suddenly seems impractical to me.

But these objections aren't why I'm posting. I'm posting to ask the non-anarchistic communists for some help understanding more traditional currents of communism. I've never been a Marxist, etc. at any time in my life, making the leap straight from capitalist to anarcho-communist, so I don't have as brilliant a grasp on it as I should (though I have read most of Marx's main works, including Capital). So, I have some questions to hopefully help me make a more informed decision as I (probably) drift to a philosophy of communism at least a little to the right of anarchism. Thanks in advance for helpful answers.

1. What is the Leninist explanation for why more or less every Leninist revolution seems to end either in a reversion to capitalism (China, the Soviet Union, probably Vietnam in the near future) or a repressive, closed state clearly not based on popular power (Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the former USSR, etc.)? What do Leninists propose to do in the future to prevent this degeneration into tyranny? Why have Leninist revolutions consistently failed to create workers' states? Why does Leninism's staying power always seemed to lean heavily on one person - Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc.?

2. Why have Leninist states failed to create adequate barriers to abuse of power or dictatorial control by figures like Mao and Stalin? Surely disasters like the Great Leap Forward could have been avoided by some basic checks and balances.

3. In Luxemburgism/council communism, how would the state function and what would it consist of beyond workers' councils? Would the councils serve as local governments and be held together by a more solid national or international government?

4. Why, exactly, is the labor theory of value valid? Despite my personal love of Marx's work, I must admit that the laissez faire capitalists' marginal utility theory seems to make more sense than Marx's theories about socially necessary labor time. It's a stupid example, but doesn't the MU theory explain why, for example, a water bottle Elvis drank from has so much exchange value? I mean, that's not really a commodity that even has a socially necessary labor time.

5. How is it possible for Marxian economics to be "scientific"?

6. Could someone please give me a general overview of dialectical materialism? I believe I understand it, but my understanding is no doubt riddled with leftover bourgeois prejudices and misconceptions.

7. Why is it that "communist" revolutions have always broken out in developing nations that aren't advanced industrially to the point where socialism could be readily successful? Doesn't this invalidate much of Marx's dialectic? Why have there been no successful revolutions in the industrialized nations, as Marx predicted? How would you even go about creating a Marxist revolution in the US or UK or wherever?

Haven't all attempts to industrialize a nation after skipping the capitalist phase of the dialectic been unsuccessful?

8. Doesn't creating a vanguard party invite a party dictatorship and eventual tyranny, as seen in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.?

...

Thanks for your patience in reading that, everyone. I hope you can help me through my shift in ideology.

[AK]

Even pre-Chomsky, anarchist theory hasn't really evolved at all since the days of Kropotkin, whereas Marxism seems to be constantly changing and expanding.
But those who change Marxism are usually labelled as "revisionists". A term lacking concrete definition and proper usage and thus meaningless.


Secondly, in a less pragmatic objection, it seems to me that a logical theory of anarchism is very close to a traditional communist one,
It has been said that no-tendency Marxism bears extreme similarity to anarchism if practised properly. The differences are mainly in theory (i.e. differences in class analysis and some basic principles, etc.).


just less efficient.
I would object to the efficiency argument as an anarchist society may even be more efficient than a Leninist one (you may not be referring to Leninism, but keep in mind that most Marxists are Leninists) as there would be no bureaucracy at all (nearly everything is organised at a community level). This means that peoples' needs, wants and concerns would be listened to and acted upon much more often, unlike what would happen in a hierarchical system.


Any halfway intelligent anarchist will tell you how anarchists want a carefully organized and ordered society, etc. where alternate institutions will replace the state, like revolutionary trade unions. But wouldn't creating a worker's state be a much more efficient way to build alternate, libertarian institutions? Anarchism, after all, basically requires the building of massive alternative organizations pre-revolution, which suddenly seems impractical to me.
There is no such thing as a workers' state in the sense that the state is a tool of the ruling class (unless there are some stupid Marxists that actually want class society and lower classes). Supporters of a workers' state do not consider it to be a state in it's traditional sense at all. Whenever someone supports a workers' state, they actually support one of two things:


Some Marxists (predominantly of the Leninist variety) actually support the creation of a state in it's traditional sense (although this is nearly always due to oversight). They support a centralised government, state ownership and bureaucrats to manage the economy. In an anarchist class analysis, those bureaucrats and state officials constitute a ruling class, and thus the centralised government is a state in it's traditional sense.
Other Marxists (predominantly Libertarian Marxists like Luxemburgists, Council Communists, Autonomists, etc.) sometimes support what they term a state or they even completely reject the state as a transitional necessity. But as the forms of government they propose do not propagate a ruling class, it can be said that they do not propose a state.


1. What is the Leninist explanation for why more or less every Leninist revolution seems to end either in a reversion to capitalism (China, the Soviet Union, probably Vietnam in the near future) or a repressive, closed state clearly not based on popular power (Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, the former USSR, etc.)? What do Leninists propose to do in the future to prevent this degeneration into tyranny? Why have Leninist revolutions consistently failed to create workers' states? Why does Leninism's staying power always seemed to lean heavily on one person - Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc.?
The Leninist (specifically anti-revisionist) explanation is that they were hijacked and corrupted by "revisionists". Trotskyists say that these were state capitalist and the USSR became a "degenerated workers' state", whilst any purportedly "socialist" state after that was classified as a "deformed workers' state".


2. Why have Leninist states failed to create adequate barriers to abuse of power or dictatorial control by figures like Mao and Stalin? Surely disasters like the Great Leap Forward could have been avoided by some basic checks and balances.
Most Leninist groups advocate for party rule/party dictatorship (although they generally support workplace democracy and autonomy at a local level).


3. In Luxemburgism/council communism, how would the state function and what would it consist of beyond workers' councils? Would the councils serve as local governments and be held together by a more solid national or international government?
There wouldn't be a state, as such.


4. Why, exactly, is the labor theory of value valid? Despite my personal love of Marx's work, I must admit that the laissez faire capitalists' marginal utility theory seems to make more sense than Marx's theories about socially necessary labor time. It's a stupid example, but doesn't the MU theory explain why, for example, a water bottle Elvis drank from has so much exchange value? I mean, that's not really a commodity that even has a socially necessary labor time.
I'm not that great with economics, but I can safely say that I wouldn't buy Elvis' old water bottle for anything like what they could be selling it for.


5. How is it possible for Marxian economics to be "scientific"?
I'm not sure how to affirm this exactly, but I can disprove capitalist economics in a few words: capitalists support emotion-based resource allocation. This is bound to lead to disaster.


6. Could someone please give me a general overview of dialectical materialism? I believe I understand it, but my understanding is no doubt riddled with leftover bourgeois prejudices and misconceptions.
Christ, I wish I knew what dialectical materialism was.


7. Why is it that "communist" revolutions have always broken out in developing nations that aren't advanced industrially to the point where socialism could be readily successful? Doesn't this invalidate much of Marx's dialectic? Why have there been no successful revolutions in the industrialized nations, as Marx predicted?
I would recommend to you this text: Their Socialism And Ours (http://www.easy-share.com/1911312788/their%20socialism%20and%20ours.pdf).


How would you even go about creating a Marxist revolution in the US or UK or wherever?
You would go about conducting a revolution (overthrow of the ruling class and - if you are a true communist - abolishing class society) anywhere by having the workers' seize direct control of the means of production and the greater economy and establishing alternative government based on communes, etc.


Haven't all attempts to industrialize a nation after skipping the capitalist phase of the dialectic been unsuccessful?
Define "successful". The Soviet Union was greatly industrialised due to increased demand during World War 2. It was a success in purely material terms, but it didn't necessarily work to ultimate advantage of the working class.


8. Doesn't creating a vanguard party invite a party dictatorship and eventual tyranny, as seen in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.?
Having a party become the central point of revolution isn't dangerous so much as it sometimes tends to ignore the point of workers' control of the means of production and workers' self-government. This situation has in the past led to workers being stabbed in the back as both old and new administrators quickly started to take over control of the economy and secure their class interests. I would also object to having a party that aims to seize control of the state and/or economy post-revolution leading the working class. Only sheep need leaders. The role of a revolutionary organisation should be purely to agitate the working class and arm if necessary.


Thanks for your patience in reading that, everyone. I hope you can help me through my shift in ideology.
Shift from anarchism? I hope not.

[fa2991]

But those who change Marxism are usually labelled as "revisionists". A term lacking concrete definition and proper usage and thus meaningless.

Labels aside, Marxism has been expanded and reinvented countless times and applied in many ways. Can't really say the same for anarchism, which seems a bit fixed.



It has been said that no-tendency Marxism bears extreme similarity to anarchism if practised properly. The differences are mainly in theory (i.e. differences in class analysis and some basic principles, etc.).
What I meant in saying that anarchism is similar to traditional communism was that when you work through anarchism's holes and problems and think about building proper institutions and the like, you end up with something very similar to a state.

For example, the anarchists' "worker's patrols" during the Spanish Revolution. Cops by another name, really. That's just one example, but it often seems to me that ultimately an anarchist revolution would look a bit like a Marxist one by another name, though (like I said) less efficient.


I would object to the efficiency argument as an anarchist society may even be more efficient than a Leninist one (you may not be referring to Leninism, but keep in mind that most Marxists are Leninists) as there would be no bureaucracy at all (nearly everything is organised at a community level). This means that peoples' needs, wants and concerns would be listened to and acted upon much more often, unlike what would happen in a hierarchical system.But to get to that point, there need to be certain institutions and configurations in place already to initiate the anarchist revolution. You can't just destroy everything and have an anarchist society right away - everything has to be prepared for. In a way, anarchism demands that a fully developed communist society be created within capitalism pre-revolution, and that seems inefficient and impractical to me. Leninism would be more efficient in that the sweeping reforms and reconstruction come post-revolution, if that makes sense.



The Leninist (specifically anti-revisionist) explanation is that they were hijacked and corrupted by "revisionists". Trotskyists say that these were state capitalist and the USSR became a "degenerated workers' state", whilst any purportedly "socialist" state after that was classified as a "deformed workers' state".
Yeah, I've heard that line before. That's why I'm asking Leninists on here directly - to see if they can do better than that, because those answers seem like quite a dodge to me, like when you bring up Cuba's human rights record and people respond by complaining about the US embargo on Cuba.



I would recommend to you this text: .Apparently someone else on this IP address is already downloading an easyshare file, so I'll have to read it later.



You would go about conducting a revolution (overthrow of the ruling class and - if you are a true communist - abolishing class society) anywhere by having the workers' seize direct control of the means of production and the greater economy and establishing alternative government based on communes, etc.Well, of course, but on a more practical level... like, I can't imagine what the first step in a revolution would be, as far as dismantling or co-opting the government.



Having a party become the central point of revolution isn't dangerous so much as it sometimes tends to ignore the point of workers' control of the means of production and workers' self-government. This situation has in the past led to workers being stabbed in the back as both old and new administrators quickly started to take over control of the economy and secure their class interests. I would also object to having a party that aims to seize control of the state and/or economy post-revolution leading the working class. Only sheep need leaders. The role of a revolutionary organisation should be purely to agitate the working class and arm if necessary.Well, if a state were conducted properly, "leaders" wouldn't be leaders, but simply tools of the people. Having chosen (and recallable) representatives is a very efficient form of organization. The question, really, is whether it is possibile for a vanguard party to actually do its job...



Shift from anarchism? I hope not.Perhaps. Frankly, I don't see the point of sticking with it any longer.

[ContrarianLemming]

The anarchist "movement" nowadays is, let's face it, almost entirely useless. My interests in anarchism ends where it stops being a theory of communist revolution, and in a world of anarchism dominated by Crimethinc-esque lifestyleism, what's the point?

In what way is marxism anymore succesful?
The above is stereotyping, you have no knowledge of the mass anarchist movement, however I should point out that almost all modern litterature, almost all orginizations and almost all our rallies, our famous people and our sites are social anarchist


Modern anarchism has almost no penetration in the working class in any meaningful way and despite waving a few black flags, breaking a few windows, and producing a lot of repetitive literature, it has made almost no progress in any meaningful way in a long, long time.

You marginalization of the actions of anarchists within movements which have improved the lives of average people is noted!

Marxism is no more succesful


Marxists haven't exactly freed the world, but state socialism is making at least SOME gains. Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, the resurgence of pro-communist thought in Russia, and the Nepal revolution - that's something at least.

You don't belong in anarchist if you suffer from sovietphilia.


And the state socialists still have respectable institutions, journals, and intellectuals, like the International Marxist Tendency, the International Socialist Review, and David Harvey. Anarchism has Noam Chomsky. That's about it. And you don't hear him talking about the wonders of anarchists much - he's too busy praising Chavez and their ilk. Even pre-Chomsky, anarchist theory hasn't really evolved at all since the days of Kropotkin, whereas Marxism seems to be constantly changing and expanding.

You imply above that theories need to change and flow, anarchism has, far more then marxism since the 60's, it hs not been good change though.
The theory which almost all marxists ascribe to is Marxist Leninism which, if we're following your line of thought, is from way back, so marxism hasn't really "developed" (if we're going to be consistent with our standards) since Lenin.
You also marginalize the many anarchist groups,the IWA, the IWW (somewhat), the WSA, murray bookchins fantastic work, Michael Albert and Parecon.


in a less pragmatic objection, it seems to me that a logical theory of anarchism is very close to a traditional communist one, just less efficient. Any halfway intelligent anarchist will tell you how anarchists want a carefully organized and ordered society, etc. where alternate institutions will replace the state, like revolutionary trade unions. But wouldn't creating a worker's state be a much more efficient way to build alternate, libertarian institutions? Anarchism, after all, basically requires the building of massive alternative organizations pre-revolution, which suddenly seems impractical to me.

You, like so many others, equate "hierarchy" with order and efficiancy. If the vangaurd party is not hierarchal then it really isn't any different from anarchist vangaurd orginizations, like the FAI of the CNT.

I wont divei nto any of the questions, per your request.

forgive my spelling mistakes, my usual spellcheck isn't working.

[ContrarianLemming]

Labels aside, Marxism has been expanded and reinvented countless times and applied in many ways. Can't really say the same for anarchism, which seems a bit fixed.this^ is not true, but you have already said you don't know much about either.
Marxism has a bunch of different theories, but almost all of them are leninists, which is older then anarcho syndicalism, so you're being hypocritical


What I meant in saying that anarchism is similar to traditional communism was that when you work through anarchism's holes and problems and think about building proper institutions and the like, you end up with something very similar to a state.

For example, the anarchists' "worker's patrols" during the Spanish Revolution. Cops by another name, really. That's just one example, but it often seems to me that ultimately an anarchist revolution would look a bit like a Marxist one by another name, though (like I said) less efficient.A state is the organized institution of one class over another.
Anarchists arn't against cops, no one is honestly against cops when theres crime.

the problem here is tat you don't know enough about your own ideology.
Almost all your objections just dont ring true to me.

You say that an anarchist revolution is a lot like a marxist one, but less efficiant, but I translate this as "like a marxist revolution, but less hierarchal". Less efficiant because....?
Leninists propose that to get to communism you must greatly increase the power of the state in the hands of a vangaurd party. Some consistently is appreciated.


Perhaps. Frankly, I don't see the point of sticking with it any longer. To be blunt, your reasons are built on a lack of knowledge of anarchism and marxism, you contradict yourself. A proper marxist revolution (that you are going for I assume) would as you say look like an anarchist one, only the degerted worker state ones are authoritarian, which seems also to be what your praising. You other cirticisms are built on stereotypes and could easilly apply to Marxism, and I hope my corrections are taken as true.

What sort of revolution do you want? I garuntee you that what you describe will be an anarchist revolution.
I also wanted to stop calling myself a libertarian socialist, anarchist, whatever, if only for the "intellectual" pedigree for marxism, but it's all built on stereotypes, claiming that anarchists mostly want to break windows is no mroe to the point then saying marxists are all intellengsia

[AK]

What I meant in saying that anarchism is similar to traditional communism was that when you work through anarchism's holes and problems and think about building proper institutions and the like, you end up with something very similar to a state.
Believe it or not, it is possible to have institutions that one may find in a state (police force, standing army/organised militia of some sort, etc.) in a stateless society. Anarchism doesn't have to negate organisation, technology and co-ordination just because we won't have a ruling class.


For example, the anarchists' "worker's patrols" during the Spanish Revolution. Cops by another name, really. That's just one example, but it often seems to me that ultimately an anarchist revolution would look a bit like a Marxist one by another name, though (like I said) less efficient.
I already said we would have police. That point is irrelevant. Do you want to live in a stereotypical anarchy or an actual free society?

The reason why anarchist revolution would look like a Marxist revolution is because both ideologies have analysed capitalism and how to overthrow it. You can't have it any other way.


But to get to that point, there need to be certain institutions and configurations in place already to initiate the anarchist revolution. You can't just destroy everything and have an anarchist society right away - everything has to be prepared for. In a way, anarchism demands that a fully developed communist society be created within capitalism pre-revolution, and that seems inefficient and impractical to me. Leninism would be more efficient in that the sweeping reforms and reconstruction come post-revolution, if that makes sense.
I differ with a lot of other anarchists in that I don't think there must really be a need for pre-existing institutions of self-government before revolution. Besides, even if it were the case that there needed to be some communes pre-existing, do you really think we don't expect new communes to pop up and become autonomous during the revolution?


Well, of course, but on a more practical level... like, I can't imagine what the first step in a revolution would be, as far as dismantling or co-opting the government.
Ok, try workplace occupations, general strikes, street battles most likely occurring due to resisting the authority of the ruling class in the way of forming alternative government (and thus not following the state's commands) and workers taking control of their workplaces and conducting production and distribution in their own manner (effectively rendering the private property rights useless and ridding the capitalists of their private property).

That sounds like the overthrow of a ruling class to me.


Well, if a state were conducted properly, "leaders" wouldn't be leaders, but simply tools of the people. Having chosen (and recallable) representatives is a very efficient form of organization. The question, really, is whether it is possibile for a vanguard party to actually do its job...
As a communist, you should know that class is determined by material and social factors and that you can change classes as quickly as material and social factors change. Essentially, you can elect individual members of the populous to the position of ruling class to let them do their own thing which you may not necessarily agree with and if enough people see it your way you can vote them out. That doesn't sound like a viable system/solution to me. We ought to have delegates. They essentially are messengers for our opinions and positions on matters. It is direct democracy. Anything else that is branded as democracy is a contradiction. Representative democracy is a good example: democracy means rule of the people but in representative democracy it is only a small section of the population that rule.

[AK]

I just want to add that having an organised and co-ordinated institution does not necessarily equal a state. A state is any governmental institution which is used to maintain the rule of a ruling class.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marxism has a bunch of different theories, but almost all of them are leninists, which is older then anarcho syndicalism, so you're being hypocritical"We came from the future to kick De Leon out!"

[Zanthorus]

7. Why is it that "communist" revolutions have always broken out in developing nations that aren't advanced industrially to the point where socialism could be readily successful? Doesn't this invalidate much of Marx's dialectic? Why have there been no successful revolutions in the industrialized nations, as Marx predicted? How would you even go about creating a Marxist revolution in the US or UK or wherever?

Well the basic idea in the Russian revolution at least was that Russia was the "weak link in the Imperialist" chain and if it fell it would be a signpost to working class revolutions in the west. Marx and Engels themselves had endorsed this tactic in the 1882 preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto:


The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

Although the Bolsheviks never made a big deal out of the Obschina as Marx did they still held to the same basic idea that Socialist revolution in Russia would only be possible if it served as the starting point for revolution in advanced industrial countries. So the question is were Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky correct in their assessment that the fall of Russia would lbe a starting gun for european wide revolution? On the face of it at least the answer is in the affirmative. The Russian revolution was the start of a massive revolutionary wave which affected over thirty countries and had expressions in events such as the November revolution and Spartacist uprisings in Germany, the biennio rosso in Italy and the British Shop-Steward Committees movement. For a brief period there was even a revolution and a Soviet republic established in Hungary although it fell again. The wave also had echoes as late as 1927 in China. In terms of mental support the Red October certainly had a big effect as it helped inspire many people in the west to turn to Communism. On the other hand the same effect would've happened if the revolution had been successful anywhere. The idea that the bringing down of the "weak link in the Imperialist chain" helped to spark the rest of the revolutionary wave also ignores the impact of the First world war in shaking up conditions in many advanced countries.

My own personal opinion is that the "revolution in backwards countries to help bring down the evil western Imperialists" tactic has been a resounding failure. It's only contribution has been to transform Marxism from a universalist ideology of human emancipation into an ideology for the industrialisation of backwards countries under the same "Free", "People's" state's that Marx criticised in the Critique of the Gotha program.

Now onto the question of why revolution has so far not been succesful in advanced countries and how this can be counteracted. Well the main problem is that the labour movement for the past eighty or so years has been in the grasp of "Official Communism" and Social-Democracy. Most of the Left had tied itself in some way to Capital by attempting "entryism" into one of these groups or by offering some form of "critical support" to actually-existing-socialism. The way out of this crisis I would suggest is a regrouping of all the elements not tied to Capital in someway (Internationalist Anarchists, Council Communists, Bordigists, some DeLeonists) for a renewal of the Communist movement based on a proper understanding of the current epoch of world history.

On these questions you might find some of Loren Goldner's work (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/) very interesting. I reccomend his piece on Bordiga (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/bordiga.html) as a starting point because it will also introduce you to Bordiga :D

I should probably offer a disclaimer that as a Left-Communist I'm a racist eurocentric and therefore my opinion is invalid.


8. Doesn't creating a vanguard party invite a party dictatorship and eventual tyranny, as seen in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc.?

Not if the party's role isn't to seize state power but instead to attempt to get it's program recognised as the correct one in the instruments of working class political control.


But those who change Marxism are usually labelled as "revisionists". A term lacking concrete definition and proper usage and thus meaningless.

When Kautsky, Lenin and Luxemburg used the term "Revisionist" it had a definite meaning though. The revisionists wanted to repudiate all the basic tenents of Marxism and make parliamentary alliances with the liberal bourgeoisie as well as repudiating revolution in favour of gradual evolution towards socialism.


There is no such thing as a workers' state in the sense that the state is a tool of the ruling class (unless there are some stupid Marxists that actually want class society and lower classes).

That is the point though. In the transitional stage there will still be non-proletarian classes against whom measures will have to be taken in order to keep on the road to Communism. Although this is not a State in the traditional sense it is undeniable that it performs functions that would still mark it out as a state if we take a class view of the state.

It is however correct that the state is not seen as a traditional state. The ICC uses terms like "semi-State" and "Commune-State" to designate the state in the period of transition (On which subject I believe their article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2648) is actually the best out there).

[Forward Union]

Syndicalism was around in some form or other before marx was born.

[Forward Union]

Marxism has a bunch of different theories, but almost all of them are leninists, which is older then anarcho syndicalism, so you're being hypocritical

Syndicalism was around before Marx was even born. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourses_du_Travail

Anarcho Syndicalist Unions were up and Running on an interntaional while Lenin was at University.

[ZeroNowhere]

I should probably offer a disclaimer that as a Left-Communist I'm a racist eurocentric and therefore my opinion is invalid.This, incidentally, was brilliant.


There is no such thing as a workers' state in the sense that the state is a tool of the ruling class (unless there are some stupid Marxists that actually want class society and lower classes).Well, we do aim for the proletariat to be organized as ruling class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm), so as to get rid of class society. In order to accomplish this, the working class must represent its own particular interest as the general interest, and enforce the expropriation of the expropriators.


Further, it follows that every class which is struggling for mastery, even when its domination, as is the case with the proletariat, postulates the abolition of the old form of society in its entirety and of domination itself, must first conquer for itself political power in order to represent its interest in turn as the general interest, which in the first moment it is forced to do.

[fa2991]

In what way is marxism anymore succesful?
The above is stereotyping, you have no knowledge of the mass anarchist movement, however I should point out that almost all modern litterature, almost all orginizations and almost all our rallies, our famous people and our sites are social anarchist

I'm fairly certain there isn't a mass anarchist movement at the present, which is part of the problem.


You marginalization of the actions of anarchists within movements which have improved the lives of average people is noted!

It seems to me that anarchists haven't really been a force in such movements in quite some time. I don't think it's marginalizing them if they aren't really there.



You don't belong in anarchist if you suffer from sovietphilia.


Don't, really.



You also marginalize the many anarchist groups,the IWA, the IWW (somewhat), the WSA, murray bookchins fantastic work, Michael Albert and Parecon.


Actually, it would probably be better if I weren't as aware of Murray Bookchin's fantastic work, notably the biting critiques of the anarchist movement he released later in life, when he gave up on anarchism. They have been crucial to my disillusionment with anarchism.

I support the IWW, but even that admirable organization is pretty tiny at the moment. The last estimate I heard put their membership at only about 2,000 people.

It's hard to marginalize marginal groups.


You, like so many others, equate "hierarchy" with order and efficiancy.

Nope, sorry if I gave that impression. It just seems to me that anarchists generally end up having to create hierarchy for things to run sensibly. Then what's the real differentiation with Marxism?

[nuisance]

I'm fairly certain there isn't a mass anarchist movement at the present, which is part of the problem.



It seems to me that anarchists haven't really been a force in such movements in quite some time. I don't think it's marginalizing them if they aren't really there.




Don't, really.




Actually, it would probably be better if I weren't as aware of Murray Bookchin's fantastic work, notably the biting critiques of the anarchist movement he released later in life, when he gave up on anarchism. They have been crucial to my disillusionment with anarchism.

I support the IWW, but even that admirable organization is pretty tiny at the moment. The last estimate I heard put their membership at only about 2,000 people.

It's hard to marginalize marginal groups.



Nope, sorry if I gave that impression. It just seems to me that anarchists generally end up having to create hierarchy for things to run sensibly. Then what's the real differentiation with Marxism?
This all adds up to a need of a change in strategy, not a turn to another dogma. This is something that insurrectionist and post-left anarchists have been trying to develop through experimenting with different activities, whether it be larger organising or sabotage.

[Nachie]

Becoming a "Marxist" or a "communist" does NOT mean you have to justify swallowing all the Leninist bullshit. Vanguard parties and all that garbage are perversions not just of true Marxism but of any legitimately liberatory revolutionary project.

You should just join RAAN, where anti-state commies and anarchos of all stripes are one big happy family :)

[fa2991]

Believe it or not, it is possible to have institutions that one may find in a state (police force, standing army/organised militia of some sort, etc.) in a stateless society. Anarchism doesn't have to negate organisation, technology and co-ordination just because we won't have a ruling class.

In a sense, the inability for anarchists nowadays to understand that is a major reason I'm sick of them.

This

[I can't post links; it's the pie-in-the-face for Lierre Keith at the anarchist book fair]

and this

[Can't post links; it's Crimethinc literature]

encapsulate the modern anarchist movement for me. And that's within the "social" anarchist movement. Surely I'm not the only one disturbed by the rising number of propertarian "anarchists" lately.



I differ with a lot of other anarchists in that I don't think there must really be a need for pre-existing institutions of self-government before revolution. Besides, even if it were the case that there needed to be some communes pre-existing, do you really think we don't expect new communes to pop up and become autonomous during the revolution?
You're the first I've met in a while. To just do away with capitalism and the state anarchist-style without any existing institutions to step up or fall back on would probably be a colossal failure.


Ok, try workplace occupations, general strikes, street battles most likely occurring due to resisting the authority of the ruling class in the way of forming alternative government (and thus not following the state's commands) and workers taking control of their workplaces and conducting production and distribution in their own manner (effectively rendering the private property rights useless and ridding the capitalists of their private property).

That sounds like the overthrow of a ruling class to me.How many times have anarchists been involved with that lately? Except for "street battles" (i.e. childish destruction of property and confrontations with police) all of those things go on independently of anarchism.



We ought to have delegates. They essentially are messengers for our opinions and positions on matters. It is direct democracy. Anything else that is branded as democracy is a contradiction. Representative democracy is a good example: democracy means rule of the people but in representative democracy it is only a small section of the population that rule.
It's really splitting hairs to differentiate between "delegates" and "representatives." If both can be readily recalled, they are the exact same thing.

[fa2991]

This all adds up to a need of a change in strategy, not a turn to another dogma. This is something that insurrectionist and post-left anarchists have been trying to develop through experimenting with different activities, whether it be larger organising or sabotage.

In a way, the shift from any communist ideology to another is just a shift in strategy, since we all (theoretically) have the same end goal. I'll definitely pass on post-left anarchism. I read too much Bookchin to take post-leftists seriously.

[Nachie]

In a way, the shift from any communist ideology to another is just a shift in strategy, since we all (theoretically) have the same end goal.
*facepalm*

[Zanthorus]

Becoming a "Marxist" or a "communist" does NOT mean you have to justify swallowing all the Leninist bullshit. Vanguard parties and all that garbage are perversions not just of true Marxism but of any legitimately liberatory revolutionary project.

On the contrary, any legitimately liberatory revolutionary project is impossible without "vanguardism". Broad economist tactics can't possibly win people over to a revolutionary perspective.

[black magick hustla]

Becoming a "Marxist" or a "communist" does NOT mean you have to justify swallowing all the Leninist bullshit. Vanguard parties and all that garbage are perversions not just of true Marxism but of any legitimately liberatory revolutionary project.

You should just join RAAN, where anti-state commies and anarchos of all stripes are one big happy family :)
lenin was great

[black magick hustla]

ive read too much bordiga to be come a lenin hating anarchist as i was b4

[AK]

In a sense, the inability for anarchists nowadays to understand that is a major reason I'm sick of them.

[...]encapsulate the modern anarchist movement for me. And that's within the "social" anarchist movement. Surely I'm not the only one disturbed by the rising number of propertarian "anarchists" lately.
Maybe you should stay to be an anarchist and try to help reform the movement into one that isn't the stereotypical black bloc of hooligans and vandals.


You're the first I've met in a while. To just do away with capitalism and the state anarchist-style without any existing institutions to step up or fall back on would probably be a colossal failure.
Revolution itself entails ignoring the authority of the ruling class (as well as abolishing class society itself). In the past, it has been shown that militant workers are very quick to form factory committees and workers' councils. Communes are generally set up almost as quickly.


How many times have anarchists been involved with that lately? Except for "street battles" (i.e. childish destruction of property and confrontations with police) all of those things go on independently of anarchism.
Fuck bullshit stereotypes. There is a difference between the majority of self-proclaimed "anarchists" and people who typically are familiar with the theory are aim to follow the anarchist principles.


It's really splitting hairs to differentiate between "delegates" and "representatives." If both can be readily recalled, they are the exact same thing.
They are not the same. In actual fact, delegates are the real representatives of those who they represent. They do not have the authority to choose any other opinion or position on a matter other than what the majority of their commune has voted for. "Representatives" on the other hand have the authority to make their own decisions and ignore any concept of actual peoples' - I say peoples' because there should not be any classes in a post-revolutionary society. Ignore anyone who claims I am some sort of closet nationalist - rule - democracy. Delegates are actually the peoples' voice. Representatives are authoritarian figures whom we vote for.

[Zanthorus]

I think it was mikelepore who once said that he'd never give up a great idea just because the rest of it's followers were idiots and if necessary he'd start his own movement of just one. I've paraphrased it pretty roughly but that was the jist of it.

On the whole delegates/representatives issues, this is funnily enough one of the issues Marx brings up in the critique of Hegel's philosophy of right:


The contradiction appears two-fold:

1. Formal. The delegates of civil society are a society whose members are connected by the form of instruction or commission with those who commission them. They are formally commissioned, but once they are actual they are no longer commissioned. They are supposed to be delegates, and they are not.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch06.htm#053

[AK]

The contradiction appears two-fold:

1. Formal. The delegates of civil society are a society whose members are connected by the form of instruction or commission with those who commission them. They are formally commissioned, but once they are actual they are no longer commissioned. They are supposed to be delegates, and they are not.
My brain hurts...

[Zanthorus]

My brain hurts...

Read moar Hegel then.

Also I think the MIA version is a slight mistranslation. The version from Luccio Colleti's intro to Marx's early works anyway has it as "The deputies of civil society are a society which is not connected to its electors by any 'instruction' or commission."

[AK]

Read moar Hegel then.
...that's going to help my brain not hurt?!

[Zanthorus]

...that's going to help my brain not hurt?!

Yes, because everything else is easy compared to Hegel :D

[AK]

Yes, because everything else is easy compared to Hegel :D
Ya evil bastard, Zanthorus, you.

[ContrarianLemming]

All his reasons for switching are contradictory, you've said twice now that anarchism is basically the same as marxism, so as far as I can tell, your reasons are based on austetics, you don't want to be accociated with lifestylism anymore.
Bad news: you're going to be accociated a bad reactionary group in every ideology on the left wing spectrum, deal with it in a constructive manner, like helping anarchists who are dealing with self hating leftist syndrome.