can anarchist and marxist unite....?? [Archive]

what's left?

21st August 2010, 00:54

I’ve just finished some of Lenin’s work and he talks about the ‘withering away of the state’ – as in, after a transitory phase the political state eventually withers away serving simply as an administrative function. My understanding is that Lenin spoke of the ‘withering away of the state’ as the counter argument to what the Anarchist were proposing, which was the complete abolishiment of the state, Engel proposes “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. “The state is not abolished, it withers away’.

Now my question is, will anarchist and Marxist be able to reconcile in such a detail and unite as one revolutionary force. Image if Bakunin and Marx could of came together as one revolutionary unit or maybe the anarchist and communist inCivil War Spain. Why do these two factions argue so intensely, and can we ever come together…..just asking….

Tablo

21st August 2010, 00:58

I think Anarchists and libertarian Marxists could. Anarchists and Leninists are way to different to get along in my opinion.

Muzk

21st August 2010, 01:02

They can form a block against a common enemy though, as seen in the spanish civil war as well as in the famous black bloc(Hell we even had flags with maoist slogans on them waving in the last bloc I marched in)

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 01:06

Well, for one, pro-statism and anti-statism are two VERY hard to combine, fundamental view points. Secondly, as an Anarchist I'd be extremely suspicious of Leninists, as they sort of have a history of turning on Anarchists (best example would be Kronstadt and the overall anti-Anarchist operations in the Soviet Union).

They can form a block against a common enemy though, as seen in the spanish civil war as well as in the famous black bloc(Hell we even had flags with maoist slogans on them waving in the last bloc I marched in)

Didn't the pro-Bolsheviks turn on Anarchists later on, though? But yes, as long as there is a common enemy / cause, the two can definitely unite. However I think it's likely they'll be opposing each other in an actually revolution or post-revolutionary situation. I definitely would try my best to make a Leninist state wither away faster than Lenin ever expected.

Also, inb4 the obvious sect fight starts, was sorta fun last time though.

incogweedo

21st August 2010, 01:12

I think Anarchists and libertarian Marxists could. Anarchists and Leninists are way to different to get along in my opinion.

well i think for the most part we could get along. i dont like authoritarianism, but i would be perfectly content in an Leninist society, and would most definitely band together with almost any authoritarian leftist group in a revolution.

Nachie

21st August 2010, 01:16

here we go again: Red & Anarchist Action Network Principles & Direction (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/p&d.html)

Svoboda

21st August 2010, 01:48

Really depends what type of Anarchist I guess. In a way an anarhco-communist and Marxist want the same thing, they just disagree on the path of getting there, Marx said there must be a transitionary state before communism could be achieved and Bakunin said fuck the state, communism(or he said collectivism) now. Also Bakunin differentiated anarchists with Marxists by saying that in his system power would be concentrated from bottom up, while Marxism was top down.

28350

21st August 2010, 01:50

Sure.

But revolutionary force doesn't come from some sort of ideological union. It comes from a class conscious working class.

I'm such a broken record.

28350

21st August 2010, 01:51

here we go again: Red & Anarchist Action Network Principles & Direction (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/p&d.html)

lol LENIN WAS A CAPITALIST

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 01:52

28350

21st August 2010, 01:54

Why all the hate against Leninism?

Capitalist propaganda!

But seriously, Anarchism is a legitimate political ideology. I don't see any reason view Anarchists as a class enemy, unless they take action which is ultimately counterrevolutionary.

MagÃ³n

21st August 2010, 01:57

I'm not so sure how long Anarchists and Marxists could unite. Assuming they're Marxist-Leninists. Neither of the two sides have been able to get along well together, and usually it ends up with the Marxist-Leninists wanting too much control over something, and the Anarchists telling them to stay where they are and to worry about where they're at later. Like the Spanish Civil War for example, that's what happened. Marxist-Leninists wanted too much power, and wanted to be the head honcho's of the Left in Spain, and pushed all the Socialist and Anarchist groups to the side, and took over through blackmail. This weakened the Left significantly, and the aftermath is what you get.

I would no doubt have a part in the withering of a Marxist-Leninist State, or any State for that matter when I could effectively do so. Out views are too opposing of one another, and as an Anarchist I'd be more likely to side with a Trotskyists than a Leninist or Stalinist any day.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 02:05

Why all the hate against Leninism?

Because SECTARIANISM, comrade, IS FUCKING FUNKY! Also because I hate just about every self-proclaimed Leninist I met IRL. Here's what happened: These dudes from Germany's Marxist-Leninist Party (MLPD) come up to me at a demo to sell me their fucking newspaper - okay, I know, it sounds cliche, but that's what happened - and want me to join their party. I'm like "nah thanks, I'm not much interested in parliamentary democracy", so then this very witty guy gives me this funny I'm-too-stupid-to-get-your-point-but-I'll-ridicule-it-anyway look as he proceeds to demonstrate his douchebaggery, as if insisting to sell a fucking newspaper for the MLPD, to people that a) refused and b) were obviously uninterested to begin with, wasn't enough: "Well what do YOU want? don't say ... ANARCHISM? *LAUGHS* That's ridiculous! Society without a state!" If it wasn't a demo against violence I would have probably resorted to such, at least in my mind I did to a great deal.

unless they take action which is ultimately counterrevolutionary.

such as ... ?

MagÃ³n

21st August 2010, 02:08

Because SECTARIANISM, comrade, IS FUCKING FUNKY! Also because I hate just about every self-proclaimed Leninist I met IRL. Here's what happened: These dudes from Germany's Marxist-Leninist Party (MLPD) come up to me at a demo to sell me their fucking newspaper - okay, I know, it sounds cliche, but that's what happened - and want me to join their party. I'm like "nah thanks, I'm not much interested in parliamentary democracy", so then this very witty guy gives me this funny I'm-too-stupid-to-get-your-point-but-I'll-ridicule-it-anyway look as he proceeds to demonstrate his douchebaggery, as if trying to sell a fucking newspaper for the MLPD, to people that a) refused and b) were obviously uninterested to begin with, wasn't enough: "Well what do YOU want? don't say ... ANARCHISM? *LAUGHS* That's ridiculous! Society without a state!" If it wasn't a demo against violence I would have probably resorted to such, at least in my mind I did to a great deal.

such as ... ?

Ah, that's only because most people are too dependent on a State system (no matter Left or Right) to successfully sustain themselves in the work place, or anywhere else. Sadly, that's the majority of the world.:(

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 02:11

Ah, that's only because most people are too dependent on a State system (no matter Left or Right) to successfully sustain themselves in the work place, or anywhere else. Sadly, that's the majority of the world.:(

You could say the same about any revolutionary tendency involving a post-revolution (temporary or not) state. I tend to agree though.

Maybe it's just inability to imagine life without a state, being raised in a totally governed world. It's similar to the reaction you get when you tell people you want to abolish money: "BUT THEN HOW DO WE PAY FOR THINGS? HOW DO I GET PAYED FOR WORK? HOW CAN I BUY SOMETHING WHEN I HAVE NO MONEY!!!?? THAT'S STUPID!!!"

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2010, 02:19

"Well what do YOU want? don't say ... ANARCHISM? *LAUGHS* That's ridiculous! Society without a state!"

So, practically, the guy ridiculed the second stage of the development of communism, i.e. stateless, classless social formation.
Nice to see that Marx is alive and well.

Ele'ill

21st August 2010, 02:21

The left in the United States can't even march together without using their megaphones or obnoxiously loud natural voices to belittle ideas and incite an hour or longer exchange of whippersnapper commentary on various historical topics and abstract situations that have never even occurred. I swear to shit I slipped into a boredom induced coma once half way through a march because the bloc I was in wouldn't stop antagonizing another group.

28350

21st August 2010, 02:24

Because SECTARIANISM, comrade, IS FUCKING FUNKY! Also because I hate just about every self-proclaimed Leninist I met IRL. Here's what happened: These dudes from Germany's Marxist-Leninist Party (MLPD) come up to me at a demo to sell me their fucking newspaper - okay, I know, it sounds cliche, but that's what happened - and want me to join their party. I'm like "nah thanks, I'm not much interested in parliamentary democracy", so then this very witty guy gives me this funny I'm-too-stupid-to-get-your-point-but-I'll-ridicule-it-anyway look as he proceeds to demonstrate his douchebaggery, as if insisting to sell a fucking newspaper for the MLPD, to people that a) refused and b) were obviously uninterested to begin with, wasn't enough: "Well what do YOU want? don't say ... ANARCHISM? *LAUGHS* That's ridiculous! Society without a state!" If it wasn't a demo against violence I would have probably resorted to such, at least in my mind I did to a great deal.
Personality of one individual is not a good indicator of the essence of an ideology.

such as ... ?
Oh, siding with the SRs, for one. I mean, there are plenty of historical examples where Anarchists felt they had to oppose Socialist governments instead of side with them. I don't think that means that Anarchists will always do that, that it is an essential feature of Anarchism to attempt to undermine any perceived "authoritarian" Socialist state. But if someone actively attacks (not criticizes, attacks) a Socialist state, their actions are by definition counterrevolutionary.

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 02:25

svenne

21st August 2010, 02:26

Funny discussion, i think i've read it like ten times on this site already.

However, a lot of anarchists and leninists (and every other ideology...) sees ideology as something static; just because somebody wrote a good book 1895 it's as useful now as then. This, combined with a interest in the past instead of the present, which brings every discussion to the "fuck you you shoot at us in the spanish civil war/kronstadt-rebellion" (it seems to be the leftwingforum equivalence to Hitler in political discussions on other sites). Of course this is interesting, but just somewhat stupid.

Theory isn't created in a vacuum, it's created from the material reality. Surely Marx is useful and everybody should read him (or whoever people like), but Marx handed us a theory to be used as a weapon against capital. That means we have to analyze our situation TODAY, and make use of the weapon to try to understand what we should do TODAY. It also means that some theories are bloody worthless in this now, while some theories is more useful than yesterday.

This weapon is worth nothing if we don't exist in the real world, so; fucking organize. Doing practical things pretty much unites people from different ideologies, and it just makes the whole thing a lot easier. That and respect. (the last seems to disappear from everybodys minds when we enter the internet :D )

However, i'm organized with both people reading Lenin and striving to building a party, and people who's pretty much hardcore anarchists. And it works. Yay.

MagÃ³n

21st August 2010, 02:29

Personality of one individual is not a good indicator of the essence of an ideology.

Oh, siding with the SRs, for one. I mean, there are plenty of historical examples where Anarchists felt they had to oppose Socialist governments instead of side with them. I don't think that means that Anarchists will always do that, that it is an essential feature of Anarchism to attempt to undermine any perceived "authoritarian" Socialist state. But if someone actively attacks (not criticizes, attacks) a Socialist state, their actions are by definition counterrevolutionary.

Ah, but the revolutionary action, could be to stem the corruption that all Anarchists find power to do. I mean, that's the core of Anarchism: Power corrupts, and we need no masters. And any sort of state that would undermine or do harm to the people of the working class should undoubtedly be demolished, but of course to some people that would be counterrevolutionary. So it's more of how you perceive and understand a situation, that makes something revolutionary or counterrevolutionary. If I was an Anarchist back in the 30s and 40s, I probably would have tried to undermine Stalin and his purges of people.

But to some, that would be considered counterrevolutionary.

MagÃ³n

21st August 2010, 02:32

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 02:33

Power corrupting and talk of people seeking power for the sake of it is a totally idealist position. Damn, I need the link where Parenti dismantles that notion.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 02:34

Personality of one individual is not a good indicator of the essence of an ideology.

Well, I get your point, but I wanted to share a funny anecdote that hates on Leninists.

Oh, siding with the SRs, for one. I mean, there are plenty of historical examples where Anarchists felt they had to oppose Socialist governments instead of side with them. I don't think that means that Anarchists will always do that, that it is an essential feature of Anarchism to attempt to undermine any perceived "authoritarian" Socialist state. But if someone actively attacks (not criticizes, attacks) a Socialist state, their actions are by definition counterrevolutionary.

Before I comment on this, what do you mean by "SRs"? I'm not familiar with the abbreviation.

28350

21st August 2010, 02:37

Before I comment on this, what do you mean by "SRs"? I'm not familiar with the abbreviation.

Socialist Revolutionaries, descended from the Narodniks (intellectual terrorists, essentially). They were an early 20th century party advocating peasant socialism. They, along with the Mensheviks and Anarchists sided against the Bolsheviks. Petit-Bourgeois in class-nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-Revolutionary_Party

MagÃ³n

21st August 2010, 02:38

Power corrupting and talk of people seeking power for the sake of it is a totally idealist position. Damn, I need the link where Parenti dismantles that notion.

If Anarchists didn't think Power corrupts, we wouldn't be saying it. The fact of the matter is, that power does corrupt. In all forms of State, power corrupts. Whether it's right-wing or left-wing, somewhere down the line, those in power are bound to inevitably turn corrupt and go against any form of revolution, that they see as counterrevolutionary. Greece right now, is an example of that, and Anarchists v. KKE.

If you don't agree, that's fine, but please, there's really no need for name calling when I haven't done anything to provoke such a childish action. Talking in a manner that gets your point through, and reasonably is how I like to hold my discussions. So please, no more name calling, it's not needed.

Ele'ill

21st August 2010, 02:43

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 02:45

I didn't call you a name. I said your position was idealist not materialist. Power doesn't corrupt because there is state involved.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 02:50

To Chammers and Nin. Ok when you two stop having your little hate fest against MLs, you could join The rest of us in reality. I could just end my perception of anarchists being vital class allies with you two douchebags but I don't. And neither should a couple of encounters disuade you from collaboration.

Chammer*

A friend of mine is a ML (I ... assume, come to think of it I've never had a talk about his views on Leninism, but from what I know he's not opposed to it per se), and I don't have any issues with him or the people he operates with, some of which definitely are MLs. I don't get where you pull that "the rest of us in reality" stuff from. Reality, well, history, shows that MLs stab Anarchists just about every time they get the chance to. I have never doubted that MLs, or even Stalinists or Maoists, can be vital class allies. The only people I've ever seen call out other leftists as counterrevolutionaries are MLs when they talk about anarchists, I'm not even fucking paranoid. :S
But I will forgive you calling me douchebag - at least you didn't resort to what seems to be the newest fad: calling anti-statists "liberals".

Funny discussion, i think i've read it like ten times on this site already.

In my short time here, me too. Intriguing.

However, a lot of anarchists and leninists (and every other ideology...) sees ideology as something static; just because somebody wrote a good book 1895 it's as useful now as then.

While I agree that a lot of people do that, I would like to point out that not all Anarchists do, and that Anarchism, in my opinion, is much more open to different post-revolution scenarios than Leninism. After all, we don't have fully detailed plans as to how everything should work before, during and after the revolution. Well, I'm not saying all Leninists do, but some seem to act as if there was a failproof manual for the organisation of post-revolution society - ofc this happens with other tendencies, too.

Somewhat related:

S0SaqrxgJvw

However, i'm organized with both people reading Lenin and striving to building a party, and people who's pretty much hardcore anarchists. And it works. Yay.

Of course it works now. It works until the Leninists decide that they should seize the power in the name of the proletariat.

Power corrupting and talk of people seeking power for the sake of it is a totally idealist position. Damn, I need the link where Parenti dismantles that notion.

Wherever a government is installed, which afaik is a very basic point of Leninism, a new class is created, which brings along it's own class interests, including the preservation of it's existence and power. The Leninst system just recreates class struggle in a different shape.

MagÃ³n

21st August 2010, 02:52

I didn't call you a name. I said your position was idealist not materialist. Power doesn't corrupt because there is state involved.

I believe you did call me a Chammer two douchebags. That wasn't needed, we were having a perfectly fine conversation and discussion. That wasn't needed in there.

And like I said, Anarchists find that power corrupts, and a State just adds more fuel to the fire, with corruption spreading into the State. If you can't see that the US Government has corrupt politicians, than take another look. Illinois Senator Blagoiavich (however you spell it) is an example of State Corruption.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 03:03

Socialist Revolutionaries, descended from the Narodniks (intellectual terrorists, essentially). They were an early 20th century party advocating peasant socialism. They, along with the Mensheviks and Anarchists sided against the Bolsheviks. Petit-Bourgeois in class-nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-Revolutionary_Party

Personality of one individual is not a good indicator of the essence of an ideology.

Oh, siding with the SRs, for one. I mean, there are plenty of historical examples where Anarchists felt they had to oppose Socialist governments instead of side with them. I don't think that means that Anarchists will always do that, that it is an essential feature of Anarchism to attempt to undermine any perceived "authoritarian" Socialist state. But if someone actively attacks (not criticizes, attacks) a Socialist state, their actions are by definition counterrevolutionary.

Ok so, attacking a state that labels itself "socialist", but in fact isn't (no, I don't consider the Soviet Union to be a socialist society, it has socialist features, no doubt, but all in all there was way too much shit with the Single Party central government, Gulags, oppression of opposition and critique, dictatorship, etc.), is counterrevolutionary now? Well yes, it was counterrevolutionary to the Bolshevik revolution, but I think most of those Anarchists wouldn't support a purely Bolshevik revolution to begin with, at least not if they had known the outcome beforehand.

In any case, there certainly are actions carried out by Anarchists I don't agree with at all - namely the Propaganda Of The Deed, which pretty much fucked over ever hint of good reputation the Anarchist movement once had. I don't know enough about the SR to give you a proper response, so you'll just have to take this basic stance I outlined above for now.

I believe you did call me a Chammer two douchebags. That wasn't needed, we were having a perfectly fine conversation and discussion. That wasn't needed in there.

Well, to be honest, I could easily see how people are provoked by my language and the anecdote I posted, but then again I'm in the mood for that sort of language right now, so I beg to be excused.

fa2991

21st August 2010, 03:13

Oh lord. I would have no qualms about joining with anarchists to raise some hell. I am just as much of a fan of Durruti as I am of Che. I read both Chomsky and Parenti. I support both the EZLN and the Nepalese and Indian Maoists.

Why the dogmatism on revleft? Why all the hate against Leninism?

To Chammers and Nin. Ok when you two stop having your little hate fest against MLs, you could join The rest of us in reality. I could just end my perception of anarchists being vital class allies with you two douchebags but I don't. And neither should a couple of encounters disuade you from collaboration.

It's unavoidable. We can respect both ideologies, but Leninists and anarchists could never work together in actual practice in an actual revolution.

There has never been a Leninist revolution that enacts measures in line with the anarchist program, and vice versa.

Plus, under Leninism, anarchists are usually the first on the chopping block. See: Russia, Cuba, etc.

28350

21st August 2010, 03:22

Plus, under Leninism, anarchists are usually the first on the chopping block. See: Russia, Cuba, etc.

Really? The first?

fa2991

21st August 2010, 03:24

Really? The first?

:D After the bourgeoisie, maybe.

NoOneIsIllegal

21st August 2010, 04:36

If the reds and blacks should ever unite, we would first have to rid ourselves over the blame game in historical matters. History does matter! However, sometimes, it seems people on here rather bicker over the same endless arguments rather then seeking change. Yes, obviously some marxists and anarchists will not group together, but I also can see alliances with some tendencies. We will never truly see a 100% percent united left though.

"Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!" - Otto Von Bismark

21st August 2010, 04:41

tl;dr: Anarchists have no beef with plain Marxists or "libertarian socialists", but when it comes to Leninists our ideologies - both in practise and in theory - have conflicted in the past and still do. Also, propaganda of the deed is fucking stupid and doesn't advance class struggle at all.

Now let's move on to more serious issues, eh?

28350

21st August 2010, 04:50

Also, propaganda of the deed is fucking stupid and doesn't advance class struggle at all.

Doesn't RAAN support propaganda of the deed?

21st August 2010, 05:00

Doesn't RAAN support propaganda of the deed?
My affiliation with RAAN amounts to the lulz.

The Douche

21st August 2010, 06:22

Doesn't RAAN support propaganda of the deed?

Find something to support that.

People always do that on this site (not just to RAAN), accuse an organization of something absurd, never supply any reason, and never respond, then everytime that organization gets brought up the accusation is repeated by new people because of that one random post.

tbasherizer

21st August 2010, 09:30

My affiliation with RAAN amounts to the lulz.

It seems we have to welcome a /b/ist to our ranks, comrades!

21st August 2010, 10:41

It seems we have to welcome a /b/ist to our ranks, comrades!
/b/tard*

Also, you just broke rules 1 and 2.

Dave B

21st August 2010, 12:59

Its worth bearing in mind that in the seminal example of the Russian revolution the ‘mainstream’ Anarchists eg Berkman supported the Bolsheviks as acknowledged by Lenin.

V. I. Lenin, Letter to Sylvia Pankhurst, 28 August, 1919

Very many anarchist workers are now becoming sincere supporters of Soviet power, and that being so, it proves them to be our best comrades and friends, the best of revolutionaries, who have been enemies of Marxism only through misunderstanding,

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/28.htm)

.
And from the previous month

V. I. Lenin, SPEECH AT THE FIRST ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OF WORKERS IN EDUCATION AND SOCIALIST CULTURE JULY 31, 1919

When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party and, as you have heard, a united socialist front is proposed, we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position because it is the party that has won,

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SWSC19.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/SWSC19.html)

The Bolsheviks went after the SR’s and the former Left wing of the RSDLP, the Mensheviks, first in early 1918; who were stuck between which was worst the white fascists or the red ones.

There was a major show trial later as they were still causing trouble, which took on international significance for the left, outlined by Lenin in a secret memorandum;

ON THE TASKS OF THE PEOPLE’S COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE UNDER THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY

Intensification of reprisals against the political enemies of the Soviet power and the agents of the bourgeoisie ( specifically the Mensheviks and S.R.s); mounting of these reprisals by revolutionary tribunals and people’s courts in the swiftest, most revolutionary and expedient manner; compulsory staging of a number of model (as regards speed and force of repression, and explanation of their significance to the masses of people through the courts and the press) trials in Moscow, Petrograd, Kharkov and several other key centres;

influence on the people’s judges and members of revolutionary tribunals through the Party in the sense of improving the activity of the courts and intensifying the reprisals—all of this must be conducted systematically, persistently, with doggedness and mandatory reports (in the most concise, telegraphic style but business-like and exact, with obligatory statistics of how the

P.C.J. chastises and learns to chastise the "communist" scoundrels who predominate among us and who know how to chatter and put on airs, but not how to work).

The fighting role of the P.C.J. is equally important in the sphere of NEP, and here the P.C.J.’s weakness and apathy is even more outrageous. There is no evidence of any understanding of the fact that we recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we— we conscious workers, we Communists—who are the state.

……….prohibit, on pain of Party responsibility, to chatter about it (about this letter), for it is stupid to disclose our strategy to the enemy;
V. Ulyanov (Lenin)
Chairman, Council of People’s Commissars

P.S. There must not be the slightest mention of my letter in the press. Let anyone, who so wishes, write in his own name, without any mention of mine, and provide as many concrete data as possible.

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm)

It concerned a show trial that became a major issue amongst the European left that agreed to attend as observers provided there would be no death sentences.

As standard the defence lawyers were appointed by the Bolsheviks.

It was discussed in Jane Burbanks Intelligentsia and Revolution chapter 3 pg 109-10

With accompanying article by Lenin on shooting people etc

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/apr/09.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/apr/09.htm)

ContrarianLemming

21st August 2010, 15:52

can anarchist and marxist unite....??

I hope they don't

28350

21st August 2010, 16:16

Find something to support that.

People always do that on this site (not just to RAAN), accuse an organization of something absurd, never supply any reason, and never respond, then everytime that organization gets brought up the accusation is repeated by new people because of that one random post.

Clearly you don't understand what a question is. I'm asking you whether or not they do, not accusing anyone. Calm down.
I ask because I've read that there were various acts of RAAN vandalism against the RCP. It's not that I'm trying to defend the RCP or condemn RAAN, but doesn't that count as propaganda of the deed?

The Douche

21st August 2010, 16:33

Clearly you don't understand what a question is. I'm asking you whether or not they do, not accusing anyone. Calm down.
I ask because I've read that there were various acts of RAAN vandalism against the RCP. It's not that I'm trying to defend the RCP or condemn RAAN, but doesn't that count as propaganda of the deed?

When you phrase the question as "doesn't such and such...such and such" it presupposes that they do. If I say "don't you support marx?" then the implication is that I believe you do support marx and am expecting confirmation. I didn't mean to be accusatory, I just literally see that sort of thing happen all the time on here, and now I fully expect that next time RAAN is brought up somebody who is uninformed will say "oh yeah well you guys support POTD lolol".

Are you sure you know what POTD is? Vandalism falls under the category of direct action. POTD is when somebody engages in a usually violent action (i.e. assassination or bombing) expecting that it will incite the masses into revolution. That is not the same thing as vandalizing an RCP bookstore to make a statement against Leninism, or smashing a banks windows.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 16:34

Clearly you don't understand what a question is. I'm asking you whether or not they do, not accusing anyone. Calm down.
I ask because I've read that there were various acts of RAAN vandalism against the RCP. It's not that I'm trying to defend the RCP or condemn RAAN, but doesn't that count as propaganda of the deed?

In the most basic sense, Propaganda of the Deed is a violent form of Direct Action. The term is usually connected to the phase of Anarchism where certain groups thought it was pretty helpful to assassinate people and bomb buildings. Also, Propaganda of the Deed was meant to be exactly that: Propaganda meant to bring about revolution. Nowadays, most Direct Action, including the one incident I know of, where RAAN threw some statists out an anti-statist book fair, serves an immediate goal rather than being advertisement (propaganda), although some forms of vandalism such as spray painting are purely propaganda, of course. To say that throwing water at a book stand, or spray painting, is Propaganda of the Deed, however, sounds like quite a stretch to me, considering the origin of the term.

The Douche

21st August 2010, 16:41

ComradeOm

21st August 2010, 16:41

tl;dr: Anarchists have no beef with plain Marxists or "libertarian socialists", but when it comes to Leninists our ideologies - both in practise and in theory - have conflicted in the past and still doThe idea that Marxists can be split into 'good' (or "plain/libertarian") and 'bad' (read: so-called "Leninists") is largely an anarchist conceit

Edit:
Deleted. Its not worth commenting on RAAN. Waste of time all round

ContrarianLemming

21st August 2010, 16:47

The idea that Marxists can be split into 'good' (or "plain/libertarian") and 'bad' (read: so-called "Leninists") is largely an anarchist conceit

deny it all you want, but that's how it is, theres marxists they get along with and marxists they don't get along with. Sometimes reality is anti leninist.

The Douche

21st August 2010, 16:48

You wanna hear the excuses rolled out for executing anarchists during the Russian Civil War? I'm fairly sure "necessity" cropped up a lot there as well... although their situation was probably somewhat more serious. A sectarian act is a sectarian act and it makes you a bastard no matter how you try to excuse it

Its not an excuse and I'm not trying to excuse the action. I expect Leninists to shoot at anarchists when it comes down to it. Why wouldn't I expect it? They've done it plenty of times before.

Its not secterian, for it to be secterian we would each have to be sects in the same movement. We're not. I'm not sorry the RCP's bookstore got smashed up, burn it fucking down for all I care.

ComradeOm

21st August 2010, 17:07

deny it all you want, but that's how it is, theres marxists they get along with and marxists they don't get along with. Sometimes reality is anti leninist.Read my post again. Now point out where I suggested that there were no Marxists who did not "get along with" anarchists?

What is a fantasy is the idea that Marxist cooperation with anarchists can be based on any supposed libertarian/Leninist split. Not only is this hopelessly inaccurate* it is based on a presumption (ie, the existence of a 'Leninist' school) that is almost entirely an anarchist creation. Take any so-called 'libertarian Marxist' and I guarantee that, regardless of their opinion of Lenin himself, 99%+ of their ideological base will be shared with 'Leninists'. Almost certainly their conception of the state, unless jettisoned while jumping into bed with anarchists, will be derived more from Lenin than 'classical' Marxism. There is a good reason why both anarchists and Mensheviks in 1917 regarded Lenin as a 'semi-anarchist'

All of which rubbishes the notion that there is some sort of broad swathe of Marxist opinion out there that is supposedly amenable to anarchism and that its only those darned 'Leninists' that stand in the way. At best its a self-congratulatory illusion and at worst is an attempt to marginalise other working class, and historically of far more import, Marxist traditions

And finally, reality is not "anti-Leninist" and nor is it "anti-anarchist" or anything else. Don't be so stupid. Oh, and please don't feel the need to inform me as to the state of the Marxist movement. You don't see me going around making crass and sweeping statements about US anarchism, do you?

*Not least when viewed through the prism of history - apparently the sole factor under consideration in this thread. Clearly Marx, whose feuds with anarchists are famous, was an authoritarian while the Second International, which Lenin broke decisively from, was libertarian :rolleyes:

RED DAVE

21st August 2010, 17:08

He was actually referring to an action from a number of years ago where a Maoist party's bookstore had its windows smashed and RAAN graffiti left on it.

It was an action that was taken because of the necessity to make our position on Leninism clear at the time as the organization was being infiltrated by Leninists, and anarchists were accusing us of being a Leninist front.Let me see: a Maoist bookstore was trashed by an anarchist group so the group could prove that it wasn't Leninist.

Not calculated to promote solidarity, comrades.

RED DAVE

The Douche

21st August 2010, 17:15

Let me see: a Maoist bookstore was trashed by an anarchist group so the group could prove that it wasn't Leninist.

Not calculated to promote solidarity, comrades.

RED DAVE

Why would we want solidarity with Leninists?

All of which rubbishes the notion that there is some sort of broad swathe of Marxist opinion out there that is supposedly amenable to anarchism and that its only those darned 'Leninists' that stand in the way.

I don't think its a "broad swathe", but it does exist (groups around tiqqun, situationists, autonomists, etc).

robbo203

21st August 2010, 17:25

However, i'm organized with both people reading Lenin and striving to building a party, and people who's pretty much hardcore anarchists. And it works. Yay.

To an extent people with different outlooks can unite but I think we are kidding ourselves if we imagine we can maintain a facade of unity without it unravelling in short order when the differences in question are fundamental. There has to be some basic and substantial commonalities. I am not convinced that there is sufficient common ground for Leninists (and their various derivatives) to cooperate with anarchists. Anti-Leninist or libertarian Marxists, on the other hand, is another matter and here perhaps is where the future of a viable revolutionary left may reside - in a synthesis of anarchist and libertarian Marxist thinking

robbo203

21st August 2010, 17:48

To an extent people with different outlooks can unite but I think we are kidding ourselves if we imagine we can maintain a facade of unity without it unravelling in short order when the differences in question are fundamental. There has to be some basic and substantial commonalities. I am not convinced that there is sufficient common ground for Leninists (and their various derivatives) to cooperate with anarchists. Anti-Leninist or libertarian Marxists, on the other hand, is another matter and here perhaps is where the future of a viable revolutionary left may reside - in a synthesis of anarchist and libertarian Marxist thinking

For a good essay (written way back in 1978!) that makes the point Ive been trying to make see:

http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM3-AnarchismvsMarxism.htm

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 18:00

I don't think it's fair to pin all MLs as reactionary statists who want to usurp power for the mere thrill of it and create another class to loom over the workers. I do not go around touting all the mistakes of the Spanish Anarchists as a detriment to Anarchism, nor do I insist that the ideology is akin to pointless smashing of windows and irrational emotive bursts of rage against "statism". I know there is a workable and sound ideology behind the "deeds". I respect Anarchism as a philosophy.

"Puritanism was a characteristic of the libertarian movement. . . excessive drinking, smoking and other practices that were perceived as middle-class attributes were nearly always censured." [pages 68–69]

"I tried in vain to get a drink, either of coffee or wine or lemonade. The village bar had been closed as nefarious commerce."

"With the abolition of money, the collective held the upper hand since anyone wishing to travel had to get 'republican' money from the committee."

"'The community is represented by the committee... All the money of Alcora, about 100,000 pesetas, is in its hands. The committee exchanges the products of the community for others goods that are lacking, but what it cannot secure by exchange it purchases. Money, however, is retained only as a makeshift and will be valid as long as other communities have not followed Alcora's example.

From Burnett Bolloten's book on the Spanish Civil War.

Anarchists critique the rather bureaucratic mess that became of the CNT-FAI and the other mini-state like committees, just as much as MLs critique the negative aspects of the ML in practice.

http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/dolgoff-controv.html

History shouldn't be used as a detriment to collaboration. I think both sides can learn from their mistakes to make a future revolution better.

Os Cangaceiros

21st August 2010, 18:26

I just have a couple of comments:

1) This question puzzles me, because there are clear examples of anarchists and Marxists working together. They have cooperated in the past, and continue to work together today on certain projects.

2) As cmoney said, POTD is a very specific philosophy of action, borrowed from the later half of the 19th century in Russia. Russian socialists in that period were extremely puzzled by why the oppressed weren't rising up against their oppressors, no matter how much they were "educated" by the enlightened socialists of the era. They eventually came to the conclusion that it was because they needed to be led through example.

This is very different from why someone might want to break a window or vandalize a building today. Although, interestingly enough, the philosophy of spreading disorder through small, relatively insignificant acts of defiance is one that is accepted by the ruling class: it's essentially the exact same model that William Bratton's "broken window theory" of policing uses. That model has now been adopted nationwide in the US, and illustrates the fact that the cops really don't care about reducing crime as much as they care about preserving "social order". Challenges to authority, whether it's on a micro scale (vandalizing private property and getting away with it) or a macro scale (there are whole neighborhoods in New Orleans where cops are extremely hard pressed to get anyone to speak with them about any criminal matter) are challenges to that social order.

robbo203

21st August 2010, 18:35

The idea that Marxists can be split into 'good' (or "plain/libertarian") and 'bad' (read: so-called "Leninists") is largely an anarchist conceit

Would you say that the various criticisms of Lenin and Leninism offered by contemporary Marxists such as Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Korsch, Sylvia Pankhurst, Otto Ruhle, Hermann Gorter or by marxist organisations in the "impossibilist" tradition such as the Socialist Party of great Britain, was largely an "anarchist conceit"?

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 18:39

Even in her criticism, I thought Luxembourg was still supportive of Lenin?

robbo203

21st August 2010, 18:52

Even in her criticism, I thought Luxembourg was still supportive of Lenin?

See this

http://libcom.org/library/leninism-or-marxism-rosa-luxemburg

and also this

http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2004/May/Essay_May2004.htm

There relevant excerpt from the above is this:

Though many have argued that Luxemburg dropped many of her criticisms of the Bolsheviks after being released from prison in November 1918 and therefore chose not to publish her pamphlet on THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION (it was first published after her death in 1922, by Paul Levi) we now know from letters that have recently come to light that this was not the case.(7) She fully intended to publish her critique of the Revolution, though her plans were cut short by her murder in January 1919 by counter-revolutionaries who were spurred on by leaders of German Social Democracy

Invincible Summer

21st August 2010, 19:04

I don't know if this is a good example or not, but Subcomandante Marcos used to be a member of the Maoist National Liberation Front, and now he's in the EZLN which is pretty damn anarchistic.

To me (I don't really identify specifically with any tendency, but lots of you say I'm a Maoist, whatever) it seems that lots of the purported differences between MLs and Anarchists are in word games; Anarchists use "state" to mean one thing, while MLs mean something else, etc. But really, unless we're comparing anarcho-syndicalists and MLs, what is the real difference? Don't anarcho-communists advocate using fairly similar tactics to ML(M) groups to achieve socialism/communism?

RED DAVE

21st August 2010, 19:22

Why would we want solidarity with Leninists?Well, I'm a Trotskyist, which we claim is a kind of Leninist. And I think that it might be worthwhile, if you're really interested in revolution, and not just political masturbation, to consider working together.

RED DAVE

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2010, 19:29

I hope they don't
Aye, this kind of attitude freaks me out.
People, don't you realize that we should by all means bring the two traditions into close contact, in order that the struggle may be a successful one?
For instance, I strongly believe that cooperation on a larger scale could bring about a change (no matter how small) in both camps' ideas, and that could possibly lead to a far better condition for: a) building the movement to overthrow capitalism; b) overthrowing capitalism; c) successfully maintaining the revolutionary fervour and the stability of the revolution, in a post-rev scenario

Get a grip, seriously. Ideological puritanism is a dead end.
And that goes to anarchist puritans and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Trotskyist puritans.

Who?

21st August 2010, 19:33

I feel like the left needs to be more willing to work with each other. We seriously need to work on our sectarian nature. We are all working for the eventual abolishment of the state and capitalism, so we should start there and try to find some common ground. I personally respect nearly all ideologies on the left and would be willing to work with just about any leftist from Trots to anarcho-communists.

robbo203

21st August 2010, 19:34

To me (I don't really identify specifically with any tendency, but lots of you say I'm a Maoist, whatever) it seems that lots of the purported differences between MLs and Anarchists are in word games; Anarchists use "state" to mean one thing, while MLs mean something else, etc. But really, unless we're comparing anarcho-syndicalists and MLs, what is the real difference? Don't anarcho-communists advocate using fairly similar tactics to ML(M) groups to achieve socialism/communism?

Why talk just of "MLs and anarchists"? There are marxists around who would emphatically reject the Leninist component of what they would call an oxymoron construction - namely, "marxism-Leninism". People who deny this are simply burying their head in the sand. There is plenty of robust Marxian criticism of Leninism if you care to look for it. Read Chattopadhyay for example http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/did-the-bolshevik-seizure-of-power-inaugurate-a-socialist-revolution-a-marxian-inquiry-chattopadhyay-1991/

It would be more useful to talk of Ms and Ls and As, not simply MLs and As. The Ms and the As have a possible basis for fruitful collaboration but neither of them have suffiicient common ground with Ls to colloborate with them. Quite simply their basic objectives are too radically different

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 19:36

I feel like the left needs to be more willings to work with each other. We seriously need to work on our sectarian nature. We are all working for the eventual abolishment of the state and capitalism, so we should start there and try to find some common ground. I personally respect nearly all ideologies on the left and would be willing to work with just about any leftist from Trots to anarcho-communists.

This.

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2010, 19:38

The Ms and the As have a possible basis for fruitful collaboration but neither of them have suffiicient common ground with Ls to colloborate with them. Quite simply their basic objectives are too radically different
Why, why do you think that there is no sufficient common ground?
And this is not a rhetorical question, I sincerely wish to read your arguments for this proposal.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 19:42

Aye, this kind of attitude freaks me out.
People, don't you realize that we should by all means bring the two traditions into close contact, in order that the struggle may be a successful one?
For instance, I strongly believe that cooperation on a larger scale could bring about a change (no matter how small) in both camps' ideas, and that could possibly lead to a far better condition for: a) building the movement to overthrow capitalism; b) overthrowing capitalism; c) successfully maintaining the revolutionary fervour and the stability of the revolution, in a post-rev scenario

Get a grip, seriously. Ideological puritanism is a dead end.
And that goes to anarchist puritans and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Trotskyist puritans.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp, but let's get to it again: As long as there is a common enemy (capitalism), the two can work together well - no one denied that. But, as soon as that enemy is gone, one group (Leninists) will want to seize the power to establish their dictatorship, while the other (Anarchists) will oppose that.

There's no fucking compromise to be made, you can't have "half" a state. Either one group gives in to the other's ideas, or the two will fight each other.

I also like how the people telling others to "forget their differences and stop acting sectarian" are usually Leninists, probably the ones that would be front row in the post-revolution deathsquad when lining up the formerly allied Anarchists.

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2010, 19:49

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp, but let's get to it again: As long as there is a common enemy (capitalism), the two can work together well - no one denied that. But, as soon as that enemy is gone, one group (Leninists) will want to seize the power to establish their dictatorship, while the other (Anarchists) will oppose that.

There's no fucking compromise to be made, you can't have "half" a state. Either one group gives in to the other's ideas, or the two will fight each other.
Go over my post again. Seriously.

Have you got a crystal ball that can predict the future?

On a more serious note, it seems to me that you are idealizing a historical conjecture into an eternal truth.
Realize this: those were dire times, the hostility and outright aggression were mutual. I don't know if things could have been different, but I sure as hell know that history does not have to reapet itself.

Go over the post again and try to realize that I'm advocating a close contact that may engender changes. Real, significant changes. And no one will convince me that there is no basis for such a change, because that entails a static concept of political theory and praxis.
I do notice that there are people who, if subconsciously and unwillingly, subscribe to such a concept.
That's what I'm adamantly oppossed to.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm not a Leninist. If it counts, I lean to the anarchist side significantly more.

Who?

21st August 2010, 19:51

This.

Yes, that. :blink:

Devrim

21st August 2010, 19:58

I don't know if this is a good example or not, but Subcomandante Marcos used to be a member of the Maoist National Liberation Front, and now he's in the EZLN [Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional] which is pretty damn anarchistic.

From national liberation front to national liberation army, it is not that much of a difference really, is it?

I'm not so sure how long Anarchists and Marxists could unite. Assuming they're Marxist-Leninists. Neither of the two sides have been able to get along well together, and usually it ends up with the Marxist-Leninists wanting too much control over something, and the Anarchists telling them to stay where they are and to worry about where they're at later. Like the Spanish Civil War for example, that's what happened. Marxist-Leninists wanted too much power, and wanted to be the head honcho's of the Left in Spain, and pushed all the Socialist and Anarchist groups to the side, and took over through blackmail. This weakened the Left significantly, and the aftermath is what you get.

Marxist_leninists is a political code word foe Maoists. Obviously there weren't any in Spain. The Trotskyists referred to themselves as Bolshevik-Leninists, and the Communist Party referred to themselves as communists

Don't anarcho-communists advocate using fairly similar tactics to ML(M) groups to achieve socialism/communism?

No, Marxist-Leninists (Maoists) advocate peasant based armies fighting what they call 'people's war'. Anarchist communists advocate workers' revolution. They orientate themselves to two different classes.

What is a fantasy is the idea that Marxist cooperation with anarchists can be based on any supposed libertarian/Leninist split. Not only is this hopelessly inaccurate* it is based on a presumption (ie, the existence of a 'Leninist' school) that is almost entirely an anarchist creation. Take any so-called 'libertarian Marxist' and I guarantee that, regardless of their opinion of Lenin himself,

The whole idea of 'Libertarian Marxist' is basically an anarchist creation. What it seems to mean is 'Marxists we like'. The wholly authoritiarian Vs libertarian argument is usually not a part of the Marxist discourse. The only person I can think of who has used it to describe themselves is Daniel Guérin.

Devrim

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2010, 19:58

Yes, that. :blink:
He agrees with your point.
:laugh:

Who?

21st August 2010, 20:01

He agrees with your point.
:laugh:

That was a poor attempt at humor on my part.

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 20:14

But, as soon as that enemy is gone, one group (Leninists) will want to seize the power to establish their dictatorship, while the other (Anarchists) will oppose that.This is a bit much don't ya think? I mean you're really being unfair.

So when the class enemies are gone, are anarchists going to set up little mini-bureaucratic state-committees and act all puritanical against anyone who drinks? Are they going to have you go straight to a committee to pick up a voucher once money is abolished?

I think you're just looking for confrontation with MLs. ML /= totalitarianism/dictatorship anymore than Anarchism does not equal no organizational structure/chaos.

That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 21:05

On a more serious note, it seems to me that you are idealizing a historical conjecture into an eternal truth.
Realize this: those were dire times, the hostility and outright aggression were mutual. I don't know if things could have been different, but I sure as hell know that history does not have to reapet itself.

Is there anything leading me to believe it won't? Not that I'd know of.

Go over the post again and try to realize that I'm advocating a close contact that may engender changes. Real, significant changes. And no one will convince me that there is no basis for such a change, because that entails a static concept of political theory and praxis.

The only basis for such a "significant", change is either group changing their views on the state, which are a major defining factor for both groups. Sorry, I just don't see that happening. What you are saying is that by contact with each other, either Leninists stop being Leninists or Anarchists stop being Anarchists. There is no middle ground between "state" and "no state". "Half states" don't exist.

I do notice that there are people who, if subconsciously and unwillingly, subscribe to such a concept.
That's what I'm adamantly oppossed to.

I'm opposed to any single person claiming they know what social and organisational structure is best for society. Which is, in my opinion, what Leninists do. For all I care, they can have their hierarchical community with governments and, if they so desire, dictatorships and even gulags, but I won't stand idly by should they try to push a state on people that don't want it and silence or slaughter the opposition.

This is a bit much don't ya think? I mean you're really being unfair.

So when the class enemies are gone, are anarchists going to set up little mini-bureaucratic state-committees and act all puritanical against anyone who drinks? Are they going to have you go straight to a committee to pick up a voucher once money is abolished?

What the fuck?

ML /= totalitarianism/dictatorship

Show me a good form of government. You can't. I will tell you why:

"Wherever a government is installed, which afaik is a very basic point of Leninism, a new class is created, which brings along it's own class interests, including the preservation of it's existence and power. The Leninst system just recreates class struggle in a different shape." - me.

redasheville

21st August 2010, 21:06

Personally, I hope that radicals of all stripes can learn to work constructively together. Where I live, anarchists have a tendency to be very inward, sectarian and hostile to other radical tendencies. Rather unfortunate.

robbo203

21st August 2010, 21:32

Why, why do you think that there is no sufficient common ground?
And this is not a rhetorical question, I sincerely wish to read your arguments for this proposal.

Fundamentally because I think the Leninist project in essence, though cloaked in the rhetoric of marxian emancipation, is about the indefinite postponement and deferral of communism, rather than embracing or progressing the communist goal. It is about paying lip service to communism while ensuring it remains on perpetually on the back burner. This is not surprising given the Bolsheviks' roots in the social democracy of the Second international with its maximum (revolution)and minimum (reform) programmes and we know what fate befell the parties of the International that sought to combine both programmes. In every case the maximum programme disppeared like the cheshire cats griin.

In the Soviet Union it lingered on as a paper commitment in the constitution for a good while longer but, of course, by then Leninism had ossified into the ideology of the new ruling state capitalist class a means by which it could consolidate its grip on power. In the name if the proletariat it was able by these means to impose its dictatorship over the proletariat and, as we know, no ruling class in history has ever voluntarily and willingly relinquished its hold on power for the sake of the common good. The Soviet Union proved to be no exception. It would naive in the extreme to imagine that the ruling class there would do this in order to expedite a classless society. Elsewhere in the world too modernising elites were drawn to Leninism as an ideology as a means of developing capitalism locally under the aegis of the state. The basic outlook and the key concepts of leninism reflect this underlying preoccupation.

Even if the emergence of leninism was understandable under the circumstances at the time this does not justify holding on to an ideology whose primary purpose is not too usher in communism but to develop state capitalism. As we have seen the development of state capitalism is not in any sense a meaningful transitional step towards communism but rather a formidable obstacle on the road to communism

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 21:43

What the fuck?I was trying to show you that sayin MLs will construct some dictatorship is as silly as saying that Anarchists will re-construct all the mistakes of the Spanish Anarchists during the Civil War.

Also do you mean good or perfect? Because any example I would use, even if there was one, would be imperfect to you considering your presumptions.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 21:44

I was trying to show you that sayin MLs will construct some dictatorship is as silly as saying that Anarchists will re-construct all the mistakes of the Spanish Anarchists during the Civil War.

Those mistakes aren't central to Anarchism. The dictatorship, or government or state, whatever you wish to call it, is central to Leninism. You're comparing apples to tree trunks.

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2010, 21:45

Is there anything leading me to believe it won't? Not that I'd know of..

And why should you believe that it won't? Why shouldn't you work together with the Other in order that it does not repeat itself? This is defeatism, complete defeatism.

The only basis for such a "significant", change is either group changing their views on the state, which are a major defining factor for both groups. Sorry, I just don't see that happening. What you are saying is that by contact with each other, either Leninists stop being Leninists or Anarchists stop being Anarchists. There is no middle ground between "state" and "no state". "Half states" don't exist..
So what? Since when do anarchists uphold ideological dogmatism? I won't speak in the name of Leninists, but I'm fairly sure that there are groups and/or individuals out there who hold a similar position.
And by "state", you mean what exactly?
And how do you propose to solve the problem of uneven skills and knowledge throughout the society?
How do you propose to engage in what may become a new international cold war, within the anarchist paradigm?
See, this is my problem with some anarchists. However, I'd like to get an answer on theses questions, sincerely.

I'm opposed to any single person claiming they know what social and organisational structure is best for society. Which is, in my opinion, what Leninists do. For all I care, they can have their hierarchical community with governments and, if they so desire, dictatorships and even gulags, but I won't stand idly by should they try to push a state on people that don't want it and silence or slaughter the opposition...
But aren't you, as an anarchist, that someone who claims that he knows what social and organizational structure is best for society, or better than the rest?
Or are you implying that the capitalist line on this question is just as equally worth as your own or mine?

Those mistakes aren't central to Anarchism. The dictatorship is central to Leninism. You're comparing apples to tree trunks.
Evidence, please.

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 21:48

Those mistakes aren't central to Anarchism. The dictatorship is central to Leninism. You're comparing apples to tree trunks.

what reasoning! dictatorship is central to Leninism because it incorporates the state as a means to get to communism?

RadioRaheem84

21st August 2010, 21:50

Menochio, I am going to start another thread to get to the bottom of anarchist presuppositions and to have a theoretical discussion on anarchism vs marxism.

I think it would be best without incorporating historical mistakes and talking smack.

syndicat

21st August 2010, 21:55

redasheville:
Personally, I hope that radicals of all stripes can learn to work constructively together. Where I live, anarchists have a tendency to be very inward, sectarian and hostile to other radical tendencies.

There has been a strong tendency in this direction among "anarchists" here in the bay area since i've lived here (1981). They don't like my brand of libertarian socialist politics either.

I think of the socialist project as a project of working class self-liberation. This can't happen without organized mass movements that working class people control. This isn't simply a question of organizing and numbers, it's also a question of change in the mindset, orientation and skills of large numbers of people. Again, it comes back to liberation from a system of class subordination and exploitation being something the masses have to bring about for themselves. And this means they need to build organizations they control in order to have a means to their liberation.

Now, in building mass struggles and mass organizations, even a "militant minority" type of organization such as a rank and file union opposition, you'll find that it is necessary to work with people who have a range of viewpoints. This means you have to have the patience for working with people who do not agree with you 100 percent.

This doesn't mean the viewpoints of others do not matter at all. I would find it hard to work with someone who insists on top-down control centered in some committee. But i've been in organizing situations where there was a group of people oriented to rank and file participation and a militant struggle who nonetheless had some range of views.

But there are "anarchists" who do not share this perspective because they don't have a conception of self-managed mass organization. This is where being from a syndicalist background, as I am, makes a difference.

revolution inaction

21st August 2010, 22:07

I don't know if this is a good example or not, but Subcomandante Marcos used to be a member of the Maoist National Liberation Front, and now he's in the EZLN which is pretty damn anarchistic.

i've heard this before, but as far as i can tell the ezln is a hierarchical military organisation, and openly admits to being so. admittedly one with better poletics then most, but still not anarchist.

But really, unless we're comparing anarcho-syndicalists and MLs, what is the real difference? Don't anarcho-communists advocate using fairly similar tactics to ML(M) groups to achieve socialism/communism?
no we don't wtf are you talking about? do you actual know anything about anarchism at all?

Well, I'm a Trotskyist, which we claim is a kind of Leninist. And I think that it might be worthwhile, if you're really interested in revolution, and not just political masturbation, to consider working together.

RED DAVE
I see no problem with working with other workers on specific projects, without worrying if they are anarchist or trotskyist of labour supporters, but for political activity then political unity is needed and there is non between anarchists and leninist.

Aye, this kind of attitude freaks me out.
People, don't you realize that we should by all means bring the two traditions into close contact, in order that the struggle may be a successful one?
For instance, I strongly believe that cooperation on a larger scale could bring about a change (no matter how small) in both camps' ideas, and that could possibly lead to a far better condition for: a) building the movement to overthrow capitalism; b) overthrowing capitalism; c) successfully maintaining the revolutionary fervour and the stability of the revolution, in a post-rev scenario

Get a grip, seriously. Ideological puritanism is a dead end.
And that goes to anarchist puritans and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist and Trotskyist puritans.
you do realise that anarchists and leinists have compleatly difrent ideas about what a) a movement to overthrow caplitalism is b) how to overthrow capitalism c) what a revolution is, and when the revolution has finished

I feel like the left needs to be more willing to work with each other. We seriously need to work on our sectarian nature. We are all working for the eventual abolishment of the state and capitalism, so we should start there and try to find some common ground. I personally respect nearly all ideologies on the left and would be willing to work with just about any leftist from Trots to anarcho-communists.
i don't respect any ideologies of the left, and please don't call anarchist-communists leftists.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp, but let's get to it again: As long as there is a common enemy (capitalism), the two can work together well - no one denied that. But, as soon as that enemy is gone, one group (Leninists) will want to seize the power to establish their dictatorship, while the other (Anarchists) will oppose that.

i idisagre here, i don't think anarchists and leininist can work together to end capitlism because we have fundementaly different ideas how capitlaism can be ended.

There's no fucking compromise to be made, you can't have "half" a state. Either one group gives in to the other's ideas, or the two will fight each other.

I also like how the people telling others to "forget their differences and stop acting sectarian" are usually Leninists, probably the ones that would be front row in the post-revolution deathsquad when lining up the formerly allied Anarchists.
agree here, except the lenists have never waited till after the revolutions, its always in the middle

The whole idea of 'Libertarian Marxist' is basically an anarchist creation. What it seems to mean is 'Marxists we like'. The wholly authoritiarian Vs libertarian argument is usually not a part of the Marxist discourse. The only person I can think of who has used it to describe themselves is Daniel Guérin.

Devrim
it's a description, you know this, it basically means the marxists that advocate the workers taking control themselves, rather than an group of revolutionarys taking power on behalf of the workers.

This is a bit much don't ya think? I mean you're really being unfair.

So when the class enemies are gone, are anarchists going to set up little mini-bureaucratic state-committees and act all puritanical against anyone who drinks? Are they going to have you go straight to a committee to pick up a voucher once money is abolished?

I think you're just looking for confrontation with MLs. ML /= totalitarianism/dictatorship anymore than Anarchism does not equal no organizational structure/chaos.

That is a ridiculous assertion to make.

you refuse to understand peoples politics, then complain that people don't get on, without ever attempting to understand what they disagree on.

Invincible Summer

21st August 2010, 22:15

From national liberation front to national liberation army, it is not that much of a difference really, is it?

In name, no. Ideologically, they are different.

Marxist_leninists is a political code word foe Maoists.You know that there are Marxist-Leninists who do not like Maoism? Marxist-Leninist generally refers to the political tradition of Marx-Lenin-Stalin.

No, Marxist-Leninists (Maoists) advocate peasant based armies fighting what they call 'people's war'. Anarchist communists advocate workers' revolution. They orientate themselves to two different classes.
Well, you're basing your definition of Marxism-Leninism on a totally different definition than I believe most would. If we are to use the more common understanding of Marxism-Leninism (which you may call "Stalinists" I guess), then the decentralized/centralized use of power is the most important difference, IMO.

i've heard this before, but as far as i can tell the ezln is a hierarchical military organisation, and openly admits to being so. admittedly one with better poletics then most, but still not anarchist.
Could you show me some links with evidence of their hierarchical nature? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to learn.

I also don't doubt that the EZLN itself has some sort of hierarchical structure, but the organization of the communities and whatnot is definitely de-centralized and democratic.

no we don't wtf are you talking about? do you actual know anything about anarchism at all?
Getting the working class to overthrow capitalism through building class consciousness, organizing amongst the working class, "solidarity" with unions, etc. Do anarchists not do these things? I mean, I realize some ML parties participate in bourgeois elections, but I wouldn't say that that is a distinctive feature.

And instead of being insulting, why don't you show me how I'm wrong?

RED DAVE

21st August 2010, 22:16

I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp, but let's get to it again: As long as there is a common enemy (capitalism), the two can work together well - no one denied that. But, as soon as that enemy is gone, one group (Leninists) will want to seize the power to establish their dictatorship, while the other (Anarchists) will oppose that.What you are saying is that Leninists now will, automatically, repeat what was done nearly 90 years ago.

There's no fucking compromise to be made, you can't have "half" a state. Either one group gives in to the other's ideas, or the two will fight each other.I find it hard to believe that "after the revolution," when the workers have seized control of production, that anarchists will oppose whatever minimum administration will be necessary to run what will, essentially, be a world society.

Yes, many (not all) Leninists understand the dangers of bureaucracy. Hopefully, many anarchists understand the dangers of irresponsible political individualism.

I also like how the people telling others to "forget their differences and stop acting sectarian" are usually Leninists, probably the ones that would be front row in the post-revolution deathsquad when lining up the formerly allied Anarchists.Comrade, let's try to organize some unions first and see if we can get along.

RED DAVE

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 22:19

And why should you believe that it won't?

The only way I have to predict how Leninists will behave after a revolution, is history. Since I am not aware of a major change of thought within the Leninist movement since the time they turned on Anarchists, which would imply they might have changed their ways, I have absolutely no reason to believe they won't turn on Anarchists again.

Why shouldn't you work together with the Other in order that it does not repeat itself? This is defeatism, complete defeatism.

Why should I not work together with Leninists in order that the Leninists won't turn on me after I worked together with them and helped them accomplish their goals? I'd think it's obvious.

So what? Since when do anarchists uphold ideological dogmatism? I won't speak in the name of Leninists, but I'm fairly sure that there are groups and/or individuals out there who hold a similar position.

Where do I uphold ideological dogmatism? Because I oppose Leninism? If I oppose anarcho-capitalism, fascism or Anti-Germans, is that ideological dogmatism too?

And by "state", you mean what exactly?

Every institutionalized oligarchy (with a self-asserted monopoly on force), whether it be under the coat of representative democracy, dictatorship, or whatever. Anything that involves a top-down government.

And how do you propose to solve the problem of uneven skills and knowledge throughout the society?

You can't educate people without a state? Why is that? I can educate my neighbor if he wishes to be educated by me. Heck, I could possibly educate my entire neighborhood if they wanted me to. By uneven skills I suppose that you mean the fact that not all people are suited for all sorts of work, right? There are various organisational forms, I'm not gonna go into lengths, but let me ask you this: Why do you think a state is necessary to do this? You can have organisation without states; eg: (temporary) committees, councils, etc.

How do you propose to engage in what may become a new international cold war, within the anarchist paradigm?

Are you saying that we need a state to train an army and get into a cold war with other nations? I don't get your question.

But aren't you, as an anarchist, that someone who claims that he knows what social and organizational structure is best for society, or better than the rest?
Or are you implying that the capitalist line on this question is just as equally worth as your own or mine?

What, are you trying to silence me by calling me a cappie? Smooth move comrade. I do believe that there is plenty of evidence that capitalism isn't working. I also believe there is plenty of reasons to believe that Anarchism could be working. I'm not saying that Anarchism, or Communism, or Libertarian Marxism (or w/e the name is) is the end-all society though, and I do think it's likely that sometime into Anarchism, or any other post-revolution society, there could, and will, be new revolutionary tendencies. I think this point has been explained pretty well in the video I linked earlier: It's futile to try to envision a perfect society with thinking patterns, terminology and attitudes borrowed from an imperfect one. Only constant change and adjustment (and revolutions) can bring us closer to an "utopia". The point for Anarchism is, that in the recent past, revolutions have usually been fought for more (individual) freedom, and Anarchism is the ultimate form of freedom known to us.

Evidence, please.

Evidence that bureaucracy is not central to anarchism? I don't have any, do you have any that it is?
Evidence that banning drugs is not central to anarchism? I believe a good bunch of anarchists do drugs. Unless of course, they are all inherently hypocrite.

what reasoning! dictatorship is central to Leninism because it incorporates the state as a means to get to communism?

"Dictatorship" was obviously an exaggeration, but it's not that far from any other form of government this state could have, really. Now, can you please give me reasons why you think my central point of criticism is wrong and stop strawmanning around?

I will restate it for you:

"Wherever a government is installed, which afaik is a very basic point of Leninism, a new class is created, which brings along it's own class interests, including the preservation of it's existence and power. The Leninst system just recreates class struggle in a different shape."

A.R.Amistad

21st August 2010, 22:23

What do you mean unite? As in, form a United Front against fascism if the necessity arose? Of course. Beyond that, i see no point in unity of those who fight for a worker's state versus those who want to do away with the state without giving state power first to the proletariat. Marxism, Leninism, Trostkyism etc. is a specific method and is not anarchist, although it does seek to dismantle the state along with classes.

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2010, 22:34

What, are you trying to silence me by calling me a cappie? Smooth move comrade. Hell fucking no. I apologize if I worded my question oddly. I'll elaborate: do you consider every idea of a "best" social and organizational model fo0r a society equally worth? What I'm getting at is the notion of the essential "equality of discourses" which arose with the postmodernist cultural formation. You know, the end of "Great Emancipatory Narratives" and so on.
I'm implying that you must consider your view, since anarchism is a theory on the best form of social and productive organization, superior to that of the average capitalist, the social democrat or fascist. I sure as hell do.

As far as your other points are concerned, I'm writing a post so I'll try to address them somewhat later.

Evidence that bureaucracy is not central to anarchism? I don't have any, do you have any that it is?
Evidence that banning drugs is not central to anarchism? I believe a good bunch of anarchists do drugs. Unless of course, they are all inherently hypocrite.

Eeerr, I don't seem to see where are you headed with this...
I was asking for evidence that dictatorship is central to Leninism. Do you imply the concept of the "dictatorship of the working class"? If that's so, what do you make of one of the first generation Marxists' assessment of the Paris Commune as the example of this dictatorship? Keep in mind that the same phenomenon is glorified by anarchists as well.

Devrim

21st August 2010, 22:43

The whole idea of 'Libertarian Marxist' is basically an anarchist creation. What it seems to mean is 'Marxists we like'. The wholly authoritiarian Vs libertarian argument is usually not a part of the Marxist discourse. The only person I can think of who has used it to describe themselves is Daniel Guérin.
it's a description, you know this, it basically means the marxists that advocate the workers taking control themselves, rather than an group of revolutionarys taking power on behalf of the workers.

Yet, it is a description that would have been rejected by virtually everybody it has been applied to.

From national liberation front to national liberation army, it is not that much of a difference really, is it? In name, no. Ideologically, they are different.

No essentially in my opinion, a bit more 'libertarian' rhetoric, but basically the same sort of peasant based, nationalist, anti-working class politics.

You know that there are Marxist-Leninists who do not like Maoism? Marxist-Leninist generally refers to the political tradition of Marx-Lenin-Stalin.

Yes, it does, but there aren't that many Stalinists around these days. Mostly Marxist-Leninist is a code word for Maoism.

No, Marxist-Leninists (Maoists) advocate peasant based armies fighting what they call 'people's war'. Anarchist communists advocate workers' revolution. They orientate themselves to two different classes. Well, you're basing your definition of Marxism-Leninism on a totally different definition than I believe most would. If we are to use the more common understanding of Marxism-Leninism (which you may call "Stalinists" I guess), then the decentralized/centralized use of power is the most important difference, IMO.

I think most people take it to mean Maoism these days, or one of its offshoots. I don't think different ideas about centralism are that important, what is more important by a long way is the class that the politics represent.

Devrim

Who?

21st August 2010, 22:49

i don't respect any ideologies of the left, and please don't call anarchist-communists leftists.

Anarcho-communists are generally associated with the far left, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Wikipedia: Ideologies usually associated with both the social and economic far left are left anarchism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism, collectivist anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalism.

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 23:07

What you are saying is that Leninists now will, automatically, repeat what was done nearly 90 years ago.

I say it's highly plausible to assume they will act in a similar manner, yes.

I find it hard to believe that "after the revolution," when the workers have seized control of production, that anarchists will oppose whatever minimum administration will be necessary to run what will, essentially, be a world society.

Administration as in forcing people to do something? Or Administration as in advising people on how to do something? I can't speak for all Anarchists obviously, but personally I would oppose the former and encourage the latter.

Hell fucking no. I apologize if I worded my question oddly.

Aight, no damage done :)

I'll elaborate: do you consider every idea of a "best" social and organizational model for a society equally worth?
What I'm getting at is the notion of the essential "equality of discourses" which arose with the postmodernist cultural formation. You know, the end of "Great Emancipatory Narratives" and so on.
I'm implying that you must consider your view, since anarchism is a theory on the best form of social and productive organization, superior to that of the average capitalist, the social democrat or fascist. I sure as hell do.

I don't believe in an absolute "best", no. I however do believe that, judging by my current level of knowledge, understanding, my attitudes, experiences and such, Anarchism is the "best" form I know of. It could, after a revolution, turn out to be a very shitty form of social organisation, but in our current situation, I think it's the "best" form. It's a relative "best", not an absolute.

Eeerr, I don't seem to see where are you headed with this...
I was asking for evidence that dictatorship is central to Leninism. Do you imply the concept of the "dictatorship of the working class"? If that's so, what do you make of one of the first generation Marxists' assessment of the Paris Commune as the example of this dictatorship? Keep in mind that the same phenomenon is glorified by anarchists as well.

Aight, I'm sorry I confused you guys by using government, state and dictatorship interchangeably. However:

"Dictatorship" was obviously an exaggeration, but it's not that far from any other form of government this state could have, really.

RED DAVE

21st August 2010, 23:31

What you are saying is that Leninists now will, automatically, repeat what was done nearly 90 years ago.
I say it's highly plausible to assume they will act in a similar manner, yes.Listen, Comrade, it's time for you anarchists to get off your high horses. You've made a lot of mistakes, too. I can cite plenty examples from my own experience. Note that anarchists in the US played practically no role in the movements of the 60s because, basically, they had an abstentionist attitude.

If you want to debate Makhno or Kronstadt, we can go on all night. Everyone who has half a brain knows that the situations were complex, and there were points on both sides. Remember that Victor Serge, a major anarchist, sided with the Leninists on both these issues.

I find it hard to believe that "after the revolution," when the workers have seized control of production, that anarchists will oppose whatever minimum administration will be necessary to run what will, essentially, be a world society.
Administration as in forcing people to do something? Or Administration as in advising people on how to do something? I can't speak for all Anarchists obviously, but personally I would oppose the former and encourage the latter.Y'know, sometimes I think that you anarchists are just trying to stir up shit.

Of fucking course I meant something minimal, based on working class democracy, involving skills and administration, without "forcing people to do something." And, by the way, any time you get involved in a group of more than one person, you will make compromises, negotiation, figure stuff out, etc.

RED DAVE

Devrim

21st August 2010, 23:36

If you want to debate Makhno or Kronstadt, we can go on all night. Everyone who has half a brain knows that the situations were complex, and there were points on both sides. Remember that Victor Serge, a major anarchist, sided with the Leninists on both these issues.

Serge joined the Bolshevik party in January 1919.

Devrim

RED DAVE

21st August 2010, 23:45

Serge joined the Bolshevik party in January 1919.He still considered himself an anarchist.

As I said, there are points on both side. Do anarchists and Leninists want to explore united action or scream at each other across the back fence?

RED DAVE

Widerstand

21st August 2010, 23:48

Listen, Comrade, it's time for you anarchists to get off your high horses. You've made a lot of mistakes, too. I can cite plenty examples from my own experience. Note that anarchists in the US played practically no role in the movements of the 60s because, basically, they had an abstentionist attitude.

If you want to debate Makhno or Kronstadt, we can go on all night. Everyone who has half a brain knows that the situations were complex, and there were points on both sides. Remember that Victor Serge, a major anarchist, sided with the Leninists on both these issues.

Because Anarchists did crap too, the crap Leninists did is acceptable? What kind of reasoning is that, moral relativism? Tu Quoque? If a Leninist was suspicious of cooperating with Anarchists on the grounds of vast ideological differences I would probably trust him more than one telling me "it's all good, we can work together!", while keeping his gun behind his back.

Y'know, sometimes I think that you anarchists are just trying to stir up shit.

It's my favorite thing, after spray painting Crass logos on police cars and coloring my hair!

Of fucking course I meant something minimal, based on working class democracy, involving skills and administration, without "forcing people to do something."

How is that an "of fucking course", I mean like, how is that obvious at all? Did the actual manifestation of Leninism not include forcing people to do or refrain from doing certain things? Extreme example: Gulags. There are a bunch of other examples of state-based oppression in the Soviet Union and GDR, but I guess you're not going to refute that?

syndicat

21st August 2010, 23:50

Note that anarchists in the US played practically no role in the movements of the 60s because, basically, they had an abstentionist attitude.

i was around back then. there weren't many anarchists. but in L.A. an important anarchosyndicalist group was The Resistance which was heavily involved in draft resistance, and some of its members were convicted of draft evasion. I worked with one of its members, and a couple other libertarian socialists, in helping to organize a union -- the first TAs union at UCLA. the president of the union at the time of the first big strike of TAs in UC history was a libertarian socialist.

so i think this refutes your "abstentionist" claim, dave.

Remember that Victor Serge, a major anarchist, sided with the Leninists on both these issues.

Serge was an elitist individualist anarchist who supported illegalist activities like the Bonnot gang's string of bank robberies. He was very far away from the mainstream of syndicalist or mass struggle anarchism.

In regard to working together, we would have to talk about the specifics. in the TAs union I mentioned there were Leninists and Marxist-Humanists and some of them were okay and some (PLP) were not.

As I say, it would depend on the particular approach in a particular organizing context.

Devrim

21st August 2010, 23:50

He still considered himself an anarchist.

I have never seen anything to suggest that. He still mixed with some anarchists and still had sympathises towards them, but he didn't consider himself an anarchist.

Devrim

22nd August 2010, 01:58

I hope they don't
Why?

The idea that Marxists can be split into 'good' (or "plain/libertarian") and 'bad' (read: so-called "Leninists") is largely an anarchist conceit
Which is precisely why I put "libertarian socialist" in quotation marks. I just keep the term to separate Leninist and non-Leninist ideologies.

22nd August 2010, 01:59

Anarcho-communists are generally associated with the far left, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Wikipedia: Ideologies usually associated with both the social and economic far left are left anarchism, anarcho-communism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism, collectivist anarchism, and anarcho-syndicalism.
Wikipedia doesn't mean shit. We feel we cannot be associated with any form of capitalist politics; we don't intend to work within its realm - and that includes staying off the rating scale completely. We are not supporters of the left wing of capital.

RED DAVE

22nd August 2010, 02:06

I have never seen anything to suggest that. He still mixed with some anarchists and still had sympathises towards them, but he didn't consider himself an anarchist.Just a personal note. For several years I worked with Richard Greeman, who has been working a monumental bio of Serge for over 50 years. I also met Vlady, Serge's late son.

Greeman believes that in spite of Serge's political affiliation with the Bolsheviks, the POUM, etc., he remained politically/psychologically an anarchist all his life. Now that is certainly subject to debate; however, the political pattern of Serge's functioning – even within various organizations he was part of he was on the outs – represents, fundamentally, an anarchist approach to politics.

This is meant to be a constructive contribution to a discussion, not a polemic. Anarchists and Leninists (and Trotskyists, who consider themselves to be Leninists) can work together.

RED DAVE

x359594

22nd August 2010, 02:29

...Anarchists and Leninists (and Trotskyists, who consider themselves to be Leninists) can work together.

Absolutely right Dave. In a predominantly liberal blog that I joined just to question underlying liberal assumptions my strongest ally is a Trotskyist. We often back stop each other. (I describe myself as anracho-marxist or anarcho-syndicalist or industrial unionist depending on circumstances.)

Devrim

22nd August 2010, 09:42

Just a personal note. For several years I worked with Richard Greeman, who has been working a monumental bio of Serge for over 50 years. I also met Vlady, Serge's late son.

Greeman believes that in spite of Serge's political affiliation with the Bolsheviks, the POUM, etc., he remained politically/psychologically an anarchist all his life. Now that is certainly subject to debate; however, the political pattern of Serge's functioning – even within various organizations he was part of he was on the outs – represents, fundamentally, an anarchist approach to politics.

Personally I think that the idea of being a 'psychological anarchist' is nonsense. The man was a member of the RCP(B), a comintern functionary, and later a member of the Left Opposition. He obviously wasn't an anarchist.

This is meant to be a constructive contribution to a discussion, not a polemic. Anarchists and Leninists (and Trotskyists, who consider themselves to be Leninists) can work together.

For us, the real split today is not between anarchists and Marxists, but between what we would call internationalists, and organisations that take sides in bourgeois wars.

For us the IS current is one of those, as this choice example shows:

we have no choice but to support the Khomeini regime ...it would be wrong to strike...
socialists should not call for the disruption of military supplies to the front… should not support actions which could lead to the collapse of the military effort

In our opinion, Just as the majority of the Social Democratic parties, along with many anarchists betrayed the working class in 1914, the parties of the third international and Trotskyism betrayed in the Second World War, and have been pretty consistent (taken as a whole, individual Trotskyist parties have refused to take side in specific wars, but non of them consistently) in taking sides in virtually every war since.

For us there can be no co-operation on an organisation level with these sort of political groups.

On an individual level in the course of the class struggle, we are happy to work with any workers together in what we see as taking forward the class struggle.

Devrim

RED DAVE

22nd August 2010, 13:39

In our opinion, Just as the majority of the Social Democratic parties, along with many anarchists betrayed the working class in 1914, the parties of the third international and Trotskyism betrayed in the Second World War, and have been pretty consistent (taken as a whole, individual Trotskyist parties have refused to take side in specific wars, but non of them consistently) in taking sides in virtually every war since.

For us there can be no co-operation on an organisation level with these sort of political groups.

On an individual level in the course of the class struggle, we are happy to work with any workers together in what we see as taking forward the class struggle.This is about as dumb a set of political principles as I can conceive of. But you're entitled to them.

Enjoy your little garden plot, where only the plants that you like will grow. And I'm sure that the working class will enjoy the few scrawny leaves in your salad.

A STORY

So I may as well trot out my first experience working with anarchists. Way back in 1962, when dinosaurs still walked the Earth, as a member of the New York leadership of the Student Peace Union, I was the organizer for a city-wide demonstration for Hiroshima Day, to be held in Times Square. There was a meeting at which half a dozen or so groups participated. All the details of the demo were hammered out, including the notion that no group would march under its own banners. A set of slogans that all the groups would use was also agreed on.

Came the afternoon when the demo was to start, at the UN, whereupon we would march to Times Square, several hundred strong, which was a good-sized bunch for those days. And all the groups showed up: radicals, socialists, a couple of Communist fronts, a liberal group, etc., and an anarchist group, which shall remain nameless, which had participated in the negotiations and had agree to the discipline of the march, although, as I recall, they had had some disagreements.

And, lo and behold, the anarchist group had placards with their own slogans and identifying themselves as a group, both of which they had agreed not to do. I was the leader designated by the committee to run the show for the first 12 hours; it was a 48-hour demo. (We had a lot of stamina back then.)

I asked the anarchists not to use their placards; we had spend a fair amount of scratch printing up the stuff that had been agree with (including a joint leaflet signed by all groups). They said (and they were a fairly large group, maybe 40-50) that if they couldn't use their banners, with their own slogans, they would not march with the rest of us and would, in fact, organize a counter-demo. They had brought extra, blank signs and paint and said they would make signs to denounce the rest of us if not given their way.

I consulted with the few other leaders who were there; they had their opinions, but they let me know that the decision was mine to make. Being a hardcore Bolshevik of 17, I made the decision to permit them to march with their own banners, under their own name. There was some grumbling from some of the other groups, but they stuck with the original agreement.

I have never forgotten that incident. It strikes me as what we now call a political paradigm that those anarchists, at least, were operating under. I have seen other similar incidents, in which anarchist groups and individuals found it more important to operate under their own principles than those of a group, even though there was a previous agreement. One of the reasons that this anarchist group, though well known, was not asked to participate in the planning of major antiwar demos in New York (and nationally) in the ensuing years was because of shit like this (it wasn't an isolated incident).

RED DAVE

Devrim

22nd August 2010, 14:41

Bubbles

22nd August 2010, 14:56

In Sweden, anarchists and marxist work together fine in the Syndicalist Youth Association. http://www.suf.cc

Chambered Word

22nd August 2010, 15:29

it's a description, you know this, it basically means the marxists that advocate the workers taking control themselves, rather than an group of revolutionarys taking power on behalf of the workers.

lol guys i'm going to stick my head in the sand cos leninism is the same as blanquism

RED DAVE

22nd August 2010, 15:54

This is about as dumb a set of political principles as I can conceive of. But you're entitled to them.

Enjoy your little garden plot, where only the plants that you like will grow. And I'm sure that the working class will enjoy the few scrawny leaves in your salad.
I don't quite seeYou don't quite see ... .

how somebody who calls themselves a Leninist can say that refusing to work with groups who support imperialist wars is 'about as dumb a set of political principles as I can conceive of'.There is a debate on the Left, going back a zillion years on this: What is the proper position for the Left when a country with a nonsocialist government is invaded by a capitalist country. The original debate goes back to, I believe, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, where much of the Left was in favor of defeat of the invading Italians by the Ethiopian government, which was as backward and reactionary as existed on Earth at the time.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8713

I guess it means that you just have very little idea of history.Quite the contrary, Comrade, I have a fairly good idea of history, I hope. Political action does not consist of setting up a blind set of principles and following them. That's what we do in Euclidean geometry (and not in the non-Euclidean stuff), not in revolutionary politics.

This principle was debated during the 60s re Vietnam, when it was obvious that the withdrawal of US troops would mean the victory of a stalinist government. But the Left that was worth its salt supported US unconditional withdrawal. (Interestingly, the stalinists in the US advocated negotiations, notwithdrawal.) Now, 35 years later, Vietnam is a capitalist country.

The central principle is the defeat of imperialism by any means necessary. What those means are are by no means always clear.

RED DAVE

Devrim

22nd August 2010, 16:42

There is a debate on the Left, going back a zillion years on this: What is the proper position for the Left when a country with a nonsocialist government is invaded by a capitalist country. The original debate goes back to, I believe, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, where much of the Left was in favor of defeat of the invading Italians by the Ethiopian government, which was as backward and reactionary as existed on Earth at the time.

Nobody is suggesting that there should be support of any invasions by any capitalist states.

This principle was debated during the 60s re Vietnam, when it was obvious that the withdrawal of US troops would mean the victory of a stalinist government. But the Left that was worth its salt supported US unconditional withdrawal. (Interestingly, the stalinists in the US advocated negotiations, notwithdrawal.) Now, 35 years later, Vietnam is a capitalist country.

Again it is not being suggested that revolutionaries should do anything, but agitate against the war effort of their own states.

What I am saying is that organisations that take sides in capitalist wars are not revolutionary organisations. The quote from Socialist Worker above makes the consequences of this position very clear. Backing of smaller states against bigger ones means taking up anti-working class positions, in that case being against workers' strikes.

Whilst not saying that workers in the big imperialist countries should do anything, but fight against the main enemy, which is always at home, this equally applies to workers in smaller countries.

Support for states such as Iran is an abandonment of revolutionary principles.

The central principle is the defeat of imperialism by any means necessary. What those means are are by no means always clear.

Imperialism is not the policy of particular states. It is an epoch of capitalism, and can not be defeated short of workers revolution.

Political action does not consist of setting up a blind set of principles and following them. That's what we do in Euclidean geometry (and not in the non-Euclidean stuff), not in revolutionary politics.

I think that there are principles for revolutionaries and an opposition to imperialist wars is one of them.

Devrim

syndicat

22nd August 2010, 17:54

Came the afternoon when the demo was to start, at the UN, whereupon we would march to Times Square, several hundred strong, which was a good-sized bunch for those days. And all the groups showed up: radicals, socialists, a couple of Communist fronts, a liberal group, etc., and an anarchist group, which shall remain nameless, which had participated in the negotiations and had agree to the discipline of the march, although, as I recall, they had had some disagreements.

well, because you don't give the name, I have no idea what kind of "anarchist" group this is. so your story doesn't prove anything as far as I'm concerned. I've certainly been frustrated by "anarchists" for a variety of reasons, including a lack of any perspective to participation in mass organization or collective discipline. But there are different kinds of Left libertarians. if you're saying that all left libertarians don't believe in collective discipline, then i'd say you don't know what you're talking about.

The Red Next Door

22nd August 2010, 18:23

Its not an excuse and I'm not trying to excuse the action. I expect Leninists to shoot at anarchists when it comes down to it. Why wouldn't I expect it? They've done it plenty of times before.

Its not secterian, for it to be secterian we would each have to be sects in the same movement. We're not. I'm not sorry the RCP's bookstore got smashed up, burn it fucking down for all I care.

I love my friends C, they are anarchists i would never shoot them in the head and i stood up for anarchists, when someone was stating that all anarchists were petit bourgie white kids/

RadioRaheem84

22nd August 2010, 18:55

Wow. That is harsh, cmoney. And weird.

Ele'ill

22nd August 2010, 19:00

If this shit is this fucking awful now each one of us can write our wills and shoot ourselves in the mouth today.

I'm an anarchist because achieving social justice shouldn't always boil down to a violent struggle as to who is going to take power.

With that said- "If it's stupid and works it isn't stupid."

The Red Next Door

22nd August 2010, 19:08

Average Working class progressive person: "FUCK YOU PEOPLE, I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR THE DSA AND DNC, YOU PEOPLE ARE BUNCH OF WHINY LITTLE CHILDREN, WHO ***** ABOUT STUFF THAT HAPPEN HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO!"

point is, what does the working class thinks? I think they would ask us to unite for their benefit, at the end of the day. this petty shit will not end capitalism and for the people who say that, us leninists of today will killed anarchists.

FUCK YOU!

The Douche

23rd August 2010, 15:59

I love my friends C, they are anarchists i would never shoot them in the head and i stood up for anarchists, when someone was stating that all anarchists were petit bourgie white kids/

I don't think you would just shoot me or any other anarchist. I don't think Leninists did (or will, given the opportunity again) kill anarchists because of differring ideology. I think Leninists will shoot anarchists because they will defend their revolution.

I think the concept of the state and the management of struggle (things integral to leninism) are anti-working class, I will fight against them.

RadioRaheem84

23rd August 2010, 16:06

I think Leninists will shoot anarchists because they will defend their revolution. I think the concept of the state and the management of struggle (things integral to leninism) are anti-working class, I will fight against them.

Is RAAN a cult? Because if anarchist principles were working in the revolution and we were able to stave off onslaught and counter revolution, I would not shoot any anarchist comrades.

Widerstand

23rd August 2010, 16:10

Is RAAN a cult? Because if anarchist principles were working in the revolution and we were able to stave off onslaught and counter revolution, I would not shoot any anarchist comrades.

Why would RAAN be a cult? RAAN are people with a strict, low-tolerance anti-statist stance.

How would you know if Anarchist principles work in the revolution when your very own principles are so very unanarchist? I can see Leninists "trying out" Anarchist principles just as little as I can see Anarchists "trying out" Leninist authoritarianism.

The Douche

23rd August 2010, 16:11

Is RAAN a cult? Because if anarchist principles were working in the revolution and we were able to stave off onslaught and counter revolution, I would not shoot any anarchist comrades.

RAAN, like all other anti-state organizations, (hold onto your hat for this shocking revalation :)) opposes the state.

The state is not in the interests of the working class. Its not in my interests, I'm going to oppose it, just like all other anti-statists will. Despite the hunky dory sentiment of revleft, in the real world many anarchists will not work with leninists except for on single issues (i.e. on a campus against tuition hikes). Most anarchists are openly hostile toward leninism. And anarchism, theoretically is clearly hostile to leninism, so why is it so absurd that I openly state my theory and act based on this theory?

RadioRaheem84

23rd August 2010, 16:14

How would you know if Anarchist principles work in the revolution when your very own principles are so very unanarchist? I can see Leninists "trying out" Anarchist principles just as little as I can see Anarchists "trying out" Leninist authoritarianism.

I am not all that doctrinaire as you paint me, chammer, and I doubt most MLs are. I would've fought along side the Spanish Anarchists against Fascist and yes, Stalinists.
I would fight against the Mexican State if a hailstorm fell on the Zapatistas.

My only tilt toward ML is because examining the historical record of the former regimes, I found it was less a power grab by many of the MLs and more of a necessity to survive. I started off a libertarian socialist and still retain a lot of anti-bureaucratic elements in my outlook but I also think that survival is key.

Are you so bitter that you want to see all Leninists as the enemy?

RadioRaheem84

23rd August 2010, 16:19

RAAN, like all other anti-state organizations, (hold onto your hat for this shocking revalation :)) opposes the state.

The state is not in the interests of the working class. Its not in my interests, I'm going to oppose it, just like all other anti-statists will. Despite the hunky dory sentiment of revleft, in the real world many anarchists will not work with leninists except for on single issues (i.e. on a campus against tuition hikes). Most anarchists are openly hostile toward leninism. And anarchism, theoretically is clearly hostile to leninism, so why is it so absurd that I openly state my theory and act based on this theory?

Fair enough. But how do you know that Leninists would be so doctrinaire as to repeat nearly everything that past regimes have done? I mean are you basing this entirely off ideological presuppositions? I think many are pragmatic to see what fits within the particular conditions of a country in revolt.

I mean what about non Leninist Marxists that still believe in the road to socialism through the state? How do you guys reconcile with them?

The Douche

23rd August 2010, 16:27

Fair enough. But how do you know that Leninists would be so doctrinaire as to repeat nearly everything that past regimes have done? I mean are you basing this entirely off ideological presuppositions? I think many are pragmatic to see what fits within the particular conditions of a country in revolt.

I mean what about non Leninist Marxists that still believe in the road to socialism through the state? How do you guys reconcile with them?

Leninism is a statist ideology, if Leninists didn't use the state, they would no longer be leninists. It is possible to be influenced by Lenin and not be a leninist, I am certainly influenced by mao.

I don't think statists are just "pragmatists" the purpose of a political party is to sieze state power. I oppose the existance of the state, whether it is a "democracy", a "monarchy" or a "worker's state".

Anti-statists (I feel bad always saying "anarchists" as it alienates the non-anarchist members of RAAN/other non-anarchist anti-statists) oppose all states, not just Leninist ones. (I think that is obvious to you, I'm not sure why you asked?)

RadioRaheem84

23rd August 2010, 16:31

The Douche

23rd August 2010, 16:36

RadioRaheem84

23rd August 2010, 16:38

I think this is kind of silly. We are all here because we believe in revolution. We don't think capitalism is in the best interests of the working class so we want to destroy it, not reform it away (pragmatic steps to eliminate it). So yes, seeing the state as being anti-working class, I want to destroy it, not reform it away (which is not possible in my mind).

To suggest that the state will wither away makes about as much sense to me, as suggesting that capitalism will wither away.

Comrade, forgive me if I wasn't clear. I meant pragmatic steps after a revolution. I believe in revolution too and do not think that reform will kill the capitalist state.

Why, on the second notion?

The Douche

23rd August 2010, 16:40

It was more of a sense if you believe in any pragmatic steps to eliminate a state, but again I suppose you do not as you probably subscribe the notion that the new state will not abolish itself. This based on the history and nature of a state in general.

Is this more of less correct?

Yet, forming one and using the state to defend revolution and institute socialism and then work on a transition from one stage to a stateless one cannot be a material interest for the Leninist?

Where does this nature come from to simply seize power? Do revolutionaries after toppling the former government just all of a sudden become intoxicated with the aroma of power they just confiscated? Was this "nature" totally disconnected from the fabric of the society itself, from any social relations that may have impacted it?

Like I said, the nature of the political party is to sieze and wield state power, the nature of the politician (revolutionary or not) is to manage struggle.

I don't think statists are some crazy power hungry monsters hell-bent on oppressing workers. I just think that the state recreates new class relations, and then reinforces them. The state serves a similar function to capitalism, especially when the state enforces or functions as a capitalist (nationalizations etc, something integral to leninist ideology)

RadioRaheem84

23rd August 2010, 16:41

We should carry this discussion to the Anarchist Presuppositions thread.

This is the heart of the matter that I want to learn to see if I want to stay an ML or possibly move on to CC.

Uppercut

23rd August 2010, 16:46

I'm a non-revisionist Marxist-Leninist or "Hoxhaist" but I'm quite open to debating with anarchists. If they wanna discuss politics, I'm all ears. If we're serious about building a classless and stateless society, we should be open to engaging with other tendencies. We're both on the far-left side of the spectrum, so there should be nothing to fear.

Black Sheep

24th August 2010, 03:35

here we go again: Red & Anarchist Action Network Principles & Direction (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/p&d.html)
Lulag @ the guy's clothes on the right
http://www.redanarchist.org/images/raanprotest.jpg

RED DAVE

24th August 2010, 16:01

I don't think statists are just "pragmatists" the purpose of a political party is to sieze state power. I oppose the existance of the state, whether it is a "democracy", a "monarchy" or a "worker's state.How will the entire economy of the world, an economy that encompasses over 6 billion people, be operated with some kind of coordinating structures?

As soon as such structures are built, you have a state.

RED DAVE

robbo203

24th August 2010, 16:28

How will the entire economy of the world, an economy that encompasses over 6 billion people, be operated with some kind of coordinating structures?

As soon as such structures are built, you have a state.

RED DAVE

Not really. It is not the "co-ordinating structures" - the adminstration - per se that constitutes the state but rather the purpose for which they exist. The state is a product of a system of class relations and reciprocally seeks to bolster these relations. Once you remove class society you get rid of the state. Much of the administrative machinery left behind by the demise of the state - local, national and global (e.g. FAO, WHO) - can still be of use to a post capitalist society. This is what I think Engels had in mind when he talked about of the government over people giving away to an adminstration of things or words to that effect...

RED DAVE

24th August 2010, 17:02

Not really. It is not the "co-ordinating structures" - the adminstration - per se that constitutes the state but rather the purpose for which they exist.Sorry, Comrade, but a purpose can only be expressed through structures.

The state is a product of a system of class relationsCorrect. Actually: class antagonisms.

and reciprocally seeks to bolster these relations.Correct. A workers state will enhance economic relations between workers.

Once you remove class society you get rid of the state.Correct. After the revolution class society will begin to wither away, but this will come only after the working class has seized hold of production and established a workers state, of one form or another, to control production.

Much of the administrative machinery left behind by the demise of the state - local, national and global (e.g. FAO, WHO) - can still be of use to a post capitalist society.Okay, and that constitutes a workers state.

This is what I think Engels had in mind when he talked about of the government over people giving away to an adminstration of things or words to that effect...Okay, but it's still a state.

One of the features of a state will be institutions of power and/or coercion. Elements of the bourgeoisie will still exist, functioning to their own purposes. They will need to be dealt with politically, economically, even militarily. To keep this effort going, to coordinate it, will require ... a state.

Can't get away from it, Comrade, until awhile after the revolution.

RED DAVE

syndicat

24th August 2010, 18:03

A system for governance means the ability to make rules (laws) for the society and to enforce them, and to adjudicate disputes that arise between different people. But this doesn't require a state. The Iroqois Confederacy was a governance structure and could even wage war but wasn't a state.

A state requires a hierarchical apparatus, that is, structured in such a way as to concentrate decision-making authority & expertise/knowledge into the hands of the few, and not subject to direct control of the mass of the population. This hierarchical structure already implies class antagonism internal to the state (workers vs bosses), and its separation from effective popular control, as Engels said, is what enables it to work for the interests of a dominating, exploiting class.

The aim of the revolution needs to be the creation of a form of popular power that isn't a state in this sense, because it needs to implement as much as possible direct rule of the masses. This is why it needs to be grounded in the assemblies, in the workplaces and the neighborhoods, and in delegate democracy, not representation, and a popular militia under direct popular control, not a professional, permanent, hierarchical army.

So popular rule and coordination does not require a state. And a party running a state will just be the means to consolidate some bureaucratic control layer that is a new exploiting class in the making.

In her recent essay on 21st Century Socialism in Latin America (in Monthly Review), Marta Harnecker acknowledges that this needs to be the aim of an authentic socialism. Where I disagree with her is in her view that this can be brought about through the inherited state.

I find the title of this thread sort of misleading. I don't see the issue as one of necessary conflict between libertarian socialism and "marxism". Marxism is a complex set of ideas, and some of these ideas have held up pretty well and others have not. Some of these ideas have influenced or been adopted by various libertarian socialists. My own organization, Workers Solidarity Alliance, is not marxophobic and many members have no beef with marxism per se. Our beef is with Leninism and social-democracy.

But this doesn't mean it isn't possible to work together in specific settings. In 2000-2001 I was active in the Mission Anti-displacement Coalition in San Francisco for example. It's main leadership were Leninists (the president was a member of Committees of Correspondence), mainly staff in non-profits. There were also anarchists or libertarian socialists in the coalition (for example from Eviction Defense Network, a grassroots tenant group, and from various artist groups such as Art & Revolution and the S.F. Print Collective). The struggle for about a year was run through weekly assemblies. We engaged in various kinds of direct protest...a sitdown blockage of the city's building department, occupations of several buildings, a mass march, etc.

After about a year some of the Leninists proposed a new structure that could concentrate decision-making in a small committee. I argued against that. The committee was approved, but didn't seem to work out. Tended to demobilize the movement. Anyway, we were able to work together for quite awhile because the methods were acceptable to reasonable libertarian socialists. There were some anarchists or Left-communists who refused to participate because they didn't like the role of nonprofit staff or the Leninists but that struck me as sectarian at the time. After all, there was a struggle against evictions and displacement going on. The same situation can occur in the context of a labor struggle. I may have criticisms of how a particular union is run, but if the workers are using it to engage in a struggle, then i'd support that struggle.

robbo203

24th August 2010, 19:07

Sorry, Comrade, but a purpose can only be expressed through structures.

Yes but "coordinating structures" do not equal a state. If that were the case then the logic of what you say is that there will be no coordinating structures in a classless stateless communist society. In other words, there will be no administration. That is surely absurd.

Correct. A workers state will enhance economic relations between workers.

Correct. After the revolution class society will begin to wither away, but this will come only after the working class has seized hold of production and established a workers state, of one form or another, to control production
Okay, and that constitutes a workers state.

A workers state is a contradiction in terms. If the working class exists then so must the capitalist class. If the capitalist class exists it can only do so by exploiting the working class and in order to enable the capitalists to do this the state has to side with the capitalists against the workers. Therefore in reality the so called "workers state" will be a capitalist state disguised as a state biassed in favour of the workers. But as we know a class-based society can only be run in the interests of those own the means of production