Anarchist Presuppositions.....

[RadioRaheem84]

Since there has been some heated discussions between MLs and Anarchists lately. I really want to have a good discussion to learn some of the Anarchist presuppositions about the State, revolution and class struggle.

Let's start with the notion of the State and power. I think it's a bit idealist to assume that power just corrupts and that people pursue it for the sake of it. I think there are material interests that motivate people more than intrinsic lust for power.

Lets start. Please no big sectarian battles. I just want a frank debate and discussion.

[syndicat]

It would be a misstatement of the libertarian socialist position to say that we think "power corrupts." That's because in fact libertarian socialism advocates power for the masses. It might help to explain two concepts.

First, consider the state. An essential feature of the state is that it is a hierarchical apparatus where the masses of people have no way to effectively control it. As Engels points out in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", the state has this character because its function is to defend and ensure the interests of the dominating classes.

So, libertarian socialists infer that a hierarchical governance structure that is not really under direct control of the masses will tend to defend the interests of some dominating, exploiting class. What we see in the state is a concentration of decision-making authority and various kinds of expertise in the state hierarchies....and this is itself a structure of class domination.

So, the alternative to the state would be direct rule by the masses themselves. From a libertarian socialist point of view, this needs to be grounded in the direct democracy of assemblies, such as assemblies of workers in workplaces or of neighbors in neighborhoods. From this the direct power of the people can be extended via delegate democracy, that is, conferences or congresses of delegates whose role is under the control of the assemblies, such as the assemblies being able to require decisions of congresses to be ratified by assemblies and delegates required to report back about congresses, and the ability of assemblies to remove delegates if they are not satisfied. Also, that delegates work some regular job and are not paid more than their regular job for the time spent working as a delegate. The idea is that there is a lack of separation between delegates and assemblies.

The congresses and asemblies would have the power to make the basic rules of society, that is, the laws, and they would have under their direct control a people's militia for defense of the revolution and, when needed, for enforcement of the rules.

so it's misleading to say that the libertarian position is "against power." No society can exist without power to make decisions. It's a question of how decision-making power is organized. What libertarian socialism is opposed to is hierarchical power, such as of bosses over workers or of the state over society. The libertarian principle is self-management...people controlling decisions in sofar as they are affected by them.

The second issue is the strategy question related to this conception of the revolutionary governance structure. From the point of view of those libertarian socialists who historically have suppoorted a syndicalist or mass organizing strategy, the mass organizations, not any "party" or political organization, are the means to empowerment through transformation of the social arrangement.

The strategy that libertarian socialists reject is partyism, the strategy of a party taking state power and then implementing its program top down through the hierarchies of the state.

From a libertarian socialist point of view, it is highly unrealistic to suppose that the use of top-down, bureaucratic or statist methods could eventuate in self-managed socialism. That's because such methods would tend to not develop the consciousness and skills and organization power of the rank and file and would tend to concentrate power and knowledge in the hands of a minority. so if we want an authentically self-managing socialism, this needs to be brought about through movements that already develop this character.

[Tablo]

Even if material lusts alone were what brings corruption you have to take into account that power brings greater ability to fulfill material lusts.

[revolution inaction]

Let's start with the notion of the State and power. I think it's a bit idealist to assume that power just corrupts and that people pursue it for the sake of it. I think there are material interests that motivate people more than intrinsic lust for power.

i't may be that there are some who would not be corrupted by power, but there is no way of telling who they are before hand, and it is also known that the most unscrupulous selfish people are the most attracted to power so ever if know one was currupted by power the it is still likely that the worst people would be the ones who ended up in charge.
also, even if some one perfect who have no selfish desires some how ended up in power, then they would still not be able to understand everones needs, the would need to be told what by everyone what needed doing, and at the same time the would need to be constantly moitored to check that they where doing things right and hadn't become corrupted or made a mistake, and this monitoring would have to be done by everyone, because if you appoint a person to do the monitoring then they the have power and need to be monitored themselfs and so on, so ultamitaly everone in society would need to take part in telling this leader what to do, and cheaking that they do it right.
in this case isn't it quite a bit simpler for people to make desisions for them selfs?
and what the fuck is idealistic about the idea that absolutaly no one can be trusted? i find it a fuck load more idealistic to propose that there is some ideal leader that will do whats best for every one.





Lets start. Please no big sectarian battles. I just want a frank debate and discussion.
:lol: :laugh: of cause you do :rolleyes:

[RadioRaheem84]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif of cause you do http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif That was cold, comrade. But hey whatever. At least I received some honest responses from other posters.


Even if material lusts alone were what brings corruption you have to take into account that power brings greater ability to fulfill material lusts. Excellent point. But would that not entail the notion that one would be seeking power in a matter that is not disbursed to avoid the abuse of it. I mean that is presupposing that someone is not seeking a democratic form of government where power rests in the people.

Syndicat, I like what I am reading. :thumbup1:

How would the defense of the structure you propose come about though with just organized militas? How would enough surplus be expropriated to construct an army against invasion? How would you deal with the fragmentation and isolation of the different assemblies?

Keep it going guys. This is great. MLs, where you at?

[Widerstand]

Since there has been some heated discussions between MLs and Anarchists lately. I really want to have a good discussion to learn some of the Anarchist presuppositions about the State, revolution and class struggle.

Let's start with the notion of the State and power. I think it's a bit idealist to assume that power just corrupts and that people pursue it for the sake of it. I think there are material interests that motivate people more than intrinsic lust for power.

Lets start. Please no big sectarian battles. I just want a frank debate and discussion.

Okay once again:

Wherever you have a state, you have an institutionalized form of government, which, in order to function, requires a more or less developed bureaucratic body. This is true, because the state, by definition, governs the people, and needs the infrastructure and force to do so. Therefore, a state is necessarily oligarchic to some extent.

If you have a community of equals making decisions in committees and collaborating with other communities through recallable delegates, you don't have a state, at least not necessarily.

Wherever you have an oligarchy, you create two classes: Rulers (government), and ruled (citizens). These classes have inherent class interests, the Rulers will naturally want to preserve both their class existence and their power, in the same way the bourgeois does.

You could sum that up with "power corrupts", but that's a really oversimplified description. What I'm saying, is that there can't be a classless society if there is a state, as states need governmental bodies (oligarchy) to function, and as oligarchies recreate class struggle. The notion of "temporary states" is a misconception, because the newly formed class will never dismantle itself. An overthrow, eg a new revolution, will be necessary.

Therefore, I consider the Leninist system of a "self-abolishing" state bullshit, because there no such thing.

[Thirsty Crow]

:lol: :laugh: of cause you do :rolleyes:
You're fucked up, quite frankly. Lost to the abyss of sectarian mindset. I'm really sorry, but you simply are. No, disregard that. I'm not sorry. And I'm not even a Leninist for fucks sake :rolleyes:
And my first warning: pending in...

[RadioRaheem84]

The notion of "temporary states" is a misconception, because the newly formed class will never dismantle itself. An overthrow, eg a new revolution, will be necessary.You're sure of this because you assume the rest of the stuff about a state above? So even if it's interest is to abolish itself, you don't buy it because of your notions of the state, period?


Therefore, I consider the Leninist system of a "self-abolishing" state bullshit, because there no such thing.
Rulers will naturally want to preserve both their class existence and their power, in the same way the bourgeois does.The bourgeoisie do so for maintaining the interests of capital; a material interest. Not for the sake of preserving power.

[syndicat]

How would the defense of the structure you propose come about though with just organized militas? How would enough surplus be expropriated to construct an army against invasion? How would you deal with the fragmentation and isolation of the different assemblies?

If we already have a highly democratic set of organized mass movements, such as worker controlled unions, there would already be a practice of assemblies in the context of linked up movements.

In addition to assemblies you would also have elected coordinating committees at local and broader levels.

The workers would need to take over the means of production. If there is a question of an organized military fight, then industries can be converted to a war footing, producing for the militia. In the Spanish revolution in 1936 the CNT unions in Catalonia converted more than 200 metal working and chemical factories to the manufacture of munitions.

[ContrarianLemming]

You're sure of this because you assume the rest of the stuff about a state above? So even if it's interest is to abolish itself, you don't buy it because of your notions of the state, period? Considering that communism (stateless kind) is always in our best interests, we can see that people wont always go with whats best, including leaders, it was in the interests of Russias rulers to abolish the state, but they did not, we're looking at an addiction to wealth, and power. That's where it starts isn't it? Property, dominations, inequality, marginalization, as Parenti put it, we're looking at an addiction of wealth.

fantastic post as always syndicat.

I'd also point out that radio is critizing the anarchist post revolution structure, a structure almost every Leninist agrees with for statelessness, in which case he should know the answers.

[RadioRaheem84]

Excellent, syndicat. That is the type of info I am looking for when it comes to understanding Anarchism in practice

[RadioRaheem84]

Contrarian, Parenti was talking about a material interest in accumulating wealth was an addiction in a cappie society.

Secondly I was talking about chammers presumption of a pre-revolution state with vested material interests against a post revolutionary state with different material interests. I agree with the former to an extent but not the latter.

[Widerstand]

You're sure of this because you assume the rest of the stuff about a state above?

This is the conclusion, I drew from the premises I laid out. If you want to prove my conclusion wrong, you could start by either pointing out how my premises are wrong, or explaining how your state concept differs from mine. I could then go on either arguing against or agreeing with your attacks on my premises, or your conception/definition of a state, and eventually we could, in the optimal case, reach a shared conclusion. Or you can say that I "assume stuff" and we run in circles, while mentally masturbating, some more.


So even if it's interest is to abolish itself, you don't buy it because of your notions of the state, period?

It sounds highly counterintuitive that anything would want to abolish itself.

Let's get to this from a more practical PoV: How do you design a state that over time, naturally, loses power until it "withers away"?

Or if you don't want it to wither away, but rather want it to just cease existing at some point, how to you decide when the exact point is reached that the state should abolish itself? And how do you ensure that the state follows through on that?



The bourgeoisie do so for maintaining the interests of capital; a material interest. Not for the sake of preserving power.

Can you have power without some sort of control over production? I assume you will answer no, as I would, since this is sort of the whole premise of the revolutionary left, isn't it? Because power stems from controlling production, seizing the means of production would transfer power to the working class, ergo revolution. Therefore, isn't the preservation of power essentially a material interest, too?

[Decommissioner]

I think a lot of presuppositions come from the fact anarchist think government and state are the same thing. Wherever man coordinates resources and manages economy, there will be government. This is true for an ideal anarchist society as it is for a communist society. A network of workers councils, democratically deciding what to do with resources = government. Radically different from what we see as government today, but still government.

A state exists so long as class exists. Marxists argue for the implementation of a proletarian state to defend post revolutionary gains. Since it is a proletarian state, it is run from the bottom up, with the interests of the working class in mind. Anarchists are authoritarian as well, that is, they can admit that the act of revolution is an authoritarian act. Would there not be measures taken to combat vestiges of the old order after an anarchist revolution? Of course there would be, but you guys would just choose not to call this a state apparatus.

In my opinion, a lot of differences (not all) between anarchists and marxists can be chalked up to semantics. There are real ideological differences, but they are not as extreme as one would think.

[RadioRaheem84]

Chammer if you want to continue can we drop the hostility?

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, Decomissioner. I agree. I thought syndicat had a strong post.

[Widerstand]

In my opinion, a lot of differences (not all) between anarchists and marxists can be chalked up to semantics. There are real ideological differences, but they are not as extreme as one would think.

It's plausible, but not necessarily true. I'm not convinced at all tbh. I definitely think that in your post, you are equating "government" with "organisational structures", but how do I know Leninists don't talk about oligarchic top-down governments, ergo state? Don't some Leninists explicitly say they want a state? I don't see anyone attacking "organizational structures", aka the definition of "government" you seem to subscribe to.


Chammer if you want to continue can we drop the hostility?

I could consider doing that, if you could consider actually commenting on the arguments I make.

[x359594]

Liberal historians describe the abuses of the tyrant that made the old regime illegitimate and unviable, and they show how the new regime instituted necessary reforms. Marxists show how in changed technological and social conditions, the class conflict between the dominant and exploited classes erupts: the old dominant group is no longer competent to maintain its power and ideology, the system of belief that gave it legitimacy. Then the new regime establishes institutions to cope with the new conditions, and from these develop a "superstructure" of belief that provides stability and legitimacy. Leninism works to make the old regime unable to cope, to make it illegitimate and to hasten its fall; it is then likely to take power as a minority vanguard party which must educate the masses to their own interest. In this stringent activity, any efforts at piecemeal improvement or protecting traditional freedoms are regarded as mere reformism or tinkering, and they are called "objectively counter-revolutionary." After the takeover by the new regime, there must be a strong and repressive administration to prevent reaction; during this period (indefinitely prolonged) anarchists fare badly.

Anarchism has consistently foreseen the gross dangers of present advanced societies, their police, bureaucracy, excessive centralization of decision making, social engineering, processing, schooling, and inevitable militarization. "War is the health of the State," as Randolph Bourne put it. The bourgeois State of the early nineteenth century may well have been merely the instrument of the dominant economic class, as Marx said, but in its further development its gigantic statism has become more important than its exploitation for profit. It and the socialist alternatives of the 20th century did not developed very differently. All have tended toward fascism - statism pure and simple. In the corporate liberal societies, the Bismarckian welfare State, immensely extended, does less and less well by its poor and outcast. In socialist societies, free communism did not come to be, labor was regimented, surplus value was mulcted and reinvested, and there was also a power elite. In both types, the alarming consequences of big-scale technology and massive urbanization, directed by the State or by baronial corporations, make it doubtful that central authority is a workable structure.

It could be said that most of the national States, once they had organized the excessive fragmentation of the later Middle Ages, outlived their usefulness by the seventeenth century. Their subsequent career has been largely their own aggrandizement. They have impeded rather than helped the advancing functions of civilization.

Some might argue that perhaps we could be saved by the organization of a still more powerful suprastate; but the present powers being what they are, this would require the very war that would do us in. And since present central powers are dangerous and dehumanizing, why trust superpower and a central international organization? The anarchist alternative is more logical; to try to decentralize and weaken top-down authority in the nation States, and to come to international organization by piecemeal functional and regional arrangements from below, in trade, travel, development, science, communications, health, etc.

Thus, for objective reasons, it is now respectable to argue for anarchism. I do not mean that anarchism answers all questions. Rather, we have the dilemma that it seems that modern economies, technologies, urbanism, communications, and diplomacy demand ever tighter centralized control; yet this method of organization patently does not work. Or even worse: to cope with increasingly recurrent emergencies, we need unified information, central power, massive resources, repression, crash programs, hot lines; but just these things produce and heighten the emergencies.

[Thirsty Crow]

it seems that modern economies, technologies, urbanism, communications, and diplomacy demand ever tighter centralized control; yet this method of organization patently does not work. Or even worse: to cope with increasingly recurrent emergencies, we need unified information, central power, massive resources, repression, crash programs, hot lines; but just these things produce and heighten the emergencies.
You have managed to perfectly verbalize the issue that is bugging me. That's it, definately.
Now some solid answers should be produced, but right now, and for an indefinite time, I am and will be more or less unable to do so since it is an overwhelming task, at least in my opinion.

[Widerstand]

Rather, we have the dilemma that it seems that modern economies, technologies, urbanism, communications, and diplomacy demand ever tighter centralized control; yet this method of organization patently does not work. Or even worse: to cope with increasingly recurrent emergencies, we need unified information, central power, massive resources, repression, crash programs, hot lines; but just these things produce and heighten the emergencies.

I agree with pretty much all of your post, but I don't fully understand this point. Are you saying we need centralized control to ensure the availability of global (or transregional) infrastructure for travel, goods and information exchange?

[AK]

I think a lot of presuppositions come from the fact anarchist think government and state are the same thing.
:blink:
:(
:mad:
:laugh:

Haha, no.

[NGNM85]

Damn, not one but two good threads on Anarchism. However, it appears I'm 'Johnny-Come-Lately', it seems the essential bases have already been covered.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Since the first split among leftists in the first international, betwen lebertarians and authotitarians, i cant really say that it has helped the labour movement. Its time to re-think, in the other thread about authori vs liber the user svenne wrote that to many people seems to have the idea of that ideologies are static, theire principles cant be changed, wich is jut stupid and wont help anyone, exept the ruling class. The labour movement cant afford to be so divided and now 130 years since the fall of the Paris commune and 20 years since the collapse of the East Bloc (and all that in betwen ofcourse) we can analyse the practical ettempts of different theories, and frome there go on. Simply speaking, both traditions has do drop theire dogmatism/sectarianism and start to learn frome eachother.

EDIT; Great initiative to have such a thread like this on.

[x359594]

...Are you saying we need centralized control to ensure the availability of global (or transregional) infrastructure for travel, goods and information exchange?

I'm saying it's a dilemma, because there are situations where it may be temporarily necessary, and in an anarchist context such arrangements would be ad hoc; but there's always the danger that they will ossify into something that outlives the conditions that that brought them into being.

[RadioRaheem84]

Maybe we should discuss the semantics of government and state. When I think of Cuba, I think of examples of both necessary centralization and pointless beauracracy. I think that some elements of Cuban society are by far less beauracratic than even liberal democracies. Some are not. The point is that there is a considerable amount of complexity in Marxist socieities that are very compatible with anarchist thought. We need to understand what needs to go and what needs change while at the same time staving off imperialism and counter revolution.

If the Bolivarian Revolution were to take a sharp left turn, I think a convergence of leftist ideas would be taken into consideration. I suggest we all read the latest issue of Monthly Review where the discussion is taking place now in Venezuelan circles.

[fa2991]

What a time to be gone overnight - I would've liked to jump into this discussion a little earlier.


Let's start with the notion of the State and power. I think it's a bit idealist to assume that power just corrupts and that people pursue it for the sake of it. I think there are material interests that motivate people more than intrinsic lust for power.

That's an oversimplification, to say the least. Vanguards, in the Leninist sense, can act of their own volition and (in my understanding) are supposed to do so to keep ideological purity. They are not under the direct control of the people and thus can often act against their interests or kill or impoverish them out of disconnectedness, apathy, or what have you. The Great Leap Forward never would have happened in an anarchist society. Neither would the purges, as these things don't represent the direct will of the people, but the direct will of their Party overseers.

I look at it this way: anarchists want to give the people a huge megaphone so they may be known directly and purely. Leninists wish to get someone else to speak for them. The latter is clearly more likely to get the message jumbled or misrepresent or harm the people.

Not to kick dirt in M-L wounds, but nearly every Leninist state in the world has collapsed and given in to capitalist restoration. I believe that much of this can be blamed on vanguards. Look at China, for example - maybe the people wanted to continue following Mao, but their ruling party was revisionist, which negated those interests. The Party can act of it own volition and will, and is rarely a mere instrument subservient to the class that is theoretically ruling through it.

(Also, as has been mentioned before, the conquest of greater power is the conquest of greater material benefits)


Lets start. Please no big sectarian battles. I just want a frank debate and discussion.It's not our fault you want to create a new Stalinist elite class to dominate the proletariat and destroy socialism for the sake of industrialism.

Kidding. :D


How would the defense of the structure you propose come about though with just organized militas? How would enough surplus be expropriated to construct an army against invasion? How would you deal with the fragmentation and isolation of the different assemblies? Well, for the militia question, just look at how the Zapatistas or CNT-FAI maintain(ed) an army. We could certainly convert factories to arms manufacturers, etc. A lot of little militias make for a big collective army.

Assemblies wouldn't be fragmented. There would be larger bodies or assemblies interconnecting them. Besides, if an anarchist revolution were successful, it would certainly be because the assemblies or whatever worked together, so I don't see why they couldn't just maintain the federation they had pre-revolution.


You're sure of this because you assume the rest of the stuff about a state above? So even if it's interest is to abolish itself, you don't buy it because of your notions of the state, period? It's not in the Leninist state's interest to abolish itself. Maybe it's in the people's interest to abolish it, but the vanguard isn't the people.


The bourgeoisie do so for maintaining the interests of capital; a material interest. Not for the sake of preserving power. Under Leninism we have one organization whose members control the entire economy, i.e. control the "socialist" nation's capital. That isn't a material interest?


I was talking about chammers presumption of a pre-revolution state with vested material interests against a post revolutionary state with different material interests. I agree with the former to an extent but not the latter. The post-revolution state has much greater control over the economy than the pre-revolution one. How does that not increase the chances of it becoming self-serving and corrupted?



I think a lot of presuppositions come from the fact anarchist think government and state are the same thing. Wherever man coordinates resources and manages economy, there will be government. This is true for an ideal anarchist society as it is for a communist society. A network of workers councils, democratically deciding what to do with resources = government. Radically different from what we see as government today, but still government.

A state exists so long as class exists. Marxists argue for the implementation of a proletarian state to defend post revolutionary gains. Since it is a proletarian state, it is run from the bottom up, with the interests of the working class in mind. Anarchists are authoritarian as well, that is, they can admit that the act of revolution is an authoritarian act. Would there not be measures taken to combat vestiges of the old order after an anarchist revolution? Of course there would be, but you guys would just choose not to call this a state apparatus.

In my opinion, a lot of differences (not all) between anarchists and marxists can be chalked up to semantics. There are real ideological differences, but they are not as extreme as one would think. This is true to a mild extent, but M-L vs. A government is very different in practice. Very different. One is decentralized direct democracy and the other is, not to be sectarian, an even more closed-off form of parliamentary democracy than is found under liberal "democracy."


Maybe we should discuss the semantics of government and state. When I think of Cuba, I think of examples of both necessary centralization and pointless beauracracy. I think that some elements of Cuban society are by far less beauracratic than even liberal democracies. Some are not. The point is that there is a considerable amount of complexity in Marxist socieities that are very compatible with anarchist thought. We need to understand what needs to go and what needs change while at the same time staving off imperialism and counter revolution. Cuba has made a lot of advancement, but it's more of a progressive country than a socialist one. Workplaces aren't democratic, access to some things that shouldn't be restricted are, and the working class in general does not command the state, which puts it at serious risk of capitalist restoration.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well not to kick dirt in anarchists wounds but were not their revolutions mowed down by imperial, capitalist, fascist and yes even Stalinist hordes.

I think you're critique is well reasoned but again the premise seems to rest on the nature of the state and anarchist presumptions about it, which are true, but stll doesn't address the material circumstances the ML states faced in thier particular historical development. You just assume that because there was a vanguard that this made it more succetible to corruption by Leninists seeking power for powers sake. There is no historical analysis in your post. You start with an ideal and critique the mistakes of the Leninist regimes, and reality comes off as a really poor second.

[fa2991]

Well not to kick dirt in anarchists wounds but were not their revolutions mowed down by imperial, capitalist, fascist and yes even Stalinist hordes.

:lol: Actually, the same could be said for most Marxist and Leninist revolutions. They just took longer to come to pieces (and were often destroyed by internal failures instead of external force).



I think you're critique is well reasoned but again the premise seems to rest on the nature of the state and anarchist presumptions about it, which are true, but stll doesn't address the material circumstances the ML states faced in thier particular historical development. You just assume that because there was a vanguard that this made it more succetible to corruption by Leninists seeking power for powers sake. There is no historical analysis in your post. You start with an ideal and critique the mistakes of the Leninist regimes, and reality comes off as a really poor second.Not necessarily because power corrupts absolutely, or however the saying goes, but because Leninist vanguards are disconnected from the people and in many instances fail to address the wants, needs, and will of the people. I oppose Leninist vanguardism not so much because power corrupts every Leninist, but because Lennist vanguards always seem to fail at their supposed goal - making the proletarian the ruling class. The corruption of power is only one, and not a terribly large, part of the problem.

Most of the - pardon the term - atrocities committed by Leninist governments weren't necessarily done in the pursuit of individual power (though a few were).

[RadioRaheem84]

How do you evaluate that all their descisions were disconnected from the needs of the people? There is plenty to critique but starting it off from the notion that it's simply about being so close to power and liable for corruption is not the best way. Plenty of their moves were due to number of factors ranging from scarcity to imperial onslaught. We're talking about errors in judgment, misuse of resources, etc. And yes corruption too. Examining their regimes under this premise should serve to erase mistakes in future revolutions.

I never look at the mistakes and failures of the Spanish anarchists as a mere ideological problem.

[Widerstand]

Well not to kick dirt in anarchists wounds but were not their revolutions mowed down by imperial, capitalist, fascist and yes even Stalinist hordes.

Weren't the MLs in the Spanish Revolution mowed down just the same after they turned on the Anarchists?

And Kronstadt sure was heroic, but it was a sort of lost cause from the start against the superior state forces.



I think you're critique is well reasoned but again the premise seems to rest on the nature of the state and anarchist presumptions about it, which are true, but stll doesn't address the material circumstances the ML states faced in thier particular historical development. You just assume that because there was a vanguard that this made it more succetible to corruption by Leninists seeking power for powers sake. There is no historical analysis in your post. You start with an ideal and critique the mistakes of the Leninist regimes, and reality comes off as a really poor second.

So, will you finally start addressing the presumptions laid out, or are you going to keep strawmanning and labeling things as idealist or unrealistic? Because if it's the latter, I'm outta here.

[RadioRaheem84]

How are we supposed to discuss that chammer? That basically the premise is ideal and almost unfalsifiable. So the historical record shows that people abuse power? So what? This would happen whether there was a massive state or committees that became little mini states during the SCW. The notion that the state will not disolve itself is also unfalsifiable. Just because the past regimes did not during the course of their historical development doesn't mean it can't ever. Just like I won't say that Anarchist movements cannot work or last because they lack centralization. One day it could very we work. I find anarchist thought pretty reasonable.

You can't just chalk up all the mistakes of the ML states to a simple premise that the problem is merely an ideological one about the nature of the state.

[fa2991]

How do you evaluate that all their descisions were disconnected from the needs of the people? There is plenty to critique but starting it off from the notion that it's simply about being so close to power and liable for corruption is not the best way. Plenty of their moves were due to number of factors ranging from scarcity to imperial onslaught. We're talking about errors in judgment, misuse of resources, etc. And yes corruption too. Examining their regimes under this premise should serve to erase mistakes in future revolutions.

I never look at the mistakes and failures of the Spanish anarchists as a mere ideological problem.

It's a little different, though. There were something like 31 Marxist-Leninist states in the last century, and all but 5 of them have collapsed - all having become corrupted and disintegrated in very predictable ways. It would be very easy to guess, for example, that North Korea would end up under the thumb of a psychotic iron-willed dictator or that Vietnam and China would go for market socialism and then revert to capitalism.

After so many examples that seem to end at the same place, one must begin to question the strategy of a vanguard party and consider whether or not its replacement by a form of governance that directly involves all of the people in a decentralized manner using workplaces and councils as bodies of government - anarchism, or council communism if you like - would be wiser. It's the same with social democracy - I've seen how the social democratic parties of Western Europe (notably UK's Labour party) have consistently failed to create socialism, and for predictable reasons. I am thus inclined to reject socialist parties running in liberal democracies as an effective way to create socialism.

I might reconsider if the M-L states, say, created worker's councils right away and integrated the proletariat into the state and began producing cooperatively and distributing goods in a fair way and respecting workers' rights and allowing freedom of thought, press, etc. - i.e. if they created real socialism, then maybe I could say "Okay, this is the formula for the creation of socialism and the movement towards communism. Now how do we perfect it?" But these governments seem to repeatedly and violently fail to create socialism or democracy.

[RadioRaheem84]

But some have come so damn close and achieved amazing things for thier citizens. Stuff that I never thought would even be achieved by even first world nations today. Albania for example had an amazing history from where it came from despite it's deficiencies in democracy and the sea of enemies that surrounded it, including the USSR.

We should also look at correcting mistakes. I do not think that history moves in linear fashion and that setbacks to revolution are imminent. I think of the historical development of liberal democracies and their zig zags througout history. The stability of revolution is never certain.

I also think that some anarchists under play the imperialists role in undermining all elements of the ML states and that many of their resources went to survival, even while they were still offering their citizens a decent standard of living. I remember Michael Parenti saying that an Anarchist scoffed at him one time for stating this and mocked his concern for the poor communist kids who were fed under communism. Not that anyone here would do that but this is how deep the level of sectarianism can go.

[fa2991]

But some have come so damn close and achieved amazing things for thier citizens. Stuff that I never thought would even be achieved by even first world nations today. Albania for example had an amazing history from where it came from despite it's deficiencies in democracy and the sea of enemies that surrounded it, including the USSR.

I never said that they didn't grow, or couldn't modernize a country. The example of Albania tells me that immense growth is possible without a market economy. But what does it tell me about socialism? Albania's M-L state was unbelievably abusive and was in no way, shape, or form a workers state.


I also think that some anarchists under play the imperialists role in undermining all elements of the ML states and that many of their resources went to survival, even while they were still offering their citizens a decent standard of living.(Ignore this paragraph; I didn't notice the "under" before "play" in your post :p) Well, one could argue that, for example, the Soviet Union played the imperialist's role in undermining all elements of Anarchist Catalonia - which it did. This doesn't mean much. Anarchists usually express solidarity with M-L states (think Emma Goldman & Alexander Berkman in Russia, think the anarchists in the July 26 movement in Cuba) until things inevitably go horribly awry. M-Ls can do this, too, for example in the solidarity shown to the Haymarket martyrs and Sacco & Vanzetti by Marxists, or the way the POUM, etc. helped the anarchists in Spain.


I remember Michael Parenti saying that an Anarchist scoffed at him one time for stating this and mocked his concern for the poor communist kids who were fed under communism. Not that anyone here would do that but this is how deep the level of sectarianism can go.I don't see the relevance of that.

[RadioRaheem84]

Albania should be an example of a regime that showed us that a market economy is ultimately bankrupt by comparison. It's also an example of the detriment of ML beauracratic control in the name of survival.

The things I am mainly concerned with when it comes to Anarchism is survival and counter revolution, especially in this day and age. How fast can it it maintain ideological purity in the face of onslaught? That is the only reason why I lean a bit ML.

[RadioRaheem84]

The relevance of the Parenti quip was to show that some leftists dismiss some ML regimes outright regardless of the better living standards they gave to their citizens than what was before.

[syndicat]

but it seems to me that's a reformist interpretation of socialism as "enhanced wellbeing" rather than liberation from class domination and exploitation. Without the latter, there is no way to protect against subsequent degeneration, as has been shown in the case of USSR, China, Vietnam. the bureaucratic class can try to use its position to privatize assets and convert to a more capitalist regime.

[Widerstand]

How are we supposed to discuss that chammer? That basically the premise is ideal and almost unfalsifiable. So the historical record shows that people abuse power? So what? This would happen whether there was a massive state or committees that became little mini states during the SCW. The notion that the state will not disolve itself is also unfalsifiable. Just because the past regimes did not during the course of their historical development doesn't mean it can't ever. Just like I won't say that Anarchist movements cannot work or last because they lack centralization. One day it could very we work. I find anarchist thought pretty reasonable.

You can't just chalk up all the mistakes of the ML states to a simple premise that the problem is merely an ideological one about the nature of the state.

Sigh... okay I'm getting sorta frustrated here. Let's see...

Do you agree that it's part of a states (any states as well as the Leninist) purpose to govern it people/citizens?

Do you agree that, to govern the citizens, the state needs an institutionalized form of government with a bureaucratic body?

Do you agree that, to govern the citizens, the state needs a monopoly on force/power?

Do you agree that whoever controls the means of production de facto has the power, ergo the Leninist state has to have control over the means of production?

Do you then agree that, since the bureaucratic body and governing elite of the Leninist state most likely won't work themselves, while still controlling the means of production, we are essentially back in the bourgeois - proletarian class constellation?


If you disagree at any point, please explain. If you agree so far, then why do you think should the Leninist ruling body do what the bourgeois doesn't - abolish itself?

[fa2991]

but it seems to me that's a reformist interpretation of socialism as "enhanced wellbeing" rather than liberation from class domination and exploitation.

This.


The things I am mainly concerned with when it comes to Anarchism is survival and counter revolution, especially in this day and age. How fast can it it maintain ideological purity in the face of onslaught? That is the only reason why I lean a bit ML. Partially through the arming of the populace, and partially through the rapid creation of workers' councils and institutions of workers' power. By fully and quickly integrating the people into the anarchistic "governance," we can more or less establish bases at every work place, community, and council. This would be a very deep rooted and full integration of socialism into the lives of the populace, as well as a huge step towards liberation that will make the proletariat very unlikely to want to return to the old, bourgeois order. Imperial forces can be combated militarily and through the use of propaganda and open discourse.

A lack of positions of centralized power and the implementation of direct and thorough democracy will make it much more difficult for bourgeois forces to co-opt or destroy the new order.

It seems to me that M-Ls have more difficulty maintaining purity. Anarchist movements are usually destroyed by brute force, whereas M-L usually collapse into revisionism or capitalist restoration despite the will of the people.

[RadioRaheem84]

Oh absolutely. I understand that overall it's about ridding society of the repressive social relations of capitalism so creating new ones would be in vain. But I still think they differed from the capitalist societies they supplanted. I mean look at the role if unions and spread between worker and boss. We're talking four to one, two to one in some cases in Albania, vs 80 to one in capitalist nations. 10,000 to one today considering a large CEO and a minimum wage worker. That also entails significant gains in the political realm. The Cuban National Assembly comes to mind and how elections are handled and how delegates are both workers and representatives too.

This isn't a perfect scenerio but it shows the possibilty of moving away from former capitalist nations. I also don't try to totally compare it to the ideal as againg the reality of each historical development comes off a poor second.

[fa2991]

Oh absolutely. I understand that overall it's about ridding society of the repressive social relations of capitalism so creating new ones would be in vain. But I still think they differed from the capitalist societies they supplanted. I mean look at the role if unions and spread between worker and boss. We're talking four to one, two to one in some cases in Albania, vs 80 to one in capitalist nations. 10,000 to one today considering a large CEO and a minimum wage worker. That also entails significant gains in the political realm. The Cuban National Assembly comes to mind and how elections are handled and how delegates are both workers and representatives too.

This isn't a perfect scenerio but it shows the possibilty of moving away from former capitalist nations. I also don't try to totally compare it to the ideal as againg the reality of each historical development comes off a poor second.

Those are surely gains, but they don't necessarily move in the direction of turning the MOP over to the proletariat in full.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fa2991, the brute force that trumped the anarchists was a main point for MLs to opt for centralization. The revisionism came later. How are we to know that revisionism would not have happened had the anarchists survived? Even then there were many mistakes made too.

[fa2991]

Fa2991, the brute force that trumped the anarchists was a main point for MLs to opt for centralization. The revisionism came later. How are we to know that revisionism would nit have happened had the anarchists survived? Even then there were many mistakes made too.

True, but in those small instances of anarchist rule, as under the CNT-FAI and (arguably) the Zapatistas, it doesn't really seem to be a problem. If revisionism arises under anarchism, there isn't really any way for it to come to power and destroy the movement except by convincing almost all of the populace of its validity, which is much harder than, say, Mao dying and Deng Xiapong just stepping in to fill his spot.

I think the centralization of M-Ls it what leaves them wide open for the forces of revisionism and capitalism.

Most anarchist states came about during or after wars against larger powers, so brute force defeating them is an issue of them not having enough weapons, not an issue of them not being focused enough or acting collectively effectively.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sigh... okay I'm getting sorta frustrated here. Let's see...

Do you agree that it's part of a states (any states as well as the Leninist) purpose to govern it people/citizens?

Do you agree that, to govern the citizens, the state needs an institutionalized form of government with a bureaucratic body?

Do you agree that, to govern the citizens, the state needs a monopoly on force/power?

Do you agree that whoever controls the means of production de facto has the power, ergo the Leninist state has to have control over the means of production?

Do you then agree that, since the bureaucratic body and governing elite of the Leninist state most likely won't work themselves, while still controlling the means of production, we are essentially back in the bourgeois - proletarian class constellation?


If you disagree at any point, please explain. If you agree so far, then why do you think should the Leninist ruling body do what the bourgeois doesn't - abolish itself?

Chammer, you listed so many things that overstate your premise. And it makes it rather difficult to answer. I mean we're talking about different types of government and their particular historical developments and even the level of beauracrcy in question. Like I said before there are aspects of Cuban society where revolution gave way to de-beauracratized socialism and so on. Also what's that provincial area in China?

Philosophically I don't see how you're necessarily wrong. It's very reasonalbe to assume that the way you worded your questions.

[AK]

You can't just chalk up all the mistakes of the ML states to a simple premise that the problem is merely an ideological one about the nature of the state.
You're right - it is a simple matter of class struggle. It's not the state's fault in itself, rather, it is the fault of new ruling classes that are obviously separated from the working class.

The things I am mainly concerned with when it comes to Anarchism is survival and counter revolution, especially in this day and age. How fast can it it maintain ideological purity in the face of onslaught? That is the only reason why I lean a bit ML.
To quote myself:

Our principles keep any individuals from coming into power...
An anarchist system is not designed to accommodate individuals with the power and authority to rule over others. The common argument of "but anarchism would let capitalists to take control" is bullshit. A centralised government would be much more susceptible to subjugation by capitalists, etc. because the "capitalist roader" in question - along with their accomplices - need only gain control of the topmost level of hierarchy to impose their will on everyone below. An anarchist system would only fall to such a low if the system itself were completely destroyed and replaced with a hierarchical one - not fitting in with the strawman of an anarchist system's weak resistance to infiltration and sabotage by those already inside the system. The only way that internal sabotage could lead to the downfall of an anarchist system is if the vast majority of those living in an anarchist society suddenly became overcome with capitalist principles - highly unlikely.

[Thirsty Crow]

You're right - it is a simple matter of class struggle. It's not the state's fault in itself, rather, it is the fault of new ruling classes that are obviously separated from the working class.
This is turning into a neat little discussion.
I have one question: how does that separation work, what are its premises, what is its cause and its outcome, according to you?
(It's really not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in your opinion on this one)

[Fietsketting]

I never look at the mistakes and failures of the Spanish anarchists as a mere ideological problem.

The war, the possession by the fascist armies of important resources of raw materials, the german and italian invvasion, the hostile attitude of foreign capital, the onslaught of the counter revolution in the country itself, wich, significantly, was befriended this time by Russia and the Communist Party of Spain -all this and many more other things have compelled the syndicates to postpone many great and important tasks until the war was won.

Is it not understandable that the spanish anarchists we're unable to complete there great task of social reconstruction?

[AK]

This is turning into a neat little discussion.
I have one question: how does that separation work, what are its premises, what is its cause and its outcome, according to you?
(It's really not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in your opinion on this one)
Well, for starters, one class still has control over the flow of capital and the means of production. Some of us (myself) would be of the opinion that it was the petit-bourgeoisie (since an anarchist class analysis shows us that middle management, etc. are in the same class as the traditional petit-bourgeoisie) that captured state power and became the ruling class in the Soviet Union.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is it not understandable that the spanish anarchists we're unable to complete there great task of social reconstruction?

It is it not understandable that the ML states likewise faced continuous siege by imperial forces. They knew not one day of peace either.

[x359594]

It is it not understandable that the ML states likewise faced continuous siege by imperial forces. They knew not one day of peace either.

And for that reason ML states were forced to abandon their ideologies in the short run in order to meet those attacks. In order to survive they had to adopt the strategy of "two steps forward, one step back."

For example, it seems to have been the intention of Deng Xiao Ping to guide China down the capitalist road in order to catch up with the West. According to his understanding of Marx, the capitalist stage of development is an absolutely necessary prerequisite for the emergence of socialism; China never went through a capitalist phase of development. Further, Deng thought that with the Party overseeing the capitalist era it could intervene at the proper moment and guide China back to the socialist road. Thus, Deng abandoned Maoism and Marxism-Leninism in pursuit of the long term goal of socialism. Whether or not his trust in the Party was warranted remains to be seen. (Some would say that the Party has abandoned its mission and has become just another capitalist oligarchy wearing a socialist mask.)

This seems to be the condition of the remaining Marxist-Leninist states today, adapting to capitalist encirclement by reviving capitalist production, with all the usual suffering born by the working class.

[RadioRaheem84]

I believe Cmoney and I were having a nice little discussion (at least I thought so) on the nature of the State and why it cannot dissolve itself and why Leninists cannot have a material interests in transcending over to socialism.

Let's go back to the nature of the state. This is something that has been bothering me when it comes to Anarchist thought.

Now what would make me lean more toward anarchist thought is that I too believe that it doesn't matter how great living conditions were under communist societies, the social relations matter and the total elimination of oppressive ones are due to the state apparatus.

But is the nature of the state so static and abstract in anarchist thought that it would that much of an impossibility for it to abolish itself? Can there be a viable material interest for Leninists to work toward establishing real socialism? Or is this too impossible considering the nature of the state? Are there not differences in the material interests of socialists in a ML state and the capitalist one before it?

[syndicat]

i'm not convinced by the "imperialist siege" argument. that seems to me to be an excuse. in the case of the Russian revolution for example the Bolsheviks had already opted for policies and structures that implied a relative concentration of decision-making authority into the hands of a few before the civil war, and this means the basis of a bureaucratic dominating class. This includes things like the creation of a top-down statist central planning apparauts in Nov 1917, creartion of the Red Army, with tsarist officers appointed to run it in spring 1918, etc.

The issue isn't so much "centralism" but hierarchy. These are not the same thing. If decisions are made in a workers congress for a region this is a relative form of centralism compared to villages and towns making all the decisions, but it's not hierarchical.

the Bolsheviks started out with an ideology that emphasized getting control of the central state apparatus and control by the party through a state. they failed to emphasize direct participation by the rank and file of working people in the making of decisions. this was true of the Mensheviks also. so the soviets set up by the Mensheviks (and later taken over by the Bolsheviks) were set up in a top down way, with power concentrated in the executive committee, and then later in an even smaller body, the Presidium. the plenary of delegates got turned into a rubber stamp. nor was there an emphasis on accountability to assemblies in workplaces.

by comparison, in Kronstadt in 1917 the soviet set up there was more grassroots, with the workers and sailors' deputies directly debating and making the decisions. they also had weekly assemblies in all the workplaces and on the ships. but the Mensheviks & Bolsheviks were not politically dominant in Kronstadt. the libertarian socialist groups (maximalists and syndicalists) were dominant in Kronstadt.

[Zanthorus]

Since there has been some heated discussions between MLs and Anarchists lately.

This isn't necessarily relevant to this thread, but it does sort of bug me how so many conflicts on this site are presented as a conflict between "Marxist"-"Leninists" and anarchists. The world is a little more complex than a straight ahead fight between "Marxist authoritarians" who support every regime willing to slap the "socialist" label on itself and the dogmatic anarchists with weak analysis. These kind of debates just serve to reinforce the presuppositions of both sides.

Anyway, since this thread so far seems to be something of an anarchist circle-jerk I'll outline Marx's position on the state and then comment on some of what's been posted so far.

Interestingly, although the one of the standard anarchist criticisms of Marx is that he started off as a beuracratic state-worshipper and only became more opposed to the state towards the end of his life when he wrote The Civil War in France, or even that CWiF was some kind of anomaly written because of a moment of opportunism on Marx's part, one of Marx's first major works was a critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right which he used as a jumping off point for his critique of the state. Marx's critique of Hegel concerns the third part of Hegel's book, the section on "ethical life", which covers the practical institutions through which the ethical life of the community, according to Hegel, is to be maintained. The first major division is between the institutions for the enforcement of "particular interests", which are labelled as institutions of "civil society", and those for the enforcement of the "general interest", which are those of "political society". More specifically, civil society is the realm where isolated individuals interact in order to meet their needs, the market, and political society is the state. Marx's analysis, accordingly, begins from the same distinction. However, in Marx, it gains a new twist. Marx denies that the state is a neutral instrument for mediating between competing interests, and that instead asserts the state actually enforces the particular interests of the socially dominant class as an illusory “general interest”.

From this analysis of the state as the institution for the enforcement of the interests of the ruling class as the general interest, it follows that every class which is struggling for social dominance must capture state power in order to enforce it's own particular interests as the general interest, and that this political revolution is an essential element of any revolution. It follows further that in order for the proletariat to emancipate itself, it must raise itself to the position of ruling class, and enforce it's particular interests as the general interest against the particular interests of the various non-proletarian classes (Primarily the bourgeoisie, both the internal bourgeoisie and the external bourgeoisie attempting to crush the revolution through imperialist mechanisms, but also the petit-bourgeoisie, peasantry and lumpen). But the interest of the proletariat is not towards the establishment of a new class society, but to the abolition of all classes and class rule, and accordingly also the instrument for the enforcement of class rule (The state). This is why the proletarian state is like no other state in history, since it necessarily tends to undermine the very basis of the state, the existence of social classes.

Now at this point most anarchists will object that reducing the question of the state to a question of class is both reductionist and essentially an exercise in semantics. For them, the essence of the state is also class rule, but the class rule of a minority exploiter class not of the majority, it is an institution of hierarchical governance. Therefore what Marxists call a proletarian or workers state would not be called a “state” by anarchists since as the rule of a class constituting the majority of society it is essentially non-hierarchical.

In point of fact, Marx and Engels also agreed to a certain extent, as apart from the “instrument of class rule” definition of the state, they also refer to the state as the governance institutions of society separated from society through the division of labour. From this standpoint, the state is seen as another instance of the alienation of human beings from their social powers, from their species-being. Because capitalism confines human beings to a one-sided existence, developing only one aspect of themselves instead of developing themselves in an all-sided fashion, it requires the governance of society to also be a separate activity performed only by a select group. The social division of labour under capitalism therefore appears as the mechanism through which the state arises, and the destruction of this division of labour between governors and governed as the abolition of the state. This is why Marx, in his Hegel critique, advocates recallable delegates acting on the instructions of their electors for the future stateless society (Which at that time he called “true democracy”) and why he saw in the Paris Commune a revolution against the state as such because of it's abolition of the division between executive and legislative branches of the state and it's recallable delegates payed at the wages of skilled workmen.

So we now have two definitions of the state. The first as an instrument whereby the ruling class enforces it's particular interest as the general interest, and the second as the governance institutions of society separated from society through the division of labour. So what really is the state? It is both. The state as an institution cannot be understood as any one thing, it is several things all at once, and any one definition you give will tend to give a fairly one sided view. The state should be grasped in a dialectical fashion, in all it's essential aspects, and not as something which can easily be understood with a one line definition. One of the points made by Derek Sayer in The Violence of Abstractions: Analytical Foundations of Historical Materialism is that Marx rarely gives absolute definitions for his concepts, and when he does they are essentially “fuzzy” definitions which could be taken in a number of ways, due to Marx's ontology, which is dialectical. The same thing, I think, applies to the state.

I think the some of the key points to keep in mind are the fact that the state is an institution which is bound up with the existence of capitalism, and that therefore it cannot be grasped as analytically seperate from capitalism. The main enemy is capitalism and not the state, although the state, as an essential part of capitalism, must be opposed accordingly. Secondly that although the institutions which the proletariat uses to enforce it's own interests may not be a state in the traditional sense of the term (As even Engels himself admitted, when he remarked “All the palaver over the state ought to stop after the commune, which had ceased to be a state in the true sense of the word”) they still performs many of the functions of a state, and that this will remain true throughout the transition period between capitalism and socialism. The state as such will only be abolished when the abolition of all class society is achieved.

I actually don't think there is much that class-struggle anarchists would disagree with me on in terms of actual practice (Well, on the state at least), and their emphasis on the hierarchical aspect of the state was probably a necessary evil as against those “Marxists” who used the class aspect of the state as an excuse for beuracratic rule over the proletariat. In fact I think the division between “Marxists” and “anarchists” is somewhat dated, and that the real political divisions are class ones. Nevertheless there are problematic aspects of anarchist ideology.

This is a great example:


It's a question of how decision-making power is organized. What libertarian socialism is opposed to is hierarchical power, such as of bosses over workers or of the state over society. The libertarian principle is self-management...people controlling decisions in sofar as they are affected by them.

It is emphatically not a question of how decision-making power is organised. “Self-management” is a somewhat vague concept, but in essence I agree that a key aspect of socialism is that society as a whole rules itself as opposed to one particular section of society. However this does not exhaust the question. The revolution is not a question of how society is organised, but of the overthrow of the old society itself and the institution of a new society, a new way of living and being. It is a question of the implementation of the communist program, and not merely a transformation of the methods for implementing programs. In the transition to socialism also, it is not a question of “the masses” ruling, but of the proletariat. In some cases the proletariat may be a majority, and therefore rule “democratically”. On the other hand the situation could be as in Russia, where it was a minority and needed to exercise power in a somewhat “dictatorial” fashion. The fact that Maoists are also comfortable speaking of “the masses” should be a hint as to the nature of this conception.


The strategy that libertarian socialists reject is partyism, the strategy of a party taking state power and then implementing its program top down through the hierarchies of the state.

Except all real movements are party movements and vice versa.

/Jacob Richter/DieNeueZeit/Whatever his name is now


The notion of "temporary states" is a misconception, because the newly formed class will never dismantle itself. An overthrow, eg a new revolution, will be necessary.

Therefore, I consider the Leninist system of a "self-abolishing" state bullshit, because there no such thing.

But it is not a question of a “newly formed class” taking power but of the proletariat exercising direct rule over the rest of society. Before dismissing Lenin, maybe you should actually take a read through, say, The State and Revolution.


Considering that communism (stateless kind) is always in our best interests,

I don't think this is true. Communism is ultimately in the interests of the whole of humanity, but in terms of “best interests”, only the proletariats interests are directed towards the achievment of communism.


It sounds highly counterintuitive that anything would want to abolish itself.

It is not a question of “wanting”, but of the material conditions which lead to the abolition of the state being gradually overturned by the state itself. Of course, insofar as the state is merely the proletariat organised as the ruling class, it may be more or less aware of this.


I think a lot of presuppositions come from the fact anarchist think government and state are the same thing.

Actually, if you read Kropotkin's The State: It's Historic Role, his argument is predicated on a division between “state” and “government”.


I don't see anyone attacking "organizational structures", aka the definition of "government" you seem to subscribe to.

Ever heard of a strawman argument? Unfortunately, these tend to get used a lot in the debates between anarchists and Marxists.


Leninism works to make the old regime unable to cope, to make it illegitimate and to hasten its fall; it is then likely to take power as a minority vanguard party which must educate the masses to their own interest. In this stringent activity, any efforts at piecemeal improvement or protecting traditional freedoms are regarded as mere reformism or tinkering, and they are called "objectively counter-revolutionary." After the takeover by the new regime, there must be a strong and repressive administration to prevent reaction; during this period (indefinitely prolonged) anarchists fare badly.

You are, quite frankly, talking through your own arse. Lenin was the one who famously polemicised against “economism” and the ignoring of the necessity for extreme political democracy, as well as the need for political freedoms to fight the class struggle.


Since the first split among leftists in the first international, betwen lebertarians and authotitarians, i cant really say that it has helped the labour movement.

I don't think the split was actually between “libertarians” and “authoritarians”. The real split was between those who realised that the use of various political means was a tactical consideration which should be subordinated to the ultimate end of the emancipation of the working classes, and between those who put their own “anti-authoritarian” “principles” above international working class unity.


Vanguards, in the Leninist sense, can act of their own volition and (in my understanding) are supposed to do so to keep ideological purity.

The “vanguard” in the sense which Lenin used the word is merely the most class conscious section of the proletariat and “vanguard” theory and practice is merely theory and practice which does not lag behind the momentary state of the proletarian movement. To bring the point home, Lenin's original aim in writing What is to be Done? was a multi-tendency party organised on the model of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. The vanguard is not supposed to act in the interests of the proletariat, it is the proletariat.


Actually, the same could be said for most Marxist and Leninist revolutions. They just took longer to come to pieces (and were often destroyed by internal failures instead of external force).

Which “Marxist” and “Leninist” revolutions? I can think of precisely one, which was destroyed partly by civil war and famine and partly by Lenin's own “renegacy” from his (and Marx's) original principles (The latter being a reference to the 1918 coup d'etat of the Soviets).

/Worryingly close to turning into JR/DNZ


Kronstadt

...was not an anarchist revolution.

[Widerstand]

"Marxist authoritarians" who support every regime willing to slap the "socialist" label on itself

Isn't that exactly what a lot of them do though? ...


From this analysis of the state as the institution for the enforcement of the interests of the ruling class as the general interest, it follows that every class which is struggling for social dominance must capture state power in order to enforce it's own particular interests as the general interest, and that this political revolution is an essential element of any revolution.

Why can't a class enforce it's interests without capturing state power? Is this purely semantics, as in "every class that enforces it's interest has state power", or is there an actual reason for this?

Also, if the proletariat capturing state power will bring about revolution, do you oppose reformism and parliamentary participation? If yes, why? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that the current state could be reformed in such a way that will give state power to the proletariat?



But the interest of the proletariat is not towards the establishment of a new class society, but to the abolition of all classes and class rule, and accordingly also the instrument for the enforcement of class rule (The state).

So do you define anything that is an instrument of class rule as "state"?



This is why the proletarian state is like no other state in history, since it necessarily tends to undermine the very basis of the state, the existence of social classes.

Why does the rule of the proletarian class over other classes, if it is indeed the proletarian class ruling and not some Leninist Vanguard, undermine the existence of social classes? I really don't get this, it seems quite absurd.



So we now have two definitions of the state. The first as an instrument whereby the ruling class enforces it's particular interest as the general interest, and the second as the governance institutions of society separated from society through the division of labour. So what really is the state? It is both.

I can agree with that, but the dialectical understanding produces the same questions: If the state is necessarily also a form of alienation, HOW can alienation be ended while the state exists?

How can you design a state that abolishes itself?


The state as such will only be abolished when the abolition of all class society is achieved.

You said capitalism and the state are always coexisting. But can class society be abolished while the state, which reinforces class divisions by being an instrument of class rule, still exists? How?



“Marxists” who used the class aspect of the state as an excuse for beuracratic rule over the proletariat.

Do you think this will not happen again? Why? Because Lenin was a "bad apple"?



But it is not a question of a “newly formed class” taking power but of the proletariat exercising direct rule over the rest of society. Before dismissing Lenin, maybe you should actually take a read through, say, The State and Revolution.

I very much think it is a question of exactly that. Well maybe in your, which strikes me as somewhat utopian, version of proletarian rule, it is not a question of a newly formed class taking power, but in Russia it most certainly was. Oh wait, Lenin was just a "bad apple", right.

Maybe I should read that, but then again, I did dismiss Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler before reading their respective works, too.



It is not a question of “wanting”, but of the material conditions which lead to the abolition of the state being gradually overturned by the state itself. Of course, insofar as the state is merely the proletariat organised as the ruling class, it may be more or less aware of this.

Why would those material conditions be overturned? Why would not the proletariat simply take the place of the bourgeois and another class take the former place of the proletariat?



Ever heard of a strawman argument? Unfortunately, these tend to get used a lot in the debates between anarchists and Marxists.

Where did I strawman, exactly?

[syndicat]

From this analysis of the state as the institution for the enforcement of the interests of the ruling class as the general interest, it follows that every class which is struggling for social dominance must capture state power in order to enforce it's own particular interests as the general interest, and that this political revolution is an essential element of any revolution. It follows further that in order for the proletariat to emancipate itself, it must raise itself to the position of ruling class, and enforce it's particular interests as the general interest against the particular interests of the various non-proletarian classes

This is a blatant non-sequitur. Not just any form of social governance makes up a state. The Iroquois Confederacy was a form of governance but not a state. A state requires a hierarchical structure so that there is a separation of governance, law making and use of the monopoly of force in ways that can sustain an arrangement with a dominating, exploiting class.

So governance of society is a more general concept and state is merely the historical form of this characteristic of class society, and especially capitalism, which creates massive growth in the state.

It is necessary for the working class to secure governance of society if they are to prevent the consolidation of some new dominating, exploiting class through a revolutionary period. But if the working class is to govern, there can't be governance via a top-down, hierarchical structure, such as the sort of structure set up in Russian from Oct 1917 on. The state hierarchies concentrate decision-making authority and information into the hands of a few and thus you will tend to have the basis of a bureaucratic class in the state. And once such a class consolidates its hold it won't give up power voluntarily as no dominating class does so.

To have a liberatory revolution, a revolution that does liberate the working class from subordination to a dominating class, it is in fact necessary for self-management to become general. This means that workers possess the power to self-manage the places where they work, in the context of a social economy where decisions that affect others are also developed by collective processes in which those others can participate.

Self-management is indeed only part of positive liberation which also includes equal access to the means to the development of one's potential. Without this there can't be real self-management because need access to education and information and sustainance of their health if they are to be able to participate effectively in social self-governance and self-management of decisions that affect them.

You can assert that "all movements are party movements" if you like, but making a plausible case for it is something else again. moreover, this line of thinking has totalitarian conclusions. if the working class movement is just one party, then this implies that working class power is synonymous with the power of that party...and thus all other parties must represent "alien class interests"...exactly the Leninist excuse used to suppress all other working class political organizations.

[Ele'ill]

Let's start with the notion of the State and power. I think it's a bit idealist to assume that power just corrupts and that people pursue it for the sake of it. I think there are material interests that motivate people more than intrinsic lust for power.

Cops in the United States get paid shitty wages but they enjoy the elitism and power it gives them. This can be seen by working for/with any at risk youth police indoc programs. It tends to be the same type of people joining those indocs and actual police forces. The 'material' gains are in fact psychological. This isn't to say they are not thinking of retirement and the like.

However, something I've noted on a small scale at places such as work or school and even in every day life- sometimes some people need a short time table to not be 'bothered' in order to come up with their game plan of action and to start it. Perhaps it would be possible- as I've witnessed at some coops or coopesque regular work places- to give people the ability to work something out on their own and set up a system for it and then 'poll' or 'review' their proposal by panel. This is from what I understand in my brief exposure to technocracy- what's being attempted now.




Please no big sectarian battles. I just want a frank debate and discussion.

I believe you. :thumbup1: You've been involved in those other threads where it turned into a 'lul' battle.

[fa2991]

The vanguard is not supposed to act in the interests of the proletariat, it is the proletariat.

And yet somehow it never is. :lol: If Leninist vanguardism was in practice what it was on paper, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Zanthorus]

Isn't that exactly what a lot of them do though? ...

Yes, my point was that there are more choices than these two extremes.


Why can't a class enforce it's interests without capturing state power? Is this purely semantics, as in "every class that enforces it's interest has state power", or is there an actual reason for this?

Every class that enforces it's interest as the general interest of society, yes. A class which merely bargains for it's interests in say, trade union struggles, obviously does not have any kind of state power. This enforcement of a particular class interest as a general interest is in some ways analogous to the way the modern state works, at least more so than the governances institutions of any hypothetical communist society.


Also, if the proletariat capturing state power will bring about revolution, do you oppose reformism and parliamentary participation? If yes, why?

I don't think the proletariat enforcing it's own interests will bring about revolution, that is the revolution. I'm not sure exactly what "reformism" is, it seems to mean different things to different people. The context here would seem to suggest that you're asking why I don't think that socialism can come about through electing a socialist majority to parliament. Well such a thing would be impossible because the instruments of proletarian rule, the workers councils, are formed in the class struggle, and cannot be created out of thin air by the waving of a legislative wand. The modern state is primarily an instrument for enforcing the class interests of the bourgeoisie, most notably through it's large unnacountable executive beuracracy, and therefore the "socialist" representatives would end up steering at the helm of the bourgeois ship.


Why does the rule of the proletarian class over other classes, if it is indeed the proletarian class ruling and not some Leninist Vanguard, undermine the existence of social classes? I really don't get this, it seems quite absurd.

The working class unique because it is the first exploited class in history which is revolutionary. As an exploited class, it cannot emancipate itself without simultaneously abolishing the system of exploitation and class rule.


I can agree with that, but the dialectical understanding produces the same questions: If the state is necessarily also a form of alienation, HOW can alienation be ended while the state exists?

The point is that the state isn't just an instrument consciously created by the ruling class to enforce it's own interests, it has roots in the very structure of capitalism itself. Simply overthrowing the bourgeoisie is not enough, as people will still be used to the system of rulers and ruled, it will take time for the remnants of class society to be completely thrown off.


Do you think this will not happen again? Why? Because Lenin was a "bad apple"?

I was referring to Stalinists.

I don't know where I've ever said that Lenin was a "bad apple".


I very much think it is a question of exactly that. Well maybe in your, which strikes me as somewhat utopian, version of proletarian rule, it is not a question of a newly formed class taking power, but in Russia it most certainly was. Oh wait, Lenin was just a "bad apple", right.

Maybe I should read that, but then again, I did dismiss Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler before reading their respective works, too.

Well it is interesting to find an "anarchist" who thinks that rule over society by workers councils is "somewhat utopian". The Russian revolution put a mass workers party into power, therefore it was, at least originally, most certainly not a question of a "new class" taking power. The Russian revolution degenerated partly because of the civil war, the famine and the failure of the German revolution, and partly because Lenin and the Bolsheviks were still subjectively mired in the "orthodox Marxism" of the second international. However the Bolsheviks anti-worker actions would never have been able to occur if the civil war and famine had not destroyed the vitality of the Soviet movement. If they had tried such things on the Soviet movement in it's prime, they would have been summarily ousted from power.

And Lenin is not really comparable to Ayn Rand or Adolf Hitler.


Why would those material conditions be overturned? Why would not the proletariat simply take the place of the bourgeois and another class take the former place of the proletariat?

There is no class lower than the proletariat, apart from the lumpen, but it's somewhat difficult to exloit a class which doesn't take part in the production process at all.


Where did I strawman, exactly?

You didn't. Marxists and anarchists do though, all the time, when talking about each other. I read an interesting piece by, I think Bukharin, where he was talking about how the communists in some country had teamed up with the syndicalists, and he was saying how although they didn't realise it, the syndicalists had essentially given up on anarchism by working for the transfer of power to the workers councils. I would not be surprised if the syndicalists had thought almost the same thing about the Marxists.


And yet somehow it never is. If Leninist vanguardism was in practice what it was on paper, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There's a good rule of thumb I learned once. Take any thinker "X". Then "X"ism will be the direct opposite of X's ideas. It seems to work quite well.

The Bolshevik party, though, was a mass party of the working class, with multiple tendencies. In the run up to the October revolution in fact, Lenin and Trotsky were in a minority, and Lenin attempted to go public with his criticisms of the party. On the 11th of October, Zinoviev and Kamenev famously wrote an "open letter" expressing their disagreements with armed insurrection. In 1918, a Left-Communist fraction emerged in the Bolshevik party, which criticised the Brest-Litvosk peace, and even warned that the Bolshevik policy at the time would lead to state-capitalism. It included such eminent figures as Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek.

The "highly organised and disciplined party of proffessional revolutionaries" has never existed anywhere in practice, apart from perhaps the various Bordigist sects like the International Communist Party. However the latter has, thankfully, never been anywhere near power, mainly because it is essentially a sect. I find the idea of such a party taking power to be highly unrealistic, and even those who, in theory, supported the traditional view of "vanguardism" have deviated in practice.

[Widerstand]

Every class that enforces it's interest as the general interest of society, yes. A class which merely bargains for it's interests in say, trade union struggles, obviously does not have any kind of state power. This enforcement of a particular class interest as a general interest is in some ways analogous to the way the modern state works, at least more so than the governances institutions of any hypothetical communist society.

That's a pretty broad definition of state and state power in my opinion. It could mean a bunch of things I guess I could agree with, but do most Leninists actually use the word terms state and state power in that sense?


I don't think the proletariat enforcing it's own interests will bring about revolution, that is the revolution.

Well, yeah, strictly speaking, revolution is, or rather, starts with, the proletariat seizing power, but I wouldn't say the revolution is over until the transition phase is over and class society is abolished.


I'm not sure exactly what "reformism" is, it seems to mean different things to different people. The context here would seem to suggest that you're asking why I don't think that socialism can come about through electing a socialist majority to parliament. Well such a thing would be impossible because the instruments of proletarian rule, the workers councils, are formed in the class struggle, and cannot be created out of thin air by the waving of a legislative wand. The modern state is primarily an instrument for enforcing the class interests of the bourgeoisie, most notably through it's large unnacountable executive beuracracy, and therefore the "socialist" representatives would end up steering at the helm of the bourgeois ship.

I'm confused. What exactly do you suppose would the Leninist state and it's government look like?



The working class unique because it is the first exploited class in history which is revolutionary. As an exploited class, it cannot emancipate itself without simultaneously abolishing the system of exploitation and class rule.

If I remember correctly, Marx stance on this is that the previously revolutionary classes were not exploited, right?


The point is that the state isn't just an instrument consciously created by the ruling class to enforce it's own interests, it has roots in the very structure of capitalism itself. Simply overthrowing the bourgeoisie is not enough, as people will still be used to the system of rulers and ruled, it will take time for the remnants of class society to be completely thrown off.

I don't see how keeping a similar kind of institutions (the Leninist state) will help people get over the old ones (the bourgeois state). In my opinion, it will just keep the notion of the necessity of a state, ergo class division and capitalism, alive.


I don't know where I've ever said that Lenin was a "bad apple".

Not necessarily you, but I think it was mentioned earlier that the UDSSR only went downhill because Lenin didn't stick to his own principles.


Well it is interesting to find an "anarchist" who thinks that rule over society by workers councils is "somewhat utopian".

Where were we talking about workers councils? I think it's utopian to propose a Leninist state would be "workers councils ruling over society". I would also think that the Leninist state is centralized, at least centralization's supposed benefits to fighting counter-revolutionaries and imperialists have been brought up as a major argument for it; on the other hand, I fail to imagine a way of workers councils ruling over society that would be centralized.



And Lenin is not really comparable to Ayn Rand or Adolf Hitler.

Maybe not, but the manner in which I dismiss either is.



There is no class lower than the proletariat, apart from the lumpen, but it's somewhat difficult to exloit a class which doesn't take part in the production process at all.

Right, but why can't the proletariat just exploit the former bourgeois, for example?



You didn't. Marxists and anarchists do though, all the time, when talking about each other. I read an interesting piece by, I think Bukharin, where he was talking about how the communists in some country had teamed up with the syndicalists, and he was saying how although they didn't realise it, the syndicalists had essentially given up on anarchism by working for the transfer of power to the workers councils. I would not be surprised if the syndicalists had thought almost the same thing about the Marxists.

So are you suggesting this is merely a semantic matter? I find that hard to believe. Maybe with some Leninists and some Anarchists it is, but I'd say with a great lot it isn't. I blame this on Leninists btw.

[Zanthorus]

United Nations:

You're probably correct in saying that most "Leninists" wouldn't agree with me, and that the "Leninists" are the ones responsible for this conflict.

I'm not really sure if I would actually consider myself a "Leninist" since I disagree with Lenin on several issues (In that same vein I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a "Marxist"). My "Leninism" is that of the Left Fraction of the Partito Communista d'Italia led by Amadeo Bordiga and expelled in the late 20's by the Stalinist gangsters for the crime of "Trotskyism" and that of it's exiled ideological descendents throughout the 30's, as well as the reformed Internationalist Communist Party of Onorato Damen in the 40's and kept alive to some degree in the present day by the Internationalist Communist Tendency (Formerly International Bueruea for the Revolutionary Party) and to a lesser extent the International Communist Current (The latter also bases it's positions to some degree on the legacy of the Dutch-German Left, which became "anti-Leninist" later on). The ICC, ICT and me disagree with the crushing of Kronstadt and Lenin's later identification of the proletariat with the "workers state" and vice versa, as well as upholding Rosa Luxemburg against Lenin on the national question.

My essential point here was that I don't really have any practical disagreements or problems with anarchists on the question of the state, I may not have got that across all too well.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am glad this thread has reached this level without descending into a sectarian grudge match.

Zanthorus thanks for taking the discussion to a whole new level. I mean it's surpassed my level of study. I need to go hit the books.

I will contribute a bit more but for the most part I think that the debate is going very well. :thumbup1:

[Apoi_Viitor]

Although, I'm kind of late to thread..... I'll add this about the definition of the state,

Also



For anarchists the state, government, means "the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 41] For Marxists, the state is "an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another." [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 274] That these definitions are in conflict is clear and unless this difference is made explicit, anarchist opposition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be clearly understood.

"But if by dictatorship of the proletariat is understood collective and direct exercise of 'political power', this would mean the disappearance of 'political power' since its distinctive characteristics are supremacy, exclusivity and monopoly. It is no longer a question of exercising or seizing political power, it is about doing away with it all together!

"If by dictatorship is meant the domination of the majority by a minority, then it is not a question of giving power to the proletariat but to a party, a distinct political group. If by dictatorship is meant the domination of a minority by the majority (domination by the victorious proletariat of the remnants of a bourgeoisie that has been defeated as a class) then the setting up of dictatorship means nothing but the need for the majority to efficiently arrange for its defence its own social Organisation.


All taken from the Anarchist FAQ.
I don't think the differences between Orthodox Marxism and Anarchism are that clear (admittedly I understand little of Marx's works, but I think it's plausible to suggest that Anarchism and Orthodox Marxism might have absolutely no idealogical differences). It is quite clear however, that Anarchists reject the "authoritarian" strains of Marxism, which view "Vanguard Parties", a ruling communist party, etc. as essential for the proletariat's power.


For anarchists, the abolition of the state does not mean rejecting the need to extend or defend a revolution (quite the reverse!). It means rejecting a system of organisation designed by and for minorities to ensure their rule. To create a state (even a "workers' state") means to delegate power away from the working class and eliminate their power in favour of party power ("the principle error of the [Paris] Commune, an unavoidable error, since it derived from the very principle on which power was constituted, was precisely that of being a government, and of substituting itself for the people by force of circumstances." [Elisée Reclus, quoted John P. Clark and Camille Martin, Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 72]).

In place of a state anarchists' argue for a free federation of workers' organisations as the means of conducting a revolution (and the framework for its defence). Most Marxists seem to confuse centralism and federalism, with Lenin stating that "if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organise themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital . . . won't that be centralism? Won't that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?" No, it would be federalism, the most consistent federalism as advocated by Proudhon and Bakunin and, under the influence of the former, suggested by the Paris Commune. Lenin argued that some "simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine." [The Lenin Anthology, p. 348] Yet "voluntary centralism" is, at best, just another why of describing federalism - assuming that "voluntary" really means that, of course. At worse, and in practice, such centralism simply places all the decision making at the centre, at the top, and all that is left is for the communes to obey the decisions of a few party leaders.