Communism and other equal societies can not defend

[apathy maybe]

There can be no such thing as a communist (or anarchist etc) society in just one country. In any truly equal society there would be no military leader, and so for a short time (probably enough for the enemy) the country is open to attack. It is for this reason that I call for socialism. Socialism is a more equal society then any other type that has a leader and a military. And until there is world wide revolution it is the only hope. (Even if some people think that it should be the sole aim.)

[redstar2000]

There can be no such thing as a communist (or anarchist etc) society in just one country. In any truly equal society there would be no military leader, and so for a short time (probably enough for the enemy) the country is open to attack. It is for this reason that I call for socialism.

How about two countries? Or three?

How about if they are pretty large countries? With plenty of military supplies, at least some advanced weaponry, maybe even a small stock of nuclear weapons?

Up until now, at least, U.S. imperialism has been very nervous about invading Iran or North Korea...the danger of serious retaliation seems to be one of the things holding them back.

With the seeming inevitable spread of nuclear weapons around the world, I think it quite possible that a classless society would be reasonably safe from invasion as long as it had some bombs and the systems to deliver them.

What does concern me a little is that lefties have been historically "soft-hearted" with the class enemy...unwilling to retaliate harshly enough to capitalist atrocities. I could see a situation where the classless society might "let" itself be conquered without ever firing a missile...out of humanitarian concerns.

I hope my concerns are without foundation. The proper message to U.S. imperialism is: "Attack us and you can write off the east coast of your country as a pile of radioactive rubble."

Violence is the only argument that imperialism has ever understood...or ever will.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Come off it Redstar. Lets occasionally see a little consistency from you. Some attempt to make your answers fit the situation you are describing.

Or in other words some attempt to explain. Its easy to simply make up a great sounding reply which doesn't have to fit within the context of everything else. All that is is hot air. Puff.

Your ideas dont really even have a political concept of a country. Its a number of autonomous workers communes somehow mysteriously all co-operating so that they neither compete with each other nor duplicate each others production or fail to produce things which are needed. And now we hear that 'the country' will have nukes etc. Really ? which of the communes is going to take it upon itself to do this sort of development? How are they going to be funded? Is this commune not then in possesion of exactly the sort of power you say will inevitably corrupt (but actually massively more powerful and with fewer checks and balances than anything anyone else suggests).

Get real and get honest. The only way you can think of for a socialist mpovement to survive is as a co-ordinated nation. And that does most defintely imply some sort of central planning.

[Morpheus]

A stateless communist society (not "country" - those should be abolished) could defend itself by arming the population and forming decentralized democratic militias to wage a guerilla war against the invaders. This can be combined with other forms of direct action (strikes, insurrections, civil disobediance, etc.) and sabotage/rebellion from revolutionaries in the imperialist nation. France was unable to invade during the Russian Revolution because its' soldiers mutinied. See Here (http://struggle.ws/ws/2000/makhno59.html) and Here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci514) for longer explanations of this. I see the revolution as being international and enveloping numerous countries at once, which would make it even harder to suppress.

sc4r, coordination is possible without centralization. Communes can use the spokescouncil system to form confederations to coordinate their actions without centralization/hierarchy.

[Som]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 8 2003, 11:00 AM
There can be no such thing as a communist (or anarchist etc) society in just one country. In any truly equal society there would be no military leader, and so for a short time (probably enough for the enemy) the country is open to attack. It is for this reason that I call for socialism. Socialism is a more equal society then any other type that has a leader and a military. And until there is world wide revolution it is the only hope. (Even if some people think that it should be the sole aim.)
Well, theres a few big assumptions here.

First of all the assumption that a classless society cant have any sort of military defense force. The workers militia is a sort of army organized along the same lines as the rest of a classless society. It was used in various degrees of effectiveness in several places.

Similiarly the idea is that any military excursion into a classless society from a hostile force would be countered by an armed militia and general populace in every village and city they enter. This combined with a more mobile militia could be quite an effective fighting force. The next assumption is that we absolutly need a leader, and that the concept of a 'leader' is inherently authoritarian concept. There are people naturally suited to such things, and who need no actual authority to be a leader. Makhno and Durruti for instance.

That its a classless also does not make it disorganized, that a sort of central revolutionary council couldn't be set up to effectively organize defense, and in spain this is generally what happened, as well as calls from the more revolutionary anarchists for a central 'revolutionary junta' to help coordinate activities.

Of course, theres not much in the way to prove whether or not it being more of less effective, in the ukraine, this sort of army was simply outnumbered, and in spain, they were desperately short on supplies and allies. This sort of army might make up for what it lacks in 'discipline' with a stronger will to fight along with a sense of personal commitment and responsibility that comes when your not just doing what you're told, and it might not. The people in general might just be willing to risk it, fighting for what they want instead of comprimising on the claims of 'ineffectiveness' by those ready to command and order.

All of the previous attempts really counted on a global revolution to come to their aid if they'd won, that they would set the example and the workers of the world would follow. Its hard to say whether or not this will actually happen and the circumstances just haven't fit yet.

With that said, I think the idea of any classless society to hold on to nuclear weapons is more dangerous for all the world than it is 'safe for the revolution'. I trust a decentralized federation of workers or a workers state with nuclear weapons about as much as I trust a capitalist state with them, not at all. I'd hope they'd be disarmed and put aside in general. The desperate revolution is no excuse for the risk of the genocide of nuclear weapons.

[redstar2000]

Your ideas dont really even have a political concept of a country.

True, they don't. But that was the form that the question was raised, so I accepted it for the sake of discussion.

And now we hear that 'the country' will have nukes etc. Really ? Which of the communes is going to take it upon itself to do this sort of development? How are they going to be funded? Is this commune not then in possession of exactly the sort of power you say will inevitably corrupt...?

A proletarian revolution in France, for example, would automatically acquire a stock of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. A "soldiers' and technicians' collective" would probably be initially in charge of the weapons themselves.

Granted that the problem of the "decision to launch" (who would make it) is a thorny one; it might be best to automate it...if your satellite tells you that the U.S. has launched weapons against you, then the computer fires the strike back. If the U.S. launches a conventional invasion, then the soldiers' & technicians' collective must be trusted to launch manually...and, as I indicated, that does concern me. They might not do it out of humanitarian concerns.

Nuclear weaponry would have little domestic impact at all; you can't "use" them to gain power over your immediate neighbors...the more distant the target, the greater their utility.

If a soldier's & technicians' collective attempted to throw their weight around because they had the nukes, people in the rest of classless society would laugh at them.

Anyway, you know as well as I that nuclear weapons are not things that rational people play silly games with...the people that make proletarian revolution and establish a classless society are not nutballs.

The only way you can think of for a socialist movement to survive is as a co-ordinated nation.

It may begin in that fashion (and may not)...but it will hardly stay that way very long. We are "used" to thinking in terms of nation-states because we haven't known or even considered alternatives. What the working class in, for example, western Europe will think about nationality some 50 or more years from now may be something very different. The working class "has no country" said Marx (with characteristic optimism)...but what will things be like when people really think that way?

When apathy maybe started this thread, he proceeded on the assumption of national states still being significant. By the time there actually are proletarian revolutions, that may no longer be the case.

It is also possible and perhaps even likely that the imperialist countries will be in no condition to intervene against proletarian revolution. Their own empires might well be tottering at that point.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Please this is beyond a joke. Simply uttering the words that 'a classless and stateless society would orgainse itself to resist invasion or attack' is no sort of explanation at all. HOW is the question.

Nor does the idea that there would be 'a sort of defence commune' which would accept all the responsibility. For gods sake your whole argument against having a central coordingating body (easily the simplest answer to the problem) is that it puts too much power in one place, and here you are suggsting putting all the power in one place but without even suggesting a single mechanism to control that power.

It is utterly ridiculous, badly thought out, and frankly smacks of sheer desparation to retain your idea of no centralisation. Even you cannot fail to realise how impossibly weak the answer is, or how much it leaves unanswered.

Its a dream boys. It belongs in a book of fairy stories.

Dont tell me what I can and cannot concieve. The only difference between me and you is that I am unprepared to accept 'well it would be nice if it could work' as an answer. Of course it would be nice, it would be nice if I could summon up a genie to do my bidding. That is not the point. I cant, and you could not make this structureless nonsense work either.

bottom line you cant make me believe it, or even see that you actually have anything beyond a wish yourself, and I WANT to believe it. How in the name of God are you going to convince anybody else.

[elijahcraig]

Please this is beyond a joke. Simply uttering the words that 'a classless and stateless society would orgainse itself to resist invasion or attack' is no sort of explanation at all. HOW is the question.

A developed classless society could very well defend itself. Not one which was in the anarchist or redstar mindset though.


Nor does the idea that there would be 'a sort of defence commune' which would accept all the responsibility. For gods sake your whole argument against having a central coordingating body (easily the simplest answer to the problem) is that it puts too much power in one place, and here you are suggsting putting all the power in one place but without even suggesting a single mechanism to control that power.

Decentralization is nonsensical. Period.


It is utterly ridiculous, badly thought out, and frankly smacks of sheer desparation to retain your idea of no centralisation. Even you cannot fail to realise how impossibly weak the answer is, or how much it leaves unanswered.

I agree.


Its a dream boys. It belongs in a book of fairy stories.

Dont tell me what I can and cannot concieve. The only difference between me and you is that I am unprepared to accept 'well it would be nice if it could work' as an answer. Of course it would be nice, it would be nice if I could summon up a genie to do my bidding. That is not the point. I cant, and you could not make this structureless nonsense work either.

Anarchism's not that different than religion. "No, I believe in god, YOU just can't conceive." :lol:


bottom line you cant make me believe it, or even see that you actually have anything beyond a wish yourself, and I WANT to believe it. How in the name of God are you going to convince anybody else.

He can't.

Original question? No classless society can be created as long as there are still capitalist nations. International communism. Not Trotskyesque way, no, but eventual communism extending everywhere. Only then can we talk about classless society. Until then, the workers' state will defend the revolution.

[Morpheus]

sc4r,

The below links explain how a classless & stateless society could organize to resist invasion.

Do Anarchists Reject Defending a Revolution?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH2.html#sech21

How Could An Anarchist Revolution Defend Itself?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ7.html#secj76

Can You Have an Anarchist Army?
http://struggle.ws/ws/2000/makhno59.html

How Could An Anarchist Society Defend Itself?
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci514

These ideas are not purely theoretical, there are historical precedents for them. Perhaps the best example was the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of the Ukraine. You can read about that at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html

[elijahcraig]

Makhno is a pathetic excuse for an example. Sorry to say.

Those things explain nothing. I've read the whole thing, emailed the author, they are utopianists. Period.

[peterb]

:ph34r: What a great discussion. It goes right to the centre of what revolution could be like. I am new to this web site but I'm already hooked!
I believe we could eventually have a revolution in the U.K and that it will come about when a socialist govt.(led by a real socialist party after the Labour rabble have been thrown out) dismantles the capitalist state and creates democratic workers soviets. There should be built in process for recall of elected reps too to guard against stalinist type elitist bureaucracy taking over. The anarchists in Spain who were the only anarchists to date to be in a position to ensure a victory for a revolution failed the revolution because having broken the old state they could not help to bring about or support another one (socialist). As for the stalinist influences at work then , the least said of that disgrace the better. Stalin could not support workers rights in Spain because he would never allow those same rights for Russian workers. The thought of guerrillas hiding out in the Pennines in order to bring about a U.K. revolution is laughable. That is not the way. I am not so sure we would not have to defend the revolution with guerilla action - thats another issue. Lets work together to bring about democratic workers control and the destruction of capitalism/imperialism in the U.K. , France, Austria and all our neighbours. Long live the revolution.
Greetings comrades.

[elijahcraig]

What a great discussion. It goes right to the centre of what revolution could be like. I am new to this web site but I'm already hooked!
I believe we could eventually have a revolution in the U.K and that it will come about when a socialist govt.(led by a real socialist party after the Labour rabble have been thrown out) dismantles the capitalist state and creates democratic workers soviets. There should be built in process for recall of elected reps too to guard against stalinist type elitist bureaucracy taking over. The anarchists in Spain who were the only anarchists to date to be in a position to ensure a victory for a revolution failed the revolution because having broken the old state they could not bring about another one (socialist). As for the stalinist influences at work then , the least said of that disgrace the better. Stalin could not support workers rights in Spain because he would never allow those rights to Russian workers. The thought of guerrillas hiding out in the Pennines in order to bring about a U.K. revolution is laughable. That is not the way. I am not so sure we would not have to defend the revolution - thats another issue. Lets work together to bring about democratic workers control and the destruction of capitalism/imperialism in the U.K. , France, Austria and all our neighbours.
Greetings comrades.

Your "analysis" of Stalin is all wrong and uninformed. He supported the Republicans, he did not know at the time they were cooperating with fascists, etc.

Democratic workers control? A reformist eh? Fuck off.

[sc4r]

Elijah - Yes I agree 100% the argument is not about whether an anarchist society could sustain itself once well established (thats unproven and debatable but not impossible); but whether it could durvive beyond the initial stages.

Mprpheus - Thanks for the links I read them with interest. But really the whole game is given away here in this statement "So it will be necessary to radiate revolution outward, to raise all of its neighbouring communes in revolt . . . and to federate with them for common defence".


Note that last phrase? Federate. A federation most definitely implies some form of central organisation. A federation does not run itself. And that, when all is said and done, is exactly what RS is opposed to. Its far too late too start trying to negotiate the way in which a federated defence will be organised once you are under attack. Modern attacks dont take months or years to build up. They can be fast and hard. Without already having both the organisation and the weaponry established no system of independent communes (notice its neber discussed just how big these communes will be BTW or how many of them - If they are large then they are just small states anyway) is going to survive into the stage at which it even can orgainse resistance.


You can have an anarchist society capable of defending itself alright, as long as it has some centralised functions. And that I'm afraid makes it an anarchist society in the sort of sense RS is using it only in name. Its a socialist society, just not a very 'strong state' one.

This BTW is without even discussing just how all of the very complex mechanisms of production are going to co-ordinate to produce what is required without central orgainisation. Anarchsists such as redstar should spend a little time with Network and co-ordination theory instead of dreaming about how lovely it would be if the predictions of theories (frankly backedup by common sense) did not hold.

best wishes.

[Morpheus]

sc4r,

As I said before you confuse coordination with centralization and this is evident in your response to me. It is entirely possible for different groups to coordinate their activities without centralization/hierarchy. In anarchist theory federations do not imply some kind of centralized organization. By federating together it allows different communes/syndicates/affinity groups/etc. to coordinate their actions without centralization/hierarchy. This is done by each group assigning a contact person(s) (sometimes called a spoke or delegate) to meet with other contact people from other assemblies which they want to coordinate things with. Position of contact person should rotate frequently. Each contact person is mandated, meaning that they are instructed by the assembly that they come from on how to deal with any issue. The contact people would be given binding instructions, committing them to a framework of policies, developed by their group, within which they would have to act. If at any time they violate their mandate their assembly would instantly recall them and their decisions revoked. Decision making power stays with the groups that are federating together; contact people simply convey and implement those positions. Contact people do not have any authority or special privileges. Federations are organized from the bottom up, with control staying in the groups that make it up. They are not hierarchical organizations but simply coordinate the activities of the groups without authority. Instead of hierarchy there are decentralized confederations and networks.

This differs from centralized systems in that power remains with the groups that are federating - the delegates simply implement policies decided upon by the groups federating together. In a centralized system a few people (sometimes elected representatives, sometimes not) give the rest of us orders. Power is not with the assemblies/affinity groups/etc but with the central committee/etc.

The Federation has been an anarchist principle since Proudhon.

If you go to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html There is a description of how an anarchist society would work, including coordination of production and other stuff. I was under the impression that RedStar was an Ultra-Left Communist, not an Anarchist.

Peterb,


The anarchists in Spain who were the only anarchists to date to be in a position to ensure a victory for a revolution failed the revolution because having broken the old state they could not help to bring about or support another one (socialist).

Not really. The defeat of the revolution was a result of the Stalinist offensive in 1937. This offensive was made possible (and I would argue was the logical out come of) by the decision of the CNT to join, and therby
restore, the government. Anarchist ministers entered the new government in September 1936 (collaboration with local governments began before than), afterwhich it began slowly restoring it's strength until mid-37 when it clashed with the collectives and proceeded to shut them down. This decision to enter the government, instead of smashing the state and completing the revolution, was not the result of the aversion to "proeltarian" states but was done because of the difficult circumstances. As Jose Pierats said:

"the CNT was in ... control of Catalonia in July 19, 1936, but its strength was less in Levante and still less in central Spain where the central government and the traditional parties were dominant. In the north of Spain the situation was confused. The CNT could have mounted an insurrection on its own 'with probable success' but such a takeover would have led to a struggle on three fronts: against the fascists, the government and foreign capitalism. In view of the difficulty of such an undertaking, collaboration with other antifascist groups was the only alternative."

It was hoped that by collaborating with the state, and basically putting the revolution on hold, would enable them to defeat the fascists with the help of their statist (republicans, marxists, etc.) allies. They also hoped to obtain support from the western 'democracies' by doing this, support that never materialized. The only alternative to this was to divide the anti-fascists camp against each other by launching a civil war within a civil war, with anarchists vs. fascists vs. the republic. This decision to collaborate was a violation of anarchist principles; had they been followed to their logical conclusion the CNT & FAI would have been to launch such a multi-sided civil war and not collaborate with the state. They believed that circumstances required they compromise - first defeat the fascists, then finish the revolution. I would argue it was this decision that destroyed the revolution. Anarchists were not the only revolutionaries to collaborate with the state, every other major Spanish Marxist group advocated the same.

The decision to collaborate and restore the state was supported by a majority of the Spanish anarchists, but there was a minority opposed to it. Anarchists like Camillo Berneri and the Libertarian Youth argued instead for a 'revolutionary war' strategy to fight against fascism, the republic and and any interference by the imperialists. I believe this would have been a better alternative than collaboration. The strategy of 'beat the fascists first, then finish the revolution' obviously didn't work; with the benfit of hindsight I think we can say that the alternative was the only possible way they might have won. Had they immediately seized the state's gold reserve they could have used it on the international market to buy arms prior to the embargo by the western 'democracies' to fight against the fascists. In addition, the destruction of the collectives demoralized the population, enabling the fascists to win with little in the way of popular resistence. The only places where signifigant guerilla activity continued after Franco's victory were also places where collectivization had lasted the longest.

The defeat of the revolution had nothing to do with Anarchist refusals to seize state power. It was the result of the Spanish anarchists compromising their principles in order to form an alliance against what they saw as a greater enemy. They consciously choose not to finish smashing the state state in order to fight the fascists, a decision that doomed the revolution.


elijahcraig,

I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that the Republicans were directly collaborating with the Fascists. In any case, the Spanish Communist Party played a direct and decisive role in suppressing the revolution outside of simply supporting the Republicans. The CP called on all peasants and workers to respect private property. They supported the replacement of the left-wing Socialist Caballero with Negrin as prime minister. Negrin was literally a member of the capitalist class. The Spanish Stalinists sent troops to break up the collectives and restore private property. They shot at and killed many peasants & workers. They were instrumental in outlawing the Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), who were anti-Stalin Leninists. Leaders of POUM were jailed, shot and tortured by members of the CP. Stalinist assasins shot militant workers from rival tendencies - anarchist, POUM, left-Socialist and otherwise. They reinistituted censorship and suppressed all groups to the left of the CP. Later they would also suppressed most groups to the right (including many Republicans) and implement a nearly one-party state. All of this was done with the active support of the Spanish Stalinists - often it was their idea and they were the ones who carried it out. The opening of the Soviet Archives has proven that the primary goal of the Stalinists was not to defend the Republic from the Fascists but to install a USSR puppet government in Spain, under the dictatorship of the Communist Party. They just wanted power for themselves, and suppressed the revolution in order to get it. See the book "Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War" edited by Ronald Radosh, Mary R. Habeck and Grigory Sevostianov for english translations of some of the documents from the Soviet Archives that prove this.

Also, calling anarchists "utopianists" or Makhno "pathetic" doesn't really prove anything. If youv'e got a rational arguement put it forward, otherwise can the namecalling.

[elijahcraig]

elijahcraig,

I am unaware of any evidence to indicate that the Republicans were directly collaborating with the Fascists. In any case, the Spanish Communist Party played a direct and decisive role in suppressing the revolution outside of simply supporting the Republicans. The CP called on all peasants and workers to respect private property. They supported the replacement of the left-wing Socialist Caballero with Negrin as prime minister. Negrin was literally a member of the capitalist class. The Spanish Stalinists sent troops to break up the collectives and restore private property. They shot at and killed many peasants & workers. They were instrumental in outlawing the Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), who were anti-Stalin Leninists. Leaders of POUM were jailed, shot and tortured by members of the CP. Stalinist assasins shot militant workers from rival tendencies - anarchist, POUM, left-Socialist and otherwise. They reinistituted censorship and suppressed all groups to the left of the CP. Later they would also suppressed most groups to the right (including many Republicans) and implement a nearly one-party state. All of this was done with the active support of the Spanish Stalinists - often it was their idea and they were the ones who carried it out. The opening of the Soviet Archives has proven that the primary goal of the Stalinists was not to defend the Republic from the Fascists but to install a USSR puppet government in Spain, under the dictatorship of the Communist Party. They just wanted power for themselves, and suppressed the revolution in order to get it. See the book "Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War" edited by Ronald Radosh, Mary R. Habeck and Grigory Sevostianov for english translations of some of the documents from the Soviet Archives that prove this.

Wow, how one-sided can you get anarchist? Oh yea, you also called Lenin a totalitarian. ...


Also, calling anarchists "utopianists" or Makhno "pathetic" doesn't really prove anything. If youv'e got a rational arguement put it forward, otherwise can the namecalling.

Anarchists are utopian because they do not have any plan past the idiotic federations of Proudhon which Marx destroyed in "The Poverty of Philosophy". Read it and understand.

Makhno, well here's something for you: My Webpage (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920-mil/ch73.htm)

Edit: Not my webpage, from Marxists.org.

[redstar2000]

I believe we could eventually have a revolution in the U.K and that it will come about when a socialist govt.(led by a real socialist party after the Labour rabble have been thrown out) dismantles the capitalist state and creates democratic workers soviets.

Peterb, you'll want to look at this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=4&t=5012 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=5012)

as it is the most recent discussion of bourgeois electoral "politics".

---------------------

I think the idea of any classless society to hold on to nuclear weapons is more dangerous for all the world than it is 'safe for the revolution'. I trust a decentralized federation of workers or a workers state with nuclear weapons about as much as I trust a capitalist state with them, not at all. I'd hope they'd be disarmed and put aside in general. The desperate revolution is no excuse for the risk of the genocide of nuclear weapons.

I think this will be a common view in classless society--though I would argue against it as long as there were any remaining class societies with nuclear arms.

But, with a few exceptions, I think it's symptomatic of a weakness in the "libertarian left"...an unwillingness to be sufficiently ruthless towards the class enemy inspite of their demonstrated ruthlessness towards us.

I also think this is what strengthens the appeal of Leninism to much of the revolutionary proletariat. A Leninist group often (though not always) takes a very tough position towards counter-revolutionaries...and this resonates with workers who are really fed up with a lifetime of exploitation and oppression.

Still, it may turn out to be moot...by the time there are genuine proletarian revolutions in some of the advanced capitalist countries, the entire system of world imperialism may be in such bad shape that any kind of sustained intervention is a practical impossibility.

An interesting foretaste of this: evidently the United States and the United Kingdom are finding the military occupation of Iraq so burdensome that they are nearly begging other countries to supply military personnel...when you've got to ask Poland for help, you're not exactly in great shape.

It is utterly ridiculous, badly thought out, and frankly smacks of sheer desparation to retain your idea of no centralisation. Even you cannot fail to realise how impossibly weak the answer is, or how much it leaves unanswered.

Its a dream boys. It belongs in a book of fairy stories.

If you strip away all the rhetoric, is there any content to this statement?

We lack a detailed military plan of defense for an unknown country (or countries) faced with an invasion(s) from unknown enemies under unknown circumstances.

I guess that's true.

Sc4r presumably does have a "plan" and will no doubt soon begin a thread on it. So I will withhold any comments until we see it.

But I would suggest to sc4r and others who think they can "plan" these kinds of things that the first casualty in war is not the truth, it's the "plan".

No classless society can be created as long as there are still capitalist nations...Until then, the workers' state will defend the revolution.

Well, sc4r, here's a "plan".

A good old "strong Leninist state" with a professional military, under the commander-in-chief Comrade Bigturd. The imperialist invaders will certainly be defeated...and the revolution itself will unfortunately be the principal casualty.

We've been through it before.

You see, sc4r, we may be "groping in the dark" right now for the best way to defend our revolution...but we at least have enough sense not to use methods which have already proven to end in defeat, even if you "win".

You can always "defend" a revolution by abandoning it...the capitalists are always willing to accept your unconditional surrender...as they did the USSR's in 1992.

So we have to find other ways.

A federation most definitely implies some form of central organisation. A federation does not run itself. And that, when all is said and done, is exactly what RS is opposed to.

Let's talk about "central organization". Why do we "need" it? What is it "for"? Are there desirable things that a "central organization" can do that regional or local organizations can't do or, at least, can't do as well?

Contrary to your assertion, I'm not "against" central organization under any and all circumstances...but I think it has to be rationally justified for specific tasks under specific circumstances.

I further think that if it is decided to set up a temporary "central organization" to serve some specific function, then it must be tightly controlled by the proletariat. I do think there is much in anarchist theory that is relevant to these concerns...which is not to rule out other possible innovations.

The point is that if you're serious about classless society, then you are highly suspicious of any kind of authority that doesn't rest directly with the masses. Delegation of authority may indeed be necessary under certain circumstances for certain limited purposes...but you are biased against it and seek to minimize it wherever and whenever you can.

For Leninists, centralization of authority is an unalloyed virtue...they seek salvation at the feet of a "great leader", period.

But those who operate in the social democratic tradition, however distantly, perforce accept the traditions of class society and seek to organize "socialism" within those constraints. They spend a great deal of time talking about practicality...which means not changing things "too" much or "too" fast.

In a way, to hear them speak of defending revolution is an oxymoron...they would never be involved with a revolution in the first place. Revolution is "impossible".

And when revolutions do take place, I don't think they will even want to defend them.

Anarchists such as redstar should spend a little time with Network and co-ordination theory instead of dreaming about how lovely it would be if the predictions of theories (frankly backedup by common sense) did not hold.

Another one of sc4r's cryptic comments (he occasionally reminds me of the Oracle of Delphi)...but it sounds as if I have neglected once more to consult the wisdom of some new and fashionable bourgeois "theory".

So how about 1,000 words or so on "network theory", sc4r? Pick out the good parts and lay it on us. And don't neglect the "initial conditions & assumptions".

Hell, there might be something to it.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

Morpheus. I'm aware that cooperation does not have to imply central authority, But think about it - what socialist (barrring stalinists) actually do advocate central authority? certainly I dont.

What you are suggesting is merely a central co-ordinating function. Thats exactly what every socialist advocates also. None of us suggest that ultimate authority should reside in such a group; all of us place the authority itself with society.

In fact the only real point of differences seem to be that 1) You suggesting that every person within each of your communes will take a turn at representing them. This bespeaks a lack of awareness about how hard it is to gain agreements, believe me some people are very much better at this than others and it most certainly is not the case that individual personalities wil all be equally effective. 2) You also seem to imply that the 'representative' has no mandate at all to express any view except that pre-ordained by the commune. Again this tells of a lack of experience in achieving co-operation. Efective negotiations (that is what achieveing cooperation is) need to be fluid (especially when large number are involved) if everything has to be reffered back your response times will be impossibly slow (far too slow in a military situation).

You seem to be assuming that everybody within your communes is both equally able, and will have a perfect understanding of the wishes of the commune. Thats just not realistic.

WE agree that a co-ordinating function is needed. All we disagree on is the practicalities of how it woud be organised.

[apathy maybe]

When apathy maybe started this thread, he proceeded on the assumption of national states still being significant. By the time there actually are proletarian revolutions, that may no longer be the case.
When I started this thread, I did assume that there would still be national states. Or at least a group of people who did not want a communist society. While there is such a group, there can be no true communist society as true communism would cover the world and other human settlements.




Original question? No classless society can be created as long as there are still capitalist nations. International communism. Not Trotskyesque way, no, but eventual communism extending everywhere. Only then can we talk about classless society. Until then, the workers' state will defend the revolution.
Quite right and those workers' states will be socialist.

[Morpheus]

Elijahcraig,

You never read "The Poverty of Philosophy," did you? Marx does not destroy the federations of Proudhon, he doesn't even discuss the idea. The word federation does not even appear in that book. It is a response to Proudhon's book "The Philosophy of Poverty" and criticizes his economic and philosophical ideas. On most of the issues discussed in the two books I disagree with both Marx & Proudhon.

If "not having any plan" makes someone Utopian then I suppose that makes Marx utopian. He didn't write much about what the post-capitalist society would look like, and much of what he did write was vague. The early socialists who Marx & Engels labelled "utopian socialists" wrote reams and reams of plans. By your logic Marx & Engels were Utopians and the so-called utopian socialists were not. All of Marx's writings on the future society come to maybe 20 or 30 pages alltogether. If you go to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html there's a 217 page speculation on how an anarchist society could work. And it goes way beyond just the idea of federation.

The accusations Trotsky makes in the article you link to amount to claiming that Makhno (http://www.geocities.com/nestor_mcnab/makhno.htm) did the samething Trotsky was doing. I thought Stalinists claimed that the Trotskyites were Nazi agents, do you consider a Nazi agent credible? Anyway, in the initial periods of the civil war the Bolsheviks had cordial relations with the RIAU and Bolshevik press portrayed them positiviely. When this changed and the Bolsheviks decided to take over the Ukraine they spewed all sorts of slander (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html#sech615) at them to justify their actions. They claimed the RIAU were anti-semitic pogromists (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html#sech69), were Kulaks (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html#sech68), were in league with the whites (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH6.html#sech612) and all sorts of other nonsense. In the piece you refer to Trotsky provides no real evidence to support his smears. There are numerous first hand accounts (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/berkman/bmyth/bmtoc.html) which contradict his claims and many non-anarchist historians who studied the RIAU and came to the conclusion that the Bolshevik smears are false. Michael Malet's Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution and Michael Palij's The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921 are examples of the later. The Makhnovists were far from perfect, but I'll take it over Bolshevik dictatorship anyday.

[elijahcraig]

You never read "The Poverty of Philosophy," did you? Marx does not destroy the federations of Proudhon, he doesn't even discuss the idea. The word federation does not even appear in that book. It is a response to Proudhon's book "The Philosophy of Poverty" and criticizes his economic and philosophical ideas. On most of the issues discussed in the two books I disagree with both Marx & Proudhon.

I meant Proudhon's philosophy. As a whole. And yes I have read it Morpheus.


If "not having any plan" makes someone Utopian then I suppose that makes Marx utopian. He didn't write much about what the post-capitalist society would look like, and much of what he did write was vague. The early socialists who Marx & Engels labelled "utopian socialists" wrote reams and reams of plans. By your logic Marx & Engels were Utopians and the so-called utopian socialists were not. All of Marx's writings on the future society come to maybe 20 or 30 pages alltogether. If you go to http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secIcon.html there's a 217 page speculation on how an anarchist society could work. And it goes way beyond just the idea of federation.

Yes, I've read almost everything on anarchism. I used to be one.

I don't agree on Marx. But saying "they will cooperate without a centralized force" is just idealism. It's assuming something which is not scientific, but utopian.


The accusations Trotsky makes in the article you link to amount to claiming that Makhno did the samething Trotsky was doing. I thought Stalinists claimed that the Trotskyites were Nazi agents, do you consider a Nazi agent credible? Anyway, in the initial periods of the civil war the Bolsheviks had cordial relations with the RIAU and Bolshevik press portrayed them positiviely. When this changed and the Bolsheviks decided to take over the Ukraine they spewed all sorts of slander at them to justify their actions. They claimed the RIAU were anti-semitic pogromists, were Kulaks, were in league with the whites and all sorts of other nonsense. In the piece you refer to Trotsky provides no real evidence to support his smears. There are numerous first hand accounts which contradict his claims and many non-anarchist historians who studied the RIAU and came to the conclusion that the Bolshevik smears are false. Michael Malet's Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution and Michael Palij's The Anarchism of Nestor Makhno, 1918-1921 are examples of the later. The Makhnovists were far from perfect, but I'll take it over Bolshevik dictatorship anyday.

The accusations about Makhnovists being kulaks was probably based on the fact that his group was resisting collectivization. I don't know though.

[Morpheus]

Sc4r,

Anyone who advocates a workers' state or central planning advocates central authority. There are lots of people who consider themselves socialists who advocate these things. Most claim that this centralization will somehow magically stay under the control of the proletariat, but in reality it does not. State socialists SAY "all of us place the authority itself with society" but the actual institutions set up (centralization, hierarchy, states, etc.) result in minority rule. Western capitalists claim to oppose minority rule, too, but the systems they advocate are forms of minority rule. It's the same with state socialists.

What I am advocating is decentralized, non-hierarchical coordination based on federations using direct democracy or consensus. This differs greatly from the systems set up by state socialists not only when actually coming to power but also in most of their own organizations. Also, you seem to be making a false dichotomy between anarchism and socialism. Anarchists have historically regarded ourselves as socialists, altogher many today shy away from that term because of it's association with Stalin, etc. Another name for anarchism is libertarian socialism.

Federations as I outlined have been used successfully many times in real-life. During the Spanish Revolution an industrial economy was run using this. It was also applied by workers & peasants during the early phases of the Russian Revolution and ran Paris at the height of the French Revolution. The spokescouncil system used by the anti-'globalization' movement are another example of this. I have experience using this, it works well. That's how I became an anarchist - I saw it in action as a participant in the anti-'globalization' movement. The WTO in Seattle was shut down using this method of coordination. If anything you are the one who lacks experience, since I had to explain to you what "federating" means and how this system works. In real life federations work quite well, there's plenty of historical evidence to support that and I've experienced it myself.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 10:47 PM
Sc4r,

Anyone who advocates a workers' state or central planning advocates central authority. There are lots of people who consider themselves socialists who advocate these things. Most claim that this centralization will somehow magically stay under the control of the proletariat, but in reality it does not. State socialists SAY "all of us place the authority itself with society" but the actual institutions set up (centralization, hierarchy, states, etc.) result in minority rule. Western capitalists claim to oppose minority rule, too, but the systems they advocate are forms of minority rule. It's the same with state socialists.

What I am advocating is decentralized, non-hierarchical coordination based on federations using direct democracy or consensus. This differs greatly from the systems set up by state socialists not only when actually coming to power but also in most of their own organizations. Also, you seem to be making a false dichotomy between anarchism and socialism. Anarchists have historically regarded ourselves as socialists, altogher many today shy away from that term because of it's association with Stalin, etc. Another name for anarchism is libertarian socialism.

Federations as I outlined have been used successfully many times in real-life. During the Spanish Revolution an industrial economy was run using this. It was also applied by workers & peasants during the early phases of the Russian Revolution and ran Paris at the height of the French Revolution. The spokescouncil system used by the anti-'globalization' movement are another example of this. I have experience using this, it works well. That's how I became an anarchist - I saw it in action as a participant in the anti-'globalization' movement. The WTO in Seattle was shut down using this method of coordination. If anything you are the one who lacks experience, since I had to explain to you what "federating" means and how this system works. In real life federations work quite well, there's plenty of historical evidence to support that and I've experienced it myself.
NO mate you do not have to explain to me what federating means thanks very much. You may not have read your understanding into my words but that very distinctly does not make you a source of wisdom on the subject beyond my ken.

So your real life examples of totally decentralised cooperation consist of the Russian revolution (funny I thought that the only one that worked there was leninism and then stalinism); the spanish revolution (not exactly what you would call a long lasting unqualified sucess); and the paris commune (again not exactly long lasting and hardly devoid of powerful central characters).

Come off it.

Now there is nothing 'magical' about the mechanism proposed by non anarchists to allow a central co-ordination to remain under control of society. Its a well developed line of thought; far more well developed than your alternative is; as I notice you answered not one of the objections I posed, and these objections are the tip of the iceberg.

You propose direct democracy, so do I; why will yours work and mine not work? for that matter just exactly who is going to organise the questions to be posed to your electorate in the absence of a central function? This is not trivial, asking every question that anyone poses of everyone is simply not a practical idea.

Nor is it even halfway valid to take a slight resemblance between liberal representative democracy and socialist direct democracy and say that because the former does not work the latter wont either. This in itself ignores the fact that while liberal democracies dont work perfectly (very imperfectly in my view) nor are they complete failures. The mass of peple are misled under most liberal democracies, not actually dictated to.

What all anarchists seem to miss is that just because a solution (centralised co-ordination) is not the perfect answer to every one of a host of different problems, some with directly opposed dynamics, it does not follow that a 'solution' which seems to address those unsolved problems is therefore workable. The fact is that anarchism seems to address the ideological problems of leadership only because it ignores the very significant practical problems of achieving co-ordination in the first place.