Anarchist's Position Is Thoroughly Refuted

[Rakhmetov]

"no leaders" stuff is a self-organised myth. A revolution needs leaders, hierarchies, organization, etc.

http://www.marxist.com/marxism-direct-action-anarchism040500.htm

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

"no leaders" stuff is a self-organised myth. A revolution needs leaders, hierarchies, organization, etc.

http://www.marxist.com/marxism-direct-action-anarchism040500.htm

bollocks.

[Widerstand]

Oh lord, this reads awfully like more of the "if no one tells the people what to do they won't do anything!" bullshit which has been refuted ad nauseam by pretty much everyone including mathematicians and physicists.

[ed miliband]

What do the IMT suggest then? We all vote Labour and wait for the beautiful socialist dawn?

[Quail]

You do realise that you can have organisation without heirarchies, right?

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't see how what amounts to a 10 year old troll by the IMT against anarchism thoroughly refutes anything.

[Widerstand]

You do realise that you can have organisation without heirarchies, right?

No. Not unless you actively fight them. Social relations are organized as an aristocratic small world network, which means that there will always be people who have far more contacts than the majority of other people. Not to mention other informal hierarchies arising from knowledge, skill or experience differences.

Overall, informal hierarchies are bound to happen, but can be actively kept at a minimum, for example by preventing them to have any effect on formalized power hierarchies, or by actively working to reduce the differences between individuals.

[Quail]

No. Not unless you actively fight them. Social relations are organized as an aristocratic small world network, which means that there will always be people who have far more contacts than the majority of other people. Not to mention other informal hierarchies arising from knowledge, skill or experience differences.

Overall, informal hierarchies are bound to happen, but can be actively kept at a minimum, for example by preventing them to have any effect on formalized power hierarchies, or by actively working to reduce the differences between individuals.
This is true, but individuals with more knowledge/experience/whatever don't have to have more power than others. It is possible to organise in a non-hierarchical fashion where everyone has an equal say. Several things I've been part of have organised this way without issues.

[La Comédie Noire]

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker"

- Mikhail Bakunin

[Widerstand]

This is true, but individuals with more knowledge/experience/whatever don't have to have more power than others. It is possible to organise in a non-hierarchical fashion where everyone has an equal say. Several things I've been part of have organised this way without issues.

No matter how much you remove formal hierarchies (which I suggested btw), informal hierarchies will have an effect: For example, if I'm the only one in my group who knows how to break into a building, I will have informal power should my group decide to squat something, unless they have ways to get that knowledge/skill independent of me. If I'm the only one who speaks English, I'll have informal power should my group decide to write an English text. And so on. This can of course be tackled by a variety of means, the fastest would prolly be to cooperate with non-group members with the needed skill should there be fears of power abuse. Which I (indirectly) suggested as well.

[gorillafuck]

Troll thread.

If you want to troll anarchists you could point to the fact that the historical anarchists that most of them look up to used lots of authority (forcibly collectivizing land in Spain, conscription on penalty of death in Ukraine, etc.). But that article was just really dumb and it's not even based around what anarchists actually say, it was a complete misrepresentation.

[∞]

Cool liberal concept of freedom, bro.

[Rakhmetov]

You do realise that you can have organisation without heirarchies, right?


Buenaventuri Durruti--- was he a leader or not? Thank you. :)

[Magón]

Buenaventuri Durruti--- was he a leader or not? Thank you. :)

Really? You're going to try and pull that?

I know it's already been called, but Troll Thread up the ass!

You can still have a form of leadership in Anarchism, but the leaders do not have absolute power like they do in Marxism or Capitalist ideologies. Leaders can be taken out, put in, spun around, whatever to the people's choosing without any of that bureaucratic bullshit you guys have. If I was the leader of say a wheat producing plant, I could be taken out of power at any time the workers so chose.

Your leaders with absolute power is ridiculous in and of itself.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What a pile of shit this article is. Complete horse shit. Filled with fallacies on Anarchist organisation. According to it Anarchist groups have no policy.

By the way Mengistu, Anarchist would agree that a revolution needs organisation.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

A revolution doesn't need organizations, organizations need revolutions. An organization may exploit these conditions, or work within them in order to steer the movement to a direction they see as correct, or whatever reason they give for the justification of their existence, but revolutions are not a result of organizations. Revolutions, insurrection and class consciousness are a result of the necessary conditions for these phenomenons to arise in (i.e. capitalism, or any society that harbors class antagonisms).

I think some organizations are worthy, but I hate this idea that people need leaders and organizations to push them forward. Organizations should primarily exist to educate and promote unity, not 'lead' anything. Anyone who wants to lead a class to victory is not representative of that class at all, as the class in question should lead itself to victory.

[gorillafuck]

Really? You're going to try and pull that?

I know it's already been called, but Troll Thread up the ass!

You can still have a form of leadership in Anarchism, but the leaders do not have absolute power like they do in Marxism or Capitalist ideologies. Leaders can be taken out, put in, spun around, whatever to the people's choosing without any of that bureaucratic bullshit you guys have. If I was the leader of say a wheat producing plant, I could be taken out of power at any time the workers so chose.

Your leaders with absolute power is ridiculous in and of itself.
Marxism doesn't require leaders with absolute power.

[Magón]

Marxism doesn't require leaders with absolute power.

I was really meaning more of the ML and more conservative Marxist thoughts, than say Left-Coms and such.

[turquino]

I suggest 'the Tyranny of Structurelessness' by Jo Freeman to anarchists who talk up anti-hierarchical organization. So long as there are organizations, leaders and leadership will always exist. The question is not: "should we have leaders or not", but "who should be our leaders and what should they do?" As an example, look at an anarchist group that claims to be anti-hierarchical. When you don't have a method or structure that determines who can speak and when, you'll get the biggest loudmouth running the show. Without a structure those who aren't loudmouths are stripped of their voice. When you don't have a formal organization leadership, the real leadership of the organization is the 'in-group' of friends at the centre. This structurelessness, anti-hierarchy creates a safe zone for wreckers and cops to exploit jealousies, turn people against one another, or convince others to do dangerous things. There is no way to fight this from arising without working out some formal means of delegation and leadership - preferably in the most democratic way.

[La Comédie Noire]

When you don't have a method or structure that determines who can speak and when, you'll get the biggest loudmouth running the show.1. Sit in a circle.
2. Pass a beanie baby or paper towel roll around the circle.
3. Whoever is holding the object gets to talk.
4. Limit the time allowed to talk to 5 minutes or however much time is needed.

All without leaders.

[IronEastBloc]

A hierarchy doesn't require class division. think of it more as a job akin to being a brick builder or a translator--it's just another job.

the so-called "leaderless anarchist state" is already in effect; it's called Afghanistan.

[turquino]

1. Sit in a circle.
2. Pass a beanie baby or paper towel roll around the circle.
3. Whoever is holding the object gets to talk.
4. Limit the time aloud to talk to 5 minutes or however much time is needed.

All without leaders.
That only solves unequal speaking time. Who gets listened to? Whose ideas are adopted? Is it the most popular person, or the one who knows better?

[IronEastBloc]

1. Sit in a circle.
2. Pass a beanie baby or paper towel roll around the circle.
3. Whoever is holding the object gets to talk.
4. Limit the time allowed to talk to 5 minutes or however much time is needed.

All without leaders.

Good idea! when you find a way to pass the beanie baby to 10 or 100 million people, let me know. :rolleyes:

[La Comédie Noire]

That only solves unequal speaking time. Who gets listened to? Whose ideas are adopted? Is it the most popular person, or the one who knows better? I don't really decide my politics on who I think is the more eloquent speaker or who has the prettiest face, but I'll bite. The circle could be used for talking out ideas while who actually gets to carry through policy is decided via lottery, Demarchy that is.


Good idea! when you find a way to pass the beanie baby to 10 or 100 million people, let me know. :rolleyes:

I thought we were talking about political organizations of small size? I think Demarchy would be a good way to organize a society personally.



This structurelessness, anti-hierarchy creates a safe zone for wreckers and cops to exploit jealousies, turn people against one another, or convince others to do dangerous things. There is no way to fight this from arising without working out some formal means of delegation and leadership - preferably in the most democratic way.

Come to think of it couldn't a really charismatic person or police spy talk their way into a position of leadership? I don't see how this solves the problem.

[turquino]

Come to think of it couldn't a really charismatic person or police spy talk their way into a position of leadership? I don't see how this solves the problem.
The rules of leadership are laid down in advance. If the cop gets into leadership, then presumably he has been doing only good things for the organisation. And if he starts to do harmful things while leader, the rules have been set up so that he can be removed for breaking them.

[∞]

Someone trash this godawful thread.

[Property Is Robbery]

"no leaders" stuff is a self-organised myth. A revolution needs leaders, hierarchies, organization, etc.

http://www.marxist.com/marxism-direct-action-anarchism040500.htm
People don't need to be sheep. They can be their own shepherds. It's unfortunate you believe yourself and others to be too weak minded but that doesn't make Anarchism wrong.

[FreeFocus]

I prefer horizontalist organization, but leadership is not synonymous with authoritarianism. There is always the threat of a cult of personality, thinking a leader can do no wrong and supporting them whether they are acting justly or not, but good leadership is valuable. Not everyone is a good strategist, not everyone is as knowledgeable, not everyone can direct in an appropriate way. Good leadership can also come from a group/committee.

[ckaihatsu]

This isn't worth getting sectarian over -- my mindset is to focus on *policies* and policy proposals / initiatives / recommendations / suggestions / process-oriented action items....

[NGNM85]

"no leaders" stuff is a self-organised myth. A revolution needs leaders, hierarchies, organization, etc.

http://www.marxist.com/marxism-direct-action-anarchism040500.htm

That is a grotesque oversimplification of Anarchist ideology, which isn't surprising considering what you've been reading. It’s just a meandering series of ad-hominem attacks, straw-man arguments, sweeping generalizations, and bullshit. I don’t know what kind of Marxist this fellow is, but he clearly knows nothing about Anarchism. If you’re going to conduct you’re arguments by proxy you can certainly do better than this tripe.

While we’re on the subject one might point out a few of the more egregious Marxist errors. For example; that a centralized, autocratic political body that administers a society actually isn’t a state because it has a command economy, that political leaders or military personnel that enjoy authority over the masses don’t represent a new class, even though they have every characteristic of it, again, because they have a command economy, and third, that the best route to a totally free and democratic society is via totalitarian police state which, magically, ‘withers away.’

[StalinFanboy]

No matter how much you remove formal hierarchies (which I suggested btw), informal hierarchies will have an effect: For example, if I'm the only one in my group who knows how to break into a building, I will have informal power should my group decide to squat something, unless they have ways to get that knowledge/skill independent of me. If I'm the only one who speaks English, I'll have informal power should my group decide to write an English text. And so on. This can of course be tackled by a variety of means, the fastest would prolly be to cooperate with non-group members with the needed skill should there be fears of power abuse. Which I (indirectly) suggested as well.

Or you communize your knowledge, thus removing yourself from any position of power. :]

[WeAreReborn]

That only solves unequal speaking time. Who gets listened to? Whose ideas are adopted? Is it the most popular person, or the one who knows better?
Direct democracy? The ideas that get adopted are those of the community or group of people involved. They can come to a collective decisions. You know that line "power to the people" or "Workers of the world unite!" How can you say it is run by workers if a leader controls your life?

[Magón]

A hierarchy doesn't require class division. think of it more as a job akin to being a brick builder or a translator--it's just another job.

the so-called "leaderless anarchist state" is already in effect; it's called Afghanistan.

LOL What?

[WeAreReborn]

LOL What?
Yeah I am surprised by this too. Most ignorant people when trying to make false claims about Anarchy at least turn to Somalia but Afghanistan?

[Widerstand]

the so-called "leaderless anarchist state" is already in effect; it's called Afghanistan.

Get the fuck out.

It's not our fault you are uncreative and ignorant, so don't drop that shit on us.

[ckaihatsu]

While we’re on the subject one might point out a few of the more egregious Marxist errors. For example; that a centralized, autocratic political body that administers a society actually isn’t a state because it has a command economy, that political leaders or military personnel that enjoy authority over the masses don’t represent a new class, even though they have every characteristic of it, again, because they have a command economy, and third, that the best route to a totally free and democratic society is via totalitarian police state which, magically, ‘withers away.’


While you're exaggerating the scenario in favor of using some dramatic scare tactics here, the substance of what you're saying may be fairly accurate, but only for the period in which the world's proletariat is in active class struggle against the forces of the bourgeoisie.

In a past post I've addressed the concerns you express towards the end....





I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

[IronEastBloc]

Get the fuck out.

It's not our fault you are uncreative and ignorant, so don't drop that shit on us.

Lol, so what other alternative state can we talk about? Anarchist Catalonia? that was a complete failure. it lasted less than 4 years and they joined the Catalan government, so I don't see how they are any different than the communists you criticize when it comes to pointless idealism and backing out on their promises.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Lol, so what other alternative state can we talk about? Anarchist Catalonia? that was a complete failure. it lasted less than 4 years and they joined the Catalan government, so I don't see how they are any different than the communists you criticize when it comes to pointless idealism and backing out on their promises.

It probably didn't help that the soviet backed forces were attacking the Anarchists at every possible moment.

[Magón]

Lol, so what other alternative state can we talk about? Anarchist Catalonia? that was a complete failure. it lasted less than 4 years and they joined the Catalan government, so I don't see how they are any different than the communists you criticize when it comes to pointless idealism and backing out on their promises.

Just like your Communism, Anarchist experiments/revolutions, never got fully underway in the way that they're theorized. Calling Somalia, Afghanistan, or whatever other chaotic place you want to call "Anarchist", is very likely to be tossed out the window. There's absolutely no signs that Afghanistan is acting in an Anarchist mindset or way. AT ALL.

Maybe try reading up on actual Anarchist Theory, rather than sitting there with your finger up your ass, reading ML propaganda about Anarchism and how it's "against the workers" bullshit.

[IronEastBloc]

It probably didn't help that the soviet backed forces were attacking the Anarchists at every possible moment.


That's to be expected. What do you want, countries to go "oh, it's anarchist, let's not attack them" and let them be? that'd never happen.

The Bolsheviks in it's early years was constantly attacked as well, by Kubans, by White Russians, by Anarcho-syndicalists, by Cossacks, and they survived. Hell, they even won the war.

Anarchist Catalonia was just a failed concept is all, and they even had all the trappings of an established government.


There's absolutely no signs that Afghanistan is acting in an Anarchist mindset or way. AT ALL.
.

That's the dance many anarchists play: "Oh it wasn't acting in an ANARCHIST MINDSET AT ALL!" well using your criteria, neither was Anarchist Catalonia, as they joined the Catalan government and even had some ministers under the anarchist banner! :lol: At least with ML, you know where we stand, instead of saying that none of the past matters because it doesn't fit our liking.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

That's to be expected. What do you want, countries to go "oh, it's anarchist, let's not attack them" and let them be? that'd never happen.

The Bolsheviks in it's early years was constantly attacked as well, by Kubans, by White Russians, by Anarcho-syndicalists, by Cossacks, and they survived. Hell, they even won the war.

Anarchist Catalonia was just a failed concept is all, and they even had all the trappings of an established government.

You didn't understand what I ment, and somehow, I doubt you ever will.

[Amphictyonis]

Really? You're going to try and pull that?

I know it's already been called, but Troll Thread up the ass!

You can still have a form of leadership in Anarchism, but the leaders do not have absolute power like they do in Marxism or Capitalist ideologies. Leaders can be taken out, put in, spun around, whatever to the people's choosing without any of that bureaucratic bullshit you guys have. If I was the leader of say a wheat producing plant, I could be taken out of power at any time the workers so chose.

Your leaders with absolute power is ridiculous in and of itself.

There are us Marxists who agree with you.

[Lord Testicles]

The Bolsheviks in it's early years was constantly attacked as well, by Kubans, by White Russians, by Anarcho-syndicalists, by Cossacks, and they survived. Hell, they even won the war.

What did they achieve? Last time I looked Russia was as capitalist as the rest of the world, so I guess it was an unequivocal success.

[IronEastBloc]

What did they achieve? Last time I looked Russia was as capitalist as the rest of the world, so I guess it was an unequivocal success.

The USSR collapsed because of some traitors like Gorbachev sold the country out under pressure from the west (it could've survived without perestroika and glasnost, and indeed, some of the USSR's strongest growth in industrial and material output was under the administration of Chernenko and Andropov), Whereas Anarchist Catalonia fell apart after 2 years of military pressure and the dissolvement of many of their ideals, after they joined forces with Catalan president Lluís Companys i Jover. (they even had some ministers; Diego Abad de Santillan was minister of economy for example, and many anarchists the world over saw Catalonia as sellouts).

the USSR lasted for close to 80 years, and fell only after a betrayal of government by Gorbachev (and they even had a coup to reinstate the USSR but that failed as well due to traitors in that coup who revealed the plot to Federal security agents); Anachist Catalonia fell because it wasn't a feasible state. it was completely worthless and impossible to establish.

[Lord Testicles]

So you are saying anarchist Catalonia fell for external reasons (military pressure) and the USSR fell due to internal reasons (betrayal of the government) but it's the "state" that fell to external pressure is the infeasible one?

Hmm, sounds like someone is grasping for excuses.

Why is one failure justified but the other isn't?

What exactly makes the idea "worthless and impossible" to establish?

[Magón]

That's the dance many anarchists play: "Oh it wasn't acting in an ANARCHIST MINDSET AT ALL!" well using your criteria, neither was Anarchist Catalonia, as they joined the Catalan government and even had some ministers under the anarchist banner! :lol: At least with ML, you know where we stand, instead of saying that none of the past matters because it doesn't fit our liking.

Please, if anything ML's are some of the biggest hypocrites to say what doesn't fit their liking is "petit-beougeois", "reactionary", "counter-productive", etc. You don't hear Anarchists saying these sorts of things.

Like I told you, Anarchist Catalonia wasn't Anarchism in it's truest form, there never has been, just like there's never been a true Communist collective or land. And no where in Anarchism (if you actually bother to read into Anarchism, rather than the propaganda that slanders the theory,) does it say that Anarchists are unable to cooperate with other Left Ideologies.

When your "shinning beacon of hope", the USSR and the Communist Party of Spain suppressed the POUM, it was the Anarchists who stood side by side with the TROTSKYIST (Marxist mindset remember,) and spoke out against the USSR and PCE's slanders of POUM.

Anarchists are capable of being very flexible when it comes to these sorts of things like Anarchist Catalonia. Just because something doesn't go our way, doesn't mean you're going to see us knocking off leaders, suppressing and pushing other ideas around. The USSR is a shinning beacon of pushing others around that don't agree with their way, and that's your fucking problem.

Calling Afghanistan "Anarchist" is complete bullshit because there's nowhere in that country, that shows any sort of Anarchist thought or way of acting. Not even trying to compare it to how the Anarchists in '36 Spain is something you can do, because there were actual Anarchists in Spain, but there are none so big in Afghanistan. (If any at all.)

[IronEastBloc]

Please, if anything ML's are some of the biggest hypocrites to say what doesn't fit their liking is "petit-beougeois", "reactionary", "counter-productive", etc. You don't hear Anarchists saying these sorts of things.

This is a subjective strawman; and thus is impossible to respond to objectively.


Like I told you, Anarchist Catalonia wasn't Anarchism in it's truest form, there never has been, just like there's never been a true Communist collective or land. And no where in Anarchism (if you actually bother to read into Anarchism, rather than the propaganda that slanders the theory,) does it say that Anarchists are unable to cooperate with other Left Ideologies.

Yet many collective anarchists still vows to destroy other left ideologies in the name of anarchism, so the alliance is manipulative more than co-operational.


When your "shinning beacon of hope", the USSR and the Communist Party of Spain suppressed the POUM, it was the Anarchists who stood side by side with the TROTSKYIST (Marxist mindset remember,) and spoke out against the USSR and PCE's slanders of POUM.

No shit they spoke against the USSR--that's because they had an ideological and political interest in doing so! they only allied with trotskyists because Trotskyists opposed the USSR as well. if the Trotskyists didn't oppose the USSR, the alliance would be a short one indeed.


Anarchists are capable of being very flexible when it comes to these sorts of things like Anarchist Catalonia.

That's bothersome. that shows anarchism is more a collection of knee-jerk reactions on various positions, rather than any true scientific ideology like Marxism.


Just because something doesn't go our way, doesn't mean you're going to see us knocking off leaders, suppressing and pushing other ideas around. The USSR is a shinning beacon of pushing others around that don't agree with their way, and that's your fucking problem.

No, instead you just fell into a long civil war with the rest of Spain.


Calling Afghanistan "Anarchist" is complete bullshit because there's nowhere in that country, that shows any sort of Anarchist thought or way of acting. Not even trying to compare it to how the Anarchists in '36 Spain is something you can do, because there were actual Anarchists in Spain, but there are none so big in Afghanistan. (If any at all.)

They're not collective anarchist a la Bakunin, but they are anarchist in a anarcho-capitalist sense.

[FreeFocus]

You sectarians are absolutely pathetic. Your politics are deplorable when you'd rather tear down other ideologies which share the same goal than focus on building common ground and Left power.

[gorillafuck]

While we’re on the subject one might point out a few of the more egregious Marxist errors. For example; that a centralized, autocratic political body that administers a society actually isn’t a state because it has a command economy, that political leaders or military personnel that enjoy authority over the masses don’t represent a new class, even though they have every characteristic of it, again, because they have a command economy, and third, that the best route to a totally free and democratic society is via totalitarian police state which, magically, ‘withers away.’
You're as stupid as the author of that article.

This whole thread is overflowing with absolute horseshit on both sides of this debate.

[Magón]

This is a subjective strawman; and thus is impossible to respond to.

Have you never seen what ML's say on here? (And in the world) When Anarchists or a Marxist ideology opposes them? They get branded "reactionary", "counter productive", you're probably just some young teenager who doesn't know shit about actual politics on such matters.


Yet many collective anarchists still vows to destroy other left ideologies in the name of anarchism, so the alliance is manipulative more than co-operational.

Anarchists say that? I've never heard that, I've only heard them say that Anarchists are willing to combat other opposing Left Ideologies because they themselves are being attacked. (Just like the USSR (and other ML forms) did to them in Spain and else where in history. I have no problem working along side a Trotskyist, Left-Com, or even an ML. But there has to be a reasonable understand between the sides to know that neither side should be pushed to such an extent where conflict between the two is the only choice they have.

I'm sure you ask any actual Anarchist in the world, if they'd work with a Marxist Ideology, they would say yes. They're probably likely to say no to ML's though because you guys have always stabbed Anarchists in the back, and have never been able to just take your slice of what's happening. You've always had to have the whole thing, and that's another problem you guys have. If you took what was given to you, and it was fair, you shouldn't be trying to push and take other's pieces like in the past.


No shit they spoke against the USSR--that's because they had an ideological and political interest in doing so! they only allied with trotskyists because Trotskyists opposed the USSR as well. if the Trotskyists didn't oppose the USSR, the alliance would be a short one indeed.

That's a straw-man right there, because you have no idea if Trotskyists opposed the USSR, that Anarchists wouldn't have sided with Trotskyists regardless. Like I said, the USSR was just a bully to the others, and when there was hope and a shinning light that maybe another radical left way of thinking was succeeding, but wasn't willing to give into their demands (ala autonomy,) they were pushed and suppressed and kicked from power which they had worked so hard to get in a time of war.

At the beginning of the SCW, POUM actually worked with the Communist Pary of Spain, so did the CNT-FAI and UGT, and yet when the USSR had to pull some strings by threatening the government by saying, "Hey, you're not going to be getting anymore planes, tanks, guns, etc. from us if you don't put our people in power," then you got your problems and the May Day fighting in Barcelona.

Maybe learn to take your fucking share of what you've got, and live with it. No matter how big or small it is to start with.


That's bothersome. that shows anarchism is more a collection of knee-jerk reactions on various positions, rather than any true scientific ideology like Marxism.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of Anarchists who take a hardcore stance on many issues and problems. But as Anarchists, we're able to be more flexible to the situation than your ML ideology, rather than taking such a hardcore stance and say that just because these people aren't with us, they must be "reactionary",


No, instead you just fell into a long civil war with the rest of Spain.

Hardly. If the USSR had been smart enough, and kept their hands out of the cookie jar, then maybe things might have turned out differently. You can't blame Anarchists for trying to focus on Franco and his Goons, while the USSR is stabbing them in the back, taking over and suppressing them.


They're not collective anarchist a la Bakunin, but they are anarchist in a anarcho-capitalist sense.

Anarcho-Capitalism isn't a real Anarchist theory, it's a bullshit fallacy. Anarchism and Capitalism cannot go together. They are two ideas so far apart from each other, that only dip shits and assholes can possibly think to bring them together and call it something real. (Which if you've ever met an Anarcho-Capitalist, they're really just Free Market Capitalists (Far Right-wingers) trying to take on the Anarchist title.)

[L.A.P.]

This is why even though I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I dislike the attitude of most Marxist-Leninists.

[Widerstand]

That's the dance many anarchists play: "Oh it wasn't acting in an ANARCHIST MINDSET AT ALL!" well using your criteria, neither was Anarchist Catalonia, as they joined the Catalan government and even had some ministers under the anarchist banner! :lol: At least with ML, you know where we stand, instead of saying that none of the past matters because it doesn't fit our liking.

Tell me what about Afghanistan is actually anarchist?

The form of government and the ideology obviously aren't, so what is it?

[StalinFanboy]

Well this turned into the worst thread ever.

[Sasha]

tell me what about afghanistan is actually anarchist?

The form of government and the ideology obviously aren't, so what is it?


anarkee means chaoz!!!!!!!!! (;))

[Misanthrope]

You're view of anarchism is a simple generalization. You obviously don't know what anarchism is, it isn't "No leaders, no authority! PUNK ROCK". It is the lack of a centralized state during a workers revolution.

[Sasha]

no, really? who would have thought?

[Magón]

Well this turned into the worst thread ever.

Can you really expect anything less from a Troll thread?

[NGNM85]

While you're exaggerating the scenario in favor of using some dramatic scare tactics here, the substance of what you're saying may be fairly accurate,

Considering the response I usually get I’m going to consider this a substantial concession.


but only for the period in which the world's proletariat is in active class struggle against the forces of the bourgeoisie.

In a past post I've addressed the concerns you express towards the end....

Your post discusses the issue, but doesn’t resolve it. The first problem I have is it’s couched in this Marxist dogma. For example, the problem I was pointing out was this kind of tunnel vision, where you can have a dictatorship, or something that has all the characteristics of a dictatorship, but it isn’t actually a state because they have a command economy. There’s this sort of blind spot of ideology.

Also, it entails the, admittedly very popular, but, rather vulgar, atavistic, macho conception of revolution. I have several problems with that.

I just don’t find your answer (Which I’ve heard before.) very comforting or very convincing. First of all, I think entrenched, monolithic power structures are inherently self-perpetuating. I cannot recall, or even imagine such a tightly concentrated locus of power dissolving itself, willingly. Also, I think the proposed means are fundamentally at odds with the professed ends.

Lastly, there are very good historical reason, especially for Anarchists, to be highly skeptical of statements such as this. Although, admittedly, in the Bolsheviks’ case, there was never any intention or interest in workers democracy. (Real Socialism.) Of course this comes back to dogmatic Marxism and the belief that there had to be a successful revolution in Germany so the USSR was just a placeholder state, etc., etc.

[ckaihatsu]

entails the, admittedly very popular, but, rather vulgar, atavistic, macho conception of revolution. I have several problems with that.


You may want to elaborate here -- I don't understand what the source of your characterization is here....








While we’re on the subject one might point out a few of the more egregious Marxist errors. For example; that a centralized, autocratic political body that administers a society actually isn’t a state because it has a command economy, that political leaders or military personnel that enjoy authority over the masses don’t represent a new class, even though they have every characteristic of it, again, because they have a command economy, and third, that the best route to a totally free and democratic society is via totalitarian police state which, magically, ‘withers away.’





While you're exaggerating the scenario in favor of using some dramatic scare tactics here, the substance of what you're saying may be fairly accurate,





Considering the response I usually get I’m going to consider this a substantial concession.


We're just talking here -- I already stated my position. It may be worth going over related and tangential sub-issues, or it may not....





Your post [I]discusses the issue, but doesn’t resolve it. The first problem I have is it’s couched in this Marxist dogma. For example, the problem I was pointing out was this kind of tunnel vision, where you can have a dictatorship, or something that has all the characteristics of a dictatorship, but it isn’t actually a state because they have a command economy. There’s this sort of blind spot of ideology.


I disagree entirely that it's a "blind spot of ideology", or that my (vanguardist) position doesn't resolve the question of how revolution is to be done.

It's important to keep in mind -- as we've clearly seen with the WikiLeaks example -- that the bourgeoisie *will* solidarize itself around its common enemy, blurring over any lesser distinctions of nation-state or corporate identity. Against such a focused class determination there is no room for half-measures, as may be seen from an anarchistic localism or lateralism.





I just don’t find your answer (Which I’ve heard before.) very comforting or very convincing. First of all, I think entrenched, monolithic power structures are inherently self-perpetuating. I cannot recall, or even imagine such a tightly concentrated locus of power dissolving itself, willingly. Also, I think the proposed means are fundamentally at odds with the professed ends.


I think you're succumbing to some elements of idealism here -- you're saying that "entrenched, monolithic" power structures are *inherently* self-perpetuating. What you're ignoring with that assertion is the *purpose* behind such a power formation -- it would be entirely and solely for defeating bourgeois class rule, worldwide.

Likewise, 'means' and 'ends' *are* always the crux of the matter, but you're glossing over the 'ends' and ignoring that the substance of the 'ends' in this case -- ending class rule for the rest of time -- is second to no other purpose in all of human history and in our present day.

I'll use the definition of 'class war' and note that the implements of warfare are only used and/or threatened in situations where there is a *foe* to oppose -- once the class enemy has been dispensed with there *is no* opposing class existing anymore.





Lastly, there are very good historical reason, especially for Anarchists, to be highly skeptical of statements such as this. Although, admittedly, in the Bolsheviks’ case, there was never any intention or interest in workers democracy. (Real Socialism.)




Of course this comes back to dogmatic Marxism and the belief that there had to be a successful revolution in Germany so the USSR was just a placeholder state, etc., etc.


Well, here, too, you're blithely glossing over the realities at play -- we are all limited in our powers of agency, and if the spreading of a revolution objectively requires the solidarity of others, then that's what's needed. There's no two ways about it. (The formation of the USSR came well *after* the defeat of the Russian and German revolutions, so *no one* would term the USSR to have been a "placeholder" state, whatever that might mean.)

[NGNM85]

You may want to elaborate here -- I don't understand what the source of your characterization is here....

Well, I’ll take it piece by piece, it’s vulgar because it is crude and simplistic. There’s good guys and bad guys, and the good guys kick the living shit out of the bad guys, and then everything’s beer and skittles. It’s obviously bursting with this overblown machismo. Lastly, it’s atavistic because it goes way beyond rational proportion. You like many others here, from what I gather, don’t even seem interested in the possibility of non-violent social change. That possibility is just dismissed outright, and I think that’s’ a dubious assumption. Here’s where the atavism comes in, because there really is no interest in anything but the most violent means of change, the most literal and reductionist interpretation of class warfare. Also, the emotional response does not seem appropriate in the light of the professed objective. The kind of passion, zeal and excitement, not about improving peoples lives, but exacting vengeance on ‘the enemy’, whoever that is.

While I’m sure to be accused of being a pacifist, I can assure you, I am not. My own position is that non-violent means have to be reasonably exhausted before resorting to more drastic action, violence should have to be warranted by the circumstances, as well as proportional to those circumstances, and, lastly, that there is sufficient reason to believe said action won’t be counterproductive, and, ultimately result in making things considerably worse than they already are. It’s important to note that the result of this moral calculus differs depending on the variables. In Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., revolutionary violence is almost inevitable because these nations have essentially no democracy, whatsoever, and they have violently repressive governments. In the West circumstances are somewhat different.

Another problem that I have with this is, and again, this has to do with the crude and simplistic element, is I don’t see Anarchism as an end, but more of a means. It’s more of a direction, than a destination. Even is a more or less realized Libertarian Socialist society we would continually be changing and reorganizing to needs meet with those times and those circumstances, we would still need to be vigilant for new institutions of oppression, etc. The only end I can think of is if we have some kind of Technological Singularity or something.

[
I disagree entirely that it's a "blind spot of ideology", or that my (vanguardist) position doesn't resolve the question of how revolution is to be done.

It doesn’t. First, because I think you’re operating under a number of dubious preconceptions in your concept of revolution, first and foremost. Second, because you havent’ made any convincing arguments. You’re just placating me by saying; ‘This time it’s different, I swear.’ The professed objective of such an institution is almost completely meaningless. According to Goebbels’ ministry the Third Reich had nothing but benevolent intentions, this things should never be taken as self-evident, they should be closely scrutinized.


It's important to keep in mind -- as we've clearly seen with the WikiLeaks example -- that the bourgeoisie *will* solidarize itself around its common enemy, blurring over any lesser distinctions of nation-state or corporate identity. Against such a focused class determination there is no room for half-measures, as may be seen from an anarchistic localism or lateralism.

Again, this is a very simplistic, dogmatic outlook.


I think you're succumbing to some elements of idealism here –

“Idealism’ in the Marxist sense.


you're saying that "entrenched, monolithic" power structures are *inherently* self-perpetuating. What you're ignoring with that assertion is the *purpose* behind such a power formation -- it would be entirely and solely for defeating bourgeois class rule, worldwide.

See above.


Likewise, 'means' and 'ends' *are* always the crux of the matter, but you're glossing over the 'ends' and ignoring that the substance of the 'ends' in this case -- ending class rule for the rest of time -- is second to no other purpose in all of human history and in our present day.

See above.


I'll use the definition of 'class war' and note that the implements of warfare are only used and/or threatened in situations where there is a *foe* to oppose -- once the class enemy has been dispensed with there *is no* opposing class existing anymore.

See above.


Well, here, too, you're blithely glossing over the realities at play -- we are all limited in our powers of agency, and if the spreading of a revolution objectively requires the solidarity of others, then that's what's needed. There's no two ways about it.

That’s a very artful and deliberate characterization.


(The formation of the USSR came well *after* the defeat of the Russian and German revolutions, so *no one* would term the USSR to have been a "placeholder" state, whatever that might mean.)

I think you know exactly what I mean, you’re just being nitpicky. Lenin and the Bolsheviks believed that the real revolution had to take place in the more sophisticated, advanced countries, first, particularly Germany. The Bolsheviks never had any interest in workers’ democracy, they were, again, in keeping with ideology, merely holding the fort, so to speak. Personally, I think that’s just sort of convenient, but it is ideologically consistent.

[gorillafuck]

The Bolsheviks never had any interest in workers’ democracy, they were, again, in keeping with ideology, merely holding the fort, so to speak. Personally, I think that’s just sort of convenient, but it is ideologically consistent.
You honestly don't know what you're talking about, nor do you know about the history of the Russian revolution.

[NGNM85]

You honestly don't know what you're talking about, nor do you know about the history of the Russian revolution.

I have not spent the enormous amount of time and energy into analyzing every arcane detail, with a reverence than can only be accurately described as religious, no. As for my assertion that Lenin and the Bolshevik leaders were fake socialists with no interest in workers' democracy whatsoever, I stand by that and I think that's fairly easily proven with a minimum of research. However, the other statement about the Russian revolution being a placeholder, that's like saying 'The sky is blue.' It isn't even controversial.

[chegitz guevara]

You do realise that you can have organisation without heirarchies, right?

Nope. Hierarchies will develop organically simply out of efficiency, personality, etc. The difference between formal hierarchies and informal ones are, you have some possibility to control formal ones. Informal ones have no responsibility to you.

Read Jo Freeman on "The Tyranny of Structurelessness."

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Nope. Hierarchies will develop organically simply out of efficiency, personality, etc. The difference between formal hierarchies and informal ones are, you have some possibility to control formal ones. Informal ones have no responsibility to you.

Read Jo Freeman on "The Tyranny of Structurelessness."

Do you even have any experiance of non-hierarchical organization? Or is this all based on academic discussion?

[ckaihatsu]

Well, I’ll take it piece by piece, it’s vulgar because it is crude and simplistic. There’s good guys and bad guys, and the good guys kick the living shit out of the bad guys, and then everything’s beer and skittles. It’s obviously bursting with this overblown machismo.


There *is no* machismo here, nor is it "obvious".





Lastly, it’s atavistic because it goes way beyond rational proportion. You like many others here, from what I gather, don’t even seem interested in the possibility of non-violent social change. That possibility is just dismissed outright, and I think that’s’ a dubious assumption. Here’s where the atavism comes in, because there really is no interest in anything but the most violent means of change, the most literal and reductionist interpretation of class warfare. Also, the emotional response does not seem appropriate in the light of the professed objective. The kind of passion, zeal and excitement, not about improving peoples lives, but exacting vengeance on ‘the enemy’, whoever that is.


Just for the record, and for whatever it's worth, I don't see *any* rejection of non-violent social change coming from my direction. That said, though, we, as political people, have to also consider what kind of politics will take society beyond the constraints of capitalism as quickly and effectively as possible.





While I’m sure to be accused of being a pacifist, I can assure you, I am not. My own position is that non-violent means have to be reasonably exhausted before resorting to more drastic action, violence should have to be warranted by the circumstances, as well as proportional to those circumstances, and, lastly, that there is sufficient reason to believe said action won’t be counterproductive, and, ultimately result in making things considerably worse than they already are. It’s important to note that the result of this moral calculus differs depending on the variables. In Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., revolutionary violence is almost inevitable because these nations have essentially no democracy, whatsoever, and they have violently repressive governments. In the West circumstances are somewhat different.


I don't think that the bourgeoisie's response to effective class warfare is going to vary according to the particular nation-state -- you're over-analyzing here.





Another problem that I have with this is, and again, this has to do with the crude and simplistic element, is I don’t see Anarchism as an end, but more of a means. It’s more of a direction, than a destination. Even is a more or less realized Libertarian Socialist society we would continually be changing and reorganizing to needs meet with those times and those circumstances, we would still need to be vigilant for new institutions of oppression, etc. The only end I can think of is if we have some kind of Technological Singularity or something.


Okay, fair enough.





It doesn’t. First, because I think you’re operating under a number of dubious preconceptions in your concept of revolution, first and foremost.


Do tell....





Second, because you havent’ made any convincing arguments. You’re just placating me by saying; ‘This time it’s different, I swear.’


Uh, considering that revolution has been done in the past and yet we're still living in a capitalist world *today*, yes -- this time it's different, I swear.





The professed objective of such an institution is almost completely meaningless. According to Goebbels’ ministry the Third Reich had nothing but benevolent intentions, this things should never be taken as self-evident, they should be closely scrutinized.


Okay, fine, but I don't appreciate your facile introduction and intertwining of *fascist* ends alongside *revolutionary* ones. It's an inappropriate political example to use, especially coming from someone who's on the left.

Your mistrust of established political trajectories is unfortunate. Politics, and political trajectories, tends to be readily definable and quite predictable going forward. Those who take the time to scrutinize political history and current political trends -- as we do on RevLeft, for example -- will be far less likely to misjudge what an institution or movement's intentions are, or to be fooled by any tactical misrepresentations.

Movements take on a momentum of their own and can be identified and defined by those established histories. It's not as confusing or treacherous as you make it out to be.





It's important to keep in mind -- as we've clearly seen with the WikiLeaks example -- that the bourgeoisie *will* solidarize itself around its common enemy, blurring over any lesser distinctions of nation-state or corporate identity. Against such a focused class determination there is no room for half-measures, as may be seen from an anarchistic localism or lateralism.





Again, this is a very simplistic, dogmatic outlook.


(Feel free to address it in detail, as with arguments -- you're just positing a blanket characterization of it.)





“Idealism’ in the Marxist sense.


'Idealism' in the regular sense -- you're addressing 'means and ends' disingenuously, and thus less-than-realistically. Your disingenuousness belies a sectarianism.








What you're ignoring [...] is the *purpose* behind [a vanguardist] power formation -- it would be entirely and solely for defeating bourgeois class rule, worldwide.





(The formation of the USSR came well *after* the defeat of the Russian and German revolutions, so *no one* would term the USSR to have been a "placeholder" state, whatever that might mean.)





I think you know exactly what I mean, you’re just being nitpicky.


We're covering some very intricate and very important matters here -- thanks to RevLeft and the discussion-board format we have the *ability* to be very precise and fastidious in our attentions to these things.... That's a *good* thing -- it's worth the extra attention and effort.

I *don't* know what you may intend to mean by "placeholder state", and it is significant that the USSR *didn't exist* during the time of the Russian and German revolutions.





Lenin and the Bolsheviks believed that the real revolution had to take place in the more sophisticated, advanced countries, first, particularly Germany.


Yes, I agree here.





The Bolsheviks never had any interest in workers’ democracy, they were, again, in keeping with ideology, merely holding the fort, so to speak. Personally, I think that’s just sort of convenient, but it is ideologically consistent.


(I'm going to leave this part unaddressed -- not out of agreement, but rather because going over historical characterizations would not be productive to the direction of this discussion.)

[chegitz guevara]

Do you even have any experiance of non-hierarchical organization? Or is this all based on academic discussion?

I have about twenty years experience with such things. Every single one ended up having an unelected, and therefore unaccountable, leadership. I prefer an elected, accountable leadership.

Jo Freeman's essay was written based on her experiences in the feminist movement. BTW, I was turned on the the essay by an anarchist comrade of mine. I highly recommend it.

[chegitz guevara]

There's an interesting book called "The Starfish and the Spider" about decentralized leaderless organizations. You can read the first chapter online http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/index.html

It makes the fine argument that decentralized organizations
with no vested power or at most, with equal power-sharing (which alternately cancels itself out) are more resilient and pretty much impossible to destroy (for reason of logistics).

The book points out one very successful leaderless organization among many-- Alcoholics Anonymous (their name speaks volumes). But despite those seemingly negatives, you can find one in every town in the US and they have been operating in that same capacity for years. Yes Granted, not on par with organizing a one-world communist society, but the book makes a nice case for translating the possibilities of decentralization to a decentralized society which for the most part would look vastly different than a hierarchial society (cooperation rather than force)-- which goes to say Not impossible.. just different.

It's a nice theory, but in practice has proved to be have no basis in reality. AA can function as a "leaderless" organization (it isn't) because it isn't trying to challenge authority (in fact, it requires surrender to a higher authority). As much as the Tea Party loves that book and claims to be leaderless, the truth is they get their marching orders and funding from the crowning heights of capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll add here that vanguardism doesn't necessarily require a totemistic mass focus on individualistic leadership.





This isn't worth getting sectarian over -- my mindset is to focus on *policies* and policy proposals / initiatives / recommendations / suggestions / process-oriented action items....

[ckaihatsu]

I think it's actually a futile discussion as communist anarchists and authoritarian communists have different perspectives for a reason! I think most if not all anarchists would not see the Marxists hiearchial model as a challenge to or a shift in authority as the majority of people-- i.e. the working classes position in that hierarchy would virutually stay the same.


This attention to -- and categorical dismissal of -- a *hierarchical* organizational structure is a *preoccupation* indulged in, to the detriment of an effective global class struggle offensive against the bourgeoisie.

I have to repeat that considering *hierarchy* on its own, as an [abstraction], independent of any real context, *is* idealism. Such a line of argument does no good for either anarchism or revolutionary leftism generally, and winds up only being sectarian in relation to Marxism.

[gorillafuck]

I have not spent the enormous amount of time and energy into analyzing every arcane detail, with a reverence than can only be accurately described as religious, no.
Hahahaha religious reverance? Nobody accused you of it. A bit defensive, though.

I don't religiously study it either. But I take an interest. Really, only an idiot would backhandedly accuse others simple interests of being religious reverence.


As for my assertion that Lenin and the Bolshevik leaders were fake socialists with no interest in workers' democracy whatsoever, I stand by that and I think that's fairly easily proven with a minimum of research.It's really not, considering that the Bolsheviks were striving for a plural left government but to no avail due to lack of cooperation, that it's incredibly difficult to build pure workers democracy during a 12 country invasion and civil war, and you can't accurately judge ones dedication to pure workers democracy in times of civil war. I mean, a quick, measly glance at history shows us that Nestor Mahnko quickly gave up libertarianism once civil war occurred. Same with spanish anarchists (who I like, mind you).


However, the other statement about the Russian revolution being a placeholder, that's like saying 'The sky is blue.' It isn't even controversial.Yeah, they really wanted revolution to happen in industrialized countries. I don't object to acknowledging that.

[ckaihatsu]

This attention to -- and categorical dismissal of -- a *hierarchical* organizational structure is a *preoccupation* indulged in, to the detriment of an effective global class struggle offensive against the bourgeoisie.

I have to repeat that considering *hierarchy* on its own, as an [abstraction], independent of any real context, *is* idealism. Such a line of argument does no good for either anarchism or revolutionary leftism generally, and winds up only being sectarian in relation to Marxism.





Idealism-- I don't personally think is bad to engage in or fight for. I think that basically the anarchist vision of society is much bigger and broader and revolutionary then the other conceptions of society.


No, I'm sorry -- I don't mean 'idealism' in the sense of 'vision', I mean 'idealism' in the sense of 'abstract', or 'perfect in form'.





In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. [...] Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism





one leader (president, prime minister, etc. ) and the poliburo (congress, house of lords,) and the voters.. that's us.. the working class. That's all we get to do is vote! Where is the revolution in that?




But ( and that's a big but..) you are keeping the same governing framework as the capitalist-imperalist society....


No, this is an outright misrepresentation of Marxism -- the "governing framework" brought about by a worldwide proletarian revolution would have no interest or need to retain the same kind of (bourgeois parliamentary) structures as currently exist in capitalist-imperialist society.





the defining difference, between Marxism and Capitalism seems to be just based on the wealth denominator.. then throw in some gender politics, some utterings about the working class.. and you have a revolution.


And here you're ignoring the fundamental issue of how labor is organized in society, including what drives productive activity.

[revolution inaction]

Nope. Hierarchies will develop organically simply out of efficiency, personality, etc. The difference between formal hierarchies and informal ones are, you have some possibility to control formal ones. Informal ones have no responsibility to you.

Read Jo Freeman on "The Tyranny of Structurelessness."

You can have structure that is not hierarchical you know.

[coda]

ha! where did my two posts go!??! Well, thanks anyway for saving snippets from them.

<<<It's a nice theory, but in practice has proved to be have no basis in reality. AA can function as a "leaderless" organization (it isn't) because it isn't trying to challenge authority (in fact, it requires surrender to a higher authority). As much as the Tea Party loves that book and claims to be leaderless, the truth is they get their marching orders and funding from the crowning heights of capitalism>>>

what higher authority-- Jack Daniels? I'm not a suscribing member but aware of the common knowledge that they have no presidents, board of directors, congressional body, rules, by-laws, constitutions.. other than to elect not to drink if they so desire. AA has no funding. That criteria makes them a leaderless organization. Mea Culpa, I don't keep up on the Tea Parties current reading list.. or the other bourgeoisie parties either! However, if it's true that the Tea Party is a fan of the book, (Highly dubious, as a good portion of the book marvels about the success of online Piracy.) it still doesn't dismiss the fact that there is a growing movement toward decentralization.

[coda]

<<<<<No, I'm sorry -- I don't mean 'idealism' in the sense of 'vision', I mean 'idealism' in the sense of 'abstract', or 'perfect in form'.>>>>

Anarchism doesn't claim to be "perfect in form" or utopian. And I can assure you, Anarchism wouldn't be. I'm sure it will have the same types of problems as a hierarchial communist society.. just very different ways in handling those problems.

<<<<<<<<<No, this is an outright misrepresentation of Marxism -- the "governing framework" brought about by a worldwide proletarian revolution would have no interest or need to retain the same kind of (bourgeois parliamentary) structures as currently exist in capitalist-imperialist society.And here you're ignoring the fundamental issue of how labor is organized in society, including what drives productive activity>>>>>>>>>>>>

I appreciate your indignation about being misprepresented. Annoying, eh?

It follows the same logic that if you can support worker's self-management, then you could support a decentralized society. It theoretically works in the same way.

[Eastside Revolt]

Nope. Hierarchies will develop organically simply out of efficiency, personality, etc. The difference between formal hierarchies and informal ones are, you have some possibility to control formal ones. Informal ones have no responsibility to you.

Read Jo Freeman on "The Tyranny of Structurelessness."

Or for further reading: "The Tyranny of Tyranny" by Cathy Levine (http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-levine)

[La Comédie Noire]

I think a compromise can be struck between the two positions presented in this thread, but the article is frankly not that good and I'm at a loss as to why people, with much better arguments than the article, are defending it.

I think the thing we all agree on is we need a structure of some sort. I don't think any of the Marxists in this thread are calling for the extreme hierarchy of a Vanguard Party and I don't think the Anarchists are calling for a feel good discussion circle with Bakunin pamphlets and vegan food. Informal hierarchy does exist, I've seen it with my own eyes. Usually people who have "been there" and read all the right books on security culture and DIY will dominate a non hierarchical group.

You also definitely need a structure for delegating tasks,or else nothing gets done that's for sure.


The rules of leadership are laid down in advance. If the cop gets into leadership, then presumably he has been doing only good things for the organisation. And if he starts to do harmful things while leader, the rules have been set up so that he can be removed for breaking them.

Well couldn't it be equally argued that someone in a non hierarchal group who kept making bad decisions wouldn't be listened to either?

In any case The Tyranny of Structurelessness is going on my reading list.

[chegitz guevara]

Or for further reading: "The Tyranny of Tyranny" by Cathy Levine (http://libcom.org/library/tyranny-of-tyranny-cathy-levine)

Terrible.

[syndicat]

It's possible to consciously organize in ways to reduce or minimize the effect of informal differences. for example, some people have, say, more knowledge or better speaking ability. you can organize discussion groups, trainings, workshops to do organized member learning, you can consciously work to develop skills in members such as public speaking, how to organize, and so on. you can rotate responsibilities like chairing a meeting so that people get to have that experience.

if these things are not overtly dealt with, then informal differences in connections, knolwedge, abilities, etc. will affect the way a structured group operates.

consider a union. historically in the AFL unions bureaucracy developed out of informal differences. for example, in the 1800s many unions were organized by socialists and anarchists. they were very committed and would be elected delegates. they were likely to be fired. so workers, not wanting to lose them working for them, would hire them. this was the origin of business agents. people who have experience organizing, dealing with employers, dealing with politicians, and so on would learn various things from doing this activity, such as labor law, their contract rights and so on, and so long as other workers are not consciously organized to learn these things, it becomes an advantage that the leader can use to keep people dependent on him. it leads to a circle of cronies who are dependent on him who keep voting for him, and keep him in office. this can be dealt with in an organized way through training programs so that rank and file members are taught labor law, how to organize, Roberts Rules, etc. Thus the development of a bureaucratic hierarchy isn't inevitable. but it won't work to say this can be "spontaneiously" avoided, as some anarchists say.

[RadioRaheem84]

How did NGNM85 manage to make a shitty threat even shittier with his inane drivel?

Zeekloid and Ckhaihatsu, thank you for taking the guy to school but I think that your posts are just going to fall on deaf ears.

The guy clearly has no clue as to what he is talking about and relies on idealistic non-sense to describe the reality on the ground during the Russian Revolution.

Does he think he is offering a great anarchist defense against ML?

As for this thread, I think Anarchism is a viable ideology for class struggle and while I am not an Anarchist I deeply respect the sacrifice of the Anarchist struggle against capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

No, I'm sorry -- I don't mean 'idealism' in the sense of 'vision', I mean 'idealism' in the sense of 'abstract', or 'perfect in form'.





Anarchism doesn't claim to be "perfect in form" or utopian. And I can assure you, Anarchism wouldn't be. I'm sure it will have the same types of problems as a hierarchial communist society.. just very different ways in handling those problems.


Yeah, I can appreciate the overall "vision", for lack of a better term. My only real differences with anarchism are with *what kind* of organization of the world's proletariat would be *sufficient* to defeat the forces of the bourgeoisie -- that's why I'm a vanguardist. And, post-capitalism, I think there should be organizations of liberated laborers that are great enough to enable fairly sophisticated production, as with major movie releases and space exploration today.








This attention to -- and categorical dismissal of -- a *hierarchical* organizational structure is a *preoccupation* indulged in, to the detriment of an effective global class struggle offensive against the bourgeoisie.

I have to repeat that considering *hierarchy* on its own, as an [abstraction], independent of any real context, *is* idealism. Such a line of argument does no good for either anarchism or revolutionary leftism generally, and winds up only being sectarian in relation to Marxism.





No, this is an outright misrepresentation of Marxism -- the "governing framework" brought about by a worldwide proletarian revolution would have no interest or need to retain the same kind of (bourgeois parliamentary) structures as currently exist in capitalist-imperialist society.And here you're ignoring the fundamental issue of how labor is organized in society, including what drives productive activity






I appreciate your indignation about being misprepresented. Annoying, eh?

It follows the same logic that if you can support worker's self-management, then you could support a decentralized society. It theoretically works in the same way.


Yeah, again, I would *tacitly* support a decentralized post-capitalist society, but only if that structure had already been successful in overcoming class rule for good, and if it also allowed liberated labor to willingly self-organize into larger and possibly hierarchical structures for the sake of enabling certain kinds of production.





Informal hierarchy does exist, I've seen it with my own eyes. Usually people who have "been there" and read all the right books on security culture and DIY will dominate a non hierarchical group.


One should be certain that one's efforts are worthwhile in the first place to be involved in any given organization. While there will almost certainly be petty politics / power politics / playing politics *within* the organization, the larger question is whether what the organization is actually *doing* makes the internal overhead worth the burden of participation.

[coda]

ckaihatsu, I have no objections to anything you've proposed. I can't see why any of those can't be implemented by the base workers -- the people who already work in those fields! Would they cease to produce without the leader? I think the workers are much more capable then what they are given credit for.

[chegitz guevara]

It's possible to consciously organize in ways to reduce or minimize the effect of informal differences. for example, some people have, say, more knowledge or better speaking ability. you can organize discussion groups, trainings, workshops to do organized member learning, you can consciously work to develop skills in members such as public speaking, how to organize, and so on. you can rotate responsibilities like chairing a meeting so that people get to have that experience.

I absolutely agree, and that's exactly they way I organize on a local level. Once you start moving beyond a local, though, I think you need some sort of democratically controlled hierarchy. It just gets too hard once you start dealing with a lot of people, with all their differences, especially geographic ones.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, I have no objections to anything you've proposed. I can't see why any of those can't be implemented by the base workers -- the people who already work in those fields! Would they cease to produce without the leader? I think the workers are much more capable then what they are given credit for.


Absolutely. I appreciate the worker-centric politics here....

I'd like to add that, in this spirit, I recently created a very simple, "ground-level" system that may be appropriate for a workers' self-organization over collectivized production. It's called 'Rotation system of work roles', below....






It's possible to consciously organize in ways to reduce or minimize the effect of informal differences. for example, some people have, say, more knowledge or better speaking ability. you can organize discussion groups, trainings, workshops to do organized member learning, you can consciously work to develop skills in members such as public speaking, how to organize, and so on. you can rotate responsibilities like chairing a meeting so that people get to have that experience.





I absolutely agree, and that's exactly they way I organize on a local level. Once you start moving beyond a local, though, I think you need some sort of democratically controlled hierarchy. It just gets too hard once you start dealing with a lot of people, with all their differences, especially geographic ones.


Couple things here:

- I find the discussion-board *format* -- as with RevLeft here -- to be the absolute *best* medium for communicating about political matters, particularly those around various political orientations since they deal with abstracted generalizations and tend to quickly become intricate in discussion. I'll even go so far as to suggest that practically *all* (revolutionary) political matters should be taken care of this way, particularly so that people can be sure to be at their best, doing things attentively at their own pace, without the physical overhead that goes with in-person presence. Ideally I'd like to see *all* revolutionary and post-capitalist matters handled this way, for maximum applicable involvement and high-level participation.

- To this end, I'd like to ask a favor here and solicit feedback on a group workflow process that I developed a few years ago. The idea of it is to have someone in the group tasked to the role of pointedly highlighting the *process*-oriented content of any given communication, from all participants. In this way this role helps to facilitate a *group*-oriented focus from everyone, while also commonly providing a concentrated, "balance sheet" type of summary for qualitative political input. It's attached, below -- please look it over and let me know (anyone) either here, via messaging, or email. Thanks.


Rotation system of work roles

http://postimage.org/image/1d53k7nd0/


Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://postimage.org/image/1cqt82ps4/

[∞]

I really have a tough time figuring out your graphs...

[ckaihatsu]

I really have a tough time figuring out your graphs...


(Feel free to message or email with specifics....)

[coda]

Thanks for the reply, Ckaihatsu... It's nice to meet on common ground on internet forums. It's funny and ironic in a way, in my experience, on the outside -- meaning in real life, New York City, -- we all get a long. We organize, protest, strategize, exchange information, attend eachother's meetings, work together... in unity and solidarity against the common enemy. the differences are respected and rarely discussed, never argued about. I think it's just an internet thing! I think in the end.. we are all on the same side technically.

going now to check out your charts,

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for the reply, Ckaihatsu... It's nice to meet on common ground on internet forums. It's funny and ironic in a way, in my experience, on the outside -- meaning in real life, New York City, -- we all get a long. We organize, protest, strategize, exchange information, attend eachother's meetings, work together... in unity and solidarity against the common enemy. the differences are respected and rarely discussed, never argued about. I think it's just an internet thing! I think in the end.. we are all on the same side technically.

going now to check out your charts,


Yeah, the term 'revolutionary left' is a good, encompassing term that is inclusive of anyone who is to the left of reformism. Nonetheless there *are* still matters of distinction that exist, such as those we've discussed on this thread, and others, that are *not* trivial or reconcilable.

I'll take the liberty of posting an additional image that is meant to show the relative differences in left-right positioning among various political orientations on the left. As always I welcome feedback and comments....


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Comrade_Stalin]

You do realise that you can have organisation without heirarchies, right?

Your right we call these organisation without heirarchies "mobs". A group with no leader but a common goal. It does have a negative meaning, but that how it has been used most of the time.

[NGNM85]

Hahahaha religious reverance? Nobody accused you of it. A bit defensive, though.

I never implied that they did. I was describing other peoples’ behavior.


I don't religiously study it either.

It’s a healthy industry, here, there are voluminous examples.


But I take an interest. Really, only an idiot would backhandedly accuse others simple interests of being religious reverence.

No, this goes far, far beyond ‘simple interest.’ For example, the preoccupation with arcane details, the obsession over minutiae, as well as the very obvious, and very intense, emotional attachment. In some respects it could also be compared to obsessive sports fanatics who memorize scores, and statistics, and players, etc., but there’s more to it than that. I think religion is an apt comparison. There are fundamental similarities.


It's really not, considering that the Bolsheviks were striving for a plural left government but to no avail due to lack of cooperation, that it's incredibly difficult to build pure workers democracy during a 12 country invasion and civil war, and you can't accurately judge ones dedication to pure workers democracy in times of civil war.

There’s absolutely no evidence of this whatsoever, there is, however, significant evidence to the contrary. It was made clear even before the civil war that workers’ democracy (Real Socialism.) wasn’t part of the plan. That was the idea from the very beginning, it didn’t get derailed, it was never part of the agenda.


I mean, a quick, measly glance at history shows us that Nestor Mahnko quickly gave up libertarianism once civil war occurred. Same with spanish anarchists (who I like, mind you).

You can’t really conflate all of these situations.


Yeah, they really wanted revolution to happen in industrialized countries. I don't object to acknowledging that.

There is nothing to object to because it’s an empirical fact.

[NGNM85]

There *is no* machismo here, nor is it "obvious".

“ma·chis·mo
n.
1.A strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes such as physical courage, virility, domination of women, and aggressiveness.
2.An exaggerated sense of strength or toughness…”
-American Heritage Dictionary


Just for the record, and for whatever it's worth, I don't see *any* rejection of non-violent social change coming from my direction.

You haven’t been very specific. I’m speaking in broad terms about the general consensus.


That said, though, we, as political people, have to also consider what kind of politics will take society beyond the constraints of capitalism as quickly and effectively as possible.

This is another significant problem. This attitude doesn’t say; “I care about the working class.” This attitude says; “To hell with the working class.” Not only do I disagree with the premise, I don’t think it’s a particularly effective strategy.


I don't think that the bourgeoisie's response to effective class warfare is going to vary according to the particular nation-state -- you're over-analyzing here.

Here comes the brick wall of dogma.


Okay, fair enough.

If you accept that conclusion, though, that means a different approach.


Do tell....

Again, you haven’t been very specific, but I can already tell, and we can see it happening, now, that the more you elaborate the points of contention become more numerous. It has to do with fundamentals and a series of conclusions based on those fundamentals, with a cumulative effect.


Uh, considering that revolution has been done in the past and yet we're still living in a capitalist world *today*, yes -- this time it's different, I swear.

Again, this isn’t even shallow.


Okay, fine, but I don't appreciate your facile introduction and intertwining of *fascist* ends alongside *revolutionary* ones. It's an inappropriate political example to use, especially coming from someone who's on the left.

I think a lot of people here have some pronounced right-wing tendencies. Some of the posts here are disturbingly reminiscent of theorists like Reinhold Niebuhr or Walter Lippmann or something.


Your mistrust of established political trajectories is unfortunate. Politics, and political trajectories, tends to be readily definable and quite predictable going forward. Those who take the time to scrutinize political history and current political trends -- as we do on RevLeft, for example -- will be far less likely to misjudge what an institution or movement's intentions are, or to be fooled by any tactical misrepresentations.

Aside from the cheap shot, and the hubris, this is still the same disposable statement. This is the same fuzzy-minded logic I was criticizing to start with.


Movements take on a momentum of their own and can be identified and defined by those established histories. It's not as confusing or treacherous as you make it out to be.

It’s not necessarily confusing, but it can be treacherous.

[QUOTE=ckaihatsu;1957014] (Feel free to address it in detail, as with arguments -- you're just positing a blanket characterization of it.)

Well, you’d be an expert on that. I don’t even know where to begin. Again, this comes down to very deep philosophical differences, which I’ll return to in a moment..


'Idealism' in the regular sense -- you're addressing 'means and ends' disingenuously, and thus less-than-realistically.

There is nothing ‘disingenuous’, or ‘unrealistic’ about it.


Your disingenuousness belies a sectarianism.

No, ‘sectarian’ is the post that started this thread. However, given the extravagant claim I expected something a little more coherent. The article is hardly impressive.

However, this underlies a significant point, there are, in fact, irreconcilable differences. It’s like the myth of ‘religious tolerance.’ Islam and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. (As are Mithraism and Scientology, or Germanic Paganism, etc.) Insofar as Marxist-Leninists subscribe to the thoughts and ideas of Lenin, there will be irreconcilable differences. That’s just being realistic.



I *don't* know what you may intend to mean by "placeholder state", and it is significant that the USSR *didn't exist* during the time of the Russian and German revolutions.

Yes, I agree here.

I think you know exactly what I mean, but it’s moot.


(I'm going to leave this part unaddressed -- not out of agreement, but rather because going over historical characterizations would not be productive to the direction of this discussion.)

Well, you can disagree with the part about it being ‘convenient.’

[∞]

It's really not, considering that the Bolsheviks were striving for a plural left government but to no avail due to lack of cooperation, that it's incredibly difficult to build pure workers democracy during a 12 country invasion and civil war, and you can't accurately judge ones dedication to pure workers democracy in times of civil war.

It is not only the fact they were authoritarian in any abstract sense. They had went out of their way to suppress free press and jailed fellow leftists. (I can also tell you some of the great things the Lenin's party had brought to Russia, such as women's rights, LGBT rights, and infrastructure). But the core incoherency lies within him changing the nature of socialism from a science against authority to interpreting some texts without others. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/on-the-bolshevik-myth
The above is a link that dispels some of the oblivious attempts have made to distort what had actually happened.


I mean, a quick, measly glance at history shows us that Nestor Mahnko quickly gave up libertarianism once civil war occurred. Same with spanish anarchists (who I like, mind you).

I would like to know where, from what I've read the Platform may have been a the closest thing you describe as "authority", or maybe you are reffering it in a broad sense. Well, the severity of the authority was not nearly the same.

I also advise you read the Homage To Catalonia, in which Orwell describes how authority was introduced the more and more the Stalinist "bourgeois" government had been installed.
There wasn't much authority but that of the unions. (Some would argue Durruti was authoritarian, but that shit doesn't stick, considering Durruti's column consisted solely of volunteers and admirers).

[ckaihatsu]

There *is no* machismo here, nor is it "obvious".





“ma·chis·mo
n.
1.A strong or exaggerated sense of masculinity stressing attributes such as physical courage, virility, domination of women, and aggressiveness.
2.An exaggerated sense of strength or toughness…”
-American Heritage Dictionary


You're only *defining* what the term 'machismo' *is* -- you're not explaining the basis for your assertion.





[W]e, as political people, have to also consider what kind of politics will take society beyond the constraints of capitalism as quickly and effectively as possible.





This is another significant problem. This attitude doesn’t say; “I care about the working class.” This attitude says; “To hell with the working class.” Not only do I disagree with the premise, I don’t think it’s a particularly effective strategy.


You're merely being antagonistic here -- I didn't mention a strategy.





Here comes the brick wall of dogma.


This is another blanket characterization of a statement of mine. If you don't address the content of what I'm saying then we're just talking past each other and then there's no point in conversing.





If you accept that conclusion, though, that means a different approach.


I *tolerate* your conclusion but I do not accept it as my own.





Again, you haven’t been very specific, but I can already tell, and we can see it happening, now, that the more you elaborate the points of contention become more numerous. It has to do with fundamentals and a series of conclusions based on those fundamentals, with a cumulative effect.


Okay -- there's probably no point in continuing further with this, then....





Uh, considering that revolution has been done in the past and yet we're still living in a capitalist world *today*, yes -- this time it's different, I swear.





Again, this isn’t even shallow.


What I *mean* is that discussing the past is one thing, but that won't tell us how *present* and *future* endeavors will turn out, no matter how similar or derived they may be....





I think a lot of people here have some pronounced right-wing tendencies. Some of the posts here are disturbingly reminiscent of theorists like Reinhold Niebuhr or Walter Lippmann or something.


I'll thank you for confirming that you're not implying anything in *my* direction....





Aside from the cheap shot, and the hubris, this is still the same disposable statement. This is the same fuzzy-minded logic I was criticizing to start with.


(More blanket characterizations....)





'Idealism' in the regular sense -- you're addressing 'means and ends' disingenuously, and thus less-than-realistically.





There is nothing ‘disingenuous’, or ‘unrealistic’ about it.








This attention to -- and categorical dismissal of -- a *hierarchical* organizational structure is a *preoccupation* indulged in, to the detriment of an effective global class struggle offensive against the bourgeoisie.

I have to repeat that considering *hierarchy* on its own, as an [abstraction], independent of any real context, *is* idealism. Such a line of argument does no good for either anarchism or revolutionary leftism generally, and winds up only being sectarian in relation to Marxism.

[NGNM85]

You're only *defining* what the term 'machismo' *is* -- you're not explaining the basis for your assertion.

It’s brimming with machismo because it’s about kicking ass and taking names, it’s a romantic, if, antisocial revenge fantasy.


You're merely being antagonistic here -- I didn't mention a strategy.

Well, what is your objective? Is your objective to help people who are suffering or to create your grand social experiment? That attitude necessitates something between indifference and contempt for the working class. Again, I take issue with this premise. What I meant was that, presumably, you want to create some sort of mass movement, and this attitude that the working class just need to suffer right now, is not a good selling point. That’s what I meant by a ‘bad strategy.’


This is another blanket characterization of a statement of mine. If you don't address the content of what I'm saying then we're just talking past each other and then there's no point in conversing.

Again, it isn’t just one thing. It necessitates addressing a complicated series of (largely erroneous) interrelated beliefs and presumptions. Again, you have this gross reductionist concept of class warfare, as well as a number of other things. That is dogma. You are, effectively, confronting me with scripture.


I *tolerate* your conclusion but I do not accept it as my own.

Then that doesn’t actually mean anything. Just one more to add on to the growing list of points of contention.


Okay -- there's probably no point in continuing further with this, then....

Oh, probably not. It’s like arguing with Born-Again Christians or something. I still do now and again, and sometimes people respond, but not very often. Really, it comes down to fundamental issues.


What I *mean* is that discussing the past is one thing, but that won't tell us how *present* and *future* endeavors will turn out, no matter how similar or derived they may be....

Exactly? No, but the past is instructive. You’re making the same claims made by the most despotic regimes in history with the exact same justification. This is just not compelling. There is no reason to find this compelling.


I'll thank you for confirming that you're not implying anything in *my* direction....

You haven't earned it, yet. However, I think that is a correct characterization of quite a few of the regulars.


(More blanket characterizations....)

It’s perfectly fair. You are also simply restating the same dubious assertion in different words. You haven’t made any argument on this point. You make the same proposal with the same justification as any number of tyrants yet you assure us of your benevolent intentions, again, just like every other authoritarian. These claims can never be accepted at face value. They must be evaluated critically, the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.

Again, as you said before, this is probably pointless. I don’t find your ideas very impressive and I don’t really expect to be able to talk you out of your beliefs.

[RadioRaheem84]

God, and he thinks he is so bad ass with his irrelevant drivel. :rolleyes:

Gets me every time. :lol:

[ckaihatsu]

It’s brimming with machismo because it’s about kicking ass and taking names, it’s a romantic, if, antisocial revenge fantasy.


Now you're just making shit up -- *where*, exactly, can my words be characterized this way -- ?!





Well, what is your objective?


"My" objective -- ??? Like *I'm* the guy who invented Marxism?





Is your objective to help people who are suffering or to create your grand social experiment? That attitude necessitates something between indifference and contempt for the working class. Again, I take issue with this premise. What I meant was that, presumably, you want to create some sort of mass movement, and this attitude that the working class just need to suffer right now, is not a good selling point. That’s what I meant by a ‘bad strategy.’


Again you're just putting words in my mouth. If you head over to my user profile and take a look there you can see my statement on why I happen to be political. You're implicitly accusing me of wanting to be a figurehead or a megalomaniac or worse.





Again, it isn’t just one thing. It necessitates addressing a complicated series of (largely erroneous) interrelated beliefs and presumptions. Again, you have this gross reductionist concept of class warfare, as well as a number of other things. That is dogma. You are, effectively, confronting me with scripture.


A "gross reductionist concept of class warfare" -- finally, some specifics -- okay, now drop the other shoe and point out *what parts of what I've said* constitute a "gross reductionist concept of class warfare" for you....





Oh, probably not. It’s like arguing with Born-Again Christians or something. I still do now and again, and sometimes people respond, but not very often. Really, it comes down to fundamental issues.


If you're going to accuse me of being dogmatic then you have to provide *evidence* that backs up that characterization....





Exactly? No, but the past is instructive. You’re making the same claims made by the most despotic regimes in history with the exact same justification. This is just not compelling. There is no reason to find this compelling.




You make the same proposal with the same justification as any number of tyrants yet you assure us of your benevolent intentions, again, just like every other authoritarian.


You're using circumstantial evidence here -- just because some despots in history have used certain verbiage doesn't mean that, in a different context, similar words would be automatically invalid. Plenty of people throw around the 'revolutionary' term because it sounds cool, but one has to look at *particulars* to find out what the *context* is for its usage.





You haven't earned it, yet. However, I think that is a correct characterization of quite a few of the regulars.


I "haven't earned it yet" -- ??? Number one, who the fuck are *you* -- ???! Number two, you don't have to beat around the bush and insinuate *anything* about me -- just *say* it...!





It’s perfectly fair. You are also simply restating the same dubious assertion in different words. You haven’t made any argument on this point. You make the same proposal with the same justification as any number of tyrants yet you assure us of your benevolent intentions, again, just like every other authoritarian. These claims can never be accepted at face value. They must be evaluated critically, the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.

Again, as you said before, this is probably pointless. I don’t find your ideas very impressive and I don’t really expect to be able to talk you out of your beliefs.


All of my "beliefs" are at my blog entry. Enjoy.

[RadioRaheem84]

Seriously, who is the mod that protects NGN?

He comes in here and accuses comrades of being dogmatic ideologues using language akin to tyrants, insists that anyone who adheres to Marxism or ML is just repeating scripture to him and are closer to right wingers, and derails threads with his inane liberal-ish rantings. All this with a brazen as hell attitude as if the burden of proof is on us to counter his idiotic and insanely idealistic drivel.

[IronEastBloc]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]It’s brimming with machismo because it’s about kicking ass and taking names, it’s a romantic, if, antisocial revenge fantasy.


something is seriously wrong with your understanding and comprehension of communism and communist terms. I suggest you partake in literacy classes and learn to read, so that you may indulge in "the communist manifesto" by Karl Marx.

[IronEastBloc]

Seriously, who is the mod that protects NGN?


I've been here only a short while, and already I've come to understand from the opinion of quite a few established members and my own observation that a few admins strongly dislike Marxism and communism, especially of the Marxist-Leninist variety.

[RadioRaheem84]

something is seriously wrong with your understanding and comprehension of communism and communist terms. I suggest you partake in literacy classes and learn to read, so that you may indulge in "the communist manifesto" by Karl Marx.

Forgive, NGN, he is a little weird and has an even weirder view of even capitalism, referring to our specific brand in the US as "corporate capitalism"

Since we do not have a "pure" free market, he explains:


NGN: In some respects this is an inversion of communism, where the state apparatus takes control of the economy to redistribute wealth, only, in this case to redirect it upwards, to increase the disparity between rich and poor and to subsidize the extremely wealthy. Instead of a takeover by the proletariat to use a dictatorship of the proletariat to create a theoretically more equitable society, we have a takeover by the business elite to control the state apparatus increase inequity.

I hope he has recovered from this poor attempt at understanding the capitalist system, but I doubt he has.

He hates Marxism, but he really should've read the Marxist analysis of the State so he wouldn't make such idiotic claims as the the US system being "corporate communism". The fact that he even inferred it, means that he has little to no idea about what communism entails and probably thinks of in a "statist" framework much like right-libertarians, i.e. that it's all about the state/government.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I've been here only a short while, and already I've come to understand from the opinion of quite a few established members and my own observation that a few admins strongly dislike Marxism and communism, especially of the Marxist-Leninist variety.
...Yeah? They have a name you know. It's a dirty little word: anarchists.
That's what happens you have a broad revolutionary left website. What did you expect, all Marxists?

[RadioRaheem84]

...Yeah? They have a name you know. It's a dirty little word: anarchists.
That's what happens you have a broad revolutionary left website. What did you expect, all Marxists?

Does broad extend into liberal-ish, lack of materialist understanding, ultra-idealism? :unsure:

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Does broad extend into liberal-ish, lack of materialist understanding, ultra-idealism? :unsure:
No. Plus, if you're referring to NGNM, I wasn't defending him (I remember a few of his posts being liberal-ish). I was solely responding to IronEastBloc stating there are members/admins who despise marxism and Marxism-Leninism. I said in response that anarchists ARE part of the revolutionary left, thus he shouldnt be surprised they are here. I do not include liberals in the circle of broad anti-capitalists.

tl;dr
No

[RadioRaheem84]

For the record, I too believe Anarchists are part of the revolutionary left and have every right to be here as much as MLs, Trots and Left Coms.

Liberals......eh....can stick to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.

[IronEastBloc]

For the record, I too believe Anarchists are part of the revolutionary left and have every right to be here as much as MLs, Trots and Left Coms.

Liberals......eh....can stick to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.

I'm weary of certain anarchist groups though. anarcho-syndicalists anarcho-capitalists bother me, whereas anarcha-feminists seem to be stuck too much on a singular issue.

but on the same hand, I oppose Nazbol and other fascist communist (an irony, if ever) groups.

[ckaihatsu]

Just for getting me all hot 'n' bothered I'm going to-- I'm-- I'm going to-- Yes, I *am* going to post another diagram. Don't piss me off!!!


= D


x D





Does broad extend into liberal-ish, lack of materialist understanding, ultra-idealism? :unsure:





I said in response that anarchists ARE part of the revolutionary left, thus he shouldnt be surprised they are here. I do not include liberals in the circle of broad anti-capitalists.


This one (combined with the other) depicts the boundaries rather clearly and accurately, if I don't say so myself....


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/


[3] Ideologies & Operations Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[NoOneIsIllegal]

anarcho-syndicalists... bother me
Why's that?

anarcho-capitalists bother me
It's a hilariously flawed ideology. Don't let them get under your skin.

whereas anarcha-feminists seem to be stuck too much on a singular issue.
Here's an opportunity to rant I guess: I never understood this term. Anarchists, dating back to Bakunin and Kropotkin, have been very supportive of feminism and women. So why not just call it... anarchism? The added word "feminist" is completely unnecessary.

[FreeFocus]

I'm weary of certain anarchist groups though. anarcho-syndicalists anarcho-capitalists bother me, whereas anarcha-feminists seem to be stuck too much on a singular issue.

but on the same hand, I oppose Nazbol and other fascist communist (an irony, if ever) groups.

You are stupendously ignorant and sectarian for no reason. Why the hell would you be weary of anarcho-syndicalists? Because they want power right in the workers' hands by militant unionism? Anarcho-capitalists aren't even anarchists, they aren't ideological descendants of the historic movement and support capitalism, which is antithetical to the dissolution of hierarchy. They should more correctly be called "non-state capitalists," and a capitalism without a state will soon make one because there is no other way to oppress people so fully as to have the violence and scope of the state to use.

Patriarchy is so deeply entrenched in all layers of society that anarcha-feminists are right to pay attention to it. I think its important to have a variety of ideological focuses amongst different groups; this, however, shouldn't prevent finding common ground for the ultimate goal. Anarcha-feminists focusing on patriarchy doesn't mean they won't support dismantling capitalism or attacking racism.

[NGNM85]

No. Plus, if you're referring to NGNM, I wasn't defending him (I remember a few of his posts being liberal-ish

Specifics, please.....?

[Thirsty Crow]

The USSR collapsed because of some traitors like Gorbachev sold the country out under pressure from the west (it could've survived without perestroika and glasnost, and indeed, some of the USSR's strongest growth in industrial and material output was under the administration of Chernenko and Andropov), So, the result of the revolution was that proletarians were so firmly empowered and enjoyed the fruits of it only that they would let a few "traitors" sell them out?
Bye bye class analysis, bye bye materialism, bye bye Marxism.


Whereas Anarchist Catalonia fell apart after 2 years of military pressure and the dissolvement of many of their ideals, after they joined forces with Catalan president Lluís Companys i Jover. (they even had some ministers; Diego Abad de Santillan was minister of economy for example, and many anarchists the world over saw Catalonia as sellouts).How can you dissolve an ideal?
Wow, you must be an alchemist of sorts.
Yes, some of the leading figures of CNT were granted official positions in a bourgeois government mainly composed of Communists (!!!), reformist socialists and out-in-the-field liberals. And how does this fact bear on another fact - constant attacks and outright restoration of capitalist relations in the countryside where rank-and-file anarchist workers had abolished private property?


the USSR lasted for close to 80 years, and fell only after a betrayal of government by Gorbachev (and they even had a coup to reinstate the USSR but that failed as well due to traitors in that coup who revealed the plot to Federal security agents); Anachist Catalonia fell because it wasn't a feasible state. it was completely worthless and impossible to establish.
It sure was worthless to the Comintern (AKA Soviet foreign agency) and their liberal and reformist allies, that's for sure.
And yet again, how come you consider yourself a Marxist when you reject every analytic tool it offers - concrete class analysis, analysis of the economy, historical mateerialism oppossed to "Great Man theory", which you profess in negatve form??

I've been here only a short while, and already I've come to understand from the opinion of quite a few established members and my own observation that a few admins strongly dislike Marxism and communism, especially of the Marxist-Leninist variety.Well, as you've demonstrated, you dislike Marxism as well, implicitlly. Either you are too feeble minded to comprehend its methodological core, and the reasons for its supremacy over other approaches (which you in fact use in "analysing" the fall of USSR), and keep referring to Marxism as a means of self-legitimation, or you are in fact an opponent of the method and of class struggle.
Don't know which, don't care, but sure as hell something is wrong when "a few traitors" are portrayed as so powerful men as to alter the course of history.

[Quail]

...Yeah? They have a name you know. It's a dirty little word: anarchists.
That's what happens you have a broad revolutionary left website. What did you expect, all Marxists?
I'm an anarchist, but I don't hate communism, and I don't think any of the admins do either.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I'm an anarchist, but I don't hate communism, and I don't think any of the admins do either.
...uhhhh okay. All anarchists don't hate communism... I thought that was a given, considering anarchism IS communism. A classless society, yes?

[Magón]

There are Anarchists who are called Anti-Communists, but really it's just they're opposed to a specific way of getting to Communism, than Communism itself. (Like ML's way for example.)

[FreeFocus]

There are Anarchists who are called Anti-Communists, but really it's just they're opposed to a specific way of getting to Communism, than Communism itself. (Like ML's way for example.)

Yeah, but there's a big difference between the two. Anarchists are communists, full stop. Anarchists are opposed to statist attempts to establish communism, however.

[Magón]

Yeah, but there's a big difference between the two. Anarchists are communists, full stop. Anarchists are opposed to statist attempts to establish communism, however.

That's why I added the ML. ;)

[Widerstand]

Yeah, but there's a big difference between the two. Anarchists are communists, full stop. Anarchists are opposed to statist attempts to establish communism, however.

But are Anarchists Marxists?

[FreeFocus]

But are Anarchists Marxists?

The answer is obviously no, how is that relevant? Non-Marxist is not anti-communist. You can have a Marxist concept of history and material analysis and still be an anarchist, but anarchists differ with Marx because of his means of establishing communism.

[Thirsty Crow]

The answer is obviously no, how is that relevant? Non-Marxist is not anti-communist. You can have a Marxist concept of history and material analysis and still be an anarchist, but anarchists differ with Marx because of his means of establishing communism.
But I think you have a problem here.
First, you are in total agreement with the methodological principles of inquiry underpinning what is known as Marxism.
Secondly, I don't think there is conclusive evidence which would show how "Marx's vision" differed fundamentally from something which we may call the anarchist vision. As far as I understand it, it was really a trouble stirred up by Bakunin (and Marx himself was not a little innocent sunshine either) within the IWA, which later turned into a series of splits, denouncements and bitter struggle.
ButI would like to see some evidence on that one, from you or anyone else (since you are the one making the claim).

[Widerstand]

The answer is obviously no, how is that relevant? Non-Marxist is not anti-communist. You can have a Marxist concept of history and material analysis and still be an anarchist, but anarchists differ with Marx because of his means of establishing communism.

Because the discussion originally wasn't about Anarchism vs Communism but about Anarchists vs Marxists:


...Yeah? They have a name you know. It's a dirty little word: anarchists.
That's what happens you have a broad revolutionary left website. What did you expect, all Marxists?

I'm just confused why Marxism was suddenly equated with Communism by about every user replying to this post.

[FreeFocus]

But I think you have a problem here.
First, you are in total agreement with the methodological principles of inquiry underpinning what is known as Marxism.
Secondly, I don't think there is conclusive evidence which would show how "Marx's vision" differed fundamentally from something which we may call the anarchist vision. As far as I understand it, it was really a trouble stirred up by Bakunin (and Marx himself was not a little innocent sunshine either) within the IWA, which later turned into a series of splits, denouncements and bitter struggle.
ButI would like to see some evidence on that one, from you or anyone else (since you are the one making the claim).

I didn't say that I agree with the Marxist conception of history. In some ways I do, some ways I don't. For example, I don't think capitalism is a necessary stage in the history of every society, and I don't view it as "progressive" in any way beyond material production.

Other people are probably better able to talk about the historical split than I am. It's something that I've read about but haven't studied. Some people say it was more of a mutual misunderstanding, even today when people call anarchist Catalonia a "state."


Because the discussion originally wasn't about Anarchism vs Communism but about Anarchists vs Marxists:

I'm just confused why Marxism was suddenly equated with Communism by about every user replying to this post.

Yeah to be honest I only glanced over the thread. I saw sectarian bullshit and just skipped over it.

[Quail]

...uhhhh okay. All anarchists don't hate communism... I thought that was a given, considering anarchism IS communism. A classless society, yes?
I think I quoted the wrong person. Oops. :blushing:
I meant to quote this:

I've been here only a short while, and already I've come to understand from the opinion of quite a few established members and my own observation that a few admins strongly dislike Marxism and communism, especially of the Marxist-Leninist variety.

[Zanthorus]

I don't think capitalism is a necessary stage in the history of every society,

Well, that's interesting, because neither did Marx:


The chapter on primitive accumulation does not pretend to do more than trace the path by which, in Western Europe, the capitalist order of economy emerged from the womb of the feudal order of economy...

“This has not yet been radically accomplished except in England....but all the countries of Western Europe are going through the same movement,” etc. (Capital, French Edition, 1879, p. 315)...

Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction – she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon.- Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otecestvenniye Zapisky


In dealing with the genesis of capitalist production I stated that it is founded on “the complete separation of the producer from the means of production” (p. 315, column 1, French edition of Capital) and that “the basis of this whole development is the expropriation of the agricultural producer. To date this has not been accomplished in a radical fashion anywhere except in England... But all the other countries of Western Europe are undergoing the same process” (1.c., column II).

I thus expressly limited the “historical inevitability” of this process to the countries of Western Europe.- Marx, First Draft of Letter to Vera Zasulich

[NGNM85]

But are Anarchists Marxists?

As a rule, no.

[RadioRaheem84]

As a rule, no.

Well you have no clue about it anyways.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well you have no clue about it anyways.

Have you checked under your bed for liberals? There might be one there right now! :rolleyes:

[NGNM85]

Well you have no clue about it anyways.

The question was 'Are Anarchists Marxists?" the answer is "No", because, as a rule, this is true. First, Anarchism pre-dates Marxism, and they are philosophically divergent on a number of fundamental points, therefore Marx tends to be more of a minor figure in the intellectual history of Anarchism. Since Icarus Angel recently posted a more in-depth examination, I see no sense in repeating this information which can be read here; http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1961456&postcount=196
Unless you're questioning the historical accuracy of this (And you don't seem to be.) I don't see that you have a point.

[Zanthorus]

Anarchism pre-dates Marxism,

Well, although there is some controversy over exactly at what point Marx can be said to have completely developed the basic points of his ideas, it's pretty clear that Marx's Marxism emerged as a system, if not a fully worked out one, some time in the 1840's. The only person calling themselves an Anarchist at this time would be Proudhon - Bakunin was still in the grip of religious nationalism and would be until around the 1860's. So this is actually a somewhat controversial question which gravitates around wether or not we would consider Proudhon as the founder of Anarchism. Besides which, you are attempting to use this point to show the divergence between Anarchism and Marxism, but what is known as 'Anarchism' on this board i.e class-struggle Anarchism emerged after Marxism, and in fact I believe Malatesta believed that Bakunin was too influenced by Marx's social theory.


they are philosophically divergent on a number of fundamental points,

Marxism is not a philosophy, so it would be quite easy to be 'philosophically divergent' from it, as the only prerequisite would be to have a philosophy in the first place. Besides which, despite these alleged 'philosophical divergen[ces]', it has historically been possible for Marxists and Anarchists to unite on various issues. The attitude of the Communist International towards various Anarchist and Syndicalist groups is instructive here:


It is further necessary to ally with those elements of the revolutionary movement which, although they did not in the past belong to the Socialist Parties, today stand on the whole on the ground of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of council power. It is principally the syndicalist elements of the labour movement who are concerned here.- Invitation to the First World Congress


The present phase of the revolutionary movement has, along with other questions, very sharply placed the question of parliamentarism upon the order of the day’s discussion. In France, America, England, and Germany, simultaneously with the aggravation of the class struggle, all revolutionary elements are adhering to the Communist movement by uniting among themselves or by coordinating their actions under the slogan of Soviet power. The anarcho-syndicalist groups and the groups that now and then call themselves simply anarchistic are thus also joining the general current. The Executive Committee of the Communist International welcomes this most heartily.

In France the syndicalist group of Comrade Pericat forms the heart of the Communist Party; in America, and also to some extent in England, the fight for the Soviets is led by such organizations as the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World). These groups and tendencies have always actively opposed the parliamentary methods of fighting.

[...]

...they [the anarcho-syndicalists] have recognized the idea of the seizure of power by the working class, the power that is necessary for the suppression of the opposing bourgeoisie. Thus, we repeat, a common program for the struggle for the Soviet dictatorship has been found.

The old divisions in the international labor movement have plainly outlived their time. The war has caused a regrouping... The unification of forces is being effected in a new manner: some are for the proletarian revolution, for the Soviets, for the dictatorship, for mass action, even up to armed uprisings – the others are against this plan. This is the principle question of today. This is the main criterion. The new combinations will be formed according to these labels, and are being so formed already.- Zinoviev, Circular Letter to Comintern-Affiliated Parties on Parliamentarism and the Soviets


In France I had the opportunity of personally observing, at the beginning of the war, that the first audacious voices against the war – at the very moment when the Germans stood at the gates of Paris – were raised in the ranks of a small group of French syndicalists. These were the voices of my friends – Monatte, Rosmer and others. At that time it was impossible for us to pose the question of forming the Communist Party: such elements were far too few. But I felt myself a comrade among comrades in the company of Comrades Monatte, Rosmer and others with an anarchistic past.

[...]

Comrades, the French syndicalists are conducting revolutionary work within the syndicates. When I discuss today, for example, with Comrade Rosmer, we have a common ground.- Trotsky, Speech on Comrade Zinoviev’s Report on the Role of the Party

[Amphictyonis]

Well, that's interesting, because neither did Marx:

- Letter from Marx to Editor of the Otecestvenniye Zapisky

- Marx, First Draft of Letter to Vera Zasulich

Only if the advanced capitalist nations went socialist could less developed nations skip the capitalist phase of industrialization.

[RadioRaheem84]

Have you checked under your bed for liberals? There might be one there right now! :rolleyes:

There might be one on this forum too, but heck when you have friends in the right places, it tends to be pointed out less.

[RadioRaheem84]

The question was 'Are Anarchists Marxists?" the answer is "No", because, as a rule, this is true. First, Anarchism pre-dates Marxism, and they are philosophically divergent on a number of fundamental points, therefore Marx tends to be more of a minor figure in the intellectual history of Anarchism. Since Icarus Angel recently posted a more in-depth examination, I see no sense in repeating this information which can be read here; http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1961456&postcount=196
Unless you're questioning the historical accuracy of this (And you don't seem to be.) I don't see that you have a point.

Thanks for the little history lesson. My quip was about how you do not know about Marxism anyways, so it makes no difference whether you can be one (assuming you're an anarchist) or not.

Or maybe you do and I just do not know enough about corporate communism to make such a bold assertion.

Perhaps, Noxion and Widerstand can enlighten me too?
:lol:

[Widerstand]

There might be one on this forum too, but heck when you have friends in the right places, it tends to be pointed out less.

Find the liberal!

Ohhhhh exciting :tt1:

[RadioRaheem84]

Find the liberal!

Ohhhhh exciting :tt1:

Find the guy acting oblivious...yay! :tt1:

Seriously, I get it. He's on the witless protection list.

Enough derailing the thread. Back to topic.

[Amphictyonis]

Find the liberal!

Ohhhhh exciting :tt1:

Persecute all liberals with impunity! A months extra rations to those who succeed.

But seriously I think liberals within the real left are a problem. They take us (pure vodka) and water us down to the point of irrelevance. We need to get the working class drunk with knowledge and the liberals are at every turn misguiding the working class. Like cattle to the slaughter house. Wolves in sheep's clothing. Pied pipers. Scum bags. Capitalists. I think you get the point ;)

[ckaihatsu]

But seriously I think liberals within the real left are a problem. They take us (pure vodka) and water us down to the point of irrelevance.


Here's just the right visual aid for the occasion....


Leftism -- Want, Get

http://postimage.org/image/pgx9pah0/

[NGNM85]

Thanks for the little history lesson. My quip was about how you do not know about Marxism anyways, so it makes no difference whether you can be one (assuming you're an anarchist) or not.

I know enough to answer the question, again; "Are Anarchists Marxists?" For these purposes that is sufficient. I have never claimed to be a Marx scholar.

[Magón]

Here's just the right visual aid for the occasion....


Leftism -- Want, Get

http://postimage.org/image/pgx9pah0/

You really like making graphs and shit, don't you? :o

[RadioRaheem84]

Hey, I like the graphs.

[RadioRaheem84]

I know enough to answer the question, again; "Are Anarchists Marxists?" For these purposes that is sufficient. I have never claimed to be a Marx scholar.

You didn't even know about the Marxist conception of the State.....

...sigh, you know what. OK, fine, the answer was sufficient.

Look, it doesn't matter. Yes, Anarchists do not have to be Marxist.

The class analysis is what is important.

[NGNM85]

Well, although there is some controversy over exactly at what point Marx can be said to have completely developed the basic points of his ideas, it's pretty clear that Marx's Marxism emerged as a system, if not a fully worked out one, some time in the 1840's.

Proudhon identified himself as an Anarchist in “What is Property?” in 1840. Marx was influenced by it and said some nice things about it, then, later, he was very critical of it, for example; “The Poverty of Philosophy”.


The only person calling themselves an Anarchist at this time would be Proudhon

Yes.


- Bakunin was still in the grip of religious nationalism and would be until around the 1860's. So this is actually a somewhat controversial question which gravitates around wether or not we would consider Proudhon as the founder of Anarchism.

I always have, as do most of the Anarchists I’ve known. I’d say it’s evolved since then, but it began with Proudhon. The point is that these are distinct tendencies that evolved separately, although there certainly are connections.


Besides which, you are attempting to use this point to show the divergence between Anarchism and Marxism, but what is known as 'Anarchism' on this board i.e class-struggle Anarchism

I’m skeptical about the value of that distinction.


emerged after Marxism, and in fact I believe Malatesta believed that Bakunin was too influenced by Marx's social theory.

I never said that Marx didn’t have any impact on Anarchism, or that they had absolutely nothing in common.


Marxism is not a philosophy,

I’m not going to touch that.


so it would be quite easy to be 'philosophically divergent' from it, as the only prerequisite would be to have a philosophy in the first place. Besides which, despite these alleged 'philosophical divergen[ces]',

There’s nothing theoretical about it, there are very significant differences. These play themselves out on the forum on a fairly regular basis.


it has historically been possible for Marxists and Anarchists to unite on various issues. The attitude of the Communist International towards various Anarchist and Syndicalist groups is instructive here:

- Invitation to the First World Congress

- Zinoviev, Circular Letter to Comintern-Affiliated Parties on Parliamentarism and the Soviets

- Trotsky, Speech on Comrade Zinoviev’s Report on the Role of the Party

I never said that there hasn’t been historical alliances between Anarchists and Marxists, that wasn’t the question. There have been historical alliances, especially between what you might call Left Communists, people like Rosa Luxemberg or Anton Pannekoek. Anarchism has always been bitterly opposed to authoritarian Communism; Marxist-Leninists, and so forth. So, while I’m sure we disagree on a lot of things, even most things, you don’t seem to be contesting, again, the central point, that there are differences between Marxism and Anarchism and that they evolved separately.

[ckaihatsu]

You really like making graphs and shit, don't you? :o


Hey! Who told you???


= D





My greatest professional and hobbyist interests are in high school history teaching and in digital graphic art design, in a kind of combined and overlapping way, for all four categories.

http://www.couchsurfing.org/people/ckaihatsu/

[NGNM85]

You didn't even know about the Marxist conception of the State.....

I have no idea what you’re referring to, specifically. I’m aware of his idea of the state moving through epochs of history, from pre-capitalist, to capitalist and beyond. Also, he conceived of the state as simply the means by which the bourgeoisie exerts it’s will on society, and that it was fundamentally connected to class struggle, without it there is no state. Again, I have no idea what you are specifically referring to, so I'm just shooting in the dark, here.


...sigh, you know what. OK, fine, the answer was sufficient.

Yes.


Look, it doesn't matter. Yes, Anarchists do not have to be Marxist.

They aren’t even supposed to be Marxists.


The class analysis is what is important.

I have an idea of the Marxist conception of class analysis. I have no idea what you mean by this phrase and you have been absolutely adamant in refusing to elaborate so I think it’s pointless.

[ckaihatsu]

I have an idea of the Marxist conception of class analysis. I have no idea what you mean by this phrase and you have been absolutely adamant in refusing to elaborate so I think it’s pointless.


Remember, RadioRaheem84, that anarchists are "not leftists", and, furthermore, they are independent even of politics, and of the political spectrum, and also of material physical existence altogether...(!!!) So just don't even fucking start with them...!


x D

[RadioRaheem84]

I have no idea what you’re referring to, specifically. I’m aware of his idea of the state moving through epochs of history, from pre-capitalist, to capitalist and beyond. Also, he conceived of the state as simply the means by which the bourgeoisie exerts it’s will on society, and that it was fundamentally connected to class struggle, without it there is no state. Again, I have no idea what you are specifically referring to, so I'm just shooting in the dark, here.


Ugh, it was a quip at your ill conceived idea of corporate communism. In one way, you were describing Marx's concept of the State, something that if you had really known about, you wouldn't have gone on such a tangent.

Secondly, you brazenly come in here and accuse MLs of being this or that, akin to authoritarian fascists or bourgouise elitists like Walter Lippman, but you cannot even grasp what Marxism entails.

One would have to totally believe in right-libertarian "statist" jabberwocky to conceive of a concept like corporate capitalism. One would have to be totally ignorant of Marx's concept of the State. Yet, you come in here with a leftier than thou attitude and expect people to roll over and accept your shit.


They aren’t even supposed to be Marxists.


Why? Again, how do you know this, if you barely know shit about Marxism yourself?

Do you just assume that Marxism = authoritarianism, or what not?


I have an idea of the Marxist conception of class analysis. I have no idea what you mean by this phrase and you have been absolutely adamant in refusing to elaborate so I think it’s pointless.


You don't know because you lack a fundamental class analysis and materialist perspective based on the hundreds of debates we've had on countless issues where you reek of liberal-ish idealism.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1lCwP-RNExkC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=noam+chomsky+class+analysis&source=bl&ots=azMfRyz3lu&sig=QoZ1zXXSgJKaiP17kIXXkY4urfU&hl=en&ei=jHsRTdz1C4P-8Abf2dWgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=noam%20chomsky%20class%20analysis&f=false

Chomsky: Well I think the general idea of class analysis is indispensable. Whether Marx's particular formations were either historically accurate or applicable today can be questioned....(B)ut the insight that class analysis is indispensable to understanding the social process, I don't have any doubt that's true.

In short, the class analysis, something your sorely lack is important to both Anarchists and Marxists to understanding society. I am not just talking about the Marxist class analysis.

[NGNM85]

Ugh, it was a quip at your ill conceived idea of corporate communism. In one way, you were describing Marx's concept of the State, something that if you had really known about, you wouldn't have gone on such a tangent.

Secondly, you brazenly come in here and accuse MLs of being this or that, akin to authoritarian fascists or bourgouise elitists like Walter Lippman, but you cannot even grasp what Marxism entails.

There’s a difference between Marxism, and Marxist-Leninism. (Or Marxist-Leninist-Maoism, etc., etc.)

I think some of the regulars on this forum could accurately be compared to philosophers like Lippmann or Niebuhr, in a sense. You are correct, at least, in that this was not intended to be a compliment.


One would have to totally believe in right-libertarian "statist" jabberwocky to conceive of a concept like corporate capitalism. One would have to be totally ignorant of Marx's concept of the State. Yet, you come in here with a leftier than thou attitude and expect people to roll over and accept your shit.

I don’t expect anybody to accept anything at face value. In fact, I think it’s a bad idea. One should universally view things critically, that’s essentially the scientific method. That said, I generally say things that I think are correct, otherwise I wouldn’t say them.


Why? Again, how do you know this, if you barely know shit about Marxism yourself?

Do you just assume that Marxism = authoritarianism, or what not?

I think Marxism has a natural affinity or compatibility with authoritarianism, at least, compared to Anarchism It’s not necessarily inherent, but I think it has tendencies that lend themselves to it very easily. A number of early Marxists were very ideologically close to Anarchists, in some cases there was essentially no distinction. Marxist-Leninism, however, is absolutely, fundamentally authoritarian.


You don't know because you lack a fundamental class analysis and materialist perspective based on the hundreds of debates we've had on countless issues where you reek of liberal-ish idealism.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1lCwP-RNExkC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=noam+chomsky+class+analysis&source=bl&ots=azMfRyz3lu&sig=QoZ1zXXSgJKaiP17kIXXkY4urfU&hl=en&ei=jHsRTdz1C4P-8Abf2dWgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=noam%20chomsky%20class%20analysis&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=1lCwP-RNExkC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=noam+chomsky+class+analysis&source=bl&ots=azMfRyz3lu&sig=QoZ1zXXSgJKaiP17kIXXkY4urfU&hl=en&ei=jHsRTdz1C4P-8Abf2dWgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=noam%20chomsky%20class%20analysis&f=false)

Chomsky: Well I think the general idea of class analysis is indispensable. Whether Marx's particular formations were either historically accurate or applicable today can be questioned....(B)ut the insight that class analysis is indispensable to understanding the social process, I don't have any doubt that's true.

In short, the class analysis, something your sorely lack is important to both Anarchists and Marxists to understanding society. I am not just talking about the Marxist class analysis.

Ok, this is not an answer.

First of all, the passages you cite is essentially saying most of the things that I said, here or elsewhere; about Left Marxism and Anarchism, except here he just mentions Korsch and leaves out others like Rosa Luxemburg or Anton Pannekoek. He specifically reiterates one of the traditional points of contention with Anarchists, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', etc.

As far as class analysis goes this does absolutely nothing to further discussion either way. I don't generally use the phrase, but I know what Chomsky means by it, and I've even cited other passages where he's talked about it, then I was attacked because that definition was supposedly no good, maybe today, it is. He isn't specifically referring to Marxist class analysis, which he says is probably erroneous in some capacity, and neither are you, now, apparently; "I am not just talking about the Marxist class analysis." So I can only wonder where you're getting this from, other than it is some source beyond Chomsky and Marx which is a pretty large demographic. Again, you adamantly refuse to elaborate.

So,...apparently....there’s' something totally fundamental that I absolutely have to understand about class analysis, that doesn't come from Marx or Chomsky, and I don't know it because if I knew it then I would know it and I wouldn't ask.

[NGNM85]

Remember, RadioRaheem84, that anarchists are "not leftists", and, furthermore, they are independent even of politics, and of the political spectrum, and also of material physical existence altogether...(!!!) So just don't even fucking start with them...!


x D

I hate to interject, but Anarchists are absolutely Leftists. I don't know who told you otherwise.

[ckaihatsu]

I hate to interject, but Anarchists are absolutely Leftists. I don't know who told you otherwise.


Hmmmmm, the characteristic anarchist distancing from that category *does* seem to happen fairly often, as with *this* occurrence:





The class analysis is what is important.





I have an idea of the Marxist conception of class analysis. I have no idea what you mean by this phrase and you have been absolutely adamant in refusing to elaborate so I think it’s pointless.

[Zanthorus]

I have never claimed to be a Marx scholar.

You do not have to be a Marx scholar to talk about and understand Marx's ideas. Indeed, considering the record of Academic Marxism, not being a Marx scholar is probably more of a help than a hinderance when it comes to reading and understanding Marx. I think the point was that you don't even have a good basic grasp of Marxism more than that you don't have a working knowledge of every book, article, manuscript or set of marginal notes that Marx ever wrote.


Proudhon identified himself as an Anarchist in “What is Property?” in 1840.

Yes, I acknowledged that. My point was that the anarchism of Proudhon would not necessarily be identified with by a good number of Anarchists today, and many of them may feel that there was some kind of break between Proudhon and the Anarchism of the First International embodied in figures like Bakunin or Anselmo Lorenzo. I have seen this identification of Proudhon and Anarchism elsewhere referred to as a Marxist strawman, and certainly I think if you started a thread on wether or not Proudhon was an Anarchist you would generate some controversy.


Marx was influenced by it

I would like to see some evidence of this. Marx's three main influences are generally regarded as being German and in particular Hegelian philosophy, the utopian socialism of figures like Fourier and the political economy of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. I have seen suggestions that Proudhon influenced Marx's views on the state, but I think that was more the result of his experiences as a journalist writing for the Rheinische Zeitung and the conflict between his Hegelian view that the state embodied a universal interest and the actual Prussian reality that the state existed to defend various privileged interest groups. If anything, Marx took more from Hegel and Aristotle's idea of the state as 'political society' or the 'political community'.


and said some nice things about it, then, later, he was very critical of it, for example; “The Poverty of Philosophy”.

In the earliest works in which he mentions Proudhon Marx is critical of him. For example, in his Paris Manuscripts, in the section on Wages of Labour, he asks himself "What are the mistakes committed by the piecemeal reformers, who either want to raise wages and in this way to improve the situation of the working class, or regard equality of wages (as Proudhon does) as the goal of social revolution?" Later on in the section on Estranged Labour he writes "even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist." I believe the comments you are referring to are those in The Holy Family where he says that "His work is a scientific manifesto of the French proletariat and therefore has quite a different historical significance from that of the literary botch-work of any Critical Critic." However even in that piece he criticises Proudhon for raising categories like wage-labour to a universal level rather than going beyond the categories of commodity production: "Proudhon reinstates man in his rights, but still in an economic and therefore contradictory way."

The Poverty of Philosophy is not about What is Property?, it is about Proudhon's later work System of Economical Contradictions. And Marx certainly has a lot more to say in that work about Proudhon's pacifism and so on. But his critique of Proudhon as failing to properly transcend capitalism remains, so it seems that at all points his estimate of Proudhon's work was the same.


There have been historical alliances, especially between what you might call Left Communists, people like Rosa Luxemberg or Anton Pannekoek.

I don't think there has ever been a historical alliance between 'people like Rosa Luxemburg or Anton Pannekoek.' Luxemburg made her views on Anarchism fairly clear:


But apart from these few “revolutionary” groups, what is the actual role of anarchism in the Russian Revolution? It has become the sign of the common thief and plunderer; a large proportion of the innumerable thefts and acts of plunder of private persons are carried out under the name of “anarchist-communism” – acts which rise up like a troubled wave against the revolution in every period of depression and in every period of temporary defensive. Anarchism has become in the Russian Revolution, not the theory of the struggling proletariat, but the ideological signboard of the counterrevolutionary lumpenproletariat, who, like a school of sharks, swarm in the wake of the battleship of the revolution. And therewith the historical career of anarchism is well-nigh ended.- The Mass Strike the Political Party and the Trade Unions

Pannekoek considered Anarchism to be the result of a petty-bourgeois mindset:


Because in Paris during most of the 19th century small scale enterprises were dominant, the working class, not sharply separated from the mass of the small independent artisans and employers, could not develop a clear-cut class consciousness, though it was filled with an ardent republican and democratic fighting spirit. Seeing the capitalists rise by the protection of government, by using the political power for shameless personal enrichment, whereas they themselves were forcibly kept down, the workers considered State Power as the chief cause of their exploitation and their misery. So their feelings of free individuality, inheritance of the Great Revolution developed into some kind of anarchism, the doctrine that only by complete abolition of the State and its constraining power mankind can be free as an agglomeration of independent collaborating individuals.- Workers' Councils

Which is not to mention the fact that Rosa Luxemburg was not a Left-Communist, and that Left-Communism descends from the Left-Wing of the Communist International, of which more in a second.


Anarchism has always been bitterly opposed to authoritarian Communism; Marxist-Leninists, and so forth.

And here you are just showing your ignorance. The Communist International, from whose proceedings and documents I just quoted, was an organisation set up on the initiative of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik). I would've thought this would've been fairly clear, even to those who didn't know, from the fact that Trotsky was quoted. I think you are imposing this division between authoritarians and libertarians on the split between between 'Marxist-Leninists' and Left-Communists from your Anarchist prejudices. The split was originally formed surrounding various tactical issues such as working to take over trade-unions with reactionary leadership and participating in parliamentary elections.


So, while I’m sure we disagree on a lot of things, even most things, you don’t seem to be contesting, again, the central point, that there are differences between Marxism and Anarchism and that they evolved separately.

If there is one thing I would contest, it is that Marxism and Anarchism are these narrow currents which cannot ever possibly overlap. The fact is that they can and do overlap.


I’m aware of his idea of the state moving through epochs of history, from pre-capitalist, to capitalist and beyond.

This is certainly not Marx's view. It seems closer to Hegel's view of the state as simply a collection of individuals who share a common culture. Marx's view is that the political state as such is a 'political society' seperated from 'civil society', and only really comes into existence with modern capitalism and the liberal state. In the modern liberal state, everyone is regarded as a citizen without respect to class divisions, whereas in actual life inequality still reigns. This is in contrast to the feudal state where class divisions were also political divisions, your social status determined your status as a subject of the state. The modern state is the state as such because only the modern state has seperated itself from civil society and become a seperate world standing over civil society. This is made fairly explicit in the early works like Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosphy of Right or On the Jewish Question.


Also, he conceived of the state as simply the means by which the bourgeoisie exerts it’s will on society,

There are various ways in which Marx concieved the state throughout his career. In On the Jewish Question and A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right he concieves of the state as a political society or political community seperated from civil society. In the latter work and also in works like the 18th Brumaire or The Civil War in France the aspect of the state as a hierarchical bureaucracy through which the civil service bureaucrats impose their interests on society is brought forward. And yes there is also the definition of the state as simply a body of armed men for the defence of the interests of a particular class. It's simply not a good idea to declare that Marx concieved of the state as this or that, especially since Marx did not concieve of social life as static and compartmentalisable into little analytical boxes but fluid with all the aspects interconnected.


I hate to interject, but Anarchists are absolutely Leftists. I don't know who told you otherwise.

They are not Leftists according to the UK Anarchist Federation, specifically this article:

Anarchist Communism, neither left nor right but social revolution (http://www.af-north.org/?q=node/22)

[NGNM85]

Hmmmmm, the characteristic anarchist distancing from that category *does* seem to happen fairly often,

That hasn't been my experience. However, if we're going to go by the literal definition, the way the term has been historically used, yes, Anarchists are Leftists.


as with *this* occurrence:

I have no idea what you're driving at.