Anarchists: Enemies of the labour movement?

[bricolage]

IF THE INTERNET SAYS IT IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

ironically I was speaking to unison stewards tonight who agree with the tories unofficial cops statement. It seems what socialist unity sees as the 'labour movement' doesn't even agree with socialist unity, and half of it is on the side of its 'enemies'. such is life



ANARCHISTS: ENEMIES OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT? (http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7746)


Anarchists last night disrupted an anti-cuts meeting at Goldsmiths in London, as reported in East London Lines (http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2011/02/protesting-students-cause-chaos-at-official-opening-of-new-goldsmiths-media-building/):
A TUC rally held at the same time in a nearby building on the Goldsmiths campus also became a target for protesters, and the TUC’s General Secretary, Brendan Barber, was confronted by a group of demonstrators with banners.
The website, Lib Com (http://libcom.org/forums/news/brendan-barber-egged-goldsmiths-22022011), includes a brief report by Jim Clarke saying:
Can’t think [Barber] can come to Lewisham and not face any opposition.
He got egged and chased off at the end of his talk, people were kicked out at the start of it for chanting “general strike” a banner saying TUC Tories Unofficial Cops was unveiled and he was heckled and shouted at throughout his speech. Well done comrades!
This is not politics, it is self-satisfied individualism. These anarchists should be ashamed of themselves for weakening the campaign to defend jobs and services.http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7746

[erupt]

The Left will never get anywhere as a movement while it's bickering back and forth between anarchists and socialists, anarcho-syndicalists and communists. If this shit would just stop, and the Leftists could just join together in a Popular Front-esque working class indoctrination, then maybe there might be a chance for social revolution in industrial and post-industrial societies.

[The Red Next Door]

I think another thing that would be helpful, if the left stop making the legalization of drug a big issue.

[Geiseric]

My only problem with anarchy is that it abolishes all authority, even the authprity of the working class over the bourguase. Other than that I tried one of these threads a while ago, conception was that combining stuff isn't always a great idea.

[Tablo]

My only problem with anarchy is that it abolishes all authority, even the authprity of the working class over the bourguase. Other than that I tried one of these threads a while ago, conception was that combining stuff isn't always a great idea.
Yeah, I think one of the biggest differences between Anarchists and Marxists is that Anarchists reject the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's why I'm an Anarchist.

[KC]

The Left will never get anywhere as a movement while it's bickering back and forth between anarchists and socialists, anarcho-syndicalists and communists.

The problem isn't with bickering. Political debate is good, even if it is heated. The problem is with a lack of debate among the various groups/ideologies.

[The Douche]

Yeah, I think one of the biggest differences between Anarchists and Marxists is that Anarchists reject the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's why I'm an Anarchist.

I am an anarchist and I support the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Geiseric]

You're a marxist then.

[psgchisolm]

Yeah, I think one of the biggest differences between Anarchists and Marxists is that Anarchists reject the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That's why I'm an Anarchist.
As much as I'm willing to agree with Anarchists on the dictatorship issue, complete abolishment of authority is something I can never agree with. I hope you still love me through after this. :(

[gorillafuck]

I think another thing that would be helpful, if the left stop making the legalization of drug a big issue.The Drug War is a complete scourge on working class communities and the world so I don't see what your obsession with this is.

Edit: Also supporting dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't necessarily make you a marxist.

[9]

I am an anarchist and I support the dictatorship of the proletariat.
You're a marxist then.

anarcho-maoist =/= marxist

[Geiseric]

this is new.

[The Red Next Door]

The Drug War is a complete scourge on working class communities and the world so I don't see what your obsession with this is.

Edit: Also supporting dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't necessarily make you a marxist.

So are drug gangs.

[gorillafuck]

So are drug gangs.Agreed. If the drug war was gone then they would have absolutely no source of income and would be gone too. Thanks for providing backing to my point.

[bcbm]

The Left will never get anywhere as a movement

indeed.


there might be a chance for social revolution in industrial and post-industrial societies

the economy seems to be doing a much better job in 3 years then the left had previously done in... 30?

[Geiseric]

Wait, isn't DOTP a core tenant of Marxism? How is one a marxist without believing in an authoritarian revolution used to give the working class control over the means of production?

[The Douche]

You're a marxist then.

Its fully possible to be an anarchist and to be influenced by Marx/adhere to Marxist ideas/theory. It is also possible to consider onself a marxist but be practically and theoretically influenced by anarchism.


Wait, isn't DOTP a core tenant of Marxism? How is one a marxist without believing in an authoritarian revolution used to give the working class control over the means of production?

The DOTP is not inompatable with anarchism. The authority of the working class is not opposed by anarchists.

[Geiseric]

I thought pure anarchism had no authority? For example, the anarchists in Revolution era spain didn't want to go through the last step of the revolution and remove the libs from power. They ended up being in a divided state with about 3 ruling parties, the Comintern Communists, the Republican liberals, and the Anarcho Syndicallists. That division weakened the republic and allowed them to be conquered. I'm wondering, since the anarchists had mass support, why didn't they undergo the DOTP phase and finalise the revolution?

[The Douche]

I thought pure anarchism had no authority?

No, its about opposition to arbitrary authority and mainly hierarchy.


For example, the anarchists in Revolution era spain didn't want to go through the last step of the revolution and remove the libs from power. They ended up being in a divided state with about 3 ruling parties, the Comintern Communists, the Republican liberals, and the Anarcho Syndicallists. That division weakened the republic and allowed them to be conquered. I'm wondering, since the anarchists had mass support, why didn't they undergo the DOTP phase and finalise the revolution?

This is kind of the opposite of what actually happened. The anarchists were pushing for full on revolution, in the areas where they had dominant influence land was collectivised (even with force) and the means of production were expropriated and turned over to the workers. It was the Communist party and the liberals who were following a less revolutionary path and who attacked the anarchists for persuing social revolution. The line of the Communists and republicans was to put the revolution on hold and fight the civil war.

[Geiseric]

I'm trying to say, why didn't they just do it when they had the chance in the very beginning?

[The Douche]

I'm trying to say, why didn't they just do it when they had the chance in the very beginning?

They were doing it?

[Geiseric]

Oh, alright. I was under the misconception that they had the chance and passed it up, since anarchists want no heiarchy, whatsoever. However, what really is the difference between marxists and anarchists? From what I gather, it's over the state. Marxists believe that the state is for organisational purposes and to fight the bourguase, and anarchists disagree, correct? I was wondering what they thought on the state.

[StalinFanboy]

So are drug gangs.

which are a product of the prohibition of drugs


immaterial analysis is immaterial

[bcbm]

bro already said that bro u slow

[StalinFanboy]

No, its about opposition to arbitrary authority and mainly hierarchy.



This is kind of the opposite of what actually happened. The anarchists were pushing for full on revolution, in the areas where they had dominant influence land was collectivised (even with force) and the means of production were expropriated and turned over to the workers. It was the Communist party and the liberals who were following a less revolutionary path and who attacked the anarchists for persuing social revolution. The line of the Communists and republicans was to put the revolution on hold and fight the civil war.

To be fair, the CNT basically allowed the liberal government to stay in place in Barcelona. But it's not like the Stalinists or the POUM did anything differently.

[StalinFanboy]

bro already said that bro u slow

i was showing solidarity you jerk

[bcbm]

solidarity is for wimps

[The Douche]

I was under the misconception that they had the chance and passed it up, since anarchists want no heiarchy, whatsoever

Surely, the collectivisation of agriculture and the enforcement of collective ownership of the means of production, while defending these gains by means of the armed working class is the DOTP?


From what I gather, it's over the state. Marxists believe that the state is for organisational purposes and to fight the bourguase, and anarchists disagree, correct? I was wondering what they thought on the state.

1) Not all anarchists accept historical or dialectical materialism.
2) Not all anarchists accept the Marxist critique of capitalism or the marxian alternative to capitalism.
2) Marxists and anarchists may have differring definitions of the state.


To be fair, the CNT basically allowed the liberal government to stay in place in Barcelona.

And to be fair, the republican government would've been made useless under the social leadership of the CNT. The real mistake was to work with the liberals and Communists. They could've continued to ignore the government while pushing ahead with the social revolution, and the government would have become irrelevant.

[bcbm]

god please stop talking about the snapish civil war

[The Douche]

god please stop talking about the snapish civil war

I would love to. Fucking snaps...

[StalinFanboy]

And to be fair, the republican government would've been made useless under the social leadership of the CNT. The real mistake was to work with the liberals and Communists. They could've continued to ignore the government while pushing ahead with the social revolution, and the government would have become irrelevant.

All's I'm saying is that the anarchists fucked up just as much as other revolutionaries by allowing the war to become one of anti-fascism rather than actually continue with the rev.


which is basically what you said. kay done lolol

[theblackmask]

How about "Labour movement: Enemy of the proletariat"?

[Os Cangaceiros]

You're a marxist then.

If the DOTP is just a state of conditions in which the proles exert their will upon the ruling class (rather than the other way around, which is how it stands today) then I think a lot of anarchists support that.

It's weird, because a lot of famous anarchists have quotes condemning the DOTP, but then will go and say something like "kill the rich! seize the factories! gwaargh!"

[The Douche]

If the DOTP is just a state of conditions in which the proles exert their will upon the ruling class (rather than the other way around, which is how it stands today) then I think a lot of anarchists support that.

It's weird, because a lot of famous anarchists have quotes condemning the DOTP, but then will go and say something like "kill the rich! seize the factories! gwaargh!"


There is a text by RAAN called "Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat", it is not permitted to post links to the RAAN page or to sites that host their documents, but its a pretty short read which kind of talks about what "DOTP" means in a way that is applicable to liberatians (be they anarchists or marxists).

[dernier combat]

So are drug gangs.
Supporting the legalisation of drugs does not mean support for drug gangs. In fact, full legalisation would mean far less dependence on drug lords, dealers, etc. as people would, for example, be able to grow their own marijuana freely.

[Tablo]

I think it really depends on the definition of DOTP. Marxists believe the DOTP should be part of a state structure if I'm not mistaken. At least Leninists do. Anarchists don't want a state at any point. I may be confuse though. I'm not well versed in the various intricacies of Marxism. Their main influence on me is their class analysis and critique of capitalism. I don't oppose expropriation or anything like that, but I don't really feel like that is a DOTP based on the Marxist definition of the term I have come to know.

[The Douche]

I think it really depends on the definition of DOTP. Marxists believe the DOTP should be part of a state structure if I'm not mistaken. At least Leninists do. Anarchists don't want a state at any point. I may be confuse though. I'm not well versed in the various intricacies of Marxism. Their main influence on me is their class analysis and critique of capitalism. I don't oppose expropriation or anything like that, but I don't really feel like that is a DOTP based on the Marxist definition of the term I have come to know.

Marx, hell Lenin, never advocated particularly authoritarian structures in discussing the DOTP.

Simply put, the DOTP is the implementation of the communist economy, and the defense of the gains made by the working class. I don't see how you can oppose such a thing and be called anything other than a utopian.

[Tablo]

Marx, hell Lenin, never advocated particularly authoritarian structures in discussing the DOTP.

Simply put, the DOTP is the implementation of the communist economy, and the defense of the gains made by the working class. I don't see how you can oppose such a thing and be called anything other than a utopian.
Can expropriation and seizing of the means of production count as being part of the dotp? I'm pretty sure the dotp is based around the formation of a state in at least Leninist theory. I'm not for any utopian nonsense, I'm mainly questioning the definition of the dotp. If the things I described are part of the dotp then I'm sure all anarchists with and ounce of sense would ascribe to that.

[StalinFanboy]

The problem with the question of the state is that anarchists and marxists define it differently and this leads to problems. The DOTP is only a term used to describe places where working people are exercising power in order to defend the revolution against counter-revolution. This is a natural consequence of organizing for revolution, and it seems silly to shy away from this simply because it uses language that is not inline with bourgeois abstractions such as "freedom" or "rights."

[The Douche]

Can expropriation and seizing of the means of production count as being part of the dotp? I'm pretty sure the dotp is based around the formation of a state in at least Leninist theory. I'm not for any utopian nonsense, I'm mainly questioning the definition of the dotp. If the things I described are part of the dotp then I'm sure all anarchists with and ounce of sense would ascribe to that.

I essentially said in my last post, that the DOTP is construction of/defense of communism.

[bricolage]

man I just wanted to laugh at a stupid blog, now it's the state and spain again?!?!?!

[StalinFanboy]

Can expropriation and seizing of the means of production count as being part of the dotp? I'm pretty sure the dotp is based around the formation of a state in at least Leninist theory. I'm not for any utopian nonsense, I'm mainly questioning the definition of the dotp. If the things I described are part of the dotp then I'm sure all anarchists with and ounce of sense would ascribe to that.

read dis


http://signalfire.org/?p=7677

[Geiseric]

DOTP is one class using power to suppress another class. The state is a tool used to implement the ruling class's intrests. Thus, to implement DOTP, it would make sense for the state to implement the workers intrests, after using the workers to take the bourguase out of power. You need the state for DOTP is what Marxists believe.

[The Douche]

DOTP is one class using power to suppress another class. The state is a tool used to implement the ruling class's intrests. Thus, to implement DOTP, it would make sense for the state to implement the workers intrests, after using the workers to take the bourguase out of power. You need the state for DOTP is what Marxists believe.

The state is a tool for class suppression, not the tool. And it is inaccurate to say that all marxists propose the use of the state to implement the DOTP.

[9]

The state is a tool for class suppression, not the tool. And it is inaccurate to say that all marxists propose the use of the state to implement the DOTP.
I don't know about all marxists, but many - including some of the ones that some anarchists view more favorably (see below) - consider them one and the same:


Originally Posted by Bordiga
The proletariat - which in its turn will disappear as a class alongside all other classes with the realisation of communism - organises itself as a ruling class (the Manifesto) in the first stage of the post-capitalist epoch. And after the destruction of the old state, the new proletarian state is the dictatorship of the proletariat.(emphasis added)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

[The Douche]

I don't know about all marxists, but many - including some of the ones that some anarchists view more favorably (see below) - consider them one and the same:
(emphasis added)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

And this continues the example of semantic debate. What I call the DOTP, some marxists call a "workers' state", and some anarchists call "social revolution". There are also Marxists who oppose the use/existence of the "workers' state". (like autonomists)

[Tablo]

I essentially said in my last post, that the DOTP is construction of/defense of communism.
In that case I would support the dotp. The proletariat always has the right to act in self defense against counterrevolutionary forces.


read dis


http://signalfire.org/?p=7677
Thanks, will check it out.

[Exakt]

I've never understood why its framed as a 'right of self-defence.'

I advocate disproportionate and unlawful violence against the bourgeoisie even in absence of provocation or a threat of force... :lol:

[bcbm]

i also support vague term for imaginary structures that can mean completely contradictory things


I advocate disproportionate and unlawful violence against the bourgeoisie even in absence of provocation or a threat of force...

sociopaths of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your humanity

[Exakt]

"anti-hierarchy"

"anarchism"

[Cencus]

IF THE INTERNET SAYS IT IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

ironically I was speaking to unison stewards tonight who agree with the tories unofficial cops statement. It seems what socialist unity sees as the 'labour movement' doesn't even agree with socialist unity, and half of it is on the side of its 'enemies'. such is life

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7746

The TUC has done the absolute minimum to oppose the cuts imposed by the Tory/Lib-dem government. 500,000 public sector jobs plus another 100,000 from local councils going(media figures no idea how accurate they are) and the TUC waits until the end of March to call a national demostration, no wonder folks are pissed off. I always thought unions were there to help and protect their members not sit on their arses doing fuck all whilst their fee paying members are thrown onto the dole.

Look back at the history of the last 30 years and you'll find it's littered with workers abandoned by the TUC. The TUC is far more the enemy of the labour movement than a few noisy protestors.

[ed miliband]

Look at the comments on that blog and you'll find a long discussion about a march against poverty that took place in 1936; look in this thread and you'll see the ghost of Spain invoked.

Funny, huh?

[Exakt]

sociopaths of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your humanityIts interesting to note that you consider those who advocate revolution as sociopaths.

My point was that we don't need any legal justification, like self-defence is, to revolt or to build a new society.

[ed miliband]

Union bosses are part of the left wing of capital. They manage and contain working class struggle on behalf of the state. Anyone who fails to understand this is a fucking moron.

Somebody responded to this comment with:


What utter shit, and I’m someone who works alongside Anarchists on a regular basis too, even they would see this is as shit

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What the utter fuck? What a fucking moron.

[Across The Street]

bcbm is an enemy of revolutionary forces. Anarchists, on the other hand, support the people.

[Delenda Carthago]

So are drug gangs.
somebody ban this troll

[Delenda Carthago]

There is no "anarchists".There is nothing in common between bourgeoises like Max Stirner and heros like Durruti.There is nothing in common between "social" and "antisocial" anarchists.

So the thread by itself is irrelevant.

[Across The Street]

Dude, what are you saying? Anarchism is very real, and to exclude those who disengage from society is a loss to all.

[Devrim]

ANARCHISTS: ENEMIES OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT?

Anarchists last night disrupted an anti-cuts meeting at Goldsmiths in London, as reported in East London Lines:
A TUC rally held at the same time in a nearby building on the Goldsmiths campus also became a target for protesters, and the TUC’s General Secretary, Brendan Barber, was confronted by a group of demonstrators with banners.
The website, Lib Com, includes a brief report by Jim Clarke saying:
Can’t think [Barber] can come to Lewisham and not face any opposition.
He got egged and chased off at the end of his talk, people were kicked out at the start of it for chanting “general strike” a banner saying TUC Tories Unofficial Cops was unveiled and he was heckled and shouted at throughout his speech. Well done comrades!
This is not politics, it is self-satisfied individualism. These anarchists should be ashamed of themselves for weakening the campaign to defend jobs and services.

I think this says a lot about the left. I don't know who the people were demonstrating, or what happened. It could have been a few individuals or it could have been the mass of the crowd, who are being labeled anarchists.

When workers end up confronting the unions though, which they invariably do in almost every big struggle, it is interesting to see which side the left comes down on.

Last year on the Mayday demonstration in Istanbul, which was about half a million strong, a group of workers involved in various strikes at the time, stormed the platform, kicked off the unions, and gave their own Mayday address. Would SU blog condemn these workers too.

The reason that the vast majority of the so called 'Leninist' left will be objectively against the working class in the heightened period of class struggle to come is not because of some historic ideas they have about what happened in Russia in 1917, but because when the working class comes into intense conflict with the trade unions, the left will be there as the unions staunchest defenders (as sections of it will also be the staunchest defenders of Social Democracy, bourgeoise nationalism etc).

Devrim

[Devrim]

DOTP is one class using power to suppress another class. The state is a tool used to implement the ruling class's intrests. Thus, to implement DOTP, it would make sense for the state to implement the workers intrests, after using the workers to take the bourguase out of power. You need the state for DOTP is what Marxists believe.

It comes down to a very theoretical disagreement. When I was an anarchist though, I, and every anarchist that I knew supported the idea of class rule. Some may have not like semantically calling it the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', but all agreed with the basic idea.

How you describe it is a different matter. The ICC, which I belong to today, considers itself to be Marxist, and has a rather complex analysis where the state exists in the period of transition in which the state still exists, but the DOTP is over, and if necessarily against the state.

Other Marxists theorize the idea of a 'council state'. Anarchists see the state as being abolished.

What all revolutionaries are agreed on, whether they call themselves anarchists or Marxists, is that the current bourgeoise state can not be taken over and used by the working class, and that the organs which class power is exercised through, whatever they lake to call them, will be fundamentally different from the state as we know it today.

Devrim

[Zanthorus]

The fact that this piece was written by a group called 'Socialist Unity' made me giggle. In fact it reminded me of this Engels' quote (And you can never have too many Engels' quotes):


One must not allow oneself to be misled by the cry for "unity." Those who have this word most often on their lips are those who sow the most dissension, just as at present the Jura Bakuninists in Switzerland, who have provoked all the splits, scream for nothing so much as for unity. Those unity fanatics are either the people of limited intelligence who want to stir everything up together into one nondescript brew, which, the moment it is left to settle, throws up the differences again in much more acute opposition because they are now all together in one pot (you have a fine example of this in Germany with the people who preach the reconciliation of the workers and the petty bourgeoisie)--or else they are people who consciously or unconsciously (like Mühlberger, for instance) want to adulterate the movement. For this reason the greatest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues are at certain moments the loudest shouters for unity. Nobody in our lifetime has given us more trouble and been more treacherous than the unity shouters.

The double hilarity comes from the fact that Engels' was complaining about the Bakuninists cries for unity.

[ed miliband]

(Thankfully) 'Socialist Unity' isn't a group but a single individual who reposts various things from disparate groups/blogs and occasionally writes his own opinion pieces. I don't really know what organisations he is involved with but he's very supportive of the most right-wing of Labourites and I assume he's a LP member.

[Patchd]

Socialist Unity is a pile of self-serving reformist wank. Also, interesting to see how the stalinists in this thread have managed to turn it from a discussion on the blog author's view on anarchism and the labour movement to a discussion on drugs. Get some mates, leave the house for once and have some fun, any fun, it doesn't need to involve DRUGS because I know how much you hate DRUGS, being all anti-proletarian and all, you know it never occurred to me that some chemical compounds could be juxtaposed to a socio-economic relation but I guess you'll need to spew all sorts of shit to back up your baseless arguments.

Anyways, I always love the gems you get in the comments section;


Because if you don’t join a union if you can, and you continue to attack the trade unions, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Criticism from the inside is fine and to be welcomed. From the outside you may as well be quoting the Sun and the Daily Mail.

Surprising that, I wonder if this person would qualify wildcat strikes and other workers' actions that come out of the confines of the anti-trade union laws as being 'part of the problem'. Its always nice to see the naivety and patronising attitude of these kinds of people, if you aren't being led and coordinated by that trusted group of paid union bureaucrats with the power to hire and fire, then you simply don't know what you're doing, even worse, you're HELPING THE BOURGEOISIE!!!

[ed miliband]

There's also an amazing comment towards the bottom which suggests that anarchists throwing eggs at Barber is akin to the EDL's claim that they will "smash the left off the street" or something like that.

:rolleyes:

[The Douche]

There is no "anarchists".There is nothing in common between bourgeoises like Max Stirner and heros like Durruti.There is nothing in common between "social" and "antisocial" anarchists.

So the thread by itself is irrelevant.

I like Stirner, and I do not consider myself a "social anarchist", but I am still a communist and a revolutionary.

[bcbm]

Its interesting to note that you consider those who advocate revolution as sociopaths.

no i consider those who advocate "disproportionate violence in the absence of any threat or provocation" sociopaths.


My point was that we don't need any legal justification, like self-defence is, to revolt or to build a new society.

i agree, but i want to build a new society not participate in a bloodbath.


bcbm is an enemy of revolutionary forces. Anarchists, on the other hand, support the people.

yes absolutely

[StalinFanboy]

I don't know about all marxists, but many - including some of the ones that some anarchists view more favorably (see below) - consider them one and the same:
(emphasis added)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm

But again, this comes down to a semantic debate. I'm sure almost all anarchists would support the creation of networks of workers councils, but would not call it a state while many Marxists would.

[gorillafuck]

And this continues the example of semantic debate. What I call the DOTP, some marxists call a "workers' state", and some anarchists call "social revolution". There are also Marxists who oppose the use/existence of the "workers' state". (like autonomists)There are marxists who believe in literally everything that you can think up.

[The Douche]

There are marxists who believe in literally everything that you can think up.

Hahaha, no doubt.

[Urko]

My only problem with anarchy is that it abolishes all authority, even the authprity of the working class over the bourguase. Other than that I tried one of these threads a while ago, conception was that combining stuff isn't always a great idea.
WHAT? there will still be burguase after the revolution? gotta find a new ism...

[Magón]

I like Stirner, and I do not consider myself a "social anarchist", but I am still a communist and a revolutionary.

That is so, Anarcho-Hipsterite jargon.

Except I think most Anarchists would say they were Individualist Anarchists, more than Social Anarchist.

[The Hong Se Sun]

"anti-hierarchy"

"anarchism"

to take this a step further

archy and heir (as in heir to the thrown etc) is the base word for hierarchy. A King is a monarchy meaning one leader Mono-archy. "A" or "an" means "against" or "anti-" and sometimes "no". So when you put your base words together it means "no/anti/against hierarchy" Like the person I quoted said that is where you get "anarchy" from.

Just like communism comes from commune, which is self explanatory and -ism which means condition. So a social condition where everything is done out of and for the greater good of the community/commune

[Diello]

"kill the rich! seize the factories! gwaargh!"

Words of wisdom. I'm seriously considering putting that in my sig.

[Geiseric]

WHAT? there will still be burguase after the revolution? gotta find a new ism...

I meant during the revolution :p

[Queercommie Girl]

Wait, isn't DOTP a core tenant of Marxism? How is one a marxist without believing in an authoritarian revolution used to give the working class control over the means of production?

DOTP is a core tenant of Marxism-Leninism, not necessarily Left Marxism.

I generally support DOTP, just as I generally support Lenin. (Though I'm not completely uncritical of him either)

[Queercommie Girl]

What do people think about Rosa Luxemburg's critique of early anarchism?

The Russian Revolution [of 1905], which is the first historical experiment on the model of the class strike, not merely does not afford a vindication of anarchism, but actually means the historical liquidation of anarchism. The sorry existence to which this mental tendency was condemned in recent decades by the powerful development of social democracy in Germany may, to a certain extent, be explained by the exclusive dominion and long duration of the parliamentary period. A tendency patterned entirely upon the "first blow" and "direct action", a tendency "revolutionary" in the most naked, pitchfork sense, can only temporarily languish in the calm of the parliamentarian day and, on a return of the period of direct open struggle, can come to life again and unfold its inherent strength.

... ...

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 counter-revolutionary 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.

Rosa Luxemburg, The Mass Strike

[Queercommie Girl]

The reason that the vast majority of the so called 'Leninist' left will be objectively against the working class in the heightened period of class struggle to come is not because of some historic ideas they have about what happened in Russia in 1917, but because when the working class comes into intense conflict with the trade unions, the left will be there as the unions staunchest defenders (as sections of it will also be the staunchest defenders of Social Democracy, bourgeoise nationalism etc).


I'm generally a Leninist, but not completely uncritical of Lenin.

However, I'm not completely uncritical of Marx and Engels themselves either. I don't think in general Lenin is less reliable than Marx and Engels.

It's interesting that some people can worship Marx and Engels like "prophets" who can say no wrong yet completely reject Lenin. If anything, it's Lenin who empirically put into realisation the semi-utopian views of Marx and Engels.

[Omsk]

I'm generally a Leninist, but not completely uncritical of Lenin.
So you are a Maoist and a Leninist,and you also defend Stalin at some points?

[Queercommie Girl]

So you are a Maoist and a Leninist,and you also defend Stalin at some points?

I'm only a semi-Maoist.

I don't completely reject Stalin, but I'm Trotskyism-leaning and highly critical of many of his policies.

I am generally a Leninist, but I'm also a critical leftist who basically doesn't take anyone as a "prophet", not even Marx and Engels themselves. I oppose ideological dogmatism. I feel many Marxists these days have lost their critical faculties to some extent.

Karl Marx's favourite personal motto:

Doubt Everything.

[nuisance]

There is no "anarchists".There is nothing in common between bourgeoises like Max Stirner and heros like Durruti.There is nothing in common between "social" and "antisocial" anarchists.

So the thread by itself is irrelevant.
Well that is a pretty ahistorical notion, particulary since alot of anarcho-syndicalists, mainly at one point in Glasgow, have found influence in Stirner's egoism.

Also, in what sense is Stirner 'antisocial'?

[Devrim]

I'm generally a Leninist, but not completely uncritical of Lenin.

However, I'm not completely uncritical of Marx and Engels themselves either. I don't think in general Lenin is less reliable than Marx and Engels.

It's interesting that some people can worship Marx and Engels like "prophets" who can say no wrong yet completely reject Lenin. If anything, it's Lenin who empirically put into realisation the semi-utopian views of Marx and Engels.

I think that I would probably be the last person to worship Marx and Engels like prophets. I don't quite understand that comment.

Devrim

[Devrim]

What do people think about Rosa Luxemburg's critique of early anarchism?

I think in many ways it was governed to a certain extent by the criticisms of the revisionists in the SDP (those around Bernstein using 'revisionism' in its historical sense, bot the way it is used today by Maoist) of the current around Luxemborg as being 'semi-anarchist', thus she felt she had to make a particularly harsh criticism to differentiate themselves from the anarchists.

Devrim

[Zanthorus]

The reason Luxemburg would have had to delineate herself from the Anarchists would be not because of the 'revisionists' but both the Right and Centre of the SPD who would've associated the 'mass strike' with the 'general strike' criticised by Engels in The Bakuninists at Work. And actually I do think her work in that area, and especially some of the stuff advocated by those inspired by it, borders on Anarchism.