Defending the Revolution

[The Feral Underclass]

I am sure that this is going to cause a stir, and it is directed at the anarchists among us. I am interested to know what comrades thought about the whole notion of defending the revolution.

A friend of mine, he's a Leninist :rolleyes: asked me "so what would happen if you we need a secret police to defend the revolution". It was an interesting question. If the bouregois-****s are going to use MI5 and the rest, we may need to form some kind of secret organization to counter act such organizations as these.

It seems very difficult to maintain anarchist principles when you start to mess with this kind of thing...what do other people think? also if other people have comments about defending the revolution, feel free to add them ;)

[sc4r]

Laughable.

Anyone else says they are going to have an orgainsied police force or army to defend themselves then its against Anarchist principles, and those people are to be viciously opposed. But if they are defending 'Anarchist Principles', even though in doing so they have negated both the principles and the exact same mechanism that they get all shitty about anyone saying unworkable, then its OK.

Such stuff goes beyond inconsistency and deep into self serving hypocricy.

Not that there is going to be any sucessful revolution anyway. You idiots talk as if you have any significant support from people. You dont; you have a few thugs carrying out acts of petty vindictiveness and vandalism without really any clue as to what they would do if by a mircale of all miracles they won.

[Bradyman]

Having a secret police just seems hypocritical. I think that in an Anarchist society, there would be no need for such police. I believe that Anarchy can only come after socialism and communism and not directly after capitalism because there would be too much tension between those for anarchy and those against it. But after a succesful revolution to socialism and then to communism, anarchy would not be such a hard switch and the lack of contempt for anarchy would show that a police force is unnecessary. If there so happens to be an uprising, I think it's up to the masses if they want to defend themselves or not, not the role of some secret police.

[Morpheus]

We do not need a secret police to defend the revolution. The purpose of secret police is to insure that a small elite dominates society. It doesn't defend the revolution, it defends the ability of a tiny elite to dominate the population (that's what it did in Russia & elsewhere). Some form of counter-intelligence may be necessary, and there are (imperfect) anarchist precedents for this from the Ukrainian revolution & elsewhere, but a full-blown secret police will insure that the revolution will degenerate into a new ruling class.

[redstar2000]

I'm afraid that whenever you get into an argument with a Leninist over the shape of post-revolutionary society, you're always going to hear two arguments.

1. The working class is "incapable" (too ignorant, too uncultured, too sheep-like, too stupid, etc.) of running the show...an elite party is "needed" to do it "for" them.

2. The workers "can't" defend their revolution themselves; an organized army and police force commanded by professionals is "all" that stands between the revolution and ultimate defeat by the "powerful" imperialists and their domestic counter-revolutionary allies.

No matter how often those two "arguments" are demonstrated to be false in the light of actual historical experience, they will continue to be brought up over and over again.

Without those two arguments, the Leninists have nothing to offer. If those two arguments are rejected, as they should be, who needs Leninism?

No one.

Here are three threads (among many) that discuss some of the problems in more detail...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...&f=6&t=17843&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=17843&s=)

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...&f=6&t=17326&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=17326&s=)

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...ecret+police&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=4839&hl=secret+police&s=)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

My point was refring to the need of some counter-intelligence organization as morpheus said. I never sujested the need for a secret police force.

[sc4r]

Well unless you would care to elaborate on exactly how your 'counter intelligence organisation' fits into the idea of a society without any centralised state apparatus all you seem to be doing is saying that something is not what it so obviously is to most of us.

It is easy to simply assert that something is not based on the idea of centralised apparatus (which implies state) given that you dont have the opportunity to show it working in practise; far less easy to explain. And the reason it is difficult to explain is usually quite simply that it does not actually make sense.

Either Anarchists do recognise the need for some central functions and rules imposed and enforced by the whole society (in which case you have a state, no matter how limited its functions might be), or they dont. Which is it?

If 'Anarchy' merely means limiting state functions as far as possible then I'm an Anarchist. So probably are most people. But self evidently this is not what self declared Anarchists actually do demand*. In fact they often seem to be demanding mutually incompatible things, and expalining away the incompatibilities simply by saying that they are not incompatible. Which is no explanation at all.

* To my eyes what they mostly seem to demand in practise is simply that people repeat Anarchist slogans without regard to whether the slogans reflect actual intentions or beliefs. They look like a club concerned more with whether people 'belong' and know the passwords rather than movement 'for' anything. Would I beome 'an Anarchist' if I bought a T shirt, chanted slogans at a rally, maybe chucked a few rocks, and never criticised Anarchist writings? I think Most Anarchists would think so. But what I'd really be is someone just amusing myself and seeking to 'belong' in a tribe.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

IMHO the revolution should be protected by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Be it secret police or otherwise.

[sc4r]

What do you mean by 'revolution' then ?

By any means neccessary? come off it. That could mean that you revolt. Find that the only way you can maintain the new society is to revert back to exactly what you revolted against, and declare that it was successful.

'Any means' is totally inadequate as an explanation of what you would do. No sane person would accept such a premise because it promises nothing.

In fact it says that what you are in favour of is destruction only*. Because you actually are promising only that. To make sense in the context of this argument 'the revolution' has to include a promise of what it will do, and what it wont do.

My actual (cynical) belief is that what Anarchist are mostly really in favour of is not anything but repeating that they want a revolution. They are really 'for' making glorious sounding noises. In other words that most of the anarchist movement today is about words not about substance.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is noted that some people have varying beliefs on anarchism which is warmly accepted. However can people avoid using this thread as a personal attack on anarchism as a whole. There is a thread already being used entitled "Anarchism". If people wish to discuss the fatalities of anarchism as a social philosophy then by all means do so in that thread.

IMHO the revolution should be protected by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Be it secret police or otherwise.

Does it follow that at if it is necessary to execute a thousand starving workers because they "undermine" the revolution it should be done?

Does it follow that this secret police should be able to moniter and arrest workers if they are deemed as "subversives" to the state without regulation if it is necessary?

Does it follow that this secret police should be able to defend the "central government" with impunity if it is deemed necessary?

Does it follow that the armed forces should be given unlimited powers in order to "defend the revolution"?

At what point do the means stop justifying the end? what is this revolution actually for?

[sc4r]

To answer you you cant launch a 'personal attack' on Anarchism as a whole because it is not a person.

Will I cease to criticise Anarchist ideas just because you happen to have created a thread in which you ask me not to? Of course not. This is a general discusion forum. What you publish in it can be read by anyone, and if what you publish seems to mislead those people, then I, for one, see no reason to allow you to do so just because you'd like to.

The other reality is that I'm a good bit less inclined to exercise forebearance than I was 4-5 months ago. This is because I've seen close up that many 'Anarchists' are actually highly intolerant individuals who will quite happily engage in almost any tactics to get themselves a free hand to teach what I see as nonsense unopposed*. In that respect you have only yourselves to blame that you are dealing with someone who wont easily buckle under to such tactics and will, in fact take the fight your 'allies' created to you in order to prevent nonsense being spread.

In your case I believe that your motivation is that you genuinely believe in it and just cannot see why you should accept criticism (which is unfortunately a highly arrogant, self interested, and very 'unarchistic' attitude BTW- something which in itself should flash big red warning signs to people about what the underlying validity of the message is) . In some other cases I'm not sure even of that.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I feel that socialism must be maintained, even if the majority of the people have capitalistic tendancies.

[Morpheus]

If the majority of people support capitalism then socialism cannot be maintained, it is impossible. You could maintain a system of minority rule and call it "socialism" but it won't actually be socialism, it'll be a system of minority rule like the USSR, China, etc. Secret Police will guarentee that the revolution WILL degenerate.

Sc4r, if you'd bother to study the Ukrainian Revolution you'd see an example of an anarchist counter-intelligence system in action. That you don't know this is further proof that you are ignorant of the thing you criticize. IMO, there were some flaws in their counter-intelligence system and I think they could improve things but it's one example of how it could be done. It's a starting point.

[sc4r]

Jesus this gets sillier. How does my not knowing the details of 'the ukrainian anarchist counter intelligence system' mitigate against a question about how you can build a 'counter intelligence system' into an actual anarchist society which is anarchist in the sense of having no centralised functions?

I know that you can stick a black flag onto the main building and declare 'We are anarchists' that dont make it so.

If you want to explain then do so. If you want to proclaim that not knowing something which someone else does means that you an idjit then I can assure you that everyone here is an idjit many times over (including me).

That I dont know something proves I dont know it. Thats all it proves, and I'll happily admit to not knowing about many things. So what? It doesnt even prove that you do know it, still less that you understand it.

Try talking substance, which means actually explaining how something fits into another notion. Proclaiming that ' I am right because there is a book somewhere which I say proves me right' is about as worthless a comment as its possible to concieve of. The book may be wrong, you may be wrong about what the book actually says, you may be wrong about whether the book is relevant, and a 100 other things.

All you are doing is sort of assessing what 'credit' I should recieve for reading your approved list of stuff. I dont actually give a stuff about that credit; I did not apply for it and would not value it if I was awarded it.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, if the majority supported capitalism after the revolution, I would support a secret police/marshal law type of system to prevent the capitalists getting back into power.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 05:22 AM
Well, if the majority supported capitalism after the revolution, I would support a secret police/marshal law type of system to prevent the capitalists getting back into power.
Which would ironically throw away any hint of socialism.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Why? I don't see how the bourgiouse would be able to benefit from a police state.

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2003, 02:46 PM
Why? I don't see how the bourgiouse would be able to benefit from a police state.
Socialism is about people and democracy, not totalitarianism!

[The Feral Underclass]

I feel that socialism must be maintained, even if the majority of the people have capitalistic tendancies.

So you take the prolateriate out of 'Dictatership of the prolateriate' and call it plain old dictatership? Or better still you could call it the 'Dictatership of MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr'.

How can you advocate forxing socialism onto people? Who does this benifit?

Well, if the majority supported capitalism after the revolution, I would support a secret police/marshal law type of system to prevent the capitalists getting back into power.

Why would people support captialism after the revolution. They had just gone onto the streets to fight and die to overthrow capitalism to then all suddenly decide to have it back again....it dosnt make any sense?

I don't see how the bourgiouse would be able to benefit from a police state.

Or the workers for that matter!

[Kez]

The whole point about defending capitalism as lenin stated is that it divorces the poliec and army from the population, and it becomes ABOVE the people and ABOVE the rule of law.

RedStar, again u seem to mix tosspot stalinos with leninists. when u claim leninists think that people are ignorant, maybe ur thinking of stalinists. My view as a marxist-leninist is that if the people dont want the revolution then the revolution is dead. Not to say we should give up. No, we must always make sure that we are giving out the reasons behind the revolution through eeducation of the masses. Nothing less. And with these words we can follow up with action, if i didnt beleive what i do would make society a better place i wouldnt do it. The proof is in the pudding, and with the advances of society under a communist society, why would people doubt communism? In fact the risk of counter-revolution should serve as an extra incentive to work twice as hard to fulfil the revolution and the promises of the revolution. Nuff sed. No secret police, no standing army.

comrade kamo

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I am not advocating a dictatorship of me, but rather one of the communist party. The single party socialist state. Sometimes people can be effected by capitalist propaganda as they did in the old Soviet bloc and socialism can fall. Even though afterwards many people are left nostaligic, all the progress that so many people have fought for has all been undone.

[The Feral Underclass]

To what extent would this "communist dictatership" go?

[Don't Change Your Name]

A revolution will not have cappies complaining. Anarchism is about one's liberation, not about installing a dictatorship regime that says what people should do. Those "capitalism=liberty and democracy" idiots should be brainwashed, or, if necessary, sent to workcamps or something like that, but that's a last resort thing.
A revolution should include an absolute change of belief, its about waking up people, otherwise it is just a coup.
You must create a base by educating people, or people will keep being "stupid sheeps" as some authoritarian leftists think. You cant just make people accept something without making them understand why they should accept it first. Not doing that will make a revolution just a change of dictators, and the belief that there should be a state that controls the people on everything is fascism.

A successful revolution doesnt need to be defended, and if you deny this you are another pro-dictatorship fascist. If people doesnt like the revolution it is their problem, and such people should dissapear and be controlled by the pro-revolution society.

What I mean is that a revolution wins if it has no opposition, and in an anarchist revolution the people will be aware that there's certain group of individuals that want to steal what's theirs, and it will be their duty to defend it. As Che said: "We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it."

So what we need to do now is not creating new parties or doing marches, we need to educate people, so someday they will realize they have been exploited and then they will be smart enough as to defend themselves from the exploiters until there are no more of those.