The Dictatership of the Proletariate

[The Feral Underclass]

What is a state? it is the mechanism which keeps a ruling class ruling. The bouregois state controls the police, the army and the economy in order to allow capitalists to remain in power and keep the whole profit-making wheel turning. The bouregois state is organizaed in such a way that our lives are oppressed by draconian laws, taxes, high utility prices and we are forced to work, exploited by a group of people which the state recognizes as legitimate and respectable citizens of this planet.

In order to create a fair and egalitarian society we must remove the state. That is what Marx said, it is what Lenin said and it is what Bakunin said. Three traiditions all procaliming that the state should not exist and that if it did exist the people would not be free. The reason being that the wholoe purpose of the state was to keep one group of people in power over another group of people.

The dictatership of the proletariate was first thought of by Marx because it was the belief that the workers would need swift force to tackle the bouregoisie and organize society in a centralised way so that the revolution could be safe guarded. The workers state would be created in the interest of the working class and that eventually the need of the state would "wither away".

History has proven that this has never happened. In fact the "leaders" of the various Marxist-Leninst revolutions that have occured in the world have never gotten past this second stage. This "dictatership of the Proletariat" has led to some brutal regimes which has given way to stronger forms of state capitalism or liberal capitalism. Either way they have failed and left a huge scar on the ideals of communism and anarchism.

How do you Leninists hope to achieve a revolutionary situation? If you think a revolution can be won without the consciounsess of the workers then who's interests are you fighting for. If the workers do not udnerstand your revolution than how can it be in their interests. Because you tell them it is? You create this workers state, this central committee with it's chairman and revolutionary leaders? and then what? What happens if some of the workers dont like something. Kronstadt?

You have replaced one state with another and raped it in a red flag? nothing has changed except the name? There is still a mechanism to keep a group of people in power and usually a very small group of people who now have more power than any liberal democratic democracy had. You have the opportunity to kill indescriminatly whoever threatens your power. The power is not rested in the workers because they do not understand fully what it means to hold such power. They are relying on their "leaders" to do the right thing. And what happens when you dont do the right thing? Do the workers then rise against you? They might...but this is threatening the revolution! What do you do? Kill them? What is this revolution for?

Now if the workers had full consciousness then they could make these decisions by themselves. There would be no need for a central committee. For a secret police or for a state mechanism. If you look at the anit-capitalists demonstrations in Genoa or Seattle you will see that when the time came for organization it was done. Using anarchist principles. There was no need for a central committee to direct action because everyone new why they were there and what they wanted. If the workers know why they are having a revolution and love the ideal with all their heart there is no need for hierarchies, for central committees and "revolutionary leaders".

Of course it may take a little longer but we have endured captialism this long and failed in trying to remove it so many times. I think it is ok to endure it that little longer and get it right!

The Dictatership of the Proletariate is a fantasy. An unnecessary joke with no purpose but to lead an uneducated working class into a state controlled by people who claim to "intellectuals." It does nothing to serve the workers and it means to centralize power into a group of people who have no right to have it.

You leninists call it utpoian idealism but I call you authotarian pragmatists, and id rather be an idealist fighting for a utopia than a pragamtist fighting for authority.

As Malatesta said "Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always."

[crazy comie]

First of all no state except soviet russia befor the period of the period of war communism a operated the dictatorship of the prolitarian.
One of the reasons for this was the civl war and the fact that russia was being undermined by the white russians caussind a dictatorship of the Bolshivwk party in representation of the prolitarian. After that russia evolved into a dictatorship of the beuerocracy wich then spreed to all the countrys wich latter claimed to be Socialist.
The dictatorship of the prolitarian is neacecary to control the bourgeosie with state aperatese.

[Saint-Just]

History has proven that this has never happened. In fact the "leaders" of the various Marxist-Leninst revolutions that have occured in the world have never gotten past this second stage.

They could not have attained communism without vanquishing imperialism and capitalism from the face of the globe, that never happened, therefore they never had the right conditions to achieve communism. It is thought that with the world wide victory of socialism they would have.

If you think a revolution can be won without the consciounsess of the workers then who's interests are you fighting for.

The consciousness of a number of worker's is realised in order to create revolution. We believe it can be their consciousness will likely be affected from without. What you are saying does not make sense. We are fighting for the interests of the working class, some worker's will always gain a revolutionary consciousness before the revolution, some will gain it after the revolution. The aim of the revolution is to make imbue workers with a class consciousness. That is in the interest of the workers.

is still a mechanism to keep a group of people in power and usually a very small group of people who now have more power than any liberal democratic democracy had.

It is essential for the working class party to remain power history has demonstrated that a revolutionary working class party is threatened by those with bourgeois interests. It seems as though you are suggesting that liberal democracy is a preferable system to the dictatorship of the proletariat, you subscribe to the western bourgeois view that socialist countries were ruled by tiny powerful cliques. Indeed that is true to some extent, but you are not looking at it in the context of class struggle, that these are leaders of a party amongst the masses with working class interests rather than the bourgeois parties we have today who are amongst only one class, the class in the interest of the minority; the bourgeoisie.

If you look at the anit-capitalists demonstrations in Genoa or Seattle you will see that when the time came for organization it was done.

That is a relatively small number of workers with a revolutionary consciousness, they did not create a revolution. I would suggest that these people were in the main intellectuals. As Lenin said, intellectuals are more likely to gain a class consciousness and thus bring about a revolution. Indeed, a state of masses of class conscious workers could run a state, with the same discipline and organisation as these anti-capitalists, this is the aim of Leninism. We just see that they will not gain this consciousness through alienation and dehumanisation on a massive scale as Marx said.

I think it is ok to endure it that little longer and get it right!

This is what we disagree with, that waiting will not achieve it and that Leninism will create communism.

to centralize power into a group of people who have no right to have it.

They have an ideological right, we see history as a struggle between classes and the working class history is determined by this struggle.

[Soviet power supreme]

If there is no state who is going to pay child allowances, maternity benefits and other benefits?

[Invader Zim]

What is a state? it is the mechanism which keeps a ruling class ruling. The bouregois state controls the police, the army and the economy in order to allow capitalists to remain in power and keep the whole profit-making wheel turning. The bouregois state is organizaed in such a way that our lives are oppressed by draconian laws, taxes, high utility prices and we are forced to work, exploited by a group of people which the state recognizes as legitimate and respectable citizens of this planet.

You are under the mistaken impression that the middle classes would still be the ruling class in a socialist socioty, they wouldn't, the state would still exist, but the previous state mechanism would be Stripped away. If the state does not exist we would live in a socioty of utter chaos, with no organisation, no order and no production... in short the socioty would collapse within weeks, if not sooner.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2003, 05:08 AM
What is a state? it is the mechanism which keeps a ruling class ruling. The bouregois state controls the police, the army and the economy in order to allow capitalists to remain in power and keep the whole profit-making wheel turning. The bouregois state is organizaed in such a way that our lives are oppressed by draconian laws, taxes, high utility prices and we are forced to work, exploited by a group of people which the state recognizes as legitimate and respectable citizens of this planet.

In order to create a fair and egalitarian society we must remove the state. That is what Marx said, it is what Lenin said and it is what Bakunin said. Three traiditions all procaliming that the state should not exist and that if it did exist the people would not be free. The reason being that the wholoe purpose of the state was to keep one group of people in power over another group of people.

The dictatership of the proletariate was first thought of by Marx because it was the belief that the workers would need swift force to tackle the bouregoisie and organize society in a centralised way so that the revolution could be safe guarded. The workers state would be created in the interest of the working class and that eventually the need of the state would "wither away".

History has proven that this has never happened. In fact the "leaders" of the various Marxist-Leninst revolutions that have occured in the world have never gotten past this second stage. This "dictatership of the Proletariat" has led to some brutal regimes which has given way to stronger forms of state capitalism or liberal capitalism. Either way they have failed and left a huge scar on the ideals of communism and anarchism.

How do you Leninists hope to achieve a revolutionary situation? If you think a revolution can be won without the consciounsess of the workers then who's interests are you fighting for. If the workers do not udnerstand your revolution than how can it be in their interests. Because you tell them it is? You create this workers state, this central committee with it's chairman and revolutionary leaders? and then what? What happens if some of the workers dont like something. Kronstadt?

You have replaced one state with another and raped it in a red flag? nothing has changed except the name? There is still a mechanism to keep a group of people in power and usually a very small group of people who now have more power than any liberal democratic democracy had. You have the opportunity to kill indescriminatly whoever threatens your power. The power is not rested in the workers because they do not understand fully what it means to hold such power. They are relying on their "leaders" to do the right thing. And what happens when you dont do the right thing? Do the workers then rise against you? They might...but this is threatening the revolution! What do you do? Kill them? What is this revolution for?

Now if the workers had full consciousness then they could make these decisions by themselves. There would be no need for a central committee. For a secret police or for a state mechanism. If you look at the anit-capitalists demonstrations in Genoa or Seattle you will see that when the time came for organization it was done. Using anarchist principles. There was no need for a central committee to direct action because everyone new why they were there and what they wanted. If the workers know why they are having a revolution and love the ideal with all their heart there is no need for hierarchies, for central committees and "revolutionary leaders".

Of course it may take a little longer but we have endured captialism this long and failed in trying to remove it so many times. I think it is ok to endure it that little longer and get it right!

The Dictatership of the Proletariate is a fantasy. An unnecessary joke with no purpose but to lead an uneducated working class into a state controlled by people who claim to "intellectuals." It does nothing to serve the workers and it means to centralize power into a group of people who have no right to have it.

You leninists call it utpoian idealism but I call you authotarian pragmatists, and id rather be an idealist fighting for a utopia than a pragamtist fighting for authority.

As Malatesta said "Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always."
You have missed the important fact that we want to make the working class the ruling class. It is a very important concept of communism that the state is an aparatus of class dominance, but in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state will be an apparatus of proletarian class dominance, hence its name.

It is not meant to be egalitarian, the bourgeoisie will be the underclass. As long as classes exist, one will compete with the other. For equality, the working class must ceize power and suppress its oppressors, leaving only a single interest group: the people.

The state will exist in order to ensure that capital is always given to the workers by centralizing it and ensuring any attempts to personaly appropriate the labor of others for the advancement of any class other than the working classs are destroyed. This is ensuring equality. Ensuring that the people are not subjugated by others is equality. The people must only work for the advancement of themselves as a class. And this is done through the state.

The lack of a centralized government will certainly result in economic inequality. People who earn more money than others could easily use that as capital, thus creating classes. That is why the money must be centralized first, and then equaly distributed. Otherwise the/a bourgeoisie will regain power and the revolution will be lost.

Ensuring that this does not take place does not constitute as oppression, but rather as freedom.

The state will be a democratic organization of the people.

Whoever threatens the power of the state threatens the power of the of the proletariat and therefore have other interests in mind other than those of the people.

The working people will almost immediately know that their interests are being acted upon and not those of their former oppressors.

You suggest we endure the suffering, the oppression, the slaughter, the exploitation, the enslavement of the people!? You are not a socialist.

So when will this journey towards anarchism finnaly achieve freedom? When you call it freedom? What is your goal? Something unattainable? How is it determined when the farthest attainable point has been achieved? Because then that is your actual goal! And you don't have one. Our goal is freedom and we know how to get there and we will!

[redstar2000]

If there is no state, who is going to pay child allowances, maternity benefits and other benefits?

I'll start with this one because I think it really underlies all the more "articulate" objections.

It's the state as "daddy" if not "god from whom all blessings flow".

It is utterly childish...the idea that we can do nothing for ourselves as a class and therefore we need "someone" to "do nice things for us".

Years ago, I heard a poor woman say "If there were no rich people, who would poor people work for?"

It's the same sentiment...and represents a degree of class consciousness so feeble as to hardly be worth the name.


If the state does not exist, we would live in a society of utter chaos, with no organisation, no order and no production... in short, the society would collapse within weeks, if not sooner.

Typical petty-bourgeois sniveling...what is really being expressed is the fear that without a strong state (with plenty of cops and prisons), he will lose his class privileges--either the ones he has now or (more likely) the ones he hopes to acquire when he grows up.

His fears are probably justified, even if his rhetoric isn't.


They could not have attained communism without vanquishing imperialism and capitalism from the face of the globe, that never happened, therefore they never had the right conditions to achieve communism. It is thought that with the world wide victory of socialism they would have.

Gee, who "thinks" that, besides you guys?

The record shows that they couldn't even get along with each other as Leninist-socialists. The USSR fucked over China...which turned around and fucked over Vietnam, etc. What "should" have been an enormous socialist commonwealth--according to Leninism--was, in fact, a bunch of squabbling incompetents motivated by bourgeois nationalism, racism, and, I suspect, outright greed.

Exactly what you'd expect from a collection of "new bosses".


We are fighting for the interests of the working class...

So you say...endlessly! How was it in "the interests of the working class" to restore capitalism in the USSR, China, etc.?

What did you do to stop that from happening?

What good was your centralized "workers' state"?

Or your "vanguard party"?


It is essential for the working class party to remain [in] power; history has demonstrated that a revolutionary working class party is threatened by those with bourgeois interests.

Those parties did stay in power...and the "bourgeois interests" emerged victorious within those parties.


...you are not looking at it in the context of class struggle, that these are leaders of a party amongst the masses with working class interests...

But their behavior proved otherwise.


As Lenin said, intellectuals are more likely to gain a class consciousness and thus bring about a revolution.

I actually don't know if this is really true or not--how many "intellectuals" were involved in the February 1917 massive uprising that smashed the old Russian autocracy?

But, much more important, is what kind of revolution do "intellectuals" make?


You have missed the important fact that we want to make the working class the ruling class.

That's nice. But however "good" your intentions might be, I remain skeptical...old cynic that I am.

I have much greater faith in the working class doing that for itself rather than waiting for "deliverance".


The state will be a democratic organization of the people.

Run by a self-selected minority?

As Lenin himself said, who benefits?


So when will this journey towards anarchism finally achieve freedom? When you call it freedom? What is your goal? Something unattainable? How is it determined when the farthest attainable point has been achieved? Because then that is your actual goal! And you don't have one. Our goal is freedom and we know how to get there and we will!

This, of course, is just incoherent rhetoric...the sort of thing you'd hear in an election campaign.

Suggesting that "freedom" has anything in common with obedience to a self-selected elite is about on the same intellectual level as the speeches of George Bush or Tony Blair.

I can't imagine why anyone takes it seriously.

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

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's not obedience to a self-selected elite, it's democracy. It's unacceptability of those who choose not to yield to democracy and the peoples' rule. Unacceptability of those who seek other interests apart from those of the communist party/the people.
Like you said, Redstar, there will be many revolutions and counter revolutions. And untill the whole world embraces some form of socialism, class society will never dissappear. And as long as classes exist, a government is necessary to assist the dominant class. The working class cannot achieve ruling class status without the aid of a vanguard party. It can't be done.
You ask me for evidence, but you have none of your own.
Yes, perhaps their is some evidence against me, but their is none in favor of you, either.
Yours is so feeble that it hasn't even yet been attempted.

[redstar2000]

It's not obedience to a self-selected elite, it's democracy.

The party selects its own members and leaders. That's self-selection.

The party allows no one to run against it...not even from the working class. That makes the party a permanent elite.

Even within the party itself, the membership has no control over the leadership but, in fact, is compelled to obey the leadership or face expulsion.

It's all about as "democratic" as the Roman Empire.


And until the whole world embraces some form of socialism, class society will never disappear. And as long as classes exist, a government is necessary to assist the dominant class. The working class cannot achieve ruling class status without the aid of a vanguard party. It can't be done.

This is just assertion along with some extremely slippery logic.

For example, if 3/4ths of the world were "socialist" and only 1/4th of the world was still capitalist, would "class society" still exist within that 3/4ths of the world?

What if there was only one small weak capitalist country left on the whole planet...would "class society" still exist everywhere else?

I think it's obvious that the rationale "the whole world must be socialist before we can start having communism" is simply a pathetic excuse for the "vanguard" to stay in power indefinitely.


Yes, perhaps there is some evidence against me, but there is none in favor of you, either.

Yours is so feeble that it hasn't even yet been attempted.

There are actually tons of evidence against you...but, as you admit, you are not really familiar with the history of 20th century Leninism.

My situation is a bit different. I am advocating working class revolution without a party and the establishment of communism as quickly as possible without any protracted "transition period" or "workers' state".

20th century evidence in support of my position is brief and fragmentary...a few months of genuine soviet power in 1917 in Russia, a year or two in the more radicalized parts of Spain in the 1930s, the French General Strike of 1968 and the abbreviated and limited successes of the "new left" in the 1960s, etc.

Not much to go on, I freely admit.

But, trying to look at this whole matter scientifically, what should we do when a promising theory turns out to fail the test of practice over and over again?

Think of Leninism as a hypothesis to solve a specific problem--how to raise the working class to the position of ruling class.

It is tested, repeatedly, by hundreds of parties all over the world under every existing circumstance.

Most of the time, it totally fails! On a few occasions, it looked like it was going to work...but then it failed. After a century of struggle, great heroism and sacrifice and dedication, etc., etc., etc. the result is complete failure.

Now someone like me comes along and says: maybe we should try something different.

(Not just me, of course. There's actually been a small undercurrent of Marxist opposition to the Leninist hypothesis going all the way back to the 1920s.)

Of course, I could be just as wrong as Lenin. My ideas could be total bullshit...that will never even be good enough to fail.

The test lies in a future that I will not live to see.

But I think what I propose is worth a try...it is better to test a new and somewhat promising idea than it is to keep testing an old and failed idea over and over again.

If you are rational, then at some point you have to admit failure and the need for a new beginning. Otherwise, you just end up with a cult.

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]

If there is no state who is going to pay child allowances, maternity benefits and other benefits?

You sound so desperate. I am so interested in the psychology of human beings. It fascinates me. What you are saying here is that human beings can not function without a series of mechanic laws in place with people to tell is what to do and how to do it. it is understandable for people who have never lived in a world without a state to imagine what it would be like without one. But it is possible. Human beings do have the ability to function together in co-operation without the coercion of a state.

To answer your question specifically you need to look at what child allowances and maternity benifts etc are needed for. They are needed to protect the most vulnarbale people in society. The government has to pay a basic amount of money to people who are unemployed or single parents otherwise we would have lots of poor and starving people. Just to let you know, in case you dont, how much an unemployed person recieves. £42 a week. After you have paid your electircity, gas and water you barely have enough to eat, infact you dont usually, let alone enjoying any part of your life.


Within anarchy things like benifits wouldnt be needed. simple as that. people would not need to rely on government hand outs in order to get food or pay for basic rights such as water or electricity. These things should be supplied for free and would be. This now means that people are free top persue what ever they want.


You are under the mistaken impression that the middle classes would still be the ruling class in a socialist socioty...

No I am not. I am fully aware that the ruling class would be replaced by a new a new ruling class of "revolutionary intellegentsia."


state would still exist, but the previous state mechanism would be Stripped away.

Read state and revolution. Lenin very blatant says that the old state would not be stripped away, only taken control of and in some cases made even stronger. ie police force and oppression against "counter-revolutionaries".

What you fail to address is what constitutes a counter-revolutionary? With all these unconscious workers running around with guns what will happen if you piss them off. Or if there is no food. Kill them, just like in Kronstadt. You have taken control of one state and called it "the workers state" nothing more.


If the state does not exist we would live in a socioty of utter chaos, with no organisation, no order and no production... in short the socioty would collapse within weeks, if not sooner.

This is simply unconsciousness which has created fear. What you are saying is not a credible argument against anarchism. I suppose next you'll be saying "it could never work because we're all too selfish". Like RS2K said it's "Typical petty-bourgeois sniveling"

I think it is time to walk up a little guys and realise that actually us human beings are quite clever.


You have missed the important fact that we want to make the working class the ruling class.

Fine. It's a great idea. And I support it. But it is how which is strange. In order to make the working class the ruling class you want to have a dictatership, which come on people, isnt really operated by the workers. You have already admited that most of them wont be conscious let alone revolutionary leaders. it is operated by this "vanguard". A ruling elite. Which as history proves does not work!


It is a very important concept of communism that the state is an aparatus of class dominance

Why? The only excuse you give for the need of this state is so that we can oppress the bouregoisie and defend the revolution. Why? Why do we need a centralised state to do this. Because the workers are not conscious? probably thats right. Your revolutionary vanguard was so keen on getting into power that the workers consciousness came later.

If the movement brings the consciousness of the class to an advanced stage then they can organize themselves. Defending the revolution and oppressing the bouregois is not something areas will have to do national. They will only have to do it locally, and therefore can deal with what ever they need to deal with collectivly, working in co-operation with other areas.

It's a bit like saying I want to drive the car to the shops even though it's a five minute walk. It isnt necessary and wastes petrol. The state is not necessary and it leaves the workers in a vulnarable position.


in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state will be an apparatus of proletarian class dominance, hence its name.

I dont understand why you keep calling it proletrarian dominance. It isnt. The working class dont have any control. The "revolutionary intellectuals" do. A revolution can not be led by unconscious workers. I fail to see how you can have a revolution without them, but never mind. The people co-ordinating the revolution are the intellectuals. it is their dominance withc is supposedly defeding the revolution.


It is not meant to be egalitarian, the bourgeoisie will be the underclass. As long as classes exist, one will compete with the other. For equality, the working class must ceize power and suppress its oppressors, leaving only a single interest group: the people.

I agree.


state will exist in order to ensure that capital is always given to the workers by centralizing it and ensuring any attempts to personaly appropriate the labor of others for the advancement of any class other than the working classs are destroyed. This is ensuring equality.

We can agree that in order to safe-gaurd the revolution it must be international. We can also agree that in a revolutionary situation for most people wages are not going to be on the top of their list, defeding the revolution is probably going to be more important. After which society would be dramatically re-organized. Things like wages which are exploitation would not be wanted. Basic human rights like food, electricity and water would be provided for for free. Maybe in the first few years the work might be heavy going and tireing, but we would make it. Without the need of a centralised government and "bosses" and because the revolution was international, and presuming we won, we could co-operate on an international as wells as a national and local way.


Ensuring that the people are not subjugated by others is equality. The people must only work for the advancement of themselves as a class. And this is done through the state.

They are subjugated to the will of the central commitee. Ok, so they may all equally be subjugated but that does not make them free. The workers can not have freedom if their is some party elite telling them what to do. Of course the masses must work for the advancment of themselves, that is my point, but the state, as I have already said, is unnecessary if we preperation for any revolution that may happen is advanced properly.


The lack of a centralized government will certainly result in economic inequality.

Because the workers are too stupid to organize themselves and only the revolutionary leaders could have thought of this right?


The state will be a democratic organization of the people.

co-ordinated and controlled by an elite. What happens if the workers dont want the new leaders of the revolution? Do they have the right to get rid of them? I think not!


Whoever threatens the power of the state threatens the power of the of the proletariat and therefore have other interests in mind other than those of the people.

This just gives the ruling elite a blank cheque. What do you define a threat as? againl what happens if the workers rebel against the communist party?


You suggest we endure the suffering, the oppression, the slaughter, the exploitation, the enslavement of the people!? You are not a socialist.

no I am not a socialist. Not your kind anyway. As my aignature reads "we anarchists do not want to emancipate the people, we want the people to emancipate themselves". That is my point. You and I are not bigger than this struggle. We are insignificant in the whole great scheme of class war. It is not out duty to libterate other people, but it is our duty to make sure that the people get to a point whre they can liberate themselves. The revolution has to be done right. It has to be an awakening of the class, not of some great revolutionary leader bounding forth with all his rightousness proclaiming a new workers state. It must come through education. Through mass consciousness. If you ensure this you will ensure the victory of the revolution and real freedom. The need for a state will just cease to exist as conscious workers co-operate with each other in fighting capitalism. It is a human fact that conscious people can co-ordinate large scale action without centralised authority or hierarchies. There is nothing to suggest that this can not happen in a revolutioanry situation. Nothing at all.


So when will this journey towards anarchism finnaly achieve freedom? When you call it freedom? What is your goal? Something unattainable? How is it determined when the farthest attainable point has been achieved? Because then that is your actual goal! And you don't have one. Our goal is freedom and we know how to get there and we will!

It dosnt even make sense let alone pose any argument. If this is supposed to be some attack on anarchism fine. if you are saying that anarchism is not about freedom, well your an idiot. If you are saying that anarchism is unattainable you either reject consciousness or you do not have it fully. Anarchism will achieve freedom when the workers have destoyed capitalism and re-organized society through co-operation and federation. When there is no state and no leaders and the people enjoy a happy life of collectivity and creativity.

"Not whether we accomplish anarchism today, tomorrow, or within ten centuries, but that we walk towards anarchism today, tomorrow, and always." - Malatesta

[crazy comie]

The prolitarian would select their representitevs.
You can't just over come the bourgeoisie localy without any canteral control..
Anarchist tension you seem to not understand tha dicktatorship means the rule of a group or person in this case the groupis the prolitarian.

[Soviet power supreme]

Human beings do have the ability to function together in co-operation without the coercion of a state.

If I wouldn't believe this I wouldn't be here.


Within anarchy things like benifits wouldnt be needed. simple as that. people would not need to rely on government hand outs in order to get food or pay for basic rights such as water or electricity. These things should be supplied for free and would be. This now means that people are free top persue what ever they want.

Yes I know that in anarchist state but what about under revolution?

But you think that anarchists can win the war against the army and cappies.
In the history anarchists have only had couple citys in their control.Can a city supply itself under siege?Anarchists citys have always fallen to cappies and fascists.

Can anarchists win the war against the whole state?Do you think that revolution will last one day?If not then how do you supply these homeless,mothers,children,unemplyees,etc,etc under revolution?

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 5 2003, 04:28 PM

Human beings do have the ability to function together in co-operation without the coercion of a state.

If I wouldn't believe this I wouldn't be here.


Within anarchy things like benifits wouldnt be needed. simple as that. people would not need to rely on government hand outs in order to get food or pay for basic rights such as water or electricity. These things should be supplied for free and would be. This now means that people are free top persue what ever they want.

Yes I know that in anarchist state but what about under revolution?

But you think that anarchists can win the war against the army and cappies.
In the history anarchists have only had couple citys in their control.Can a city supply itself under siege?Anarchists citys have always fallen to cappies and fascists.

Can anarchists win the war against the whole state?Do you think that revolution will last one day?If not then how do you supply these homeless,mothers,children,unemplyees,etc,etc under revolution?
OH so true

[commie kg]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 5 2003, 08:26 AM
The prolitarian would select their representitevs.
You can't just over come the bourgeoisie localy without any canteral control..
Anarchist tension you seem to not understand tha dicktatorship means the rule of a group or person in this case the groupis the prolitarian.
I'm not sure you understand...

By the time a revolution rolls around, the people's mentality will have drastically changed. There would barely be any bourgeois to eliminate, and those that existed would be killed during the revolution most likely.

Revolution isn't happening tomorrow.

[The Feral Underclass]

The prolitarian would select their representitevs.

I agree, but you dont need a state in order for this to happen.

You can't just over come the bourgeoisie localy without any canteral control.

Why? What is central control some "revolutionary leaders" "directing" the defence of the revolution behind a desk. The defence of the revoluion just takes organization and this can be done by local areas co-operating with other areas and co-ordinating like that. There is absolutly no need for a centralised command structure giving out orders to obedient soldiers.

Your rationalizing my argument in completely the wrong way. A lack of central command does not mean disorganization. They are two seperate concepts. Organization is a complicated thing, but it is something that the workers can do without the need for a central committee etc.

Can a city supply itself under siege?Anarchists citys have always fallen to cappies and fascists.

If your referring to Barcelona (1936) the reason we lost that city was because of you mother fuckers. Instead of supporting the revolution with us you attacked the phone exchange and attacked our collectives executing anarchists left right and centre.

In kronstadt, instead of appeasing us, listening to us, you sent in Trotsky with some artillary and punded us into the sea. So don't you lecture me about the history of anarchist struggle. It was you lot who stabbed us in the back.

Anarchism does not mean the nothing will get done. It means things will get done just without a central command. If a city us under seige and needs supplies then the city will be supplied. What is your point?

Do you think that revolution will last one day?If not then how do you supply these homeless,mothers,children,unemplyees,etc,etc under revolution?

No of course ther revolution will not last a day. It may last years and the question you have posed about the vulnrable is interesting.

Each area has to be collectivised. Let us take my city of birth Sheffield as an example. Imagine that class consciousness has reached such an advanced level that the vast majority of workers are reading theory and understanding it. They have gone onto the streets and are trying to fight capitalism. The city would be collectivised to start with. The water and electricty supplies would be seized and police stations the town hall and factories would be taken under the control of the collective. Workers would be organized into a militia to defend the city from attack, things such as food distrabution would be organized, work teams to get the electirity going would be organized. The unemployed would not exist anymore. Unemployed is a bouregois concept. Every person would be working for the collective. Homless people would also join the collective. They may join a milia group or a works detail and in return would be provided for by the collective, given food and shelter. Every aspect of life would be accounted for and organized appropriatly. There is no need for a central committee to organize it. We can organize ourselves. Maybe the food group needed to communicate with manchester. So they would do it. Maybe the electricty group need an engineer from birmingham, so they would co-ordinate it with the elctricty group in birmingham. It is as simple as that. And as you can see, there is absolutly no need for a state mechanism or central command.

[Invader Zim]

Wow all that critisim with out actually explaining how a stateless system would work... Genius.

It's the state as "daddy" if not "god from whom all blessings flow".

It is utterly childish...the idea that we can do nothing for ourselves as a class and therefore we need "someone" to "do nice things for us".

No its not that, its just that how would you organise says creating a child welfair organisation, you critisised this persons argument but you dont say why its wrong. How do you expect any group of people too, say create a new schools, if they are not, told that the school will be build, not told what jobs they are doint in the construction of the school etc. Yes they could organise themselves, but how would they do that? Would everyone meet up on say a friday evening, and make a group desision, etc on who will do what? That is a form of organised socioty, and arguably a state mechanism.

Typical petty-bourgeois sniveling...what is really being expressed is the fear that without a strong state (with plenty of cops and prisons)

In my ideal state, Prisons would only for the most extream crime and for those offenders who refuse to take part in the community service programs that I would incorporate in my ideal state, that would be giving up their days off to work doing necessary state tasks, such litter picking etc, say 500 hours of that for theft.
And as you have never heard "Typical petty-bourgeois sniveling", you dont really have any comparison to go by.

he will lose his class privileges

What class would that be, my Grand parents were teachers, my mother was a teacher, now she's an office worker who slaves on a computer for a miserable wage. So what class does that make me?

This is simply unconsciousness which has created fear. What you are saying is not a credible argument against anarchism. I suppose next you'll be saying "it could never work because we're all too selfish". Like RS2K said it's "Typical petty-bourgeois sniveling"

Another idealist, when you wake up and see that anarchism is a heap of rubbish, I will forgive your past idiocy.

I suppose next you'll be saying "it could never work because we're all too selfish".

No, i'm saying it wont work because, it doesnt. No the main reason it wont work because its a dream, we would all like to live in the perfect utopia, but it aint going to happen, simply because nobody would know what they were going to be doing, unless people work together, and organise, and have some form of desision making process, such a system would be a form of state.

[Soviet power supreme]

I'm not sure you understand...

By the time a revolution rolls around, the people's mentality will have drastically changed. There would barely be any bourgeois to eliminate, and those that existed would be killed during the revolution most likely.

Revolution isn't happening tomorrow.

So do you think that there would be just fewcappies and fascists?

There are lots of cappies and fascists in the world.You can't convert them in to communism.So i think that revolution won't ever be over one night and there would be lot of killing.


If your referring to Barcelona (1936) the reason we lost that city was because of you mother fuckers. Instead of supporting the revolution with us you attacked the phone exchange and attacked our collectives executing anarchists left right and centre.

So you think that you could have beat the Franco's army?No we wouldn't have won that not even if we would have combine our strength.



If a city us under seige and needs supplies then the city will be supplied. What is your point?

I mean that when the city is surrounded by army.How do you think that it provide supplies?Do you think that there will be a air bridge like in Germany?

[The Feral Underclass]

No its not that, its just that how would you organise says creating a child welfair organisation

erm...well....whoever needed a child organization would organize one.....see how easy it is?


How do you expect any group of people too, say create a new schools, if they are not, told that the school will be build, not told what jobs they are doint in the construction of the school etc. Yes they could organise themselves, but how would they do that?

Look! If you leave in a collective and you need a school and somebody says we need a school and the collective agree then you build one. Those people who can lay bricks lay bricks...those people who cement, cement, those people who can decorate, decorate. If you do not have someone in this collective who can do one of these things you find someone in another collective who can do it. Each skilled person would be responsable for his/her material needs ie a bricker would be responsable for finding bricks, a painter would be responsable for finding paint. Does this answer your question?


Would everyone meet up on say a friday evening, and make a group desision, etc on who will do what? That is a form of organised socioty, and arguably a state mechanism.

I dont know what you have been reading about anarchism, but when did it say that we stood against organization. Anarchism is about hypo-organization. Just because we dont want hierarchies or central command structures does not mean we can not be organized.

The state is a body of laws and institutions desgined to keep one group of people in control over another group of people. That is what a state it. A group of people, ie a collective, meeting on a friday night to discuss the collectives needs and wants is not such an entity.


but it aint going to happen, simply because nobody would know what they were going to be doing, unless people work together, and organise, and have some form of desision making process, such a system would be a form of state.

HELLO....WAKE UP!!! People working together, organizing and making decisions is not the same as having hierarchies and central control. They are separable. You do not need a central command, hierarchies and the mechanisms of a state in order to work together, organize and make decisions.


Another idealist, when you wake up and see that anarchism is a heap of rubbish, I will forgive your past idiocy.

So much for everyone being entitled to their own oppinions. I am not ashamed to be called an idealist so it is not an offence. If we want to keep this debate savoury I suggest you refrain from personal insults. If you do not believe what I believe then fine, but acutally i believe in my beliefs very strongly and I dont think there rubbish at all.



No, i'm saying it wont work because, it doesnt.

And I suppose Leninism has been a huge success has it?


No the main reason it wont work because its a dream, we would all like to live in the perfect utopia

i think it is a real reflection of humanity when human beings refuse to accept that they could live in a world that might just be that little utopian...oh my, couldnt live in a happy, egalitarian, free society...who would make my beefburgers!

Yes Anarchism is a dream, just as the abolition of slavery was, just as aeroplanes were. This does not refute anarchism as a principle to believe in.

[The Feral Underclass]

There are lots of cappies and fascists in the world.You can't convert them in to communism.So i think that revolution won't ever be over one night and there would be lot of killing.

We dont want to "convert" cappies of fascists, we want to educate the working class so they can emancipate themselves. Of course most workers harbour slight capitalistic tendancies and/or rascist views but these feelings and beliefs are due to alienation and exploitation, not because of some deep rooted love of capitalism and hatred of black people etc. Once workers understand what capitalism is and how it effects them, i am pretty sure that they wont want it anymore. When i realised I decided not to have it, just as Redstar and maybe even you and we are no more special that the average worker.


So you think that you could have beat the Franco's army?No we wouldn't have won that not even if we would have combine our strength.

How the hell should I flippin' well know. I wasn't there and I can't see into the past of parallel universies. What i do know is that if the Communists had joined the anarchists we would have stood a better chance. As it was the communists attacked the anarchists and destoyed their collectives. So, thanks to them, we will never know.


I mean that when the city is surrounded by army.How do you think that it provide supplies?Do you think that there will be a air bridge like in Germany?

this is such an abstract question. Do you Leninists have special powers that can overcome problems like this. What does a central command system do better in a situtation like this? i don't know how to answer this question because it would be a strategic decision the militia defending the city would have to make.

[crazy comie]

World revaloution might take quit a while so you would have to defend the areas in wich the revaloution had taken over and send sapllies to where there needed for this you would need some sort of central goverment. The dictatorship of the prolitarian is also neaccecary to organise things redy for the disoulotion of the state. Pepole would run the most ceantrl parliment or soviet or what ever you want to call it would have no head only representitevs equal in power.

[The Feral Underclass]

World revaloution might take quit a while so you would have to defend the areas in wich the revaloution had taken over and send sapllies to where there needed for this you would need some sort of central goverment.

Sending supplies to another country would be rediculas. During a revoluionary situation these supplies are going to be greatly needed by our forces, let alone the French or Belgium. They would have their own supplies to have and use. Even if a country such as Bolivia needed weapons and we had them, during the revolution it would be impossible to ship out guns across the atlantic.

if you are talking about shipping weapons across the country the need for a central command again is unnecessary. Weapons and arms should be collectivly controlled, not controlled by some Weapons Commisar appointed by the central committee. If I was defending Sheffield against an attack from counter-revolutionaries and we needed supplies we would have to co-ordinate it with other collectives through the vast welath of communication technology we have. Sheffield and other city collectives would have to co-operate with each other in order to defend our cities. it may be the case that their is a factory in the north for example which is collectivised which produces weapons. It would then distrabute them according to the needs of the collectives defending themselves. This I am sure may seem to be a central command structure but it is not. Each person in this factory has a responsability yes, but it is a collective responsability to defend the revolution, not the responsability of leaders directing us in "the interests of the workers".

What you have to understand is that what you are advocating is the creation of these officials and commisars who are placing the power of the revolution into their hands. this being a small group of people. namly the vangaurd who only right to be in control of these things is that he or she is an intellectual. This revolution is not about intellectuals it is about the working class, and no matter how much you want to call it the workers central committee or soviets or what ever, the fact still remains that the revolution is controlled by this elite. Although i can understand the practical reasons for having such a central command structure I do not believe it is necessary and on a theoretic level undermines and opposes the very nature of the revolution.


The dictatorship of the prolitarian is also neaccecary to organise things redy for the disoulotion of the state.

But we dont need to have the state in the first place. Why go through all this, risking another Stalin, when we can organize ourselves in such a way that this "dictatership" is not needed.


Pepole would run the most ceantrl parliment or soviet or what ever you want to call it would have no head only representitevs equal in power.

What people? A selected "intellectual" elite. power corrupts it is a proven fact. "being is consciousness" as Marx said, and how can we safe gaurd the revolution from these people once this "equal" power is placed into their hands. I believe that although this is a reason, it is a weak argument. The point made her has to be that the nature of this vanguard is counter productive to the advancement of the working class. The working class are being led and the point of any armed struggle against capitalism has to be for the working class to lead themselves. From the beginning!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2003, 02:13 PM

No its not that, its just that how would you organise says creating a child welfair organisation

erm...well....whoever needed a child organization would organize one.....see how easy it is?


How do you expect any group of people too, say create a new schools, if they are not, told that the school will be build, not told what jobs they are doint in the construction of the school etc. Yes they could organise themselves, but how would they do that?

Look! If you leave in a collective and you need a school and somebody says we need a school and the collective agree then you build one. Those people who can lay bricks lay bricks...those people who cement, cement, those people who can decorate, decorate. If you do not have someone in this collective who can do one of these things you find someone in another collective who can do it. Each skilled person would be responsable for his/her material needs ie a bricker would be responsable for finding bricks, a painter would be responsable for finding paint. Does this answer your question?


Would everyone meet up on say a friday evening, and make a group desision, etc on who will do what? That is a form of organised socioty, and arguably a state mechanism.

I dont know what you have been reading about anarchism, but when did it say that we stood against organization. Anarchism is about hypo-organization. Just because we dont want hierarchies or central command structures does not mean we can not be organized.

The state is a body of laws and institutions desgined to keep one group of people in control over another group of people. That is what a state it. A group of people, ie a collective, meeting on a friday night to discuss the collectives needs and wants is not such an entity.


but it aint going to happen, simply because nobody would know what they were going to be doing, unless people work together, and organise, and have some form of desision making process, such a system would be a form of state.

HELLO....WAKE UP!!! People working together, organizing and making decisions is not the same as having hierarchies and central control. They are separable. You do not need a central command, hierarchies and the mechanisms of a state in order to work together, organize and make decisions.


Another idealist, when you wake up and see that anarchism is a heap of rubbish, I will forgive your past idiocy.

So much for everyone being entitled to their own oppinions. I am not ashamed to be called an idealist so it is not an offence. If we want to keep this debate savoury I suggest you refrain from personal insults. If you do not believe what I believe then fine, but acutally i believe in my beliefs very strongly and I dont think there rubbish at all.



No, i'm saying it wont work because, it doesnt.

And I suppose Leninism has been a huge success has it?


No the main reason it wont work because its a dream, we would all like to live in the perfect utopia

i think it is a real reflection of humanity when human beings refuse to accept that they could live in a world that might just be that little utopian...oh my, couldnt live in a happy, egalitarian, free society...who would make my beefburgers!

Yes Anarchism is a dream, just as the abolition of slavery was, just as aeroplanes were. This does not refute anarchism as a principle to believe in.
No you misunderstand me, I am not arguing that anarchism and organisation are incompatible, but I am arguing that anarchism cab survive without some form of state mechanism, which you deny. You say people would just make desisions, without some form of state mechanism their would be no platforms for such deisions to be made.

Then the simple responce to your hairbrained scheam is, what if people refuse?

Say your bricklayer says, no I wont work, unless I get a higher food ration, or says I worked hard last week this week Im having a break.

What would you do? Punish that person? If so you would be setting up a hierarchy, where one person has more authority than another person. If you did nothing or gave in to there demands, then soon your system would collapse.

Either way your fucked.

PS anarchism has never worked, and never will. But other forms of socialism have.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not going to continue this discussion if you keep making sly and personal attacks on my beliefs. If you are unable to speak respectfully then I have no interest in continuing the debate with you. I hope that is clear.


but I am arguing that anarchism cab survive without some form of state mechanism, which you deny.

Yes...yes I do! So do we agree to disagree or should I begin repeating myself.


You say people would just make desisions, without some form of state mechanism their would be no platforms for such deisions to be made.

people wouldn't just make decisions it would be a collective process. What do you mean by platform? and why does a "state mechanism" need to exist in order for people to aware of what they need. Collectives could organize themselves to have a meeting every Wednesday to discuss matters of the collective. What state mechanisms are needed for this.


Say your bricklayer says, no I wont work, unless I get a higher food ration, or says I worked hard last week this week Im having a break.

I can not predict how a collective would deal with something like this but if I was involved in a collective and something like this happened I would say "fine, dont do it" and find someone else and bring it up at the collective meeting. The person would feel very isolated when presented with an argument against his actions. Each member has a responsability to the collective to help, if that person did not help and then demanded higher food rations he would be met with abolsute outrage from the collective. They would have a choice to "help and recieve rationing just as everyone else or dont do".

If a person has been working for many weeks without a break of course should be allowed to have a break. If the workers said "I worked hard last week this week Im having a break" the collective would say "ok, we will see you in a weeks time". If the worker did not come back then they dont come back. There will be many other people who would be willing to help build schools etc.

These arguments are interesting and you keep bringing them up, but you do it without telling me why a state mechanism would be able to resolve the problem any better?


If you did nothing or gave in to there demands, then soon your system would collapse

Allowing people to take breaks when they feel over worked is not as bad as your making it out to be. If someone demanded more food or whatever than anyone else they would be told they couldnt and why.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2003, 11:28 AM
I am not going to continue this discussion if you keep making sly and personal attacks on my beliefs. If you are unable to speak respectfully then I have no interest in continuing the debate with you. I hope that is clear.


but I am arguing that anarchism cab survive without some form of state mechanism, which you deny.

Yes...yes I do! So do we agree to disagree or should I begin repeating myself.


You say people would just make desisions, without some form of state mechanism their would be no platforms for such deisions to be made.

people wouldn't just make decisions it would be a collective process. What do you mean by platform? and why does a "state mechanism" need to exist in order for people to aware of what they need. Collectives could organize themselves to have a meeting every Wednesday to discuss matters of the collective. What state mechanisms are needed for this.


Say your bricklayer says, no I wont work, unless I get a higher food ration, or says I worked hard last week this week Im having a break.

I can not predict how a collective would deal with something like this but if I was involved in a collective and something like this happened I would say "fine, dont do it" and find someone else and bring it up at the collective meeting. The person would feel very isolated when presented with an argument against his actions. Each member has a responsability to the collective to help, if that person did not help and then demanded higher food rations he would be met with abolsute outrage from the collective. They would have a choice to "help and recieve rationing just as everyone else or dont do".

If a person has been working for many weeks without a break of course should be allowed to have a break. If the workers said "I worked hard last week this week Im having a break" the collective would say "ok, we will see you in a weeks time". If the worker did not come back then they dont come back. There will be many other people who would be willing to help build schools etc.

These arguments are interesting and you keep bringing them up, but you do it without telling me why a state mechanism would be able to resolve the problem any better?


If you did nothing or gave in to there demands, then soon your system would collapse

Allowing people to take breaks when they feel over worked is not as bad as your making it out to be. If someone demanded more food or whatever than anyone else they would be told they couldnt and why.
I am not going to continue this discussion if you keep making sly and personal attacks on my beliefs. If you are unable to speak respectfully then I have no interest in continuing the debate with you.

If you dont want you beliefs attacked, then dont put them up for debate. I have no need to be respectful to anarchy or anarchists because they dont deserve any respect. In short if you cant stand the heat get out the fire.

Yes...yes I do! So do we agree to disagree or should I begin repeating myself.

Ahh that was a spelling error on my part, dyslexia and fast typing allow me to make some atlerations: -

but I am arguing that anarchism cant survive without some form of state mechanism, which you deny.


people wouldn't just make decisions it would be a collective process.

Which would be a state mechanism.

What do you mean by platform?

A "forum" or "system" so people could put forward their idea's etc.

and why does a "state mechanism" need to exist in order for people to aware of what they need.

The people may know their own problems, but how would they know the problems of some one 10 blocks away? Their would need to be some form of system to inform others of issue's which have been raised, and then some form of desision making process would have to be implimented, in order to to allocate resources etc.

What state mechanisms are needed for this.


Well that would be for you to decide.

They would have a choice to "help and recieve rationing just as everyone else or dont do".

Then you have just created a hierarchy, where the minority for whatever reason are penalised because they have a different need to the rest of the community. You also support "forced" labour, so much for the libertarian in you.

These arguments are interesting and you keep bringing them up, but you do it without telling me why a state mechanism would be able to resolve the problem any better?

Think of a state mecahism to be the basis of socioty.

Allowing people to take breaks when they feel over worked is not as bad as your making it out to be.

I was thinking more of a a striker.

But the real point of the question was what do you do with those who want more from your system than everyone else, capitalists and the like.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you dont want you beliefs attacked, then dont put them up for debate. I have no need to be respectful to anarchy or anarchists because they dont deserve any respect. In short if you cant stand the heat get out the fire.

I dont mnd having my beliefs critcised that is the whole point of debate. I am completely amazed that you can sit there and tell me that you can not respect me or my beliefs, indeed I do not deserve respect. Well fine. You have proven to be ignorant and incapable of accepting other peoples points of view. I am not interested in talking to people like you.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2003, 04:54 PM


Sending supplies to another country would be rediculas. During a revoluionary situation these supplies are going to be greatly needed by our forces, let alone the French or Belgium. They would have their own supplies to have and use. Even if a country such as Bolivia needed weapons and we had them, during the revolution it would be impossible to ship out guns across the atlantic.

if you are talking about shipping weapons across the country the need for a central command again is unnecessary. Weapons and arms should be collectivly controlled, not controlled by some Weapons Commisar appointed by the central committee. If I was defending Sheffield against an attack from counter-revolutionaries and we needed supplies we would have to co-ordinate it with other collectives through the vast welath of communication technology we have. Sheffield and other city collectives would have to co-operate with each other in order to defend our cities. it may be the case that their is a factory in the north for example which is collectivised which produces weapons. It would then distrabute them according to the needs of the collectives defending themselves. This I am sure may seem to be a central command structure but it is not. Each person in this factory has a responsability yes, but it is a collective responsability to defend the revolution, not the responsability of leaders directing us in "the interests of the workers".

What you have to understand is that what you are advocating is the creation of these officials and commisars who are placing the power of the revolution into their hands. this being a small group of people. namly the vangaurd who only right to be in control of these things is that he or she is an intellectual. This revolution is not about intellectuals it is about the working class, and no matter how much you want to call it the workers central committee or soviets or what ever, the fact still remains that the revolution is controlled by this elite. Although i can understand the practical reasons for having such a central command structure I do not believe it is necessary and on a theoretic level undermines and opposes the very nature of the revolution.


The dictatorship of the prolitarian is also neaccecary to organise things redy for the disoulotion of the state.

But we dont need to have the state in the first place. Why go through all this, risking another Stalin, when we can organize ourselves in such a way that this "dictatership" is not needed.


Pepole would run the most ceantrl parliment or soviet or what ever you want to call it would have no head only representitevs equal in power.

What people? A selected "intellectual" elite. power corrupts it is a proven fact. "being is consciousness" as Marx said, and how can we safe gaurd the revolution from these people once this "equal" power is placed into their hands. I believe that although this is a reason, it is a weak argument. The point made her has to be that the nature of this vanguard is counter productive to the advancement of the working class. The working class are being led and the point of any armed struggle against capitalism has to be for the working class to lead themselves. From the beginning!
You could send the suplies far further with central organiseation of transport.
as i said you wouldn't have one all mighty commisar.
Without the state tempereraly there would be no organiseation for the deffence or infasturucture of a large area.
Actually i wasn't talking about a select few i was talking aboutany one who didn't break the rules mentionde in my dictatorship of the prolitarian thread.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 7 2003, 12:24 PM

If you dont want you beliefs attacked, then dont put them up for debate. I have no need to be respectful to anarchy or anarchists because they dont deserve any respect. In short if you cant stand the heat get out the fire.

I dont mnd having my beliefs critcised that is the whole point of debate. I am completely amazed that you can sit there and tell me that you can not respect me or my beliefs, indeed I do not deserve respect. Well fine. You have proven to be ignorant and incapable of accepting other peoples points of view. I am not interested in talking to people like you.
I dont mnd having my beliefs critcised that is the whole point of debate.

Then what are you whining about then?

I am completely amazed that you can sit there and tell me that you can not respect me or my beliefs, indeed I do not deserve respect.

Respect is not an entitlement, it is earned. Anarchism has been a miserable failure, why should I respect it any more than raving Loony partyism? And what exactly have you dont to diserve my respect, all I have seen you do is attack leninists and refute arguments without putting forward any of your own. What is there to respect in that?

You have proven to be ignorant and incapable of accepting other peoples points of view.

Thats interesting considering that I get on with, some Leninists, some Marxist leninists, some council communists, some christian socilaists and some liberals. No mate its just YOU.

I am not interested in talking to people like you.

Good thats one less whining anarchist to bore me with your incoherant babble.

[crazy comie]

As enigma said respect is erende and anarchy is hardly the best thought out political system.

[The Feral Underclass]

Respect is not an entitlement, it is earned.

I'm not asking you to respect me, I am asking you to respect the fact I believe in something. Just because it is not what you believe does not give you the right to be so rude.


Anarchism has been a miserable failure, why should I respect it any more than raving Loony partyism?

So has Leninism! I respect the fact your a Leninist. I don't hate you or dislike you because your a Leninist. I might not agree with your beliefs but I respect the fact you have them.


And what exactly have you dont to diserve my respect,

I'm not asking for your respect. Just that you respect I have different beliefs.


all I have seen you do is attack leninists

I presume you mean personally.....When? Except sc4r who deserved it!



and refute arguments without putting forward any of your own.

Of course I have refuted arguments. you are doing exactly the same. And I have put forward my own arguments, hence the thread and its contents.


Thats interesting considering that I get on with, some Leninists, some Marxist leninists, some council communists, some christian socilaists and some liberals. No mate its just YOU

What is your problem? I apologise if if I have offended you some how but I dont understand this hatred you have for me. You don't even know me. And if you dislike me without knowing me, simply because I am an anarchist you have serious problems. Why dont you try having an open mind?


Good thats one less whining anarchist to bore me with your incoherant babble.

Nothing I have said was whinning or incoherant babble. What I have said has made perfect sense. Just because you dont agree with it does not mean it is incoherant or whinning. These are the kind of things right wing bigots say.

Just chill out man. I'm actually a really nice guy!

[The Feral Underclass]

You could send the suplies far further with central organiseation of transport.

Why?


Without the state tempereraly there would be no organiseation for the deffence or infasturucture of a large area.

Why?


Actually i wasn't talking about a select few i was talking aboutany one who didn't break the rules mentionde in my dictatorship of the prolitarian thread.

I dont understand what any of this means. Could you please explain it a little more clearer?

[Cassius Clay]

Enigma a 'Leninist'. LOL, maybe after a few pints but that's it.

Not unless ofcourse he's had a sudden transformation. Happens to all of us eventually. Dont worry Mr Anarchist most of us 'flame' eachother here, more often that not it's forgtten about soon enough, or until the next time. Well I say most of the time there was that shooting, and then that kidnapping. But it's all in the past now.

Shake hands and make up!

For your both wrong. The turth lies with Comrades Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha among many others (myself included).

Long Live Cassius Clay and true Socialism!

And here's to a worth wile post. (everybody claps)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 10 2003, 03:52 AM
Enigma a 'Leninist'. LOL, maybe after a few pints but that's it.

Not unless ofcourse he's had a sudden transformation. Happens to all of us eventually. Dont worry Mr Anarchist most of us 'flame' eachother here, more often that not it's forgtten about soon enough, or until the next time. Well I say most of the time there was that shooting, and then that kidnapping. But it's all in the past now.

Shake hands and make up!

For your both wrong. The turth lies with Comrades Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha among many others (myself included).

Long Live Cassius Clay and true Socialism!

And here's to a worth wile post. (everybody claps)
:D Fuck off you goddamn stalinist wanker... :D

Nahh you know I love you man...

Enigma a 'Leninist'. LOL, maybe after a few pints but that's it.

As CC said, I am no Leninist... I am my own ideology, which incorporates all ideologies and exculdes all ideologies, to an extent.

Not unless ofcourse he's had a sudden transformation. Happens to all of us eventually.

I pride myself on consistancy.

Dont worry Mr Anarchist most of us 'flame' eachother here, more often that not it's forgtten about soon enough, or until the next time.

Yes, but I didnt flame him, until he went on about respect, hell I was "tame".


For your both wrong. The turth lies with Comrades Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha among many others (myself included).

Long Live Cassius Clay and true Socialism!





NEVER

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2003, 08:54 PM

You could send the suplies far further with central organiseation of transport.

Why?


Without the state tempereraly there would be no organiseation for the deffence or infasturucture of a large area.

Why?


Actually i wasn't talking about a select few i was talking aboutany one who didn't break the rules mentionde in my dictatorship of the prolitarian thread.

I dont understand what any of this means. Could you please explain it a little more clearer?
1 becuse there is less bickering betwean regeons.
2 orrganisation right after the revoulotion from the state would be neassecary.
3 almost any one.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is english your mother tongue?


1 becuse there is less bickering betwean regeons.

Why would a central organization stop this from happening?


2 orrganisation right after the revoulotion from the state would be neassecary.

please stop asserting fact without telling me why. I am fully aware of what you think is necessary, what I am asking you to do is tell me why you think it is necessary? And I am talking about you! Not Lenin!


3 almost any one.

This dosnt make it any clearer for me. I did not understand what it was you said in the first place, which was:-


Actually i wasn't talking about a select few i was talking aboutany one who didn't break the rules mentionde in my dictatorship of the prolitarian thread.

[Soviet power supreme]

If your referring to Barcelona (1936) the reason we lost that city was because of you mother fuckers. Instead of supporting the revolution with us you attacked the phone exchange and attacked our collectives executing anarchists left right and centre.[QUOTE]

Why did they trust the communists in Barcelona?
Didn't they know that communists would like to build a society like U.S.S.R.?

In kronstadt, instead of appeasing us, listening to us, you sent in Trotsky with some artillary and punded us into the sea. So don't you lecture me about the history of anarchist struggle. It was you lot who stabbed us in the back.


Kronstadt just shows how effective your collectives are against army with leadership.When the shit hits the fan they make wrong decisions or end up fighting with each others.

Anarchism does not mean the nothing will get done. It means things will get done just without a central command. If a city us under seige and needs supplies then the city will be supplied. What is your point?[QUOTE]

Was Kronstadt supplied under siege?What about Barcelona?

My point is we need a proletarian army to crush the state not just take over factories.If we just take city under control, we gonna lose it sooner or later to cappies and their assistants.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why did they trust the communists in Barcelona?

Because we were fighting the same enemy! and what is in question here is that you stated that we had never been able to hold a city, and I said if you where referring to Barcelona then the reason it wasn't held was because of the communists.


Kronstadt just shows how effective your collectives are against army with leadership.When the shit hits the fan they make wrong decisions or end up fighting with each others.

Granted it was a little difficult to fight artillary when all you have is guns and conviction. Kronstadt didnt fall because of ineffective decision making, it failed because they had bigger guns than us!

if we are going to discuss the fatalities of each others ideologies then what about Russia, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba and North Korea. Leninism, Stalinism, what ever you want to call it, 7 different kinds of proof that Authotarian communism leads to class divisions, the rise of a new ruling class, and eventually capitalism


My point is we need a proletarian army to crush the state not just take over factories.If we just take city under control, we gonna lose it sooner or later to cappies and their assistants.

You still haven't explained to me why we need centralized command to do this?

[crazy comie]

Acctualy english is my mother tonge i just can't spell or punctuate well.
A centrall organisation would stop bickering from happening becuse it would be connserned with the whole area under revoulotionary control.
Organisation from the state is conserend with the good of a larger area.
I explained what i ment by saying almost any one that means anyone who wasn't in prison or owned a factory or was a stock brocker etc.

[Soviet power supreme]

Granted it was a little difficult to fight artillary when all you have is guns and conviction. Kronstadt didnt fall because of ineffective decision making, it failed because they had bigger guns than us!

When you ever gonna have bigger guns than armies?


You still haven't explained to me why we need centralized command to do this?

Tell me about these collectives.Would there be many collectives in one city or just one?If just one collective, wouldn't it be hard to make decisions for example if its Tokio(30 million people).If many collectives,would they work with each others?You think that all collectives have same thoughts about defending the revolution?

[The Feral Underclass]

A centrall organisation would stop bickering from happening becuse it would be connserned with the whole area under revoulotionary control.

So you would suppress debate, is that what your saying? You are talking about a revolution in the context of there being hardly any class consciousness among the workers.

If you have an advanced working class who are relativly at the same concsious level, will understand the same thing and want the same thing. Any bikering that would accur would not be on the fundamental level you are talking about. People will be working to together for the same thing, why would the argue, they would understand by doing this they are jepodising the revolution.

If however your revolutionary vangaurd "lead" the workers into an armed insurrection without gaining such a level of class consciousness the workers will not understand things fully, they will not all be wanting the same thing, indeed, they will not know what the same thing is, and of course you will need a centralised command structure with intellectual revolutionary leaders, thinking, acting and fighting for them.


Organisation from the state is conserend with the good of a larger area.

Do not confuse the nature of a state. The state is concerned with allowing a group of people to remain in power by controlling all insturments at it's desposal. That is what a state is!


I explained what i ment by saying almost any one that means anyone who wasn't in prison or owned a factory or was a stock brocker etc.

Excuse me if i'm being stupid but i have absolutly no idea what your talking about :blink:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 11 2003, 08:16 PM

Granted it was a little difficult to fight artillary when all you have is guns and conviction. Kronstadt didnt fall because of ineffective decision making, it failed because they had bigger guns than us!

When you ever gonna have bigger guns than armies?


You still haven't explained to me why we need centralized command to do this?

Tell me about these collectives.Would there be many collectives in one city or just one?If just one collective, wouldn't it be hard to make decisions for example if its Tokio(30 million people).If many collectives,would they work with each others?You think that all collectives have same thoughts about defending the revolution?
You have an excelent point.

Even if the anarchists did set up such "collectives" (which I add is a socialist principal (who's only truly successful attempt was in New Lanark)) then how in a large city would they gain their supplys, no fields in a city.

Sorry AT but anarchism is a dream, a happy dream but nothing more.


BTW Mexico city is the largest city in the world and has a population of 22 million, so how you get Tokyo having 30 million is beyond me... But then again I have seen New York quoted at 20 million, so god knows... :D

[The Feral Underclass]

When you ever gonna have bigger guns than armies?

I can not predict how a revolution is going to happen. I would hope it came from mass consciousness. As consiousness developed there are going to be many confrontations with the ruling class, this gives the movement an opportunity to organize and test the water so to speak. By the time the workers feel confident to confront the ruling class in order to expropriate the means of production we will be highly organized.

When there are hundreds of thousands of workers on the streets across Britain and the army and the police come, let them. I think the very sight of us will make them capitulate. Remember, soldiers and police officers are exploited as much as the average worker, a lot more set and deranged in there understanding of society, but none-the-less I think the majoirty of them, as history has also proved, will join the barricades and bring their weapons with them.

Again it is hard to predict how the movement will be organized in such an advanced stage, maybe weapons will have been purchased ready for the day, i simply can not say. But having said that, come the revolution, gurellia tactics work very effectivly. They worked very well in Vietnam, Cuba and now in Iraq. We can also organize covert operations against bouregois forces which the IRA did back in the 20's. They attacked police stations and armouries and took weapons.


Tell me about these collectives.Would there be many collectives in one city or just one?If just one collective, wouldn't it be hard to make decisions for example if its Tokio(30 million people).If many collectives,would they work with each others?You think that all collectives have same thoughts about defending the revolution?

For a start we are extemly advanced in communication technology, who knows, by the time of the revolution we might have walkie talkie watches that shoot lazers out of them and turn into helicopters at the switch of a button. My point being, that we can communicate with each other very easily.

Baring this in mind, let us take Tokyo which has a population between 20 and 30 million. Each area of Tokyo will have a collective. A collective being an area which has expropriated the means of productions and collectivised them without a central command or hierarchies, people working together in order to produce what the collective needs in order for people to live. Everyone would have a certain responsability and in return for fullfilling that responsability would be provided for. obviously things such as the procurement of materials will be done from outside collectives maybe in return for something else.

Now in a revolutionary situation bouregois foces in a place like Tokyo, because of its size, will attack from within the city and in different ways all across the city. Collective one will defend itself differently to collective two and therefore it is up to the relevant collective to decide on how to defend themselves. As I have already said to Crazy Commie people will all understand why they are fighting and therefore will die fighting rather than go back to capitalism. This means that our comrades will be too busy fighting those bastards to fight with each other. They will work together as brother and sister to smash capitalism.

Of course now you have questions such as "what happens if a collective needs to be reinforced or needs supplies." Remember that not every collective will need the same defence and therefore volunteers will come to that collective to reinforce it, using the wonderful world of technology to co-ordinate, the same with supplies and, unfortunatly, not even a central command structure can overcome the onstacles of distance and time so unfortunatly if it takes 4 hours to get from Birmingham to Sheffield then unless we have a special machine that transports us in seconds thta is the way it is going to have to be.

[The Feral Underclass]

...how in a large city would they gain their supplys, no fields in a city.

If you are talking about a post revolutionary situation it is very simple...from where ever the necessary supplies came from.

If you are talking about how you would supply a city under siege it would be done anyway possible.

You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. Refuting arguments without backing them up. How would you, in your Leninist way, supply a city under siege with corn to make bread?


Sorry AT but anarchism is a dream, a happy dream but nothing more.

So was the emancipation of the slaves for centuries. Dreams do come true!

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2003, 09:44 PM

...how in a large city would they gain their supplys, no fields in a city.

If you are talking about a post revolutionary situation it is very simple...from where ever the necessary supplies came from.

If you are talking about how you would supply a city under siege it would be done anyway possible.

You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. Refuting arguments without backing them up. How would you, in your Leninist way, supply a city under siege with corn to make bread?


Sorry AT but anarchism is a dream, a happy dream but nothing more.

So was the emancipation of the slaves for centuries. Dreams do come true!
Well as Im not a goddam leninist... :P

If you are talking about a post revolutionary situation it is very simple...from where ever the necessary supplies came from.

With out some form of state allocation system how would you allocate these food stuffs from the area of production? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs?


Do you get the idea now? Production is a complex cycle, of which I have only shown a very limited part of for one necessary industrial process, without some form of higher organisation, from a person with a higher view of what is needed, then socioty would fail to function.

I 100% agree with cutting unecessary "red tape", but anarchism is truly insane.

You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. Refuting arguments without backing them up.

No I have backed up all my statements, I, in that particualr case, failed to elaborate my point. There is a differance.

So was the emancipation of the slaves for centuries. Dreams do come true!

The abolition of Slavery was as inevitable the changing of the seasons.

However your right some dreams come true, some win the lottery, whats the chanse of that 1 in 47,000,000

add another few 0's on the end, and you get the chanses of anarchism ever succeeding for any substancial period of time.

[The Feral Underclass]

With out some form of state allocation system how would you allocate these food stuffs from the area of production?

What is it you don't understand? How many more times will I have to answer this question before it sinks into your head? I do not ask you to agree, merely understand. God knows how many times you have asked me this question.

If we take bread for instance, in order to make it at a bakers you need wheat, milk etc. These things may be produced miles away from where the bakery is situated. So, when the baker needs wheat, he picks up the telephone and calls the big wheat farm and says "hello Mr Farmer, can I please have some wheat" then the farmer says "of course, how is next thursday?" and then the baker says "Oh thursday, that's great, thank you Mr Farmer."


Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs?

You are so neurotic! All this flapping about, who will do this? who will do that? What you still have failed to tell me is how a central command structure would do it. You are posing rediculas questions about organization which I can not predict. Which worker will drive the lorry? What kind of a question is that. I don't know which worker will drive the lorry maybe Steve Twaddle from Berkshire.

I can not predict how people would be selected. Maybe it is done on a voluntary level, maybe people are selected on a rota basis. Demarchy has a lot to offer. Running an oil rig is a necessary task and maybe there are hundreds of people who want to do it and therefore the problem is dealt with, maybe there isnt but when you have conscious workers all wanting to take responsability then I do not think it will be so difficult to find people.

Can you now please explain to me how a central government would erform any better than independent indivicuals working in co-operation? Why do you need this central government to distrabute wheat or milk or supply cities? What is it about this centralised state that has such mystical powers?

[crazy comie]

I am saying you can debate but once a choice for defence has been voted on it must be followed. Individual areas would think of commpleatly diffrent stratagies wich may not fit together.
Your comment on the state keeping one class in power is true but this time it is the prolitarian class as i said at the begining of the thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am saying you can debate but once a choice for defence has been voted on it must be followed. Individual areas would think of commpleatly diffrent stratagies wich may not fit together.

Communication and co-ordination is key here. If two areas need to work together in defence then they can do that through meetings and communication.


Your comment on the state keeping one class in power is true but this time it is the prolitarian class as i said at the begining of the thread.

no, it is not the proletarian class it is a group of "revolutionary intellectuals," working in the interests of the working class. Control is taken by "professional revolutionaries" or a vanguard.

[Soviet power supreme]

You are doing exactly what you accused me of doing. Refuting arguments without backing them up. How would you, in your Leninist way, supply a city under siege with corn to make bread?

But Leninists aren't trying to get only one city.They are trying to crush the bourgeoise state.

What you are trying to say is that every worker in city is educated and they all are communist fanatics.

Of course we don't need leadership if they all are educated and fanatics.

But is there a chance that they all are educated and fanatics?

We need a leninist state to educate them.You think that workers will be educated themselves.But is that going to happen in bourgeoise state?

There are lot of propaganda, people are sent to jail, some are bribed by cappies etc,etc.

And how many of workers must be educated and fanatics before we can start a revolution?All?

[The Feral Underclass]

But Leninists aren't trying to get only one city.They are trying to crush the bourgeoise state.

You where the one who insisted on using a city as a specific example. Of course it would apply to the nation, if not the world.

Before I go, we should agree that the word "fanatic" is not appropriate here. The word fanatic implies unreasoning, unrational craziness. The workers will be clear cited in an ideology that is true and rightous and with work rationally and practically to overthrow capitalism.


But is there a chance that they all are educated...

The vast majority. Look at capitalism as a door, for many decades it has been shut tight and locked over the world. Every now and then the hinges begin to go rusty and the door becomes unstable, so the ruling class have to keep adding nails and adding screws to keep it in place. Eventually those hinges will get so rusty, and there will be no more space to add nails and screws that the door will collapse.

Look at feudalism. For centuries it worked, history however proved that it was out dated and inpractical. If you look at people in 1136 in England. if you said to them, "could you imagine a world without a lord, without a king to rule over us and making us pay taxes and work on their lands. Could you imagine having an elected parliment with which we could vote for representatives"....of course not. It is the same now. When you speak to someone and say, "could you imagine living in a world where we were free and equal and that we worked together co-operativly in federations without hierarchies." You get laughed at and called crazy. But history proves that overtime, whether it is ten, fifty or a thousand years our material conditions changes. Human consciousness changes.

Eventually the majority of working class people we realise that this world belongs to them. That they are what makes it work and that they can live together, co-operating with each other, free and equally and in federations, without hierarchies. It is the logical conclusion of capitalism.

it is therefore up to me and you and all our comrades to lay the foundations, or even begin to lay the foundations. We can not force revolution to happen without people first realising why. If you do that then what is it for. if you sieze power and organize an ignorant working class in their interests you are doing no better than allowing them to go to the polls. So you call it a proletarit dictatership but will you have the whole proletariat involved in decisions made in a central committee. Of course not! It will be these professional revolutionaries, these "intellectuals" who claim to be working for us...we dont need them. We can lead ourselves thank you very much.


We need a leninist state to educate them.You think that workers will be educated themselves.But is that going to happen in bourgeoise state?

A state is not there to educate, it is designed to control instruments of oppression to maintain rule for a group of people. In your case a vangaurd. This theory does not work. It has not worked ever since the first time in 1917.

Of course the workers will educate themselves. But as I have said this may take decades to do. What we have to concentrate on is how you begin the process.


There are lot of propaganda, people are sent to jail, some are bribed by cappies etc,etc.

The ruling class do not need propoganda Anarchism and Communism are already regarded as evil. of course in the last throws of capitalism they will desperatly attempt to stop the workers revolution, they will definatly imprison us if not kill us, but then that is how the revolution will come. The workers will begin to confront capitalism more and more until they baricade the streets and take over buildings. This does not mean anarchism is not worth the fight.


And how many of workers must be educated...before we can start a revolution?All?

If is impossible to get them all. Many will refuse to accept another way, but the majority will realise what is happening and desperatly want to change it. The revolution is not about getting a certain amount of numbers by a certain time. As I have said, times change, things alter every day. Workers will confront capitalism more and more, and more workers will confront capitalism every day. Then they will destroy it, and then we will live happily, forever.

To summarize the point I have been making, Errico Malatesta sumed up the attitude we must take when trying to fight capitalism, he said "Not that we step towards anarchism today, tomorrow and in ten centuries, but that we step towards it today, tomorrow and always." I think that says it all.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2003, 11:27 AM

With out some form of state allocation system how would you allocate these food stuffs from the area of production?

What is it you don't understand? How many more times will I have to answer this question before it sinks into your head? I do not ask you to agree, merely understand. God knows how many times you have asked me this question.

If we take bread for instance, in order to make it at a bakers you need wheat, milk etc. These things may be produced miles away from where the bakery is situated. So, when the baker needs wheat, he picks up the telephone and calls the big wheat farm and says "hello Mr Farmer, can I please have some wheat" then the farmer says "of course, how is next thursday?" and then the baker says "Oh thursday, that's great, thank you Mr Farmer."


Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs? Which worker would be allocated the task of collecting these food stuffs? Which worker would place them in the lorry? Which worker would drive the lorry? Where would the worker driving the lorry re-fuel on the way? Where would the petrol station get the fuel? Where would the fuel be processed? Which workers would distil the Oil? Which workers would be on the oil rigs for 3 months operating the Oil Rig? Which workers would take the Rig supplys and food stuffs?

You are so neurotic! All this flapping about, who will do this? who will do that? What you still have failed to tell me is how a central command structure would do it. You are posing rediculas questions about organization which I can not predict. Which worker will drive the lorry? What kind of a question is that. I don't know which worker will drive the lorry maybe Steve Twaddle from Berkshire.

I can not predict how people would be selected. Maybe it is done on a voluntary level, maybe people are selected on a rota basis. Demarchy has a lot to offer. Running an oil rig is a necessary task and maybe there are hundreds of people who want to do it and therefore the problem is dealt with, maybe there isnt but when you have conscious workers all wanting to take responsability then I do not think it will be so difficult to find people.

Can you now please explain to me how a central government would erform any better than independent indivicuals working in co-operation? Why do you need this central government to distrabute wheat or milk or supply cities? What is it about this centralised state that has such mystical powers?
I attack your idea's, you make personal insulting remarks... and you lecture me about "respect", well sorry mate but, any "respect" I was gaining for you has evaporated, youtr a hypocrit with a doomed ideology.

God knows how many times you have asked me this question.


And you have failed to answer it every time, apart from to say "the workers organise them selves." I'm sorry but a little bit of elaboration is in order.

If we take bread for instance, in order to make it at a bakers you need wheat, milk etc. These things may be produced miles away from where the bakery is situated. So, when the baker needs wheat, he picks up the telephone and calls the big wheat farm and says "hello Mr Farmer, can I please have some wheat" then the farmer says "of course, how is next thursday?" and then the baker says "Oh thursday, that's great, thank you Mr Farmer."

So for a major industrial facility, in which time is paramount to efficent and successful running, you would just suggest waiting till you run out before taking any action. Tell me do you work?

What you still have failed to tell me is how a central command structure would do it.

Is it not blindingly obvious? I really cannot be bothered to explain very basic economics to you, try looking it up.

I don't know which worker will drive the lorry maybe Steve Twaddle from Berkshire.


You completely failed to get the point of the question, somebody would have to tell worker Joe Bloggs to do X, Y or Z or it would not get done.

Why do you need this central government to distrabute wheat or milk or supply cities? What is it about this centralised state that has such mystical powers?

Try playing any team sport, like rugby, play as a group of individuals however organised you will still get flattened, play as a team an efficent unit, then you will be far more successful, it is blindingly obvious. Do you know anything about armys? If so then you will know a basic tactic is to split armys, because they are easier to beat. Unity is strength, individuality isnt.

But simply, because they would have a "birds eye" view of the situation, and be able to react to situations far faster than a group of individuals. It is very simple.

[The Feral Underclass]

I attack your idea's, you make personal insulting remarks... and you lecture me about "respect", well sorry mate but, any "respect" I was gaining for you has evaporated, youtr a hypocrit with a doomed ideology.

For a start, I never asked for your respect. I simply asked that you respect my beliefs. When did I attack you personally? I pointed out factual observations. Please do elaberate on when I have been hypocritical. i perfectly respect the fact you have different beliefs than me. I am not the one using the words "dreamer" and "doomed."


And you have failed to answer it every time, apart from to say "the workers organise them selves." I'm sorry but a little bit of elaboration is in order.

This proves that you either don't understand, or your not paying attention. I will answer, one more time so that maybe you can either understand or pay attention:

Your question:

With out some form of state allocation system how would you allocate these food stuffs from the area of production?

If we take wheat for instance it is grown on farms. Maybe there are 400 wheat farms operating around England all supplying different collectives within that area and the surrounding areas. Let us say you need 100 people per farm.

Now each wheat farm will have certain areas of responsability. Let us say that we have seven volunteers for each farm but we do not have enough volunteers to go make the farm work. We all need bread, so unfortunatly it is something that is socially necessary. The farm then notifies the national television or radio etc and anounces that there will be a lottery in each collective to find 4000 people to work on a wheat farm for six months let us say. So the collectives organize there lotteries and people go there and work on the farm for six months. People are then rotated every six months.

Now each farm is divided into responsability areas. Administration, Cutting, Packing, distrabution etc. So either people volunteer for certain jobs such as lorry dirver, distrabution liason etc, maybe it is done using demarchy or on a rota basis, it is up to the farm.

Then, when a baker or bread factory needs wheat, or is running out of wheat they will call up the nearest wheat farm and say to the distrabution liason "i need 400kg of wheat" the distrabition liason will say "it will be there next thursday." The distrabution liason then speaks to the cutters to cut the wheat, the packers pack, a driver is found and the wheat gets delievered.


So for a major industrial facility, in which time is paramount to efficent and successful running, you would just suggest waiting till you run out before taking any action. Tell me do you work?

No, that is not what I suggested at all!


You completely failed to get the point of the question, somebody would have to tell worker Joe Bloggs to do X, Y or Z or it would not get done.

The question was not left open for interpretation "Which worker will dirve the lorry". Sorry, I do not have pyshcic powers.

Now can you explain to me what a central command system would do to tackle this problem. Surly it is a case of the person with the information communicating it to another person. I dont see the need of a central committee in order to speak to another human being.


Try playing any team sport, like rugby, play as a group of individuals however organised you will still get flattened, play as a team an efficent unit, then you will be far more successful, it is blindingly obvious. Do you know anything about armys? If so then you will know a basic tactic is to split armys, because they are easier to beat. Unity is strength, individuality isnt.

So what you are advocating is that we run our country like the ruling class run their army?

You seem to think that the lack of hierarchies and central structure means weakness, disunity and inefficeincey. Why do you think we are not capable enough of remaining unified and effiecient without having somene to tell us how to do it. Surely you would want to work in a team where everyone was equal and where things where decided on in a democratic way with everyone contributing their oppinion, without having some manager type barking orders at you. I think this unifies people even more and allows people work better as a team. In fact I have seen it work with my own eyes. The commune I live at, Genoa and seattle, all examples of teams working together effectivly and effiecently without hierarchies and central command structures.

"Unity is Strength".....it sounds like some advertisement for the National Front.

[crazy comie]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2003, 05:20 PM


no, it is not the proletarian class it is a group of "revolutionary intellectuals," working in the interests of the working class. Control is taken by "professional revolutionaries" or a vanguard.
Bollocks
The workers would elect there leaders.

[crazy comie]

Who is going to allocate the work for the collectives ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Bollocks
The workers would elect there leaders.

Was Lenin or Trotsky or Stalin elected. Was Zuriev and all the other central committee members or organizers such as Kalinin who was Chairman of the Executive Committee or Zhadanov. Where any of them elected by the workers. I think you will find the answer was no!

[The Feral Underclass]

Who is going to allocate the work for the collectives ?

It depended on what kind of a collective it was. What kind of production facilities they had. For most things there will be people who will volunteer happily to do some of the work. Maybe for other things there are no volunteers so a rota or a lottery system would have to be introduced. Demarchy also has many advantages for larger scale production.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

TWAT... er, I mean TAT :lol: , you're speaking as if everyone will abuse their power as if there were no consequences! Bush is the comander in chief, so he could technicaly put the entire legislation under martial law, but would he do this?, never! There will be laws that the government will abide by, obviously. Let's ask ourselves why leaders abuse their power. Because there is something to be gained which is possible to gain, yes? But there will be nothing to gain, comrade. The representatives will working people like everyone else. Working to improve the conditions for their fellow comrades as well as themselves. Who says that thay will have the ability, for example, to increase their salary? What has happened in the past were results from counter revolutionary action. Because we were overcome by reactionaries is no reason to give up.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2003, 09:13 AM

I attack your idea's, you make personal insulting remarks... and you lecture me about "respect", well sorry mate but, any "respect" I was gaining for you has evaporated, youtr a hypocrit with a doomed ideology.

For a start, I never asked for your respect. I simply asked that you respect my beliefs. When did I attack you personally? I pointed out factual observations. Please do elaberate on when I have been hypocritical. i perfectly respect the fact you have different beliefs than me. I am not the one using the words "dreamer" and "doomed."


And you have failed to answer it every time, apart from to say "the workers organise them selves." I'm sorry but a little bit of elaboration is in order.

This proves that you either don't understand, or your not paying attention. I will answer, one more time so that maybe you can either understand or pay attention:

Your question:

With out some form of state allocation system how would you allocate these food stuffs from the area of production?

If we take wheat for instance it is grown on farms. Maybe there are 400 wheat farms operating around England all supplying different collectives within that area and the surrounding areas. Let us say you need 100 people per farm.

Now each wheat farm will have certain areas of responsability. Let us say that we have seven volunteers for each farm but we do not have enough volunteers to go make the farm work. We all need bread, so unfortunatly it is something that is socially necessary. The farm then notifies the national television or radio etc and anounces that there will be a lottery in each collective to find 4000 people to work on a wheat farm for six months let us say. So the collectives organize there lotteries and people go there and work on the farm for six months. People are then rotated every six months.

Now each farm is divided into responsability areas. Administration, Cutting, Packing, distrabution etc. So either people volunteer for certain jobs such as lorry dirver, distrabution liason etc, maybe it is done using demarchy or on a rota basis, it is up to the farm.

Then, when a baker or bread factory needs wheat, or is running out of wheat they will call up the nearest wheat farm and say to the distrabution liason "i need 400kg of wheat" the distrabition liason will say "it will be there next thursday." The distrabution liason then speaks to the cutters to cut the wheat, the packers pack, a driver is found and the wheat gets delievered.


So for a major industrial facility, in which time is paramount to efficent and successful running, you would just suggest waiting till you run out before taking any action. Tell me do you work?

No, that is not what I suggested at all!


You completely failed to get the point of the question, somebody would have to tell worker Joe Bloggs to do X, Y or Z or it would not get done.

The question was not left open for interpretation "Which worker will dirve the lorry". Sorry, I do not have pyshcic powers.

Now can you explain to me what a central command system would do to tackle this problem. Surly it is a case of the person with the information communicating it to another person. I dont see the need of a central committee in order to speak to another human being.


Try playing any team sport, like rugby, play as a group of individuals however organised you will still get flattened, play as a team an efficent unit, then you will be far more successful, it is blindingly obvious. Do you know anything about armys? If so then you will know a basic tactic is to split armys, because they are easier to beat. Unity is strength, individuality isnt.

So what you are advocating is that we run our country like the ruling class run their army?

You seem to think that the lack of hierarchies and central structure means weakness, disunity and inefficeincey. Why do you think we are not capable enough of remaining unified and effiecient without having somene to tell us how to do it. Surely you would want to work in a team where everyone was equal and where things where decided on in a democratic way with everyone contributing their oppinion, without having some manager type barking orders at you. I think this unifies people even more and allows people work better as a team. In fact I have seen it work with my own eyes. The commune I live at, Genoa and seattle, all examples of teams working together effectivly and effiecently without hierarchies and central command structures.

"Unity is Strength".....it sounds like some advertisement for the National Front.
When did I attack you personally?

Tell me do you know what neurosis actually is, look it up and then see why I am offended.

That is all I have to say to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

I did not realise how young we all are. VC, your not even 16 yet. I thought you were decades older. Amazing. I presume Crazy commie is young due to his spelling. Wow! anyway.....


TWAT... er, I mean TAT

i presume that was just a joke <_<


speaking as if everyone will abuse their power as if there were no consequences&#33;

Do you not think you are being slightly naive. You want to have a revolution before the workers are conscious which means you&#39;ll stage some kind of a coup with a semi-conscious militant wing lead by unelected revolutionaries, whose only claim to leadership is the fact they are "intellectuals".

So you have lead this coup with these unelected leaders, and now you have control of a country, your fighting the bouregoisie and now your organizing a working class, who have absolutly no real, actual concept of why you have created this violence, except that you tell them it is a good thing. You then concentrate all the power of the communist party into an unelected central committee giving out directives left right and centre.

your telling me that there is absolutly no risk at all...from someone abusing their power. Come on, only the new rulers (central committee) would know what was going on. This is how Stalin rose to power and it will happen again. if you concentrate enourmous power into the hands of a few people which is what in essence you are preaching, those people will get use to it. Being is consciousness. The more power they have, the more easier it is going to be to continue to have it, and enjoy having it. That is the reality.

To simply say that there is no chance of abuse of power or corruption is very silly.


Bush is the comander in chief, so he could technicaly put the entire legislation under martial law, but would he do this?,

he dosnt need too. He already wields exective control over your country with the backing of an army that loves him and a coporate world that loves him even more. He has so much power he can rig elections.


never&#33; There will be laws that the government will abide by, obviously.

Now there is a police force, law courts which are apparently independent, consitutions and freedom of speech. Under your regime there will be a police force controlled by the party, no independent law courts because they will be run by party members and no freedom of speech. Anyone who speaks out agsinst the party or revolution will be arrested as a counter-revolutionary.

It will be ten times easier to take power and abuse it than under liberal capitalism. You will control the army, the police, intelligence service, and the entire economy. We might as well just have GWB&#33;


Let&#39;s ask ourselves why leaders abuse their power. Because there is something to be gained which is possible to gain, yes?

Because they can. Because they have so much power they can use it to gain what ever they want.


But there will be nothing to gain, comrade.

They will be able to gain power&#33;


The representatives will working people like everyone else. Working to improve the conditions for their fellow comrades as well as themselves.

Representatives for what? At the time of the revolution you will have more Lenins and Trotskys. Do you think you can say that you dont want them to be in power if you feel you dont want them. Could you have imagined the russian workers saying they didnt want Lenin. of course not, for a start they followed him blindly because they new no better. Secondly, he had the red army and the Cheka to remain firmly in control.


What has happened in the past were results from counter revolutionary action. Because we were overcome by reactionaries is no reason to give up.

Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba all succesfully managed to get power and remain in power for decades.

These leaders had the power from the beginning. The dictatership of the proletariat by its very nature concentrated unquestionable power into unelected "intellectuals", which gave them the opportunity to remain in power, and they still do have power. While millions of workers have become as oppressed and exploited as they where under capitalism or colonialism. these "intellectuals" have become a new breed of ruling class. unquestioned and authotarian.

This is what the dictatership of the proletariat has created, Stalinism, North korea, china and cuba. Do you really want this again?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think that expecting an entire working class to suddenly and simultaneously shed their bourgeois mentality and overcome their oppressors is quite naive.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think that expecting an entire working class to suddenly and simultaneously shed their bourgeois mentality and overcome their oppressors is quite naive.

Yeah...and my daddies bigger than yours&#33;

The next thread was an answer I gave to Soviet Power Supreme on the same kind of a question. I do not expect the workng class to suddenly become class consious at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2003, 10:31 PM

But is there a chance that they all are educated...

The vast majority. Look at capitalism as a door, for many decades it has been shut tight and locked over the world. Every now and then the hinges begin to go rusty and the door becomes unstable, so the ruling class have to keep adding nails and adding screws to keep it in place. Eventually those hinges will get so rusty, and there will be no more space to add nails and screws that the door will collapse.

Look at feudalism. For centuries it worked, history however proved that it was out dated and inpractical. If you look at people in 1136 in England. if you said to them, "could you imagine a world without a lord, without a king to rule over us and making us pay taxes and work on their lands. Could you imagine having an elected parliment with which we could vote for representatives"....of course not. It is the same now. When you speak to someone and say, "could you imagine living in a world where we were free and equal and that we worked together co-operativly in federations without hierarchies." You get laughed at and called crazy. But history proves that overtime, whether it is ten, fifty or a thousand years our material conditions changes. Human consciousness changes.

Eventually the majority of working class people we realise that this world belongs to them. That they are what makes it work and that they can live together, co-operating with each other, free and equally and in federations, without hierarchies. It is the logical conclusion of capitalism.

it is therefore up to me and you and all our comrades to lay the foundations, or even begin to lay the foundations. We can not force revolution to happen without people first realising why. If you do that then what is it for. if you sieze power and organize an ignorant working class in their interests you are doing no better than allowing them to go to the polls. So you call it a proletarit dictatership but will you have the whole proletariat involved in decisions made in a central committee. Of course not&#33; It will be these professional revolutionaries, these "intellectuals" who claim to be working for us...we dont need them. We can lead ourselves thank you very much.


We need a leninist state to educate them.You think that workers will be educated themselves.But is that going to happen in bourgeoise state?

A state is not there to educate, it is designed to control instruments of oppression to maintain rule for a group of people. In your case a vangaurd. This theory does not work. It has not worked ever since the first time in 1917.

Of course the workers will educate themselves. But as I have said this may take decades to do. What we have to concentrate on is how you begin the process.


There are lot of propaganda, people are sent to jail, some are bribed by cappies etc,etc.

The ruling class do not need propoganda Anarchism and Communism are already regarded as evil. of course in the last throws of capitalism they will desperatly attempt to stop the workers revolution, they will definatly imprison us if not kill us, but then that is how the revolution will come. The workers will begin to confront capitalism more and more until they baricade the streets and take over buildings. This does not mean anarchism is not worth the fight.


And how many of workers must be educated...before we can start a revolution?All?

If is impossible to get them all. Many will refuse to accept another way, but the majority will realise what is happening and desperatly want to change it. The revolution is not about getting a certain amount of numbers by a certain time. As I have said, times change, things alter every day. Workers will confront capitalism more and more, and more workers will confront capitalism every day. Then they will destroy it, and then we will live happily, forever.

To summarize the point I have been making, Errico Malatesta sumed up the attitude we must take when trying to fight capitalism, he said "Not that we step towards anarchism today, tomorrow and in ten centuries, but that we step towards it today, tomorrow and always." I think that says it all.
Class consiousness is not some bolt that will suddely happen, or something which can be forced, as some people would have you belief <_< it will be a gradual thing, over time. Maybe it happens in ten years, maybe it happens in ten thousand years....who knows.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

TAT, the working class cannot organize itself as a class in capitalism without leadership.

It would be great if they would just rise up and destroy capitalism, but it&#39;s not going to happen while the bourgeoisie is in power.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism came from a shift in the existance of power from the ownership of land to the ownership of the means of production. The rulers were basicaly the same people.

Anarchist revolution requires that the people take it upon themselves to destroy their oppressors, but their oppressors will not allow this to even happen&#33;

The media, the government, their interest factions, their religions, their loyalties all lie with the bourgeoisie. Their liberation from this is only possible with the destruction of this, but not necessarily the other way around, comrade. In fact, their liberation is impossible with the passive existance of this. They cannot see their oppression as long as they are part of this oppression. The bourgeoisie must first be crushed. I am not willing to allow the exploitation of the proletariat to continue untill they have seen it for what it really is&#33; What if they&#39;re brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is freedom and.... oh wait, that has happened. Are you going to allow them to bring whatever they wish upon themselves like this, for example? What is best for them is freedom from oppression. I know this. They do not.

Now I must go take the trash out. =D

[The Feral Underclass]

TAT, the working class cannot organize itself as a class in capitalism without leadership.

Why? Why can&#39;t they? Leaders are people who make executive decisions and formulate policy. A group of people all having a central responsability and giving out orders. That is what a leadership is, it does not have mystical powers that can make everything work.


It would be great if they would just rise up and destroy capitalism, but it&#39;s not going to happen while the bourgeoisie is in power.

So how are you going to have a revolution?


The transition from feudalism to capitalism came from a shift in the existance of power from the ownership of land to the ownership of the means of production. The rulers were basicaly the same people.

The tranisiton came about because of economic necessity. Technology was advancing, political thinking, philosophy, theology, art and love where changing, moving forward in that dialectical buzz that time likes so much. Feudalism became impractical. People&#39;s pyschology changed. They felt too much. The devine king and his feudal lords was a joke, people wanted a new world. People had spoke of freedom, and they lusted for it, and so it came. The next logical step. Captialism.

Eventually the same will happen. new words of freedom will be spoken, that dialectic buzz will turn again and thinking and philosophy and psychology will change and it is up to any movement not to order it without understanding but nurture it. We must look at the movement as "...a very precise role as "engine" of the revolutionary process" and the workers be the steering wheel. Not a vanguard.


Anarchist revolution requires that the people take it upon themselves to destroy their oppressors, but their oppressors will not allow this to even happen&#33;

They will not be able to stop it. Just as the feudal lords and devine kings who had ruled with an iron fist for centuries could not stop it. When that time has come. When anarchism has moved across the world the masses will go to the streets and demand change and no matter how many police come they will not be able to stop it. it is inevitable&#33;


In fact, their liberation is impossible with the passive existance of this. They cannot see their oppression as long as they are part of this oppression.

I dont know how much work you do on the streets with working class people, but I do. I speak to many working class people and they can see their oppression. They know that their lives are shit. you ever heard the one "lifes a ***** and then you die". "I know the worlds bad, but what can I do". People are fully aware of what is going on. They just havent brought that anger and frustration into an objective analysis. It is up to the movement to win the arguments and convince them that they can change society.

Through practical action, through ideological example and through organization the workers will eventually go on the streets and confront capitalism.


What is best for them is freedom from oppression. I know this. They do not.

of course they know it. They just dont belive they can do anything about it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Okay... and when the revolution is successful, do you think that the bourgeoisie and those who lust for its selective benevolence will simply conform? No. This is why anarchsit revolution requires all the working people&#39;s support. Because without a dictatorship of the proletariat, they cannot thwart the plans and actions of the reactionaries. I have gone through this before, have I not? Without forceful equality, people will once again begin to take advantage of others and exploit them for personal gain. This can be done through the use of religion, racism, homophobia, wage labour, etc.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 07:18 AM
TAT, the working class cannot organize itself as a class in capitalism without leadership.

It would be great if they would just rise up and destroy capitalism, but it&#39;s not going to happen while the bourgeoisie is in power.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism came from a shift in the existance of power from the ownership of land to the ownership of the means of production. The rulers were basicaly the same people.

Anarchist revolution requires that the people take it upon themselves to destroy their oppressors, but their oppressors will not allow this to even happen&#33;

The media, the government, their interest factions, their religions, their loyalties all lie with the bourgeoisie. Their liberation from this is only possible with the destruction of this, but not necessarily the other way around, comrade. In fact, their liberation is impossible with the passive existance of this. They cannot see their oppression as long as they are part of this oppression. The bourgeoisie must first be crushed. I am not willing to allow the exploitation of the proletariat to continue untill they have seen it for what it really is&#33; What if they&#39;re brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is freedom and.... oh wait, that has happened. Are you going to allow them to bring whatever they wish upon themselves like this, for example? What is best for them is freedom from oppression. I know this. They do not.

Now I must go take the trash out. =D
TAT, the working class cannot organize itself as a class in capitalism without leadership.

It would be great if they would just rise up and destroy capitalism, but it&#39;s not going to happen while the bourgeoisie is in power.
Firstly the February Revolution was one where the people just through off the chains. There was no leadership necessary.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism came from a shift in the existance of power from the ownership of land to the ownership of the means of production. The rulers were basicaly the same people.
From feudalism to capitalism the rulers did change. The new rich were the merchants not the lords. They control the media now. While the lords still have money etc, they had to claw back the positions of power that they lost.

Anarchist revolution requires that the people take it upon themselves to destroy their oppressors, but their oppressors will not allow this to even happen&#33;
Surely the same could be said of any revolution? Or are you advocating reformism? (I know that&#39;s a dirty word around here.)

The media, the government, their interest factions, their religions, their loyalties all lie with the bourgeoisie. Their liberation from this is only possible with the destruction of this, but not necessarily the other way around, comrade. In fact, their liberation is impossible with the passive existance of this. They cannot see their oppression as long as they are part of this oppression. The bourgeoisie must first be crushed. I am not willing to allow the exploitation of the proletariat to continue untill they have seen it for what it really is&#33; What if they&#39;re brainwashed into thinking that capitalism is freedom and.... oh wait, that has happened. Are you going to allow them to bring whatever they wish upon themselves like this, for example? What is best for them is freedom from oppression. I know this. They do not.

Your a Leninist aren&#39;t you? "It shows, you know what&#39;s best for the people. They don&#39;t." Have faith in them.

Now I must go take the trash out. =D
Now I must go take an exam. =D

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Anarchist revolution requires that the people take it upon themselves to destroy their oppressors, but their oppressors will not allow this to even happen&#33;

I admit, this was terribly phrased.

I have plenty of faith in the people, but it is unrealistic to expect them to grasp communism when all their loyalties lie with the bourgeoisie. Even if some of them do, anarchism will certainly collapse as I have shown.

[The Feral Underclass]

and when the revolution is successful, do you think that the bourgeoisie and those who lust for its selective benevolence will simply conform? No.

No of couse they won&#39;t. When did I ever say that they would?


This is why anarchsit revolution requires all the working people&#39;s support. Because without a dictatorship of the proletariat, they cannot thwart the plans and actions of the reactionaries.

Yes, an anarchist revolution requires mass class consiousness. But rather it being something that has been order or demanded of people, it will be a gradual, dialectical process which is ultimatly is inevitable.

Once this inevitable process comes to its conclusion the bouregoisie will not be able to stop them. Of course they will be able to "thwart the plans and actions of the reactionaries," they will be a highly motivated, highly organized fighting force.


Without forceful equality, people will once again begin to take advantage of others and exploit them for personal gain.

This is a result of a lack of consciousness, nothing else.


This can be done through the use of religion, racism, homophobia, wage labour, etc.

Why do you think these things would exist? class consciousness would have all but wiped out any prejudices people may have. People would not be fooled by transparent arguments about racism and sexual orientation. They are fallacies. If it did exist during or after a revolution it would be attacked either using force or conviction.


I have plenty of faith in the people, but it is unrealistic to expect them to grasp communism when all their loyalties lie with the bourgeoisie. Even if some of them do, anarchism will certainly collapse as I have shown.

How many working class people do you actually talk too? You mistake disilluisonment with apathy. Working class mentalities do not lay with the bouregoisie. At all&#33; Go on the streets, go and stand on a picket line, or knok on someones door. If you talk to people you will find they are extremly passionate about their concerns in society. you will see they do see injusticies and they hate them. Words such as bouregoisie and ruling class are not words people know or understand, but that does not mean that they do not have emotions about them. The problem with people is not apathy, it is an inbred, hereditory feeling of uslessness. People do not think that they can change anything. They do not understand their material circumstances. They do not understand their position within society. Once they understand that it is them that make the world go round and that this fucking system only exists because you go to work everyday, they will want to change it. That is why we need a movement to guide it, to make the workers feel confident about their actions. Without leaders and without central commands, because they are unnecessary and a hindurance.

To simply dismiss the workers as loyal and loving to capitalism is simply wrong. You need to get on the streets my friend and you will see that actually, people are extremly angry&#33;

[crazy comie]

You also earlyer assumed that the pepole at the top woulodn&#39;t be elected.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2003, 03:16 AM

and when the revolution is successful, do you think that the bourgeoisie and those who lust for its selective benevolence will simply conform? No.

No of couse they won&#39;t. When did I ever say that they would?


This is why anarchsit revolution requires all the working people&#39;s support. Because without a dictatorship of the proletariat, they cannot thwart the plans and actions of the reactionaries.

Yes, an anarchist revolution requires mass class consiousness. But rather it being something that has been order or demanded of people, it will be a gradual, dialectical process which is ultimatly is inevitable.

Once this inevitable process comes to its conclusion the bouregoisie will not be able to stop them. Of course they will be able to "thwart the plans and actions of the reactionaries," they will be a highly motivated, highly organized fighting force.


Without forceful equality, people will once again begin to take advantage of others and exploit them for personal gain.

This is a result of a lack of consciousness, nothing else.


This can be done through the use of religion, racism, homophobia, wage labour, etc.

Why do you think these things would exist? class consciousness would have all but wiped out any prejudices people may have. People would not be fooled by transparent arguments about racism and sexual orientation. They are fallacies. If it did exist during or after a revolution it would be attacked either using force or conviction.


I have plenty of faith in the people, but it is unrealistic to expect them to grasp communism when all their loyalties lie with the bourgeoisie. Even if some of them do, anarchism will certainly collapse as I have shown.

How many working class people do you actually talk too? You mistake disilluisonment with apathy. Working class mentalities do not lay with the bouregoisie. At all&#33; Go on the streets, go and stand on a picket line, or knok on someones door. If you talk to people you will find they are extremly passionate about their concerns in society. you will see they do see injusticies and they hate them. Words such as bouregoisie and ruling class are not words people know or understand, but that does not mean that they do not have emotions about them. The problem with people is not apathy, it is an inbred, hereditory feeling of uslessness. People do not think that they can change anything. They do not understand their material circumstances. They do not understand their position within society. Once they understand that it is them that make the world go round and that this fucking system only exists because you go to work everyday, they will want to change it. That is why we need a movement to guide it, to make the workers feel confident about their actions. Without leaders and without central commands, because they are unnecessary and a hindurance.

To simply dismiss the workers as loyal and loving to capitalism is simply wrong. You need to get on the streets my friend and you will see that actually, people are extremly angry&#33;
I have already explained to you how it is that inequality will come about without the centralization of wealth, haven&#39;t I? If power is de-centralized and there are still people whose interests differ from those of the people, the reactionaries will use social, racial, gender, sexual, religious, and national chauvinism, or they will take advantage of the inequality to concentrate power in their hands. Therefore, de-centralization can only occur once the bourgeoisie has been suppressed.

[The Feral Underclass]

I have already explained to you how it is that inequality will come about without the centralization of wealth, haven&#39;t I? If power is de-centralized and there are still people whose interests differ from those of the people, the reactionaries will use social, racial, gender, sexual, religious, and national chauvinism, or they will take advantage of the inequality to concentrate power in their hands. Therefore, centralization can only occur once the bourgeoisie has been suppressed.

I am sorry if I a being stupid, but I dont think I understand fully. Why will this "inequality" exist?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

How do you suppose goods (or money) will be distributed? Different areas will certainly produce different amounts of wealth, whether this is in the form of the value of goods, or in money. Goods will have different values, their is nothing that can be done to make a cob of corn worth as much as a car, or to make a farm produce the same amount of value in goods as a steel mill. So if goods are not centralized and evenly distributed, inequality will occur. If this is the case, people in different regions will certainly be poorer than those in other region. Someone who has more wealth can easily go to some low-invome farming community and use his wealth to appropriate the labour of others. What will stop him? The central government? Oh, wait... there isn&#39;t one&#33; Things of this sort will begin to occur immediately once it is revealed that wealth is not common.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism can only happen through mass class consiousness&#33;


How do you suppose goods (or money) will be distributed?

It will be distrabuted according to need.


Different areas will certainly produce different amounts of wealth, whether this is in the form of the value of goods, or in money.

Why would an area produce more than it needs? I do not see how money would be relevant in a post-revolutionary situation.


Goods will have different values, their is nothing that can be done to make a cob of corn worth as much as a car, or to make a farm produce the same amount of value in goods as a steel mill. So if goods are not centralized and evenly distributed, inequality will occur.

You can not eat a car&#33;

When you use the word centralised, what do you envisage? Of course there has to be a focul point of reference. Such as a factory. but a factory that makes cars would work independently of the factory that made sausages, and the goods would be distrabuted to collectives according to their needs.


Someone who has more wealth can easily go to some low-invome farming community and use his wealth to appropriate the labour of others.

In return for socially necessary work, all people would be provided for. There would be no need for wealth etc. And if someone tried to appropriate someones labour for what ever reason and using whatever, they would be dealt with by the collective.


What will stop him? The central government? Oh, wait... there isn&#39;t one&#33;

The central government does not have mystical powers which makes it function any better than human ability. If someone is trying to exploit someone in order to create extra wealth for themselves then they are an enemy of the revolution and the other 12,999,999 workers will have somethng to say about it. I do not see how some central government would peform any better.


Things of this sort will begin to occur immediately once it is revealed that wealth is not common.

I do not understand? It will belong to the nation. Any person who needs something will be provided with it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Anarchism can only happen through mass class consiousness&#33;

There&#39;s another problem&#33; What about the bourgeoisie, who want nothing more than to revert back to capitalism? They surely won&#39;t have the same class interests.


Why would an area produce more than it needs? I do not see how money would be relevant in a post-revolutionary situation.

I specificaly menetioned the value of goods, because its likely that money will not exist. Goods will be distributed according to need, but certainly there will have to be some sort of exchange rate. If one collective or commune produces 100 chickens, it cannot expect 100 airplanes in retutrn. Who will determine the needs of every community in accordance to those of the others? The central government?


And if someone tried to appropriate someones labour for what ever reason and using whatever, they would be dealt with by the collective.

What if he bribes the local representatives of this collective? The workers would obviously be powerless against a more powerful guy who you just failed to prevent the existance of.


The central government does not have mystical powers which makes it function any better than human ability. If someone is trying to exploit someone in order to create extra wealth for themselves then they are an enemy of the revolution and the other 12,999,999 workers will have somethng to say about it. I do not see how some central government would peform any better.

The workers will only have something to say about it if they are all class-councious, something that will never happen in capitalism. Anarchism will be too vulnerable to allow this process to take place.

[The Feral Underclass]

There&#39;s another problem&#33; What about the bourgeoisie, who want nothing more than to revert back to capitalism? They surely won&#39;t have the same class interests.

Any remaining bouregois or petty-bouregois believers would be a minority, and easily protected against.


certainly there will have to be some sort of exchange rate. If one collective or commune produces 100 chickens, it cannot expect 100 airplanes in retutrn.

Chickens are a socially necessary thing and therefore have to be reared. Everyone could not be responsable for rearing chickens and therefore you have two or three big chicken farms that constantly rear chickens to be distrabuted. The work is done on a volunteer, rota or lottery basis by people around the country or around the world so it is constantly running. When a collective needs chickens they contact the factory and are supplied with them.

Aeroplanes are a more specialised subject and is something that people would love to be able to be a part of. I could safly assume, given the chance thousands of workers would want to be involved in building planes. So they build them. Then maybe in Bangladesh they dont have a plane factory so some people who know how to build aeoplanes go over there and share their skills, set up a plane factory and hey presto you have planes. Anyway, we would have thousands of planes after the revolution so I think we might be ok for a while. But by the time we needed more we would have the production well under way.


Who will determine the needs of every community in accordance to those of the others?

The communes would determine it.


What if he bribes the local representatives of this collective? The workers would obviously be powerless against a more powerful guy who you just failed to prevent the existance of.

You have said already that the only way to abuse your power is if there is something that you can gain from abusing it.

There would be no representatives in the sense you are thinking. Only people with certain responsability. Being responsable for getting chickens is not a particulally powerful job now is it. Power would not exist, and therefore could not be wield or bought.


The workers will only have something to say about it if they are all class-councious, something that will never happen in capitalism. Anarchism will be too vulnerable to allow this process to take place.

I am basing my argument on the theory of dialectical materialism. Societies change. You are advocating that a revolutionary vanguard should take any opportunity to create a revolution, regardless of class consciousness. Sorry, but this is not how revolutions get won. As I have said before history changes all the time. people change. Something that you think could never happen, could never change, changes. Feudilism gave way to capitalism, which is a system built specifcally on the back of workers. Captialism may last for a few more centuries but it is only a question of time. The workers will realise their role within society and become conscious of their class and want to change it.

Forcing this change results in failed revolutions, brutal dictaterships and the revival of capitalism, simply because the only thing the workers new was that their conditions were bad and followed a leader out of desperation of wanting to change them [their conditions]. They did not understand why they felt the way they did or what their role in society was. If they did, do you think stalin could have manipulated them in order to enforce his control. No, because people would have understood what was happening and stopped it.

It is unfortunate to think that maybe we will not see revolution in our life time. But what is important is to move a step closer to it every day. To lay the foundations for the moment class consciousness does happen. There has to be a movement who has the answers, who pushes the ideology and who acts as a mediater during the transition from capitalism to anarchism.

We are no better than anyone else, we simply understand our position in society more. We feel empowered to change society, where as your average john smith dosnt. But they will, eventually. :ph34r:

[Soviet power supreme]

Okay what about this

Anarchists collectives can&#39;t win the armies.

Anarchist army doesn&#39;t have hierarchy which means that there is no military ranks.

How this kind of army can ever beat a regular army?

[crazy comie]

What if some places can&#39;t prouduce as much wealth as others.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 16 2003, 02:53 AM
Okay what about this

Anarchists collectives can&#39;t win the armies.

Anarchist army doesn&#39;t have hierarchy which means that there is no military ranks.

How this kind of army can ever beat a regular army?
Hmm I dont think that an anarchist socioty would have an army...

but anyway i refuse to get into this argument again.

[The Feral Underclass]

Okay what about this

Anarchists collectives can&#39;t win the armies.

Anarchist army doesn&#39;t have hierarchy which means that there is no military ranks.

How this kind of army can ever beat a regular army?

Please understand what consciousness is. Then you will understand that human beings will oeprate in a different way.

Human beings seem to have this inate belief that ordered structures must be in place in order to manage our daily routines and institutions. People believe you must have a boss to tell you how to do things, and then he has a boss to tell him what to do and so on and so on. If we don;t have these structures and hiearchies then people think that everything will collapse. Which is fair enough, there is nothing else to compare it with. This kind of behaviour is what we are use too. But just because we are use to it, and it has existed for centuries, does not mean we should continue to live like this.

Human beings have the ability to realise that the stupid and unecessary ways we govern out lives contributes to our oppression and will say "this is crazy...why are we doing this to ourselves" and they will change it.

Ranks in armies exist to bring about some kind of order to how things are run but actually create inequalities and exploitation. When you are fighting a battle every man or woman is equally as scared and equally worth the same as any other.

I bet your now thinking "but if there is no one to tell someone not to do something, what is going to stop them from doing it." The answer is, why would they do something that jepordised the situation. Any battle that is going to be fought will have to be planned well. People may have been broken off into platoons for example, and each will have a special responsabilty to do something. Platoon A attack the bridge while Platoon B moves around from the left to attack the enemy. Then platoon A smashes through and meets platoon B in the middle. Everyone has a task they need to fullfill, working together, in co-operation to do it.

When you ask "Anarchist army doesn&#39;t have hierarchy which means that there is no military ranks. How this kind of army can ever beat a regular army?" What you are really saying is "How can we exist succesfully without people to tell us what to do." Does that not seem strange. That you can admit that you can not function as a human being unless there is someone there to tell you how?

[The Feral Underclass]

What if some places can&#39;t prouduce as much wealth as others.

i think your trying to say "What if some places can not produce what they need". If this is the case then the answer is that they would be provided for by other collectives.

If you have a small collective out in the middle of Derbyshire and they cant produce enough food to provide to the collective, then they would be provided for by other collectives. IE. Milk Factory...Sausage Factory etc etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hmm I dont think that an anarchist socioty would have an army

I think it is important for everyone to read books on theoretics. It enables you to get a better more indepth understanding, or just a basic understanding of what different political theories are about. Otherwise people run the risk of either repeating themselves or not understanding something. I am also guilty of this.

In a post revolutionary situation there will be no need for armies, so you are right, there would be no army. If you are talking about a revolutionary situation then you are wrong. Of course they would have to be an army in order to defend the revolution.


but anyway i refuse to get into this argument again.

If you do not want to be involved in the discussion, do not leave messages.

[Bolshevika]

All Anarchist armies I have seen are inefficient and usually get destroyed quickly by more organized armies. For example: during the Spanish civil war the Anarchists had an inefficient army. It took the communists to actually put up a fight against Franco&#39;s army of pigs.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16 2003, 07:49 PM

Hmm I dont think that an anarchist socioty would have an army

I think it is important for everyone to read books on theoretics. It enables you to get a better more indepth understanding, or just a basic understanding of what different political theories are about. Otherwise people run the risk of either repeating themselves or not understanding something. I am also guilty of this.

In a post revolutionary situation there will be no need for armies, so you are right, there would be no army. If you are talking about a revolutionary situation then you are wrong. Of course they would have to be an army in order to defend the revolution.


but anyway i refuse to get into this argument again.

If you do not want to be involved in the discussion, do not leave messages.
If you are talking about a revolutionary situation then you are wrong. Of course they would have to be an army in order to defend the revolution.


hesnse the reason why I said in anarchist socioty. In a revolution transition from capitalism to Anarchism would be still going on, so it would not be a true anarchistic socioty.

If you do not want to be involved in the discussion, do not leave messages.

Fine you convinsed me.

If this is the case then the answer is that they would be provided for by other collectives.

And is someone going to be keeping a "global" view of the recources? To organise the allocation of these recources? Also if you are say getting vital recources such as drinking water, you would want some form of command structure from individuals with a "global" of socioty, so that you dont end up ordering water from an unneccesarily long distance away.

Human beings seem to have this inate belief that ordered structures must be in place in order to manage our daily routines and institutions.

That is because over millenia of socioty building mankind has discovered that this is the most efficent system, and increases sociotys chanses of survival. Your failure to see this I believe is the main failing of anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

All Anarchist armies I have seen are inefficient and usually get destroyed quickly by more organized armies. For example: during the Spanish civil war the Anarchists had an inefficient army. It took the communists to actually put up a fight against Franco&#39;s army of pigs

This is just a blatant lie. The CNF forces had managed to beat back the Fascists and had succesfully begun to collectivse the area. It was only when the communists attacked the anarchists at the barcelona phone exchanged, attacked and destroyed collectives and murdered anarchist fighters that the anarchist militas become "ineffient and usually [got] destroyed quickly".

Then, to top it off the cominturn [controlled by stalin] stopped supplying even the communists with weapons to fight the the war.

It is fact, and is not open to intepretation, that the civil war was not lost because of Anarchist ineffieciency, but communist betrayel. :angry:

[Soviet power supreme]

Ranks in armies exist to bring about some kind of order to how things are run but actually create inequalities and exploitation. When you are fighting a battle every man or woman is equally as scared and equally worth the same as any other.


They exist because officers know more about warfare than soldiers.
You think that every worker can think like high command officers.


bet your now thinking "but if there is no one to tell someone not to do something, what is going to stop them from doing it." The answer is, why would they do something that jepordised the situation. Any battle that is going to be fought will have to be planned well. People may have been broken off into platoons for example, and each will have a special responsabilty to do something. Platoon A attack the bridge while Platoon B moves around from the left to attack the enemy. Then platoon A smashes through and meets platoon B in the middle. Everyone has a task they need to fullfill, working together, in co-operation to do it.

How can collectives know how enemy army moves?
Okay platoon A takes the bridge then what?How they decide what they should do next?Vote?

Don&#39;t give that crap about everyone knows what to do.
Soldier from platoon A could say"let&#39;s take the bakery"
Another soldier"No let&#39;s stay here"
Third soldier"No we should separete in three groups and attack to steel mill."
etc
etc

There would be many opinions of where to go.How they can decide what to do?If they decide to vote what to do than there is a possibility that their decide is wrong.I mean that majority can be wrong and minority is right.And what can you say about those soldiers&#39; opinions?If everyone knows what to do then how can you explain that there would be many different opinions?How you explain that soldier who proposed attacking in bakery is wrong and some other soldiers opinion is right?

example
5 voted that they attack in steel mill, 2 voted for bakery and 3 staying at bridge.Okay they attacked in steel mill and left the bridge unguarded.Then comes the fascist army and takes the bridge.Then they get to rear and they butcher the whole army.

Now you are thinking that how could your leader know any better that fascist come through the bridge.

Answer is that that the officer would know that the bridge is vital because he is trained to know that sort of things.You can&#39;t possibly think that every worker would have officer training.


It is fact, and is not open to intepretation, that the civil war was not lost because of Anarchist ineffieciency, but communist betrayel.

So they didn&#39;t planned it very well.They didn&#39;t think that communists may betray them.Can you say that workers in your example can plan any better than those workers in Barcelona?

[redstar2000]

They exist because officers know more about warfare than soldiers.

I&#39;d like to see that quote pasted up on the wall of any barracks in the world...particularly the ones where combat veterans may be found.

The laughter would be so loud and raucous and sarcastic that it would shake the earth&#33;

Try reading some military history; it will save you considerable embarrassment.

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

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

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Did I forget to wish you a happy Veteran&#39;s Day, Redstar? America thanks you. =D

[Morpheus]

How can collectives know how enemy army moves?

The Makhnovists got a lot of intelligence info from the local peasants. The peasants strongly supported the Makhnovshchina and so gave not only information, but supplies, housing, etc.

Okay platoon A takes the bridge then what?How they decide what they should do next?Vote?

Yes, they vote. Except in the heat of battle, where they don&#39;t have time to vote, in which case an elected & recallable commander makes the decision. In all cases where there is time to vote they should do so. They should also draw up contingency plans to instruct elected commanders how to act in certain situations, etc.


If they decide to vote what to do than there is a possibility that their decide is wrong.

If you have a minority make the decision there&#39;s also a chance that the minority will make the wrong decision, military hierarchy doesn&#39;t change that. If the army is not democratic then it will be controlled by a minority and used them them to impose their rule upon the majority. Any revolutionary military MUST be democratic to insure it is controlled by the working class. Otherwise you&#39;ll end up with something like the USSR, China, etc.


the officer would know that the bridge is vital because he is trained to know that sort of things.You can&#39;t possibly think that every worker would have officer training.

The militias in the Spanish revolution had military experts (with lots of training) as advisers in their units. If a person has expertise and knows the bridge is vital then he should explain that to his unit. They can then take that knowledge into account. But actual decision making should be democratic, experts should be advisors not people who give orders.


So they didn&#39;t planned it very well.They didn&#39;t think that communists may betray them.Can you say that workers in your example can plan any better than those workers in Barcelona?

Yeah, they made a bad move and allied with people like you and then you folks shot us in the back. Big mistake, we won&#39;t make it again. There was signifigant minority who criticized that decision, BTW. Fortunetly, we are capable of learning from history and will not repeat the mistakes made in Spain &#39;36.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" inevitably leads to "dictatorship of the bureaucracy." We have seen this over and over again in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Laos, etc. If we do it again we&#39;ll get the same results as the last time around. Leninists whine about imperialism, civil war, etc. but any revolution is going to have to face those kinds of threats. If your revolutionary strategy cannot handle them without turning into a totalitarian hellhole then it&#39;s not a very good strategy. Lenin claimed that a "workers state" was necessary in order to defeat the armed resistance of capitalists. If that armed resistance causes the dictatorship to degenerate then it is not a very good way to deal with it. We can&#39;t just hope against hope that the resistance of the capitalists will somehow magically be less sometimes, we need a revolutionary strategy that can defeat them without replacing the current set of tyrants with a new set.

[The Feral Underclass]

In a revolution transition from capitalism to Anarchism would be still going on, so it would not be a true anarchistic socioty.

Anarchist society could not be fully implemented until capitalism was destroyed, so of course we would not have a true anarchist society until after the revolution. However this does not mean that a revolution should be led by a vangaurd and controlled by a dictatership. We can still organize the transition from one to the other using anarchist principles.


Fine you convinsed me.

Apparently not&#33;&#33;&#33;


And is someone going to be keeping a "global" view of the recources? To organise the allocation of these recources?

I think I have answered this question enough times now&#33;


Also if you are say getting vital recources such as drinking water, you would want some form of command structure from individuals with a "global" of socioty, so that you dont end up ordering water from an unneccesarily long distance away.

If there is a water processing factory in the UK and they needed to import some water from Guinea Bissau then the factory would be responsable for doing so.


That is because over millenia of socioty building mankind has discovered that this is the most efficent system, and increases sociotys chanses of survival. Your failure to see this I believe is the main failing of anarchism.

Do not confuse my unwillingness to accept your argument as misunderstanding. I understand them perfectly. I do not agree with them. I do not believe what you have argued for is necessary and so far you have failed to demonstrate why they are to an extent which refutes my arguments.

This "millenia of society building" has not been effiencient. It has created wars, poverty, exploitation and oppression. It has created systems and institutions to keep small groups of people in power and wealth while the rest of the human population are used, cheated, betrayed and starved. What you are advocating is pretty much the same, except this time it is being done in the name of the working class. It has similar conitations to Blair&#39;s speech "Government for the people, by the people." Look what that turned out to be&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

They exist because officers know more about warfare than soldiers.
You think that every worker can think like high command officers.

And of course Trotsky and Lenin had studied years of military strategies and tactics...read a book&#33;


How can collectives know how enemy army moves?
Okay platoon A takes the bridge then what?How they decide what they should do next?Vote?

It&#39;s called co-ordination. And of course that wonderful thing called technology.


Don&#39;t give that crap about everyone knows what to do.
Soldier from platoon A could say"let&#39;s take the bakery"
Another soldier"No let&#39;s stay here"
Third soldier"No we should separete in three groups and attack to steel mill."
etc
etc

As I have said before any revolution can not be the workings of opportunist meglamaniacs. They must come through the inevitable progression of history. At the point when the working class have become consious they will go on the streets.

Of course the bouregoisie will try and kill us and use the army and police to try and stop us. but the police officers and soliders are also working class. They are as exploited as anyone else. Once humanity has reached such a state in history everyone will see what capitalism is. Even the police, and even the soldiers. Maybe not all of them, but a suffiecient amount of soldiers and police officers to form militias to defend the revolution against the counter-revolutionaries. Men and women with enough knowledge to understand vital strategic planning.

Who knows, maybe even their commanding officers realise what the world is and decide to fight for the destruction of captialism. Unlikly I would imagine, but you never know.

These soldiers and police officers would have enough knowledge to be able to take on the responsability of organizing other workers to help fight. If you are in a coal mine and a coal miner says dont walk down that coal shaft would you say "fuck you, I am gonna do it anyway. I dont care about the fact you have been a coal miner for 30 years", no, of course not, your going to listen and accept what he is saying because he is more experienced.

So...if I was in a revolutionary situation and was fighting with a former Royal Infantry soldier who turns to me and says "that bridge is vital" I am going to agree with him. Simply because he knows what he is talking about.


So they didn&#39;t planned it very well.They didn&#39;t think that communists may betray them.Can you say that workers in your example can plan any better than those workers in Barcelona?

Well excuse us for being trust worthy. As Morpheus said, it was a mistake we will not make again. :ph34r:

[Bolshevika]

In the end: How many Anarchist revolutionary groups have been sucessful in comparison to Workers Marxist-Leninist vanguardist revolutionary groups?

Anarchism will never work because it is blatant idealism. Anarchists have an overly simplified view of class struggle (cute sayings like "No war but the class war" are too vague). I ask this again, what kind of Marxist are you Redstar with your federalist Anarchist rhetoric ? Do you actually think that when Marx called for the abolishment of the old state machinary and replacing with NEW state machinary he meant completely abolish the whole government system?

I believe that in Marx&#39;s first stage of socialism he called for a republic-like government (IE, the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc) this republic like government would be similar to the old state machinary, yet it would be totally opposite because it would not be run by the labour aristocracy and the rich bourgeois property owners who manipulate the government. Due to the fact that all forms of profit would be eliminated, there would be little corruption in the state. Marx did not call for complete equality in the sense of rankings (Leader, follower, captain, soldier, general, etc), he called for equal distribution of labour and economic egalitarianism and everything else that comes with socialism.

How can you hold a sucessful antagonist-free society without eliminating the class system first (this overly simplified definition of class struggle by Anarchists is unorganized and inefficient, any Anarchist group that would attempt class struggle would probably be destroyed by the more organized bourgeoisie/counter revolutionaries). All Marxists believe (to quote Marx) "The history of the world hitherto is one of class struggle". Lenin, Mao and Stalin all acknowledged this.

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 16 2003, 02:53 AM
Okay what about this

Anarchists collectives can&#39;t win the armies.

Anarchist army doesn&#39;t have hierarchy which means that there is no military ranks.

How this kind of army can ever beat a regular army?
SHUT THE FUCK UP SOVIET POWER SUPREME

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 08:11 PM
In the end: How many Anarchist revolutionary groups have been sucessful in comparison to Workers Marxist-Leninist vanguardist revolutionary groups?
Marxist-Leninist groups have been a complete failure. Every time they came to power they resulted NOT in the liberation of the working class but a state-capitalist dictatorship. And they weren&#39;t even able to stay in power - the USSR collapsed and liberal capitalism triumphant. For most of the 20th century Marxism dominated the left, anarchism was marginal. Leninism has had numerous mass movements and countless opportunities to implement it&#39;s ideas. Every time it has resulted in state-capitalist tyranny and it has completely failed at defeating market capitalists. Anarchism has only really had 3 opportunities to implement it&#39;s ideas - and each time we were stabbed in the back by Marxists. Leninism has completely failed to liberate the working class or even defeat the west, it is an utter miserable failure. It&#39;s time to try something different.


Anarchism will never work because it is blatant idealism. Anarchists have an overly simplified view of class struggle (cute sayings like "No war but the class war" are too vague).

Straw man.


Due to the fact that all forms of profit would be eliminated, there would be little corruption in the state.

Whenever Leninism has actually been implemented there has been signifigant corruption.


Marx did not call for complete equality in the sense of rankings (Leader, follower, captain, soldier, general, etc), he called for equal distribution of labour and economic egalitarianism and everything else that comes with socialism.

And the keeping of inequalities of power has historically lead back to inequalities of wealth. To abolish one you must abolish the other.


any Anarchist group that would attempt class struggle would probably be destroyed by the more organized bourgeoisie/counter revolutionaries

As opposed to the USSR, which was defeated. The Makhnovists in Ukraine were able to defeat the bourgeoisie without your dictatorship, so this disproves your assertion. The Makhnovists were suppressed not by right-wing counter-revolutionaries, but by the Bolsheviks.

[Bolshevika]

Marxist-Leninist groups have been a complete failure. Every time they came to power they resulted NOT in the liberation of the working class but a state-capitalist dictatorship. And they weren&#39;t even able to stay in power - the USSR collapsed and liberal capitalism triumphant. For most of the 20th century Marxism dominated the left, anarchism was marginal. Leninism has had numerous mass movements and countless opportunities to implement it&#39;s ideas. Every time it has resulted in state-capitalist tyranny and it has completely failed at defeating market capitalists. Anarchism has only really had 3 opportunities to implement it&#39;s ideas - and each time we were stabbed in the back by Marxists. Leninism has completely failed to liberate the working class or even defeat the west, it is an utter miserable failure. It&#39;s time to try something different.

Simply because the situation with the Soviet Union (the thing with the Soviet Union was a coup that had nothing to do with socialism) doesn&#39;t mean Marxism-Leninism is a "complete failure". Do you believe Cuba is state capitalist (I won&#39;t ask about DPRK, because I know people on Che-Lives are very afraid of that place) ? How about China under Mao? USSR under Lenin and Stalin?

The people of Korea, former USSR, Cuba, etc are for the most part selfless human beings who give anything and everything to make their comrades feel at home. I don&#39;t see how Marxism-Leninism is a "miserable failure" since its ideas gained much more momentum than Anarchist ideas. Why? Because Anarchism will never happen and is a counter revolutionary idea that does not appeal to the masses because anarchism is not a progressive idea. It will bring us back to the stone age.

Also, Marxist theory was never practiced where it was meant to be practiced ( in western capitalist nations). You are dogmatic in the sense that you believe they did not try their best to make the Soviet Union the best they could (if you knew anything about Marxist theory, you&#39;d know that after feudalism, capitalism must be implemented in order to provide a surplus to build socialism on, Lenin tried to build this surplus with the NEP and Stalin was the one who built socialism after the economy got rolling). To completely abolish all forms of government, economy, etc and leave people without state sponsered welfare, food rations, healthcare, education etc is uncivilized and is no way to conduct class struggle.

Old ideas will roam free and new ideas will be surpressed by the well armed bourgeoisie. The poor, undisciplined, illiterate, hungry, sick, disoriented masses will not know what to do&#33;

Tell me, how would you have implemented your ideology in 1940&#39;s China? Or Russia in 1922? You can&#39;t. To call Marxism-Leninism a failure without providing a good example of a more sucessful anarchist alternative, you are simply proving the simple and vague nature of Anarchism.


Straw man.

What does this mean?


And the keeping of inequalities of power has historically lead back to inequalities of wealth. To abolish one you must abolish the other.

Political leadership does not have much signifigance to class struggle under socialism. To abolish the state machinary right after capitalism is to leave a child parentless. If you leave a baby their without someone to feed it or nurture it or treat it, it will die. That is what will happen to the working people if some Anarchist abolishes the state. The abolishment of government cannot happen until all imperialist powers are defeated.


As opposed to the USSR, which was defeated. The Makhnovists in Ukraine were able to defeat the bourgeoisie without your dictatorship, so this disproves your assertion. The Makhnovists were suppressed not by right-wing counter-revolutionaries, but by the Bolsheviks.

Again, the USSR was infiltrated by capitalist crooks like Gorbachev and Yeltsin. I do not believe in "dictatorship" I believe in democractic centralism. The reason Bolsheviks had to surpess the Mahknovists was because they were counter revolutionaries. They were a threat to workers revolt and their ideas were clearly not friendly to Marxism, they are just as bad as the capitalist bourgeoisie.

Until you can find me a working example of Bakunin/Proudhon style Anarchism , I will stick to Marxism-Leninism.

I believe stateless society is possible, but to abolish it immediately after revolution is uncommunist, unMarxist, and barbaric.

[redstar2000]

In the end: How many Anarchist revolutionary groups have been sucessful in comparison to Workers Marxist-Leninist vanguardist revolutionary groups?

I believe the latest "score" is 0 - 0.


I ask this again, what kind of Marxist are you Redstar with your federalist Anarchist rhetoric ? Do you actually think that when Marx called for the abolishment of the old state machinary and replacing with NEW state machinary he meant completely abolish the whole government system?

That was the idea, in the long run.

Marx and Engels were operating from observed material conditions in the 19th century.

The lengthy transitional stage proposed and implemented by Leninist parties is no longer necessary.


Due to the fact that all forms of profit would be eliminated, there would be little corruption in the state. Marx did not call for complete equality in the sense of rankings (Leader, follower, captain, soldier, general, etc), he called for equal distribution of labour and economic egalitarianism and everything else that comes with socialism.

Yes, that would not be an unfair summary. However, the actual Leninist states were not genuinely egalitarian, were corrupt, and ended up restoring capitalism in all its "glory".

This suggests that Marx and Engels were probably mistaken about the whole project of a "transitional state".

It was an understandable mistake, perhaps, but a mistake nevertheless. It probably stemmed from the "occupational hazard" of serious revolutionaries...the desire to see history as more advanced than it really is.

That could apply to me, of course, or to you. I try to be cautious is suggesting proletarian revolution in western Europe in the second half of this century. I could easily be "off" by a century or more.

Recall that in 1879 Engels predicted the bourgeois revolution in Russia as coming "soon"...he only "missed" by around 40 years.


All Marxists believe (to quote Marx) "The history of the world hitherto is one of class struggle". Lenin, Mao and Stalin all acknowledged this.

It&#39;s not a matter of "belief"; it is a product of observation.

The fact that your three "all-stars" acknowledged this is rather irrelevant in light of their practice.

If the idea of a "transitional state" had any validity, you would reasonably expect to see conscious and deliberate efforts to actually engage in transition...the gradual introduction of communist principles.

In fact, the trajectory of "transition" went in the opposite direction. Your Leninist states "peaked" in their earliest years and then devolved, more or less rapidly, back into capitalism.

If you actually read Stalin, for example, it&#39;s quite clear that he thought "socialism" would endure indefinitely...and never did he even suggest measures that might have actually involved a "transition" to communism.

Mao&#39;s "peasant communism" (the big communes, the backyard steelmills, etc.) completely flopped...so much for his understanding of Marxism.

Even Lenin himself said flatly that "state capitalism" would be an "advance" for the USSR...and that&#39;s really what the NEP was.

You sound to me like someone who is really unfamiliar with the history of all this stuff...who has adopted Leninism as a kind of secular religion.

I&#39;ve found that to be fairly common; Leninist formulas can appear plausible as long as you don&#39;t look at the actual history of 20th century Leninist parties and states.

You need to look&#33;

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

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

[redstar2000]

Do you believe Cuba is state capitalist (I won&#39;t ask about DPRK, because I know people on Che-Lives are very afraid of that place) ? How about China under Mao? USSR under Lenin and Stalin?

People on Che-Lives are not "afraid" of North Korea...what is to be "feared" in a bizarre neo-Confucianist despotism that has already established "special economic zones" to facilitate the transition to capitalism?

The technical term for the USSR and "People&#39;s" China is state monopoly capitalism. But I actually prefer a term that I thought up myself: proto-capitalist despotism.

With only weak and colonialized bourgeoisie, pre-capitalist countries in the modern era "need" a strong despotism to develop a vigorous native bourgeoisie. Leninism is as useful to them as "democracy" was to the early western bourgeoisie.

The industrialization of the USSR and China is most clearly paralleled in the west by Imperial Germany.

Cuba became a neo-colony of the USSR and is now poised to become a neo-colony of the EU.


The people of Korea, former USSR, Cuba, etc are for the most part selfless human beings who give anything and everything to make their comrades feel at home.

What sort of sentimental mush is this?

What is the evidence?


Because Anarchism will never happen and is a counter revolutionary idea that does not appeal to the masses because anarchism is not a progressive idea. It will bring us back to the stone age.

Stripped of abuse, this would be a "blank quote".

It&#39;s the semantic equivalent of "You&#39;re damned and are certain to go to Hell".


Also, Marxist theory was never practiced where it was meant to be practiced (in western capitalist nations).

Quite so&#33; Even though there have been dozens of Leninist parties, each one of which claimed to have "mastered" "Marxism"-Leninism.

At the very least, I don&#39;t see how you can argue against what I have repeatedly pointed out: Leninism is irrelevant in the advanced capitalist countries.


To completely abolish all forms of government, economy, etc and leave people without state sponsored welfare, food rations, healthcare, education etc is uncivilized...

Well, from the standpoint of class society, communism is "uncivilized"...it doesn&#39;t have a state apparatus.

To suggest that everyone would curl up and die in the absence of a state sounds suspiciously like "damnation" in theological terms.


The poor, undisciplined, illiterate, hungry, sick, disoriented masses will not know what to do&#33;

So you will tell them&#33; And you will shoot them if they don&#39;t obey.

Great strategy&#33; :o


Tell me, how would you have implemented your ideology in 1940&#39;s China? Or Russia in 1922? You can&#39;t. To call Marxism-Leninism a failure without providing a good example of a more successful anarchist alternative, you are simply proving the simple and vague nature of Anarchism.

Nonsense. Your challenge to play historical "what if" games is childish. No one with a serious and informed criticism of a political perspective is under any obligation to suggest some kind of alternative that "might" have worked "better".

We know what actually happened...that is sufficient to criticize.


Political leadership does not have much significance to class struggle under socialism.

What kind of newby to Leninism are you? The concept of "correct leadership" is crucial to Leninist theory...it is the whole "justification" for the "vanguard party", both before and after the revolution.

Your statement, in Leninist terms, makes no sense.


To abolish the state machinery right after capitalism is to leave a child parentless. If you leave a baby there without someone to feed it or nurture it or treat it, it will die.

So the Leninist party and its state sort of plays the same role as a "loving parent" or, for that matter, a "loving God".

Should one laugh...or vomit?


Again, the USSR was infiltrated by capitalist crooks like Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

They were respected leaders of the CPSU who rose through the ranks to their positions of prominence. Infiltrators? That definitely calls for a horselaugh.


I believe in democratic centralism.

You&#39;ll be sorry.


I believe stateless society is possible, but to abolish [the state] immediately after revolution is uncommunist, unMarxist, and barbaric.

And if things turn out that way, you&#39;ll be out of a job.

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

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

[Bolshevika]

That was the idea, in the long run.

Marx and Engels were operating from observed material conditions in the 19th century.

The lengthy transitional stage proposed and implemented by Leninist parties is no longer necessary.

According to Engel&#39;s, the capitalist state is a repressive force in the sense that there is exploitation by the rich of the proletariat. Engel&#39;s calls for the replacement of this special repressive force, with another repressive force, that organizes the proletariat into the new ruling class. This is what Lenin and Stalin did, they made the Proletariat the ruling class over the bourgeoisie due to the fact that only toilers were allowed to elect and join the communist party. The ruling class had no rights and were in fact surpressed by the proletarian vanguard, the proletarian vanguard is simply something Lenin used to adopt to Russian material conditions, although the proletarian still had power concentrated into their hands.

Leninism is Marxism considering imperialism. It is for the surpression of subversionists along with the bourgeoisie.

The "lengthy transititional stage" Lenin proposes is the same as what Marx proposed, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" IE, a group of professional revolutionaries to lead the proletariat through class struggle and organize them into the new ruling class. After sucessfully organizing them into the ruling class, class and the state would wither away. How can you say we should simply skip the socialist step (I believe that is what you are saying?)


Yes, that would not be an unfair summary. However, the actual Leninist states were not genuinely egalitarian, were corrupt, and ended up restoring capitalism in all its "glory".

Marxist-Leninist states are usually the least corrupt of all, due to the fact that they are democratic centralist. When power is centralized but there is also republic-esque institutions, corruption is usually limited. Marxist-Leninist states were for the most part egalitarian in the sense of the distribution of labour and capital via democratic means.

Do I need to remind you that the "slow restoring of capitalism" is revisionism on the part of the infiltrators? Do you know why this happens? Because of lack of criticism and self-criticism. If there is criticism and self criticism, revisionism can be combatted. Problem with the Soviet Union after Stalin and the Peoples Republic of China after Mao was bureaucracy and lack of criticism, hence American/Western sponsered capitalist oligarch&#39;s infiltrated the communist party. This is due to the fact of imperialism, as you&#39;ve said, Marx and Engels did not really know what the underdeveloped (at that time) capitalist nations were capable of. That is where Leninism comes in. In a Leninist communist party, criticism and self criticism, surpression of counter revolutionary and outdated thought, are used as tools to combat imperialist agression in the third world.


This suggests that Marx and Engels were probably mistaken about the whole project of a "transitional state".

Ah yes, this is what Marx and Engel&#39;s fought against, Anarchist opportunism, shall we read their polemic to the Anarchists?:

When the political struggle of the working class assumes a revolutionary form, when the workers set up in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie their revolutionary dictatorship, then they commit the terrible crime of outraging principle, for in order to satisfy their wretched, vulgar, everyday needs (this quote proves Marx and Engels were in support of a state that supplied the needs of the proletariat if they could not supply themselves, which they couldn&#39;t in Russia, China, Korea, Cuba, etc) in order to break down the resistence of the bourgeoisie, they give the state a revolutionary and transitional form, instead of laying down arms and abolishing state

So do you agree Lenin followed Marxist theory here? He in fact installed the democratic dictatorship of the proletarian in the form of a proletarian republic where only the proletariat had rights to vote, propose, criticize, etc. Do you not agree that is the closest to Marxist theory Russia could&#39;ve had at the moment ?


It&#39;s not a matter of "belief"; it is a product of observation.

The fact that your three "all-stars" acknowledged this is rather irrelevant in light of their practice.

I disagree completely. Stalin and Mao both industrialized the Soviet Union and China and both took many steps towards communism. Both Mao and Stalin collectivized farms and had workers run these collectivized farms democratically amongst themselves, both held class struggles, both installed democratic peoples republics.

I think you have to learn that Marxism is not an absolute theory, it is a science. Mao and Stalin applied this science to the situations they were in. China was almost entirely made up of farmers and other forms of peasantry, so Mao applied Marxist theories of class struggle, agrarian, etc with what he had to work with, when these nations (USSR and China) industrialized, it wasn&#39;t the bourgeoisie industrializing, it was the proletariat dictatorship industrializing.


Even Lenin himself said flatly that "state capitalism" would be an "advance" for the USSR...and that&#39;s really what the NEP was.

And Lenin was right. You are opportunistic and dogmatic in the sense that you expect Lenin to perfectly follow Marx&#39;s theories, yet you forget that the material conditions Marx predicted socialist revolution would occur were way different from the material conditions Lenin was met with in Russia.

"State capitalism" (IE, heavily regulated quasi-free trade) would definetly create an economic surplus for Russia, and Marx and Engels both say that Capitalism is what makes socialism work. Without feudalism, capitalism cannot exist, without capitalism, socialism cannot exist, without socialism, communism cannot exist. Lenin was experimenting with a way to skip the capitalist step via quasi-free trade.

I disagree with Marx to some degree on the withering away of the state. During the times Marx and Engel&#39;s lived, the world was not as it is today. The dictatorship of the proletariat must exist in the form of a republic to provide an effiecient way of defending ones nation. When imperialism is eliminated and industrialized capitalist nations fall, I will begin to worry myself with the withering away of the state machinary. I believe this is why Stalin and Mao both industrialized their nations into superpowers, to intimidate the imperialist aggressor.

Redstar, you know Marxist theory to an extent, but you are way too dogmatic and somewhat opportunistic.

I won&#39;t respond to the rest because they are blatant insults.

[Pete]

I have trouble accepting a Leninist calling an Anarchist an oppurtunist. The opposite is truer.

As well, a Leninist calling an Anarchist dogmatic? Man you have missed the boat&#33;

(More or less useless post, I have nothing new to add except I can&#39;t help but miss the irony of those two comments)

[redstar2000]

This is what Lenin and Stalin did, they made the Proletariat the ruling class over the bourgeoisie due to the fact that only toilers were allowed to elect and join the communist party.

It&#39;s true that workers were the great majority of the rank-and-file of the CPSU(B). But that was a meaningless "honor", because the higher ranks of the party "ran the show" and operated by "giving orders" to the rank-and-file members.

You&#39;re not "part of the ruling class" if your opinion is meaningless.


...the proletarian vanguard is simply something Lenin used to adopt to Russian material conditions, although the proletariat still had power concentrated into their hands.

That&#39;s a Leninist fiction. The proletariat did not have any power "in its own hands". All decisions of any consequence were made at the highest levels of the party.

Furthermore, Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky agreed that things ought to work like that.

What does it mean to be "part" of the "ruling class" if your views are irrelevant and your actual power amounts to zero?


How can you say we should simply skip the socialist step (I believe that is what you are saying?)

Yes, that is what I am proposing.

I do so because I think that the failure to abolish the state, wage-slavery, the market, etc. simply results in the re-establishment of a new capitalist society.

The reason that this happens is that the ruling elite, whatever its "benign" intentions, finds itself functioning as if it were a ruling class.

As you know, being determines consciousness. When your job is to be a boss, you start, after a while, thinking like a boss.

After a while, you don&#39;t really see any reason why you shouldn&#39;t be a boss...and an owner.

The USSR, China, etc. were not "overthrown" by imperialists; it was the vanguard party itself, especially its highest personnel, who corrupted themselves.

Many Leninists spend a lot of time speaking of "treachery"...but that is "unMarxist" in my opinion. The material conditions of those societies demanded a new bourgeoisie...and the party elite were in exactly the right material position to become that new bourgeoisie.

The working class, being powerless, had no voice in the matter.


Do I need to remind you that the "slow restoring of capitalism" is revisionism on the part of the infiltrators? Do you know why this happens? Because of lack of criticism and self-criticism. If there is criticism and self criticism, revisionism can be combated.

Are you suggesting that a ritual can overcome material conditions?

I understand that you view my criticisms as "insults", but don&#39;t you ask to be "insulted" when you say things like that?


In a Leninist communist party, criticism and self criticism, suppression of counter revolutionary and outdated thought, are used as tools to combat imperialist aggression in the third world.

Maybe that is what is "supposed" to happen, but it didn&#39;t.


...in order to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie, they [the working class] give the state a revolutionary and transitional form, instead of laying down arms and abolishing state.

Yes, that&#39;s what Marx said. But in spite of total victory in the Russian Empire and in China, there was no transition.


So do you agree Lenin followed Marxist theory here?...Do you not agree that is the closest to Marxist theory Russia could&#39;ve had at the moment?

I do not agree. The one thing that Lenin and the Bolsheviks "could have done" was to respect the autonomy of the soviets and the factory committees as the real organs of a proletarian "state".

They did not do so; they imposed a political monopoly of their own cadres on all working class organizations.

That was the first and crucial step towards restoring capitalism.


...and both took many steps towards communism.

Which have been cleverly hidden from every historian of every political persuasion.

Neat trick.


...and Marx and Engels both say that Capitalism is what makes socialism work.

A bizarre assertion. Where&#39;d you get that one?


I disagree with Marx to some degree on the withering away of the state.

Yes, you certainly do.


The dictatorship of the proletariat must exist in the form of a republic to provide an efficient way of defending one&#39;s nation.

Well, that&#39;s the old story, isn&#39;t it? Relying on patriotism rather than international proletarian solidarity.

The interesting thing about the Leninists is that they always think that they can play bourgeois power politics better than the bourgeoisie.

No wonder they lose.

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]

I think you have to learn that Marxism is not an absolute theory, it is a science

yes redstar, go and read some books :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism will never work because it is blatant idealism.

Have you read any of my posts? Or are you reading this one from a book? Asserting a subjective oppinion does not create a solid argument.


Anarchists have an overly simplified view of class struggle (cute sayings like "No war but the class war" are too vague).

Anarchism understands class struggle perfectly well, but that does not mean that we therefore have to make the dictatorship of the proletariat our logical conclusion.

The Anarchist Tension

Look at feudalism. For centuries it worked, history however proved that it was out dated and inpractical. If you look at people in 1136 in England. if you said to them, "could you imagine a world without a lord, without a king to rule over us and making us pay taxes and work on their lands. Could you imagine having an elected parliment with which we could vote for representatives"....of course not. It is the same now. When you speak to someone and say, "could you imagine living in a world where we were free and equal and that we worked together co-operativly in federations without hierarchies." You get laughed at and called crazy. But history proves that overtime, whether it is ten, fifty or a thousand years our material conditions changes. Human consciousness changes.

Eventually the majority of working class people we realise that this world belongs to them. That they are what makes it work and that they can live together, co-operating with each other, free and equally and in federations, without hierarchies. It is the logical conclusion of capitalism.

it is therefore up to me and you and all our comrades to lay the foundations, or even begin to lay the foundations. We can not force revolution to happen without people first realising why. If you do that then what is it for. if you sieze power and organize an ignorant working class in their interests you are doing no better than allowing them to go to the polls. So you call it a proletarit dictatership but will you have the whole proletariat involved in decisions made in a central committee. Of course not&#33; It will be these professional revolutionaries, these "intellectuals" who claim to be working for us...we dont need them. We can lead ourselves thank you very much.

The Anarchist Tension

I am basing my argument on the theory of dialectical materialism. Societies change. You are advocating that a revolutionary vanguard should take any opportunity to create a revolution, regardless of class consciousness. Sorry, but this is not how revolutions get won. As I have said before history changes all the time. people change. Something that you think could never happen, could never change, changes. Feudilism gave way to capitalism, which is a system built specifcally on the back of workers. Captialism may last for a few more centuries but it is only a question of time. The workers will realise their role within society and become conscious of their class and want to change it.

Forcing this change results in failed revolutions, brutal dictaterships and the revival of capitalism, simply because the only thing the workers new was that their conditions were bad and followed a leader out of desperation of wanting to change them [their conditions]. They did not understand why they felt the way they did or what their role in society was. If they did, do you think stalin could have manipulated them in order to enforce his control. No, because people would have understood what was happening and stopped it.

It is unfortunate to think that maybe we will not see revolution in our life time. But what is important is to move a step closer to it every day. To lay the foundations for the moment class consciousness does happen. There has to be a movement who has the answers, who pushes the ideology and who acts as a mediater during the transition from capitalism to anarchism.

We are no better than anyone else, we simply understand our position in society more. We feel empowered to change society, where as your average john smith dosnt. But they will, eventually.

How do you think the revolution will happen?


I ask this again, what kind of Marxist are you Redstar with your federalist Anarchist rhetoric ?

A marxist who dosn&#39;t get bogged down with sentimentality.


Do you actually think that when Marx called for the abolishment of the old state machinary and replacing with NEW state machinary he meant completely abolish the whole government system?

No&#33; It is simply unnecessary.


t would not be run by the labour aristocracy and the rich bourgeois property owners

No, you right, it would be run by unelected "intellectuals".


How can you hold a sucessful antagonist-free society without eliminating the class system first

We do...It is you who wishes to conserve it with your vanguard of unelected leaders. Do you think the workers could have recalled Lenin if they wanted too. Or Trotsky for that matter. None of the Executive or Central Committee members where elected by the workers. These men and women where given unquestionable power over all state institutions thus creating a new rulng class of an elite.


(this overly simplified definition of class struggle by Anarchists is unorganized and inefficient, any Anarchist group that would attempt class struggle would probably be destroyed by the more organized bourgeoisie/counter revolutionaries).

Read the god damn thread. anti-hierarchies and decentralisation do not mean disorganization. Anarchism is about hyper organization. You can be organized without have leaders and central command structures.


All Marxists believe (to quote Marx) "The history of the world hitherto is one of class struggle". Lenin, Mao and Stalin all acknowledged this.

But that does not mean that I have to draw an authotarian conclusion on how to emancipate my class. It is you who is simplifying anarchism, not anarchism simplifying marxism.

[The Feral Underclass]

(the thing with the Soviet Union was a coup that had nothing to do with socialism)

:lol: I wonder what Lenin would have thought if he could read that&#33;&#33;&#33;


Do you believe Cuba is state capitalist

Maybe not at present but sooner or later it will have to otherwise there will be perpetual misery. Once Castro is dead the markets will open.

As Redstar says begin is consciousness. Look at the Cuban leadership. Ailing, rich authotarians who smoke cigars and entertain Pope&#39;s. Do you think Guevera would be proud of Cuba now.


The people of Korea, former USSR, Cuba, etc are for the most part selfless human beings who give anything and everything to make their comrades feel at home.

How sweet&#33;


I don&#39;t see how Marxism-Leninism is a "miserable failure" since its ideas gained much more momentum than Anarchist ideas.

The fact Maxrist Leninist movements "gained momentum" is because of the opportunist politics applied by them. The actually realities of the ideology is practice have failed. In every country it has worked in. Look at Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania. All Marxist leninist at one point. Not any more&#33; Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, China, even to come extent Cambodia. All failed. Even Russia, where the movement was born failed to a greater extent than all the others. Look at the disgusting Liberal Capitalism that now exists there. Lenin must be turning in his embarming fluid&#33;


Because Anarchism will never happen and is a counter revolutionary idea that does not appeal to the masses because anarchism is not a progressive idea. It will bring us back to the stone age.

Rhetorical assertions based on no real, objective understanding of Anarchism.


You are dogmatic in the sense that you believe they did not try their best to make the Soviet Union the best they could

But what was the Soviet Union. It was a dictatership of a vanguard. Run by people who enjoyed power that little bit too much. Look at the facts&#33;


Old ideas will roam free and new ideas will be surpressed by the well armed bourgeoisie. The poor, undisciplined, illiterate, hungry, sick, disoriented masses will not know what to do&#33;

You were saying about dogma?

The masses are not poor, they are not illiterate, hungry or sick. I&#39;m sorry to tell you but this isnt 1917 Russia.


To abolish the state machinary right after capitalism is to leave a child parentless. If you leave a baby their without someone to feed it or nurture it or treat it, it will die. That is what will happen to the working people if some Anarchist abolishes the state. The abolishment of government cannot happen until all imperialist powers are defeated.

But the working class are not children who need parenting. They will have the same consciousness, desires and passion as me or anyone else on this message board and therefore will be able to lead themselves to destroy capitalism. We do not have some hystical powers that the working class are unable to have. We simply understand what capitalism and how we change it. As I have said, it is only a matter of time until everyone else understands it. At that point we will have know need for central ccommittees and vanguards. They will be unnecessary because we will be able to use our minds to think and act independently, working in cooperation with each other.


Again, the USSR was infiltrated by capitalist crooks like Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

These men came sixty, seventy years after Stalin. It was not Gorbachev who created Stalin. It was the dictatership you so proudly advocate.


The reason Bolsheviks had to surpess the Mahknovists was because they were counter revolutionaries.

WE WHERE MAKING IT WORK&#33;&#33;&#33;


They were a threat to workers revolt and their ideas were clearly not friendly to Marxism, they are just as bad as the capitalist bourgeoisie.

This is complete rubbish. They where not friendly to the autocracy of Lenin. And the workers did not have much problem with the anarchists at the time. That is why we where supported by them.

To simply assert that anarchism is as bad as capitalism is the same reactionary venem used to say that all homosexuals are paedophilies. You lack the understanding or the willingness to understand to make such remarks.


Until you can find me a working example of Bakunin/Proudhon style Anarchism , I will stick to Marxism-Leninism.

There have been none. Just as there have been no working examples of Leninism.


I believe stateless society is possible, but to abolish it immediately after revolution is uncommunist, unMarxist, and barbaric.

As an anarchist I think we can safly say it is uncommunist. I would also regard myself as someone who followed Marx theories of dialectics and historical materialism. I do not think Marx was right about the dictatership of the proletariat, and I think he would have seriously revised the theory if he had lived through the twentieth century.

As for barbaric. it seems strange that an ideology that advocates real freedom and direct democracy and equality can be called barbaric. Read a book&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

the capitalist state is a repressive force in the sense that there is exploitation by the rich of the proletariat.

A state does not change its nature because its changed its name. A donut does not become a cheesecake because you call it a cheesecake.


This is what Lenin and Stalin did, they made the Proletariat the ruling class over the bourgeoisie due to the fact that only toilers were allowed to elect and join the communist party.

Elect whom. Not Lenin or Stalin or Trotsky. These people believed they had a right to be leaders. They became leaders, unquestionable leaders, who oppressed workers, such as the sailors in Kronstadt and in the Ukraine, with complete ease and satisfaction.


The ruling class had no rights and were in fact surpressed by the proletarian vanguard, the proletarian vanguard is simply something Lenin used to adopt to Russian material conditions, although the proletarian still had power concentrated into their hands.

you are misguided my friend. The proletariat had no power. They where directed and instructed by the Central Committee and other Commisariates. They made no decisions about what they wanted or did not wantd. In fact if they expressed things they did not want or wanted that was in contradiction to Lenin etc they where murdered.


The "lengthy transititional stage" Lenin proposes is the same as what Marx proposed, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" IE, a group of professional revolutionaries to lead the proletariat through class struggle and organize them into the new ruling class.

Why can they not organize themselves, and lead themselves through class struggle?


Marxist-Leninist states are usually the least corrupt of all, due to the fact that they are democratic centralist.

Look at these "marxist-leninist" countries. The new ruling class of these countries use their power and wealth to achieve personal glory and satisfaction. Do you think that Ho jintao or the Central Committee of the Chinese Peoples republic revcieves a basic workers wage? Do you think they are recallable? No&#33;


lack of criticism and self-criticism. If there is criticism and self criticism, revisionism can be combatted.

Yes, but you cant criticise or you&#39;ll be arrested by the Cheka and shot.


"When the political struggle of the working class assumes a revolutionary form, when the workers set up in place of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie their revolutionary dictatorship, then they commit the terrible crime of outraging principle, for in order to satisfy their wretched, vulgar, everyday needs (this quote proves Marx and Engels were in support of a state that supplied the needs of the proletariat if they could not supply themselves, which they couldn&#39;t in Russia, China, Korea, Cuba, etc) in order to break down the resistence of the bourgeoisie, they give the state a revolutionary and transitional form, instead of laying down arms and abolishing state"

And what do you think Marx and Engels would have said if they had seen what their theories created in practice?

[Revolution Hero]

Fist of all, the term Dictatorship of the proletariat was originally used by Marx and Engels and therefore it is not Lenin’s invention.

Secondly, Dictatorship of the proletariat is not a fantasy, but a reality; only fool may deny the fact that it was perfectly used by all revolutionary proletarian states during the transitional period of their development.

[The Feral Underclass]

Secondly, Dictatorship of the proletariat is not a fantasy, but a reality;

And that reality became nothing more than what you people claim it will not be. In that sense it is a fantasy. There has not been on example of Leninism that has worked.


only fool may deny the fact that it was perfectly used by all revolutionary proletarian states during the transitional period of their development.

If you then assert that the all the countries who have attempted to implment Leninism were succesful, then you prove my point that it is nothing but a mechanism to allow a small elite to take power and retain it using all the oppressivness of the state.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

I like your comparrison to donuts and cheesecakes, makes me hungry

[Invader Zim]

I believe that Che Him self says it best: -

"To avoid it there is need of an organism that takes the lead of the revolution and guides it. That organism is the communist party. The party is a forefront organisation. The best workers are nominated for membership by their comrades. They form a minority, but due to the quality of its militants the party radiates great authority. It is our aspiration that she becomes a mass-party, but only when the masses reach the level of consciousness of the forefront. Meaning: when they have been reared up to communism. That educative work is our task. The party must be the vivid example through her militants, an example of dedication and sacrifice. Through their efforts they have to get the masses to rise up to their revolutionary task in turn. It will take years of heavy combat against the difficulties that the edification of socialism will bring, against class-enemies, against misdeeds of the past, against imperialism…In short "the party&#39;s mission is to achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat as soon as possible."

[The Feral Underclass]

oh my gad&#33;...it&#39;s enough to send ya crazy :blink:

[Saint-Just]

A state does not change its nature because its changed its name. A donut does not become a cheesecake because you call it a cheesecake.

Why would any rational person call a donut a cheesecake if they thought it to be a donut?

[The Feral Underclass]

duh :blink: &#33;&#33;&#33;

The point I was making was that because you give a state another name, does not stop it from being a what it is. Wha a state is, is the instuments and institutions used to keep a group of people in power. In this case the vanguard. Made up of unelected professional "intellectuals" with unquestionable power.

[The Feral Underclass]

I just read one of your signitures;


"Anyone who says that promiscuity is alright is some kind of anarchistic, hippy chucklehead."

That says it all...&#33;

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18 2003, 05:35 PM
I just read one of your signitures;


"Anyone who says that promiscuity is alright is some kind of anarchistic, hippy chucklehead."

That says it all...&#33;
I dont think there was any call for that...

[The Feral Underclass]

I dont think there was any call for that...

My point being that this is a very reactionary view to have and makes it very clear what he thinks...

[Saint-Just]

The point I was making was that because you give a state another name, does not stop it from being a what it is. Wha a state is, is the instuments and institutions used to keep a group of people in power. In this case the vanguard. Made up of unelected professional "intellectuals" with unquestionable power.

I accept that a state is a state. Leninists accept the state is oppressive regardless of its nature, but we also assert that the nature of the state can change radically. And, indeed it does change radically under socialism.

[The Feral Underclass]

If you agree that the nature of the state is for an elite group of people to retain power and wealth by using instruments and institutions of oppression, how can it be something else.

If you call a state a workers state, does that make it a workers state. of course not. Any vanguard would not be elected for a start. In the UK the central committee of the SWP is not elected, and in a revolutioanry situation the working class are supposed to follow them, without consciousness, to destroy capitalism. The workers state is not to retain power for the workers, it is to retain power for this vangaurd, who claim to be working in the interests of the working class. This is fundamentally wrong. The revolution is not to create power for a vangaurd, which is what would happen, and which what has happened everytime it has been tried, but to destoy capitalism and create a statless society through consiousness. That is the point of revolution. To destroy the state.

Why should I trust you&#33; You claim to be fighting for the interests of the working class. But so do Labour. Why should we trust you to lead us? What is the point of being led? What does it stop, it does not stop the exploitation of one against the other, and it dosnt matter what you want to call it, whether you claim it is in our interest or not, it is still exploitation. What does any of what your advocating achieve other than a new ruling class which is what it has achieved in the past.

[Revolution Hero]

The anarchist tension :


“And that reality became nothing more than what you people claim it will not be. In that sense it is a fantasy. There has not been on example of Leninism that has worked”.



You have admitted that Leninism is Marxism, since you called Marxist idea Leninist. Congratulations, comrade, you are making progress&#33; (seriously)

Dictatorship of the proletariat is basically the weapon in the hands of revolutionary working masses with the help of which working masses defend socialist revolution. What is the main aim of the Dictatorship of the proletariat? The main aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to deprive bourgeoisie class of its political rights and to limit its economical rights. All socialist states did it and you could not deny this very fact.


“If you then assert that the all the countries who have attempted to implement Leninism were successful, then you prove my point that it is nothing but a mechanism to allow a small elite to take power and retain it using all the oppressiveness of the state”.

Here I would like to repeat the argument I used in another discussion.

There is a difference between antagonistic and non- antagonistic states. The first implies the existence of classes with contradicting interests, such as class of capitalists and class of proletarians. As it is clear that private owners of the means of production always represents the minority of the population of whatsoever antagonistic society, it is possible to conclude that Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie means the oppression of majority by the minority, and, in contrary, the Dictatorship of the proletariat means the oppression of minority by the majority.

Therefore you argument concerning ‘small elite of oppressors’ is applicable only to capitalist states, and can’t be applied to the states, which are in transition from capitalism into socialism, or for the socialist ones. Especially it can’t be applied to the latter, as socialist state is a non-antagonistic formation.

[The Feral Underclass]

First of all, don&#39;t call me comrade. Your not my comrade&#33; Secondly, I never said that Leninism was not marxism at any time during my posts.


Dictatorship of the proletariat is basically the weapon in the hands of revolutionary working masses with the help of which working masses defend socialist revolution.

And unconsious working class who are fighting this revolution for a vanguard, not for themselves. What decisions do the workers get to make on how to direct the revolution? None&#33; How many workers get to decide how they want to run the country? None&#33; The vanguard of the party is leading the country. They are making the decisions. not the workers. They are using the workers to oppress capitalism, so that they can retain power. That is fact&#33; They may day it is in the interest of the workers, but that dosnt mean that it is&#33;


What is the main aim of the Dictatorship of the proletariat?

What the intentions are and what the realities are, are two different things. History has proved that.


There is a difference between antagonistic and non- antagonistic states. The first implies the existence of classes with contradicting interests, such as class of capitalists and class of proletarians. As it is clear that private owners of the means of production always represents the minority of the population of whatsoever antagonistic society, it is possible to conclude that Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie means the oppression of majority by the minority, and, in contrary, the Dictatorship of the proletariat means the oppression of minority by the majority.

This may be the case, but it is how it is achieved which is the problem. You are asking the workers, who are not conscious, to follow blindly unelected "intellectuals" who control every institution used in this oppression.

[Revolution Hero]

I never said that Leninism was not marxism at any time during my posts.


Then why do you call Dictatorship of the proletariat a "Leninist fantasy"?


“What decisions do the workers get to make on how to direct the revolution?”

Those workers who represent the proletarian vanguard make the decisions for their brothers and sisters. And those workers who are not conscious in the first period of socialist revolution will become conscious later, they will form a part of the government and take decisions. You should know that Soviet government, especially under Stalin, was mainly formed of workers.


“They may say it is in the interest of the workers, but that doesn’t mean that it is&#33;”



How can you prove this statement? Stalin and his narkoms did not live better than ordinary workers did. And I know that there were some soviet workers who received salaries higher than those of soviet ministers…



“What the intentions are and what the realities are, are two different things. History has proved that”.



History has proved that dictatorship of the proletariat was used in order to oppress class of capitalist by almost every revolutionary state. The main aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to deprive bourgeoisie class of its political rights and to limit its economical rights. Will you argue that this aim was not achieved?


“This may be the case, but it is how it is achieved which is the problem. You are asking the workers, who are not conscious, to follow blindly unselected "intellectuals" who control every institution used in this oppression”

The oppression of the bourgeoisie is done in the interest of workers; even unconscious workers understood this, as it was explained to them.

[Bianconero]

And unconsious working class who are fighting this revolution for a vanguard, not for themselves. What decisions do the workers get to make on how to direct the revolution? None&#33; How many workers get to decide how they want to run the country? None&#33; The vanguard of the party is leading the country. They are making the decisions. not the workers. They are using the workers to oppress capitalism, so that they can retain power. That is fact&#33; They may day it is in the interest of the workers, but that dosnt mean that it is&#33;

The working class needs coordination in order to defend the revolution against reactionary or imperialist intervention afterwards. Without coordination, the revolution will result in counter - revolution. This has been proven by history. The idea of the party as a vanguard is an attempt to organize the whole working class, to give the class structure and linear determination. The claim that the working class, immediately after the revolution, can maintain it&#39;s leadership on it&#39;s own, is not backed by the analysis of history.

As for the party leaders, they are chosen by the people. In my oppinion, democracy within the party is highly important. Members are chosen by the level of their social emancipation, education and consciousness. Members can be expelled for leaving the historically correct line of Marxism - Leninism, for personal enrichment and for treason. They can not be expelled for simply disagreeing with the &#39;great wise leader.&#39; Just mentioned the last one because that is what Anarchists and Trotskyites usually babble when it comes to Leninism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The working class needs coordination in order to defend the revolution against reactionary or imperialist intervention afterwards

No it doesn&#39;t... The mercenaries in Iraq a having a hard time of it, and it&#39;s not even a popular revolution&#33;
The insurgents in Iraq have no common leader but thwe do have a common goal.


This has been proven by history.

Give us an example.


The idea of the party as a vanguard is an attempt to organize the whole working class, to give the class structure and linear determination

A Leninist magical incantation as well as pure fantasy.


The claim that the working class, immediately after the revolution, can maintain it&#39;s leadership on it&#39;s own, is not backed by the analysis of history.

Leadership? what leadership?
The last thing the working class needs during and after revolution is some arrogant prick(s)
telling them what to do.


In my oppinion, democracy within the party is highly important. Members are chosen by the level of their social emancipation, education and consciousness

In other words, &#39;professional revolutionaries&#39; vote for other &#39;profesionals&#39;


Members can be expelled for leaving the historically correct line of Marxism - Leninism

A suitably vague premise for getting kicked out of the party eh?

It&#39;s all vanguardist babble that I&#39;ve heard before.

[Bianconero]

Give us an example.

I could, for example, name the CIA-organized counter-revolution in Guatemala, that by the way inspired a certain Guevara. But this is not even necessary. Common sense and logic is all that is needed. Millions of workers are not able to operate, as we have an endless amount of uneducated individuals who are not able to go in one direction, let alone in the right direction.

State autority is still needed in every post revolutionary community as Engels wrote in his 1872/1873 writing &#39;Von der Autorität.&#39; (Only know the German title)


Leadership? what leadership?
The last thing the working class needs during and after revolution is some arrogant prick(s)
telling them what to do.

Your angry liberalism isn&#39;t impressing anyone. You better start analysing society and history on a scientifical basis.


In other words, &#39;professional revolutionaries&#39; vote for other &#39;profesionals.&#39; A suitably vague premise for getting kicked out of the party eh?

I don&#39;t know where you see a problem here. We all agree that social consciousness and emancipation is the basis of progressive politics. People are not determined by nature, but by education. Capitalism educates the working class to be uneducated and not emancipated, so how could anyone claim that the people are immediately able to know what the right political direction is after the revolution?

As for democracy within the party, we both know that there are always guidelines for membership. After all, you wouldn&#39;t let a conservative racist join your party, would you?

[The Feral Underclass]

Revolutionary Hero


Then why do you call Dictatorship of the proletariat a "Leninist fantasy"?

I accept it was a theory first proposed by Marx. It should read a Marxist-Leninist fantasy. I do not want this to mean however, that I disagree with Marxism. Many parts of Marxism I agree with very much.


Those workers who represent the proletarian vanguard make the decisions for their brothers and sisters.

Why do you believe that these people should represent us? What is it about them that gives them rights to fight for our interests?

You may claim that it will be different the next time around, but history shows that none of the Marxist-Leninist revolutions where led by elected or recallable workers.

Infact none of the Marxist-Leninist parties in the UK are led by elected or recallable workers. The biggest party being the Socialist Workers Party, which none of its central committee members are elected.


And those workers who are not conscious in the first period of socialist revolution will become conscious later, they will form a part of the government and take decisions.

How will every worker be able to form parts of the government? Are you saying that every single member of the working class will become a commisar or a member of the centrel or executive committees?

No, you are not saying that&#33; What you are saying is that the workers state should be goverened by a vangaurd, regardless of consciousness, in order to defend the revolution and centralise the economy. By your own belief it would be impractical to involve every worker in the decision making process. Therefore you subsitute all the workers, with a few workers who you claim will run our affairs in our interests, thus creating class inequalities which lead to the formation of a new ruling class.

I will say again, as did Marx, Being determines consciousness. So how can you assure me or even the workers, that those people who are placed with such unquestionable power to govern us like bosses will not begin to act like bosses?


You should know that Soviet government, especially under Stalin, was mainly formed of workers

But it was controlled by unelected "pseudo-intellectuals" working in the name of Stalin.


How can you prove this statement? Stalin and his narkoms did not live better than ordinary workers did. And I know that there were some soviet workers who received salaries higher than those of soviet ministers…

This is not about whether or not he had four mercedes instead of one and a villa in the French riviera it is about who controls our daily lives and how we live them.

How I prove this statement is by history. These leaders may have lived in modest surroundings, but they controlled the revolution, the workers and the economy with an iron fist, without any regard of advancing class consciousness so that the workers could organize themselves and live freely and equally in co-operation.

Out of interest, do you think that during the seige of Moscow Stalin and his henchmen lived in the same conditions as a Moscow worker? Or indeed was he ever the victim of hunger or cold? <_<


History has proved that dictatorship of the proletariat was used in order to oppress class of capitalist by almost every revolutionary state.

I am not argueing that this wasn&#39;t the case. What I am arguing is that it is unecessary and only leads to the creation of a new, more despotic ruling class.


The main aim of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to deprive bourgeoisie class of its political rights and to limit its economical rights.

I know what the main aims are supposed to be.


Will you argue that this aim was not achieved?

No, in most cases it has been succesful, but that does not stop it from being wrong. The consequences of enforcing this dictatorship on an unconcsious working class, and concentrating all the power of the state into the hands of unelected intellectuals has resulted in Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, Moazambique, Tanzania and Angola.


The oppression of the bourgeoisie is done in the interest of workers; even unconscious workers understood this, as it was explained to them.

For a start the working class don&#39;t need people to fight in their interests, they can fight for themselves, these men and women are not children.

Secondly, tt is complete maddness to assert that unconscious workers understand what a dictatorship of the proletariat is, or why it is needed. To understand what it is, they first must understand what the proletariat is and what the bouregoisie is and how they both function and once they understand all this, there is no need for a vanguard or a dictatership because they are conscious&#33;

Anyhow, if this was all explained to them, why did they allow Stalin to take control of Russia? Why did Russia and now china revert to capitalism. If all the workers understood it, why have they all failed?

[crazy comie]

THe cpgb and cpb have democraticlly ellected hed bodys i think ?

[crazy comie]

You keep on assuming that pepole would not be democraticly elected.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bianconero


The working class needs coordination in order to defend the revolution against reactionary or imperialist intervention afterwards. coordination, the revolution will result in counter - revolution.

Why do you assume, even though it has been stated over and over again, that anarchism means uncoordination and dis-organization?


The idea of the party as a vanguard is an attempt to organize the whole working class, to give the class structure and linear determination.

That&#39;s very interesting, since all the marxist-leninist revolutions in history have either gone, or are going full cirlce.


The claim that the working class, immediately after the revolution, can maintain it&#39;s leadership on it&#39;s own, is not backed by the analysis of history.

Your intepretion of class struggle is different to mine and in fact is backed up by history very substantially. You belief that consciousness should come after a vanguard has siezed any opportunity to confront capitalism. I am saying that revolution will come as a consequence of consciousness due to the fact history changes and old systems become impractical and unecessary. Gatherer/Hunter to small tribes, tribes to Feudelism, Feudelism to Capitalism - Capitalism to Anarchism.

When class consiousness comes about the working class will be able to lead themselves no differently to your vanguard.


As for the party leaders, they are chosen by the people.

No they&#39;re not&#33; Were Lenin, Stalin and Mao elected and recallable? Were Castro or Jong elected and are they recallable?

How can your elect personalities to lead to revolution? how can you elect someone to lead a strong centralized leadership? How can you elect a suitable person to seize on opportunities. You dont&#33; These people rise through the ranks and use political intrigue to attain these seats of power. Or simply claim themselves to be leaders and take power, which is what Lenin did.


Members are chosen by the level of their social emancipation, education and consciousness.

Is this not called elitism? How will you judge what consciousness is? How can you judge how emancipated someone is in the context of capitalism?

If you have a mass membership of conscious workers, we don&#39;t need a vanguard or a dictatership of the proletariat.


Members can be expelled for leaving the historically correct line of Marxism - Leninism, for personal enrichment and for treason. They can not be expelled for simply disagreeing with the &#39;great wise leader.&#39;

Until the revolution, in which case there is no time to disagree with the great leader. Anyone who disagreed with Lenin or Stalin once they had their feet securly wedged in the door where arrested, exiled or executed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bianconero


Common sense and logic is all that is needed.

It is not logical to lead a revolution of unconcsious workers because it leads to dictatorships and then capitalism.

It is more logical to inspire and achieve class consciousness first and then confront capitalism, which would be an inevitable outcome anyway.


Millions of workers are not able to operate, as we have an endless amount of uneducated individuals who are not able to go in one direction, let alone in the right direction.

You asserted in your last post that the party should select members based on their level of consciousness, which would negate the need for a vanguard. Now you assert that the workers would be too uneducated to be able to lead themselves. Which one is it?


Your angry liberalism isn&#39;t impressing anyone. You better start analysing society and history on a scientifical basis.

What a rediculas thing to say&#33; This kind of nonsense dosnt win debates. For most of the part it is you who is not analysing history and making the right conclusions.


Capitalism educates the working class to be uneducated and not emancipated, so how could anyone claim that the people are immediately able to know what the right political direction is after the revolution?

The working class are already extremly angry and direct that anger by not voting or voting for exteme right wing parties, such as the British National Party.

Just because the workers are not conscious now, does not mean they shouldnt be conscious to confront capitalism. If we have the right movement going in the right direction, class consciousness will eventually happen and a real revolution will be created, which will destroy capitalism and create a stateless society.


As for democracy within the party, we both know that there are always guidelines for membership. After all, you wouldn&#39;t let a conservative racist join your party, would you?

Why would a conservative racist want to join a revolutionary socialist or anarchist movement?

Workers are very angry and need support from a movement. You assere that capitalism will not allow consciousness and then say workers can not join unless they are conscious. Your not really leaving us in a very good position are you?

[Bianconero]

I will not adress all your points, &#39;The Anarchist Tension.&#39; Just a few that seem important to me. Now apart the usual anarchist rethoric you made some valid (more or less) points that shouldn&#39;t remain as they are.

First of all, I know very well that Anarchism (an-archia) basically means &#39;without power.&#39; The point I was making (and it would be a shame if you didn&#39;t know that very well) was that a post-revolutionary society can not survive without authoritarian leadership as the ruling class may be overthrown, but is still there. Now I used the word &#39;coordination&#39; for a simple reason. I, as a Marxist-Leninist, am convinced that coordination and stability can not be guarateed if the people (who are educated not to be educated by the former ruling elite) immediately get the possibility to &#39;vote.&#39; The danger of them electing a new capital-representative is there for all to see.


When class consiousness comes about ...

Right, just sit back in your chair, watch Yankee-Hollywood programms and wait for it (immediate Anarchism, paradise, freedom and love) to happen.


No they&#39;re not&#33; Were Lenin, Stalin and Mao elected and recallable? Were Castro or Jong elected and are they recallable?


They were chosen, not in that corrupted bourgeois way, of course. Castro for example fought all his life for the people of Cuba, he initiated the Moncada-rebellion and launched a Guerilla resistance movement that overthrew the Yankee-backed Batista regime, all with the aid and support of the poor peasants and workers.


Is this not called elitism?

No, it is called Marxism.


Until the revolution, in which case there is no time to disagree with the great leader. Anyone who disagreed with Lenin or Stalin once they had their feet securly wedged in the door where arrested, exiled or executed.

No, everyone who cowardly and knowingly endangered the revolution, people&#39;s socialism and revolutionary freedom was whatever you said. And rightly so.


It is more logical to inspire and achieve class consciousness first and then confront capitalism, which would be an inevitable outcome anyway.

I think we&#39;ve had this before. Of course it would be better to just create &#39;total&#39; class-consciousness now, under capitalism, and walk towards revolution and communism in stile. But you sure know (I hope) that the only capacity the left has got is the armed rebellion. The bourgeois state controlls not only the media, but also schools and universities, i.e. the places where young people form their own personality (or don&#39;t, actually). The party of course needs to &#39;create&#39; (not a fitting word, couldn&#39;t think of a better one, you get the meaning) as many conscious workers as possible. But opportunities to do so are limmited.


You asserted in your last post that the party should select members based on their level of consciousness, which would negate the need for a vanguard. Now you assert that the workers would be too uneducated to be able to lead themselves. Which one is it?

The vanguard consists of the most conscious workers and peasant. The party vanguard can always be joined by educated workers, which does not negate the need for a vanguard. I did never &#39;assert&#39; that workers generally are too &#39;stupid&#39; to be part of the vanguard. That would indeed be &#39;elitism.&#39; Just the mass of workers are not able to lead the revolution immediately.


The working class are already extremly angry...

Does that make them conscious, class-conscious? Obviously not, because then they wouldn&#39;t join up with the fascists, as you stated yourself. You can&#39;t hide behind &#39;already angry&#39; here.


Why would a conservative racist want to join a revolutionary socialist or anarchist movement?

Workers are very angry and need support from a movement. You assere that capitalism will not allow consciousness and then say workers can not join unless they are conscious. Your not really leaving us in a very good position are you?

We are in no good position, better get used to it. Why would a clever oppressor be afraid of an angry not conscious, not educated, not organized, not emancipated wage-slave. You tell me.

[The Feral Underclass]

I just wrote a huge response to you Bianconero but I lost it all...I do not have the patience not the inclination to write it again right now. I am sorry. I am going to go away from this computer and be very very annoyed with it. :angry: I am going to the Bush demonstration tomorrow but i will reply soon....I HATE EVERYTHING&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Revolution Hero]

Anacrhist tension:


“Many parts of Marxism I agree with very much”.

What Marxist ideas do you agree with? For example, do you agree with the idea of class struggle?


“Why do you believe that these people should represent us? What is it about them that gives them rights to fight for our interests?”

The objective conditions of capitalist way of production put every single worker into a hierarchy, and due to his/her position in this hierarchy worker has neither knowledge, nor real ability to control the production of even a little factory. The class, which was controlled for centuries, would need many decades to learn how to control a production, economy and other spheres of life of a socialist society. Unconscious workers will not be always unconscious, but until they are they need representatives from their class to rule in their interests.


“How will every worker be able to form parts of the government? Are you saying that every single member of the working class will become a commissar or a member of the central or executive committees?”


In order for workers to be able to actively participate in the economical, political and social life of a socialist society these workers have to be well educated and very conscious. Such a high level of workers’ minds development will be achieved in decades and when it is achieved every worker will be able to rule a state. It will not be a state in its modern sense, it will have some state features only because of international conditions so require…



“What you are saying is that the workers state should be governed by a vanguard, regardless of consciousness, in order to defend the revolution and centralize the economy”.


The rule of conscious vanguard is needed during the first stage of development of socialism, during the period when the majority of workers due to the objective reasons are not able to take part in state governing.


“it was controlled by unselected "pseudo-intellectuals" working in the name of Stalin”

The party elected them and they worked in the name of all working people. It has to be pointed out that USSR had the most efficient state apparatus under Stalin only due to the fact that Narkoms perfectly knew the spheres, which were under their control, as each of them (narkoms) had worked in a particular sphere as an ordinary worker before they were nominated to a higher position. This was not the case during Brezhnev&#39;s time though...


“These leaders may have lived in modest surroundings, but they controlled the revolution, the workers and the economy with an iron fist, without any regard of advancing class consciousness so that the workers could organize themselves and live freely and equally in co-operation”.

Actually the education of the workers was of great importance. The latter example is a good proof for this. Also you should consider the fact that workers were preferentially treated in comparison to others during the acceptance of new members to CPSU.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Revolution [email protected] 19 2003, 11:36 PM
The objective conditions of capitalist way of production put every single worker into a hierarchy, and due to his/her position in this hierarchy worker has neither knowledge, nor real ability to control the production of even a little factory. The class, which was controlled for centuries, would need many decades to learn how to control a production, economy and other spheres of life of a socialist society. Unconscious workers will not be always unconscious, but until they are they need representatives from their class to rule in their interests.
At present in Argentina more than a hundred workplaces, including factories and others, are run by the workers. It took a day to take them over. The early phases of the Spanish, Russian, Iranian & other revolutions & rebellions all saw workers taking over factories and implementing worker self-management. These all prove that workers are fully capable of taking over production in a short period of time. The workers are the ones actually in the factories who do the production - we have a much better idea of how to run things than some stockbroker in new york or central planner in Moscow whov&#39;e never even seen our workplace. If workers are capable of choosing who our representatives are then we are capable of directly making decisions ourselves, without electing masters. Your rhetoric that workers are too stupid to run things themselves is anti-proletarian. I hear the same crap from members of the Libertarian Party. Workers aren&#39;t stupid.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19 2003, 04:31 PM
I accept it was a theory first proposed by Marx.
Actually it was first proposed during the French revolution in the left-wing of the Jacobin party. The Jacobins were revolutionary Republicans who played a major role in overthrowing the Aristocracy and beheading the Monarchy. Marxists consider them bourgeois (capitalist) revolutionaries. In the later part of the revolution, when things were going wrong, some left-wing Jacobins proposed a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a solution to the problems. A guy called Babeuf formed a "conspiracy of equals" to overthrow the government and implement this dictatorship. His conspiracy was discovered and they had their heads detached. This idea of a dictatorship of a proletariat survived and was picked up by 19th century revolutionaries. This included a guy called Blanqui. He believed in forming a secret society which would stage a coup and installed the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Some of his followers played a signifigant role in the Paris Commune. Marx inherited the "dictatorship of the proletariat" from these 19th century revolutionaries. The theory was half a century old by the time Marx started advocating it.

[Revolution Hero]

I did not say that workers were stupid, but I said that there were objective barriers of capitalist reality, which prevented workers from personal growth. I suggest you to read Lenin’s works, which he wrote during the first ages of revolution to understand what a low level of education workers had at that time.

It is too naive to believe that workers have enough free time for self – education purposes under capitalism.



“workers are the ones actually in the factories who do the production”.

Workers do not control production of a privately owned factory. Capitalism implies that proletariat is the object of control, but not the subject of the control.

[Morpheus]

I have read all of Lenin&#39;s major works and many of his minor ones. I own a copy of Lenin&#39;s Selected Works. I&#39;m well aware of his theories. His theories were disproven even in his time. The workers can revolutionary consciousness without the vanguard. The anarcho-syndicalist movment is a perfect example of this. It was literally created by the workers and at one point quite big. The process of class struggle itself leads to radical consciousness. Workers do not like being dominated, eploited and living in poverty. This leads to revolutionary working class movements. And even if revolutionary consciousness could only come from intellectuals as Lenin claimed his vanguardism would not follow. The intellectuals could just spread revolutionary ideas in the working class. The working class could then organize itself for revolution and run things itself, non-hierarchically.

When the Soviets first appeared in the 1905 Revolution they were not the creation of theorists, they were created by workers who hadn&#39;t read much theory. The initial position of the "vanguard" was opposed to the Soviets. In the February revolution & July days the "vanguard" was again left behind. Workers have repeatedly left the vanguard in the dust and been more revolutionary than it.

Arguing that workers don&#39;t have the "education" or "consciousness" to run things ourselves is the same as saying wer&#39;e stupid. It has been proven over and over that workers&#39; are fully capable of running production ourselves. Wev&#39;e done it before, and some workers in Argentina are doing it right now. Your anti-proletariat prejudice is virutally identical to the crap from the Libertarian Party.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I could, for example, name the CIA-organized counter-revolution in Guatemala, that by the way inspired a certain Guevara. But this is not even necessary. Common sense and logic is all that is needed. Millions of workers are not able to operate, as we have an endless amount of uneducated individuals who are not able to go in one direction, let alone in the right direction.

If there are &#39;endless amounts of uneducated individuals&#39; then it is not the time for proletarian revolution


Your angry liberalism isn&#39;t impressing anyone. You better start analysing society and history on a scientifical basis.

Yes, it has been shown consistently and repeatedly that leaders are dictatorial turds


As for democracy within the party, we both know that there are always guidelines for membership. After all, you wouldn&#39;t let a conservative racist join your party, would you?

Why not have nothing to be infiltrated?

[Bianconero]

The dictatorship of the capital doesn&#39;t allow the working class to emancipate itself mentally. There is no way the left can simply prepare workers for revolution, i.e. &#39;win them over&#39; under capitalism. As I&#39;ve stated before, the bourgeois state controlls not only the media, but also schools, universities etc. To implement revolutionary consciousness on the working class we would need these institutions. But they are not within our reach. Opportunities to spread progressive propaganda are limmited.


Yes, it has been shown consistently and repeatedly that leaders are dictatorial turds

Reactionary leaders have always been &#39;dictatorial turds&#39;, progressive ones not.

[redstar2000]

The dictatorship of the capital doesn&#39;t allow the working class to emancipate itself mentally.

The Leninist hypothesis always returns to this unsubstantiated assertion.

There are all kinds of obvious objections to it, both historical and theoretical.

But evidence is irrelevant where dogma is concerned.

If the Leninists were to ever question that assumption, it would remove the whole reason for their existence.

It would be as if the Pope developed doubts about whether he was really the "Vicar of Christ".

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

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

[Bianconero]

The dictatorship of the capital does allow the working class to emancipate itself mentally.

The Utopian hypothesis always returns to this unsubstantiated assertion.

There are all kinds of obvious objections to it, both historical and theoretical.

But evidence is irrelevant where dogma is concerned.

If the Utopians were to ever question that assumption, it would remove the whole reason for their existence.

It would be as if the Pope developed doubts about whether he was really the "Vicar of Christ".

:redstar2000:

[Saint-Just]

Precisely, have we not seen many middle-class intellectuals gain a revolutionary consciousness? And, they have then been capable of rousing mass working class movements having taught them and led them.

[Revolution Hero]

Morpheus:


“I have read all of Lenin&#39;s major works and many of his minor ones. I own a copy of Lenin&#39;s Selected Works”.

Good for you. Please read Lenin’s works he wrote in 1918, 1919, 1920 etc. You will find out that he complained of lack of educated working people and the problems faced by the revolutionary Russia because of this fact.


“His [Lenin&#39;s] theories were disproved even in his time”.

Try to prove your statement.


“The workers can have revolutionary consciousness without the vanguard”.

:D LOL. It is the same as to say that workers are able to gain revolutionary consciousness without the help of conscious workers (the proletarian vanguard consists mainly of the latter).
Conscious worker is a worker who realizes his belonging to a class of proletarians, and also understands the political interest and aims of his class. Unfortunately, the majority of modern workers are not conscious, otherwise workers would have participated in the political struggle, rather that fighting for their economical rights.


“The anarcho-syndicalist movement is a perfect example of this.”

Indeed, the movement, which has never been successful, is the perfect example of idealistic nature of anarchism. :D

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 11:16 AM

The dictatorship of the capital does allow the working class to emancipate itself mentally.

The Utopian hypothesis always returns to this unsubstantiated assertion.

There are all kinds of obvious objections to it, both historical and theoretical.

But evidence is irrelevant where dogma is concerned.

If the Utopians were to ever question that assumption, it would remove the whole reason for their existence.

It would be as if the Pope developed doubts about whether he was really the "Vicar of Christ".

:redstar2000:
Cute parody.

But that&#39;s all it is, you know...a clever play on my words.

The Marxist hypothesis asserts that the very fact of proletarian existence generates revolutionary class consciousness.

The Leninist hypothesis asserts the opposite--that revolutionary class consciousness originates among dissident elements of the bourgeoisie and is "injected" into the working class. Without those "injections", the working class can attain only a crude trade-union consciousness.

Come to think of it, even the word "injection" is somewhat inadequate...as the Leninists boldly assert that the working class must be led to its emancipation by the Leninists themselves.

A Marxist would suggest that it&#39;s rather unlikely, in the light of historical materialism, to expect bourgeois dissidents to do anything but establish themselves as a new ruling class on the backs of the workers.

S/he&#39;d be right about that...that&#39;s exactly what happened.

It would have been better for everyone if Lenin had remained in St. Petersburg and practiced law...he was a bureaucrat at heart,

There would still have been a working class uprising in 1905 and a successful revolution in 1917...just no Bolsheviks.

They wouldn&#39;t have been missed.

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

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

[Revolution Hero]

Redstar2000:


“The Marxist hypothesis asserts that the very fact of proletarian existence generates revolutionary class consciousness.

The Leninist hypothesis asserts the opposite--which revolutionary class-consciousness originates among dissident elements of the bourgeoisie and is "injected" into the working class. Without those "injections", the working class can attain only a crude trade-union consciousness”.


Have you ever read “Communist Manifesto”? I am afraid that your words make me doubt that you have. Great theoreticians of scientific communism, Marx and Engels, wrote there that one of the closest aims of communists was to organize proletariat into a class. Do you have any ideas of what this is supposed to mean? Exactly, this means that communists have to educate workers and to help them understand their political interests, this also means that communists have to lead proletariat in their struggle against bourgeois class, this means that communists have to help proletariat to win political power. This is Marxism, this is Leninism, and this is Marxism- Leninism. And you have no right to say that Leninism contradicts to Marxism. Instead of making such a ridiculous statements you should read “Communist Manifesto”&#33;



“A Marxist would suggest that it&#39;s rather unlikely, in the light of historical materialism, to expect bourgeois dissidents to do anything but establish themselves as a new ruling class on the backs of the workers”.

Come on; explain in detail in what ways so called “new ruling class” did exploit workers&#33; Try to prove that Soviet government did not consist of workers&#33; Try to prove that workers formed a minority in CPSU&#33; You will not be able to prove all these, because if you try, then you will say a lie&#33;

[kylie]

I&#39;ve noticed in topics on this subject, and on Trotsky/Stalin, possibly on other subjects too, that a lot seems to be based on which perspective has the most people agreeing with it. If you look back at the various topics where whether there should be an anarchist or leninist method used to get to communism, neither arguement ever is fully able to disprove or show itself as superior over the other. Another example being how on a forum like the ISF, if a person was to argue against the marxist-leninist ideology, they would most likely, well judging from the result of people in the past doing it, get their ass kicked. While if one of them goes over to the new youth forums, the opposite happens.
Which shows to me that both arguements are flawed, and must somewhere rely on themselves somewhere, using language games, as Lyotard said.

[redstar2000]

If you look back at the various topics where whether there should be an anarchist or Leninist method used to get to communism, neither argument ever is fully able to disprove or show itself as superior over the other.

Well, "superiority" is often in the eyes of the beholder.

But Leninism does have a "track record"...it has never led to communism or even to any attempts to achieve communism.

This is not necessarily a "blank check" for "anarchism", but it&#39;s certainly a pretty strong indication that things must be done differently.

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

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

[Bianconero]

The Leninist hypothesis asserts the opposite--that revolutionary class consciousness originates among dissident elements of the bourgeoisie and is "injected" into the working class. Without those "injections", the working class can attain only a crude trade-union consciousness.

Who told you that? Are you going to deny that the Bolshevik party consisted mainly of members with working class background? Will you deny that the Movimiento 26. Julio mainly prevailed because Castro had the unlimmited support of the guairos, the poor peasants of the Sierra Maestra? Are you? Well, then you are denying historical fact.

Class consciousness originates among the most conscious members of the working class as well as among dissident bourgeois elements. The bourgeois elements are in the minority, though. Always have been.


A Marxist would suggest that it&#39;s rather unlikely, in the light of historical materialism, to expect bourgeois dissidents to do anything but establish themselves as a new ruling class on the backs of the workers.

S/he&#39;d be right about that...that&#39;s exactly what happened.

As I have shown before, Leninists (Marxists) are proletarian mainly. Just because Lenin himself was bourgeois, doesn&#39;t mean the whole Leninist movement is bourgeois. How would you, by the way, explain that Stalin was everything but bourgeois but still made quite a big impact on Bolshevism? I thought Leninists would only let bourgeois capitalists in their party vanguard?


It would have been better for everyone if Lenin had remained in St. Petersburg and practiced law...he was a bureaucrat at heart,

Comrade Lenin is a hero of the proletariat and was a true revolutionary, not a hippy-anarchist-Green-market &#39;socialist&#39;-kautskyite-trotskyite-careerist-social democrat reactionary.

[crazy comie]

The dictatorship of the prolitarian has to have pepole elected into power.
Trotsky one of the greatest leninists belived in democracy.
All of members of the soviets in 1918 where elected

[The Feral Underclass]

Bianconero


First of all, I know very well that Anarchism (an-archia) basically means &#39;without power.&#39;

Being able to quote the dictionary does not make you an expert on anarchism.

-----------

The point of debate is to listen or read what the other person has said and then criticise it and give your own opinion in reply to what the other person has said. By doing this you are progressing further and further in certain understandings of things.

There is absolutly no point in asserting and then re-asserting arguments without reading and understanding what it is someone else has said. It is boring, and leads to people having to repeat themselves over and over again.

Of course it would be nice if you agreed with my opinions but it is not the end of the world. It is however, important to understand, so that you can make informed, critical, and pointful arguments and responses.


I, as a Marxist-Leninist, am convinced that coordination and stability can not be guarateed if the people (who are educated not to be educated by the former ruling elite) immediately get the possibility to &#39;vote.&#39; The danger of them electing a new capital-representative is there for all to see.


Right, just sit back in your chair, watch Yankee-Hollywood programms and wait for it (immediate Anarchism, paradise, freedom and love) to happen.


Of course it would be better to just create &#39;total&#39; class-consciousness now, under capitalism, and walk towards revolution and communism in stile.

Karl Marx called his ideology communism. Communism being the inevitable consequence of Capitalism, where there would be no state and people would live free from want and equally, being able to control their own lives. Which in essence is anarchism.

Marx argued that history progressed every day. That there were new things that happened every day, every minute that shaped our history. He argued that history was based on economic necessity, and that over periods of time humans find their present systems impractical and out of date. The reason for this being that time widens the understanding of the mind. We desire more. New ideas, new sciences, new philosophies and new technologies develope. Most notably, in our civilization, being the West, history progressed thus:

Scavangers - Hunter/Gatherers
Hunter/Gatherers - Tribelism
Tribelism - Feudelism
Feudelism - Capitalism

By the time humans were able to walk our brains had developed the wheel and spears to hunt animals with. Understand that this is the first time we have existed. The reason for existance can not be explained and therefore we have no idea why we are here. As we developed these questions were posed. Why are we here? How are we supposed to live? We created structures and orders, so that our lives could be directed by gods or by leaders. From hunter/gatherer we developed tribes. We understood that the land we lived on had value and so developed systems to confine our land to our tribes, building fortresses and fences to keep each other out. We had head tribes peope and their families who ran the affairs of our tribe and defended us if we needed it.

Once again time created new ideas and technologies. Our understaning of humanity changed. The idea of the head tribesmen developed. As land become more and more valuable these men and their families went on quests to conquer vast amounts of lands. Titles such as King and Emperor were created to define this new class of ruler.

If you look at anything we do we must first have land. The importance of land was because if you owned land you owned evreything on it. And with such power you controlled the people as well.

This fetishism with land and the spread of christianity created devine rulers. Kings who where placed on earth by God to lead their people. These Kings needed to retain power and so destribtued land to loyal subjects, giving them titles and honours. The lords then controlled the people and these people worked on their lords land. So creating feudelism.

By the 1640&#39;s in England and in other parts of the world, the ideas of freedom from these devine kings began to spread. Parliment which had been set up demanded more rights from the King and we went to war over it. Admitedly we returned to a monarchy, but not first without creating the first real parliment which govered without the king. Taxes where placed in the hands of businessmen and small land owners.

In 1790&#39;s France the same happened with their King being executed and creating a republic that still exists today. The Feudel system had become impractical and had been replaced with a new bouregois leadership.

Throught the 19th century technology advanced so quickly and a new breed of human came about. industries sprung up across the world. New ideas about wealth developed. The idea of every individual being able to gain wealth and prosperity came about. And these individuals did. They began capitalist process. Using human beings to create wealth for themselves. They set up coal mines and cotton factories and saw mills, and they began the age old quest of land grabbing. Colonialism.

The ideals of capitalism soon evaperated and the reality was that a few rich people would control the means of production. This new breed of ruling class developed laws and institutions to keep their new powers and privlages. They created the state to perpetrate the new world order and it flourised. Now in 2003 we have a more liberal face to what we had in 1883. They where nice suits and take photos with their happy adorable families. In essence it is still the same.

Now imagine being a peasent in feudel times. Imagine sitting with your friends eating black pudding and your friend said to you "Imagine living in a world where there was no king, and we elected our leaders by voting." They would have laughed at you "your living in a dream world. This could never work". Imagine a tribes person saying to his tribes leader "Imagine being able to fly to the moon." It is uncomprehensable.

Throughout history human ambitions, desires, needs, ideas, philosophies, understandings and psychology have dramatically changed. Technology has advanced so much that we can now fly things to mars. History changes, consiousness changes. When I speak to people about Anarchism, they laugh and say "You are living in a dream world. This could never work."

Just as Karl Marx said, communism would be the inevitable outcome of capitalism. This means that in history, in the future, capitalism will become impractical as human consciousness changes. The understanding and realisation about how the world is, just like at the end of feudelism, will create a new world order.

So when you say:


I, as a Marxist-Leninist, am convinced that coordination and stability can not be guarateed if the people (who are educated not to be educated by the former ruling elite) immediately get the possibility to &#39;vote.&#39; The danger of them electing a new capital-representative is there for all to see.


Right, just sit back in your chair, watch Yankee-Hollywood programms and wait for it (immediate Anarchism, paradise, freedom and love) to happen.


Of course it would be better to just create &#39;total&#39; class-consciousness now, under capitalism, and walk towards revolution and communism in stile.

You are saying that human consciousness can never change and therefore you have to force it to change. You are denying historical fact. When you say you can not "create total class consciousness" again you are denying historical fact. We don&#39;t need to change it, it will change on it&#39;s own.

Of course it would be great to be able to see this change in our life time, and one hopes that it does. But it might not. What is important to remember is to have a movement which will guide conscsiousness. Nurture it. Expose capitalism for what it is and prepare for the day it does change.

What you are claiming is to use this vangaurd to create something that in essence already exists. And as history shows does not work. It dosnt change human consciousness. It creates new rulers and it eventually reverts back to captialism.

The workers in russia where cold and starved and angry, and Lenin seized on the frustration to try and bring about a shift in historical reality. But he failed. he failed because he did not allow it to change by itself. He forced it to change, and he did it oppressivly and with great power and authority. He was a new ruler in the same structure. nothing had changed except the name of the state.

Of course it was difficult because the time was ripe for revoluton. But not this kind of revolution. Russia was still controlled by a feudel system. It was not industrialised and it had a small working class. The rest of the country was illiterate, let alone ready to understand marxist theory. The conditions where wrong to achieve what Lenin and Marx had wanted.

The dictatership of the proletariat was developed by Marx as a pragmatic solution to creating a communist society. It failed. Many times. If marx had lived through this period he would have revised his theory. When you say Marx said this and Marx said that, he said them in the mid 19th century. It was not a theory based on the facts of Russia, China and all the others.

So if humans change their consciousness the need for a vanguard is irrelevant. The need for a centralized government becomes unnecessary. The only reason you claim it is needed is because of the lack in human consciousness. And as I have shown, human consciousness will be reached eventually, and therefore when the workers have emancipated themselves this dictatership is not needed. Because of consciousness.

This is my position. This is why I believe the vanguard or centralized government is unnecessary. So when you reply, please do not assert the same things. Please criticise my argument and tell me why you refute it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bianconero


No, everyone who cowardly and knowingly endangered the revolution, people&#39;s socialism and revolutionary freedom was whatever you said. And rightly so.

What about the starving sailors in Kronstadt? Where they endangering the revolution?


The vanguard consists of the most conscious workers and peasant. The party vanguard can always be joined by educated workers, which does not negate the need for a vanguard. I did never &#39;assert&#39; that workers generally are too &#39;stupid&#39; to be part of the vanguard. That would indeed be &#39;elitism.&#39; Just the mass of workers are not able to lead the revolution immediately.

I did not say that you said the workers were stupid. You are arguing that the workers do not have the right consciousness at the moment to lead a revolution. You then went onto say that you would select members based on the level of their consciousness.

How can you build a mass movement without workers, and if you do build a mass movement with conscious workers then you do not need a vanguard. Or are you saying that you should build a small party of conscious workers?


We are in no good position, better get used to it. Why would a clever oppressor be afraid of an angry not conscious, not educated, not organized, not emancipated wage-slave. You tell me.

I agree.

[Bianconero]

First of all, I want to express my absolute disgust for this cowardly written piece.


The point of debate is to listen or read what the other person has said and then criticise it and give your own opinion in reply to what the other person has said. By doing this you are progressing further and further in certain understandings of things.

There is absolutly no point in asserting and then re-asserting arguments without reading and understanding what it is someone else has said. It is boring, and leads to people having to repeat themselves over and over again.

Of course it would be nice if you agreed with my opinions but it is not the end of the world. It is however, important to understand, so that you can make informed, critical, and pointful arguments and responses.

In my very humble oppinion, I know very well what the goal of every discussion should be. You may indeed realize a great feeling of satisfaction when writing this, advising, criticizing, playing dicussion-culture policeman. In reality, however, this only proves your weakness, as it is not connected with the topic at hand. It is pure rethoric. What is the matter with you? Do you think this is funny?

I reckon you think of yourself as some kind of &#39;discussion-steward.&#39; I warn you, I have little, in fact very little tolerance for this kind of rethoric. So better leave it out, it makes you look like a reactionary bourgeois, who loves to hear himself rattle about &#39;discussion-culture&#39; to not let people know about his lack of knowledge on the topic at hand.

I deal with this kind of rethoric every day, and I&#39;m in fact at a point where I&#39;d have anyone who comes up with this kind of stuff shot.

In your previous post, you then proceed to tell me about what Marxism, dialectical materialism etc. is all about, which is sweet, yet incredibly unnecessary.

Your actual message was this. The rest was either anarchist rethoric, bourgeois lying, moralism or idealism.


You are saying that human consciousness can never change and therefore you have to force it to change. You are denying historical fact. When you say you can not "create total class consciousness" again you are denying historical fact. We don&#39;t need to change it, it will change on it&#39;s own.

I am in defense of Marxism-Leninism, so of course, when argueing with you, an anarchist, I use the arguments of Marxism-Leninism. And it is a vital part of Marxism-Leninism to acknowledge, that the capital-dictatorship is not only powerfull, but also well-organized and well-structured. The system that is coordinated by a small amount of owners of the means of production, understands, that it is, to further it&#39;s existance, an absolute necessity, to controll people in a totalitarian way, to influence them, to lie to them, to only just keep them alive as wage slaves. Every individual&#39;s mind is not only controlled, but indoctrinated with reactionary propaganda and lies about not only history, but also present happenings.

So when talking about human consciousness, we need to understand that capitalism, the machine state-capital-media, will take every possible step to prevent the people to develop consciousness, class-counsciousness. The state educates the people not to be educated. Your approach to the very delicate topic of &#39;counsciousness&#39; is therefor not scientifical, let alone Marxist.

I am not saying that human consciousness can not change, I am indeed saying it can not change in the kind of totalitarianism I described before.

I am not saying we can not create total class consciousness, I am indeed saying we can not change it right now, in capitalist totalitarianism.

People are not educated by the capital, they are trained like dogs. Dogs learn to look cute and to bark when they are told so, humans are trained to work when they are told so. We haven&#39;t, that is, the left (if you consider yourself a leftist at all) hasn&#39;t got the capacity of just creating total consciousness right now and it won&#39;t just be created on its own. Every single new achievement for mankind started with a great idea. People did never sit back and just wait for it to happen. And if they did, they failed miserably. People analysed, they created theories, scientifical ones and then put it into reality. This is what Marxism-Leninism wants to do. Your theory seems to be much more of &#39;let&#39;s sit back and hope progression will come on it&#39;s own.&#39;

&#39;Already angry&#39; ain&#39;t enough.

[The Feral Underclass]

Revolution Hero


What Marxist ideas do you agree with? For example, do you agree with the idea of class struggle?

I agree very much with his idesa of dialectic and historical materialism. Of course I agree with the idea of class struggle. That is why I am an anarchist.


The class, which was controlled for centuries, would need many decades to learn how to control a production, economy and other spheres of life of a socialist society. Unconscious workers will not be always unconscious, but until they are they need representatives from their class to rule in their interests.

I have answered this with the post to Bianconero. I do not believe that you can force a revolution. Of course unconscious workers would need to have people doing things for them, jsut like now.

Consciousness and skill do not go hand in hand. Because a person is conscious does not mean they can build a road. But what it does is make the road builder want to build roads for everyone and fight so that him and his friends are equal.

This means as consciousness is reached these skilled people would be able to co-ordinate the means of production.


In order for workers to be able to actively participate in the economical, political and social life of a socialist society these workers have to be well educated and very conscious. Such a high level of workers’ minds development will be achieved in decades and when it is achieved every worker will be able to rule a state.

This will happen eventaully. If you seize power without consciousness the revolution is doomed to end up as it has done over and over again in the past.


The rule of conscious vanguard is needed during the first stage of development of socialism

Unless the workers are conscious which inevitable they will be.


during the period when the majority of workers due to the objective reasons are not able to take part in state governing.

Your not giving them the choice or the chance.



The party elected them and they worked in the name of all working people.

The party did not elect Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the others. That is a lie. Niether could any of them be recalled if the majority had wanted to would not have been able to recall them.


It has to be pointed out that USSR had the most efficient state apparatus under Stalin...

The fact that Stalin created a great state apparatus is exactly my point.


Actually the education of the workers was of great importance. The latter example is a good proof for this.

Giving people higher positions is not advancing class consciousness.


Also you should consider the fact that workers were preferentially treated in comparison to others during the acceptance of new members to CPSU.

Surely everyone should be treated equally :ph34r:

[The Feral Underclass]

Bianconero


You may indeed realize a great feeling of satisfaction when writing this, advising, criticizing, playing dicussion-culture policeman.

What is the point of this message board if it is not for debate. I made this assertion because I find that I am repeating myself. The fact is, you keep asserting things that you have already asserted.

What i said is fact, nothing more. I am advising because I want the debate to have a point. I am critcising you because that is the point of debate. I am not trying to be a "policeman" I am trying to make you listen to what I am saying. You haven&#39;t been doing that. If you disagree then fine, but the fact still remains the same. I am having to repeat myself because you keep saying the same thing.


In reality, however, this only proves your weakness, as it is not connected with the topic at hand. It is pure rethoric. What is the matter with you? Do you think this is funny?

I didnt realise this was a show of strength. There was nothing rhetorical about what I said. it was fact. And I find nothing about it funny.

It is you who is spouting rhetoric, repeating the same Marxist-Leninist line over and over again. How do you want this debate to go? Do you think by asserting the same thing that eventually I will agree with you? This is a debating message board. The point being to debate. I am not debating with you, I am repeating myself.


I warn you, I have little, in fact very little tolerance for this kind of rethoric.

If you do not want to accept fact then don&#39;t. It is your choice.


So better leave it out, it makes you look like a reactionary bourgeois...

And what is this if it is not rhetorical. Why is it, me trying to make this debate have a point reactionary or bourgeois? I am not trying to fight you. I don&#39;t even know you.


who loves to hear himself rattle about &#39;discussion-culture&#39; to not let people know about his lack of knowledge on the topic at hand.

This is rhetoric. it is just a rediculas assertion based on no fact at all. For a start you don&#39;t know me, or what I am thinking, so how can you make such a judgement. Secondly I have answered your posts with articulation and most importantly, facts.

What is the point in telling me "i love to hear myself speak." What are you trying to achieve here. Why dont you read what I put and look at it more objectivly. If you don&#39;t agree then tell me why.


I deal with this kind of rethoric every day, and I&#39;m in fact at a point where I&#39;d have anyone who comes up with this kind of stuff shot.

How sad&#33;


In your previous post, you then proceed to tell me about what Marxism, dialectical materialism etc. is all about, which is sweet, yet incredibly unnecessary.

Get over yourself. I did not try and tell you what Dialectical Materialism was, I told you how I believe class consciousness should come about based on what Marx had said. I tried to explain it to you so that my argument was backed up, so you knew why I was saying it. Stop being so sensitive.


Your actual message was this. The rest was either anarchist rethoric, bourgeois lying, moralism or idealism.

once again you have simply made assertions about my post without actually saying why you think it. Bouregois lying? Moralism? Idealism? They&#39;re all being words but what actually is your point?


I am in defense of Marxism-Leninism, so of course, when argueing with you, an anarchist, I use the arguments of Marxism-Leninism.

I know...over and over and over again&#33; With little substance. You don&#39;t back up your arguments with any kind of coherent reasoning. You simply assert your opinion. That&#39;s no good to me.


And it is a vital part of Marxism-Leninism to acknowledge, that the capital-dictatorship is not only powerfull, but also well-organized and well-structured.

I also acknowledge it and I am not a marxist-leninist.


The system that is coordinated by a small amount of owners of the means of production, understands, that it is, to further it&#39;s existance, an absolute necessity, to controll people in a totalitarian way, to influence them, to lie to them, to only just keep them alive as wage slaves. Every individual&#39;s mind is not only controlled, but indoctrinated with reactionary propaganda and lies about not only history, but also present happenings.

I think what you are trying to say is that this dialectical process can not reach it&#39;s inevtiable stage because the ruling class is so well organized. I may be wrong, correct me if I am.

To make an answer I have to first know how to build a movement. Currently the Anarchist movement in the UK is not very big, and I am out of touch as to know exactly how they are fighting. Simply holding forums and fighting in united front causes such as the Stop the War Coalition, which I dont think they are, is going to achieve anything.

Working class people do not have time to read theory and understand. The movement has to therefore put itself with the working class. Help them eliviate such problems. A movement should be prepared to help workings fight within their community. Fight councils who are trying to privatize their benefit office, or help with child care or helping get repairs done to peoples houses.

Fighting by example is how you show the working class the faults with capitalism. Helping them, not leading them. Fighting with them, not for them, is how you change consciousness. But the actual confrontation with capitalism will come later. As this solidarity movement gets bigger the demands will get bigger. The anti-capitalism demonstrations will have a wider meaning to communties. But this will come in waves, not in one fell swoop.

Of course capitalism will try and smash a movement whos demands where getting too much. A movement which was actually punching wholes in this façade could not be tolerated. Maybe this is where you begin to get miltant. You organize workers to take direct action. Confront capitalism head on. The movement will be at a point where the understanding of capitalism will have taken on a level where they can not use the media to descredit us, they can not use their lies to fight anymore. They have to start using force. Imagine the backlash. Police officers beating and murdering demonstrators. This is at a point of high consciousness. The reason for the riots and the violence from the ruling class. The anger would be so great that riots would begin. This is when you need organization. To organize and co-ordinate action which will lead to the workers taking control. Then workers militias lead themselves against capitalism. Let the revolution begin.


Your approach to the very delicate topic of &#39;counsciousness&#39; is therefor not scientifical, let alone Marxist.

The theory is based on Dialectical Materialism. A theory developed by Marx.


I am not saying that human consciousness can not change, I am indeed saying it can not change in the kind of totalitarianism I described before.

Then how do you think the revolution will get fought. If this all powerful media is so oppressive how is your band of merry vanguardists going to be able to take power?


I am not saying we can not create total class consciousness, I am indeed saying we can not change it right now, in capitalist totalitarianism.

Capitalism can not stop me from helping working class people. It can not stop me setting up a movement. The South African appartied regime tried to keep the black movement down. They killed and imprisoned it&#39;s members, they spread lies and deciet but still they where over thrown.

Capitalism will not try and fight us in the early days. They will only use this media in the final days of capitalism. They will use force when they have no other choice, and by that time it will be too late.


We haven&#39;t, that is, the left...hasn&#39;t got the capacity of just creating total consciousness right now and it won&#39;t just be created on its own.

I am not talking about creating consciousness. I am talking about guiding it. Which means working within a workers solidarity movement. Fighting for their needs and wants. Helping them, going into communities and asking what it is they need to make their lives better. They might ask for a park or a nursery (these are just examples). The point being that it is the workers that are important. Not the vanguard. Class consciousness will come through setting an example. A norm so to speak, which can fight within communities.


(if you consider yourself a leftist at all)

I dont know what it is your trying to achieve by this but it is pretty stupid if you mean it. This really shows what a lack of understanding you have. I think your more intelligent that this.


People did never sit back and just wait for it to happen. And if they did, they failed miserably. People analysed, they created theories, scientifical ones and then put it into reality. This is what Marxism-Leninism wants to do. Your theory seems to be much more of &#39;let&#39;s sit back and hope progression will come on it&#39;s own.&#39;

No, I am not saying we should sit back and let progression come. I am saying why we dont need a vanguard. What you are advocating is not letting the people take a front seat, but rather a group of people who claim they are intellectuals.

I am not advocating that we should all wait for something to happen, I am advocating that any movement which is fighting for profound change in the world should not be led by a vanguard but by the people and why the dictatership of the proletariat is unnecessary.


&#39;Already angry&#39; ain&#39;t enough.

The difference between your vanguard and a solidarity movement is that the workers are directly involved. Not simply with abstract (to them) politics but their lives. It is a process of time, and as I said fighting by example is what is important. Freeing up time for workers is how you allow them to understand more. The workers are angry, and yes this isnt enough. But to turn that anger into consciousness, you have to help them live, and not just survive.

[kylie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 04:39 PM

If you look back at the various topics where whether there should be an anarchist or Leninist method used to get to communism, neither argument ever is fully able to disprove or show itself as superior over the other.

Well, "superiority" is often in the eyes of the beholder.

But Leninism does have a "track record"...it has never led to communism or even to any attempts to achieve communism.

This is not necessarily a "blank check" for "anarchism", but it&#39;s certainly a pretty strong indication that things must be done differently.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
My problem with Anarchism lies in how i don&#39;t think it could defend itself successfully from capitalist hostility. Because unless there was to be revolution in all countries at the same time - which i find very unlikely, impossible even - there would still be capitalist countries in the world. An unlike a socialist state, which would be able to maintain control and co-ordinate efforts to stop capitalist properganda, subvertion and straight out military attack, this would be much harder under Anarchism, with there being no central authority. In terms of the actual theory, Anarchism is in my opinion much more in line with human needs, the kind of authority that would have to be imposed under socialism would not be nice at all, and would probably at the time to some people seem not even marxist. But in the long-term i think it is much more likely to reach the stage where the transition to communism can be made.

[Revolution Hero]

Anarchist tension:


“He argued that history was based on economic necessity, and that over periods of time humans find their present systems impractical and out of date. The reason for this being that time widens the understanding of the mind. We desire more. New ideas, new sciences, new philosophies and new technologies develop”.


“Once again time created new ideas and technologies. Our understaning of humanity changed. The idea of the head tribesmen developed”.


“By the 1640&#39;s in England and in other parts of the world, the ideas of freedom from these devine kings began to spread”.


“New ideas about wealth developed. The idea of every individual being able to gain wealth and prosperity came about. And these individuals did. They began capitalist process”.


“Just as Karl Marx said, communism would be the inevitable outcome of capitalism. This means that in history, in the future, capitalism will become impractical as human consciousness changes. The understanding and realization about how the world is, just like at the end of feudalism, will create a new world order”.

So, do you mean that new ideas influence on emergence of a new social – economical formation? Do you mean that social – economical reality is a product of people’s mind? Talking about Marxist understanding of history you did not point out the main reason thanks to which one formation changes another, instead of materialistic approach you preferred to use idealistic method of historical analysis.

Although the ideas and theories play a decisive role in any society, they do not appear out of nothing. Feudalism changed slavery formation not because of new ideas appearance, but because of emersion of contradiction between productive forces and relations of production. The objective preconditions for social revolution arises at a time when productive forces overgrow relations of production, when the latter become outdated and prevent society from further development.


“Of course I agree with the idea of class struggle”.

That is what I wanted to hear from you. There is a saying: “The one who said “A”, should also say “B””. So, in order for you to be consecutive, together with the idea of class struggle you have to agree with the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat.

Socialist revolutions do not destroy class of capitalists, and particularly bourgeois elements, right away. Because of the fact that class of capitalists and its obvious or latent agents of influence are still active during the first years of revolution there is a necessity of oppressing class of capitalists and its elements by using state apparatus. Class struggle continues not only during the first years of revolution, it may take a form of struggle against bourgeois elements and continue in the conditions of public property domination. Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat and state apparatus are needed in order to defend revolution from both internal and external enemies of a revolutionary state.



“The party did not elect Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and the others. That is a lie”.



Don’t you think that you should learn history?



Giving people higher positions is not advancing class consciousness”.

The point was that workers had received higher positions as a result of educational measures undertaken for this purpose.

[redstar2000]

Are you going to deny that the Bolshevik party consisted mainly of members with working class background?

No, but that is irrelevant. According to Lenin, revolutionary consciousness is developed by dissident members of the bourgeoisie (or petty-bourgeoisie) and "injected" into the working class.

The average member of the Bolshevik party may have come from a working-class background (I&#39;ve never seen any accurate numbers on this subject). But the party&#39;s leadership originated considerably higher on the food chain...except, of course, for Stalin.


Will you deny that the Movimiento 26. Julio mainly prevailed because Castro had the unlimited support of the guairos, the poor peasants of the Sierra Maestra?

No, I don&#39;t deny that and wonder why you even ask the question. The 26th of July Movement was not a "Marxist"-Leninist party in any sense of the word and, aside from Che himself (who was not a member of any "M"L party), I&#39;ve never run across a single name associated with that movement that was known to be sympathetic to "Marxism"-Leninism.

This appears to be irrelevant to this discussion.


Class consciousness originates among the most conscious members of the working class as well as among dissident bourgeois elements.

You may or may not be right about that...but it&#39;s not what Lenin actually said.


The bourgeois elements are in the minority, though. Always have been.

See above. It is the leadership that rarely/never comes from the working class. As a good "democratic centralist", you should "know" that "leadership" is everything. The leaders command and the members obey...at least that&#39;s how it is supposed to work, according to the Leninists themselves.


As I have shown before, Leninists (Marxists)[sic] are proletarian mainly. Just because Lenin himself was bourgeois, doesn&#39;t mean the whole Leninist movement is bourgeois. How would you, by the way, explain that Stalin was everything but bourgeois but still made quite a big impact on Bolshevism? I thought Leninists would only let bourgeois capitalists in their party vanguard?

I think you are misunderstanding my point...perhaps because you exaggerate it so much.

A Leninist party (or any political group) is not "bourgeois" or "proletarian" depending simply on a count of heads...so many bourgeois, so many workers. What really counts is the actual ideology that this group carries out in practice.

Leninists always assert that they were/are carrying out "Marxism"...though it&#39;s generally a "Marxism" that Marx himself would find unrecognizable.

True, use is made of Marxist terminology and sometimes the words are even used correctly. But that&#39;s not good enough...obviously.

Far from creating "the dictatorship of the proletariat", Leninist parties all created dictatorships of small elites--oligarchies--that claimed to rule in the name of the proletariat.

These little neo-aristocracies did indeed drive out or crush the old ruling classes. But no attempt was ever made to actually cede power to the working class as a whole...and worse, in Russia, there were numerous efforts to make damn sure that the workers didn&#39;t get "above themselves" and start thinking or acting like they had real power.

By March 1918 at the latest, the Bolsheviks were acting like a ruling class...against the working class.

This is exactly what a Marxist would expect from a group dominated by bourgeois ideology...in this case, a bourgeois version of "Marxism".


Comrade Lenin is a hero of the proletariat and was a true revolutionary, not a hippy-anarchist-Green-market &#39;socialist&#39;-kautskyite-trotskyite-careerist-social democrat reactionary.

Aawww, did I piss on your icon? Don&#39;t get mad at me; don&#39;t you know that they have a statue of him in a Las Vegas casino now?

The bourgeoisie honor one of their own.


Right, just sit back in your chair, watch Yankee-Hollywood programs and wait for it (immediate Anarchism, paradise, freedom and love) to happen.

Rather unfair, don&#39;t you think? My impression (and I could be wrong, of course) is that anarchists are presently among the most active and radical elements in the anti-globalization/anti-war movements in the advanced capitalist countries. Their influence far outweighs their actual numbers.

Of course, we are a long way from revolution and no one knows at this point which ideas and which groups are going to play the most significant roles (if any).

But you reveal, perhaps unintentionally, your own substitutionism. No Leninist party is going to "hasten" the revolution by a single hour...unless you propose to substitute your frenzied activity for the activity of the working class itself.

That&#39;s been tried (Germany in 1919 and again in 1923). It didn&#39;t work.


...the kind of authority that would have to be imposed under socialism would not be nice at all, and would probably at the time to some people seem not even marxist. But in the long-term i think it is much more likely to reach the stage where the transition to communism can be made.

So far, the only transitions that the Leninists have managed is the transition to capitalism.

Faith is, to some, a "noble" quality...but when history comes knocking, it&#39;s best to answer the door.

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

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

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 05:33 AM

Are you going to deny that the Bolshevik party consisted mainly of members with working class background?

No, but that is irrelevant. According to Lenin, revolutionary consciousness is developed by dissident members of the bourgeoisie (or petty-bourgeoisie) and "injected" into the working class.

The average member of the Bolshevik party may have come from a working-class background (I&#39;ve never seen any accurate numbers on this subject). But the party&#39;s leadership originated considerably higher on the food chain...except, of course, for Stalin.


Will you deny that the Movimiento 26. Julio mainly prevailed because Castro had the unlimited support of the guairos, the poor peasants of the Sierra Maestra?

No, I don&#39;t deny that and wonder why you even ask the question. The 26th of July Movement was not a "Marxist"-Leninist party in any sense of the word and, aside from Che himself (who was not a member of any "M"L party), I&#39;ve never run across a single name associated with that movement that was known to be sympathetic to "Marxism"-Leninism.

This appears to be irrelevant to this discussion.


Class consciousness originates among the most conscious members of the working class as well as among dissident bourgeois elements.

You may or may not be right about that...but it&#39;s not what Lenin actually said.


The bourgeois elements are in the minority, though. Always have been.

See above. It is the leadership that rarely/never comes from the working class. As a good "democratic centralist", you should "know" that "leadership" is everything. The leaders command and the members obey...at least that&#39;s how it is supposed to work, according to the Leninists themselves.


As I have shown before, Leninists (Marxists)[sic] are proletarian mainly. Just because Lenin himself was bourgeois, doesn&#39;t mean the whole Leninist movement is bourgeois. How would you, by the way, explain that Stalin was everything but bourgeois but still made quite a big impact on Bolshevism? I thought Leninists would only let bourgeois capitalists in their party vanguard?

I think you are misunderstanding my point...perhaps because you exaggerate it so much.

A Leninist party (or any political group) is not "bourgeois" or "proletarian" depending simply on a count of heads...so many bourgeois, so many workers. What really counts is the actual ideology that this group carries out in practice.

Leninists always assert that they were/are carrying out "Marxism"...though it&#39;s generally a "Marxism" that Marx himself would find unrecognizable.

True, use is made of Marxist terminology and sometimes the words are even used correctly. But that&#39;s not good enough...obviously.

Far from creating "the dictatorship of the proletariat", Leninist parties all created dictatorships of small elites--oligarchies--that claimed to rule in the name of the proletariat.

These little neo-aristocracies did indeed drive out or crush the old ruling classes. But no attempt was ever made to actually cede power to the working class as a whole...and worse, in Russia, there were numerous efforts to make damn sure that the workers didn&#39;t get "above themselves" and start thinking or acting like they had real power.

By March 1918 at the latest, the Bolsheviks were acting like a ruling class...against the working class.

This is exactly what a Marxist would expect from a group dominated by bourgeois ideology...in this case, a bourgeois version of "Marxism".


Comrade Lenin is a hero of the proletariat and was a true revolutionary, not a hippy-anarchist-Green-market &#39;socialist&#39;-kautskyite-trotskyite-careerist-social democrat reactionary.

Aawww, did I piss on your icon? Don&#39;t get mad at me; don&#39;t you know that they have a statue of him in a Las Vegas casino now?

The bourgeoisie honor one of their own.


Right, just sit back in your chair, watch Yankee-Hollywood programs and wait for it (immediate Anarchism, paradise, freedom and love) to happen.

Rather unfair, don&#39;t you think? My impression (and I could be wrong, of course) is that anarchists are presently among the most active and radical elements in the anti-globalization/anti-war movements in the advanced capitalist countries. Their influence far outweighs their actual numbers.

Of course, we are a long way from revolution and no one knows at this point which ideas and which groups are going to play the most significant roles (if any).

But you reveal, perhaps unintentionally, your own substitutionism. No Leninist party is going to "hasten" the revolution by a single hour...unless you propose to substitute your frenzied activity for the activity of the working class itself.

That&#39;s been tried (Germany in 1919 and again in 1923). It didn&#39;t work.


...the kind of authority that would have to be imposed under socialism would not be nice at all, and would probably at the time to some people seem not even marxist. But in the long-term i think it is much more likely to reach the stage where the transition to communism can be made.

So far, the only transitions that the Leninists have managed is the transition to capitalism.

Faith is, to some, a "noble" quality...but when history comes knocking, it&#39;s best to answer the door.

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

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
But the party&#39;s leadership originated considerably higher on the food chain...except, of course, for Stalin.

Ahh redstar is trying to be a historian once again... ahh bless him. However, I have made a few corrections: -

Kalinin (peasent origin)
Molotov (son of a shop keeper... i think I get away with that one...)

Just two (other than Stalin) I can think of off the top of my head... having read a short piece on the bolshevik party leaders only a few days ago, its stuck in my memory.

However I do rather like your description of Leninism, it is most accurate, and bad though it is...it is lightyears ahead of anarchism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Revolution Hero


So, do you mean that new ideas influence on emergence of a new social – economical formation? Do you mean that social – economical reality is a product of people’s mind?

I think it is apart of it.


Talking about Marxist understanding of history you did not point out the main reason thanks to which one formation changes another, instead of materialistic approach you preferred to use idealistic method of historical analysis.

I agree.


Although the ideas and theories play a decisive role in any society, they do not appear out of nothing. Feudalism changed slavery formation not because of new ideas appearance, but because of emersion of contradiction between productive forces and relations of production. The objective preconditions for social revolution arises at a time when productive forces overgrow relations of production, when the latter become outdated and prevent society from further development.

I agree with you again. Then you can agree that these contradictions which exist within capitalism will lead to consciousness within the workers and ultimatly to the destruction of captialism?


That is what I wanted to hear from you. There is a saying: “The one who said “A”, should also say “B””. So, in order for you to be consecutive, together with the idea of class struggle you have to agree with the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat.

I do not need to agree at all. I can accept that Marx came to this conclusion based on early understandings of capitalism. I accept that at the time Marx thought it was a sensible, logical solution to achieving communism. It has not worked, ever&#33;. I am sure that Marx would have had a lot to say about this dictatership of the proletariat had he witnessed what had happened in Russia, China and the others.


Socialist revolutions do not destroy class of capitalists, and particularly bourgeois elements, right away. Because of the fact that class of capitalists and its obvious or latent agents of influence are still active during the first years of revolution there is a necessity of oppressing class of capitalists and its elements by using state apparatus.

The way to build a mass movement in my opinion, is to build up support of working class people within communities. Many workers are angry with the system. it cheats them and betrays them and they can see it. The problem is that they do not know what the system is and how to direct that anger.

Further more workers do not have time to direct their anger even if they did know what to do. They are so busy surviving that any frustration or anger they have evaperates as they pay their taxes and buy food. This is where confrontation with capitalism begins.

There should be a solidarity movement which goes into communities and shows these contradictions with capitalism. Where my friends live they are not allowed to have a triangle roof on their local school because it is a listed building. So it is flat and all the small kids get dripped on when it rains. Leaks burst through and the class rooms are flooded. None of the teachers want it, none of the parents want it, but they cant do anything about it. If you had a movement that went there and build a roof imagine the response. The police come maybe and try and stop us. But so what, let them come. Let the people see what we are being stopped fixing a school roof? it could be something like child care which is needed. Maybe an after school club for the kids on an estate, maybe a park or help fighting the local council.

What is important is fighting for working class people. i mean going into communities and building inside them by setting examples. Going into communities and helping them survive. This is how you fight for consciousness. By being with workers, talking to them, spreading your ideas and fighting, for them. Not for a central committee or a vanguard but for the real people that have to live their lives everyday in this bullshit of a world. They are what is important not Lenin or anyone who wants to be him.

Over time this movement will take different forms as more and more conscious workers begin to take action. The demands won&#39;t simply be repairing school roofs, they will be demanding more control over the lives. More control over the way their work places are run, at this point it becomes militant. The movement begins to organize militant wings which begin to confront capitalism in a more direct head on way. Eventually capitalism will have to start using oppressive measures and violence to try and quell this dissent. It will be too late by this time. people will have a new sense of empowerment. The movement will be too organized and too big for them to simply demand striking workers to go back to work. It will have gone beyond that and at this point we take to the streets and barricade them.

This is how you create class consciousness, which we both agree negates the need of a vanguard .


Class struggle continues not only during the first years of revolution, it may take a form of struggle against bourgeois elements and continue in the conditions of public property domination. Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat and state apparatus are needed in order to defend revolution from both internal and external enemies of a revolutionary state.

I do not understand this? Once you have collectivised an area it becomes collectivised. Remember the revolution was fought and won by a majoirty of conscious workers. They would know what was needed of them. Public property would be controlled by the collective and anyone trying to exploit that would be a criminal and would be an exteme minority within a vast majority looking for this kind of thing.

The dictatership of the proletarit claims that in order to fight a defensive war you must have a centralised, structured army which can respond to orders which creates effiency and effectivness. But can you explain why human beings can not co-ordinate themselves in this way without such a system? What is it about such structures that are able to function better than human consciousness.

In a defensive situation like this you will have former soliders and police officers fighting with you. Skilled fighters who are able to co-ordinate a defense of a certain area by themselves. Any major planning can be done in co-operation with others.


Don’t you think that you should learn history?

So your telling me that every worker in the entire USSR was given the right to vote for Lenin, Trotsky or Stalin. And are you telling me that if a majority of workers had wanted to recall any of them they could have?


The point was that workers had received higher positions as a result of educational measures undertaken for this purpose.

Are you saying that it is ok for skilled workers to use their skills to appropriate positions of power. So if I learnt how to drive a steam roller I would be given a higher position over other workers because I had a skill they didnt?

[Bianconero]

I rest my case on everything I wrote previously to the following quote. It would be a waste of time to reply in detail again now. You blame me for &#39;repeating&#39;, &#39;re-asserting&#39; etc. ? Well, then go on. I will ignore it, as I could say the exact same thing about your replies. You as well are not giving deep and factual reply to my points. So what? I don&#39;t expect you to change your oppinion about my ideology. I don&#39;t need to &#39;advise&#39; you to do anything. I am simply trying to get my point across, without the babble about what &#39;debate should be.&#39; I hope you leave this out from now one.


once again you have simply made assertions about my post without actually saying why you think it. Bouregois lying? Moralism? Idealism? They&#39;re all being words but what actually is your point?

Bourgeois lying - &#39;What you are claiming is to use this vangaurd to create something that in essence already exists. And as history shows does not work. It dosnt change human consciousness. It creates new rulers and it eventually reverts back to captialism.&#39;

I will admit, that the Soviet Union is not exactly my topic. I have done extensive research about Cuba, though, and this is what I can say about class-consciousness in Cuba right now.

In Dezember &#39;94, which is practically the worst time the Cubans have gone through since the revolution, a daughter-company of the Gallup institute published (after a survey) these facts:

- 50 percent of the Cuban population think that the trade-embargo is the main cause for the recent problems Cuba has to face.

- Only three percent believe the current political system to be the main cause for the recent problems Cuba has to face.

- 77 percent think that the United States are the main enemy of the Cuban people.

- 70 percent of the Cuban population think that the revolution has had more achievements than failures.

- 50 percent of the Cuban people think of themselves as &#39;revolutionary.&#39;

- More than 20 percent think of themselves as educated Communists/Socialists.

This is the impact more than 40 years of &#39;bourgeois, authoritarian, oppressive and vanguardist&#39; ruling has had on the Cuban population.

Moralism - &#39;The workers in russia where cold and starved and angry, and Lenin seized on the frustration to try and bring about a shift in historical reality. But he failed. he failed because he did not allow it to change by itself. He forced it to change, and he did it oppressivly and with great power and authority. He was a new ruler in the same structure. nothing had changed except the name of the state.&#39;

This is not only moralism, but also not coherent with the facts. What the Soviet Union did achieve was Socialism. Of course the party achieved Socialism with great power and authority, but so what? Power and Authority in the hands of the party, i.e. in the hands of the people, as the vanguard is part of the people.

And &#39;nothing had changed except the name of the state&#39; ... ? You better do some research. I am definately not going to write an essay about what changes when Capitalism is replaced by Socialism now.

Idealism - [class-consciousness] &#39;We don&#39;t need to change it, it will change on it&#39;s own.&#39;

There is not more to add. We have both articulated our oppinions concerning this.


I think what you are trying to say is that this dialectical process can not reach it&#39;s inevtiable stage because the ruling class is so well organized. I may be wrong, correct me if I am.

I&#39;m saying that total class-consciousness can not be achieved when we haven&#39;t got the state under our controll. Of course we can do political work under capitalism, of course we can convince some that our ideas are the right ones, but at the same time, the capital lies to millions and millions of others, who will therefor be against us.

There is not so much magic behind this, I wonder why you refuse it. It is reality.

You then proceed to telling me what anarchists are &#39;doing&#39; for revolution. I don&#39;t know why you keep on posting endless texts when your point could be made in a couple of short words.

- fighting with them, not for them.

Right, this is the usual idealist phrase.

- holding forums, trying to talk to the people.

While at the same time the capital implements reactionary thought on the minds of millions of workers, who are, by chance, not present at your &#39;forums.&#39;

- fighting in united front causes such as the Stop the War Coalition

You are right here, &#39;The Anarchist Tension.&#39; This is surely going to create class-consciousness. I am such a fool. Hell, why didn&#39;t I realize this before?

Your arguments are getting annoying, I don&#39;t know why you waste your time with this kind of stuff. I have done this kind of political work under capitalism for a long time already, and I have seen enough. It is a dead end. The left of the west has been doing this, with the result being that the left is practically dead now. I see a time coming, when even anarchist idealists will realize that there is no way we can achieve anything such a class-counsciousness under capitalism.

It&#39;s time to wake up, the bell of history is ringing.


Of course capitalism will try and smash a movement whos demands where getting too much. A movement which was actually punching wholes in this façade could not be tolerated. Maybe this is where you begin to get miltant. You organize workers to take direct action. Confront capitalism head on. The movement will be at a point where the understanding of capitalism will have taken on a level where they can not use the media to descredit us, they can not use their lies to fight anymore. They have to start using force. Imagine the backlash. Police officers beating and murdering demonstrators. This is at a point of high consciousness. The reason for the riots and the violence from the ruling class. The anger would be so great that riots would begin. This is when you need organization. To organize and co-ordinate action which will lead to the workers taking control. Then workers militias lead themselves against capitalism. Let the revolution begin.

By holding your &#39;forums&#39; and enforcing your &#39;Stop the War&#39; - coalitions, the capital will laugh at you over and over again. You will not be able put your words and sayings (&#39;with the people, not for the people&#39; etc.) into action. You are, in fact, ignoring class struggle as such. If you wouldn&#39;t, you would acknowledge that class-struggle will always be won be those you are in power, at the head of the state.

Your ideology does not only refuse this, but also the possibility of the working class to oppress the former rulers after the revolution with their weapons, i.e. the state, the media, schools, etc.

Furthermore, your analysis of history is not based on logical thinking. The working class is not united, it is divided by states. Every nation has a right to self-determination. Revolution in one country can only prevail if the resident working class takes immidiate action to prevent counter-revolution. The divided working class will not rise all together, not on the same day. It&#39;s not like we can simply fix a date with other oppressed people, call it &#39;Revolution Day&#39; and then simply make revolution. This will not happen, and therefor, a Socialist country will have to face political subversion not only from inside, but from outside also. The state in the hands of the proletariat (conducted by the party vanguard) will therefor be needed to oppress the reactionaries, who may be overthrown, but not defeated yet.


Then how do you think the revolution will get fought. If this all powerful media is so oppressive how is your band of merry vanguardists going to be able to take power?

We surely have the opportunity to recruit workers and win them over for our cause. This is, why political work under capitalism remains a vital factor of revolutionary politics. We can not create total class-consciousness under capitalism, however. I do think that the Cuban Guerilla history is a monument of how modern revolutionary politics should look like.


Capitalism can not stop me from helping working class people. It can not stop me setting up a movement. The South African appartied regime tried to keep the black movement down. They killed and imprisoned it&#39;s members, they spread lies and deciet but still they where over thrown.

Of course you can create resistance, and I did never deny this. But you can not create total-consciousness, as I showed previously.


I am not talking about creating consciousness. I am talking about guiding it. Which means working within a workers solidarity movement. Fighting for their needs and wants. Helping them, going into communities and asking what it is they need to make their lives better. They might ask for a park or a nursery (these are just examples). The point being that it is the workers that are important. Not the vanguard. Class consciousness will come through setting an example. A norm so to speak, which can fight within communities.

First of all, Marxists-Leninists agree that the working class is the most important. Your trying to discredit our ideology by saying the vanguard is the most important to us is exactly the same as the church, the reactionaries and liberal-leftists were always attempting to do. I did not expect anything else from you. The rest is the usual rethoric we have already had. As is the rest I did not refer to directly.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m saying that total class-consciousness can not be achieved when we haven&#39;t got the state under our control.

I&#39;m not sure what "total" means in this context. But you are saying something different from what Marx said.

In addition, of course, the Leninists have had the state "under their control" and not only failed to produce "total" class consciousness but, in most cases, the exact opposite.

Your figures about Cuba are interesting...after 45 years of Leninism, only 50 per cent of the population consider themselves "revolutionary".

How about the rest?


I see a time coming, when even anarchist idealists will realize that there is no way we can achieve anything such a [as?] class-consciousness under capitalism.

Class consciousness is not something that is "achieved"...it is rather an emergent property of the existence of a working class. In Marx&#39;s words, the working class will become a class "for itself" as an inevitable by-product of the functioning of the capitalist system.

Conscious revolutionaries (whatever their orientation) can only accelerate this process...they cannot "create" it, much less substitute themselves for it.

And, in all likelihood, they can&#39;t even accelerate it all that much; certainly not enough to significantly change the timing of a mass uprising.

This is where Leninism departs from a Marxist understanding of history.


I do think that the Cuban Guerrilla history is a monument of how modern revolutionary politics should look like.

The 26th of July Movement was fundamentally a peasant uprising.

The only peasants in the advanced capitalist countries are "rich peasants"...and generally extremely reactionary in their politics.

Your "advice" makes no sense in the "western" world...and, interestingly enough, Leninism has failed most of all in the advanced capitalist countries.

Perhaps the left will remain "dead" in the "west" until we rid ourselves of all the Leninist crap and develop a genuinely revolutionary alternative to capitalist ideology.


You&#39;re trying to discredit our ideology by saying the vanguard is the most important to us...

Well, it is, isn&#39;t it? Without a "vanguard", nothing significant can really happen, can it? Isn&#39;t that what Leninists always tell us? No successful revolution without a "vanguard", right?

Oh, sure, the workers have a "role" to "play"...you need cannon fodder to overthrow the old ruling class and make sure it can&#39;t return. You need working class support.

But they mustn&#39;t be allowed to get the idea that they should actually run things themselves. They&#39;re "not qualified".

No, they should understand that what&#39;s taking place is "regime change"...new "benevolent" bosses taking over from old "malevolent" bosses.

Funny, the more often this stuff is put into plain English, the more difficult it is to see how anyone ever fell for it...much less still get suckered into it today.

I "see a time coming" when Leninism will run out of suckers.

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

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

[Bianconero]

The average member of the Bolshevik party may have come from a working-class background (I&#39;ve never seen any accurate numbers on this subject). But the party&#39;s leadership originated considerably higher on the food chain...except, of course, for Stalin.

Maybe we should invite Cassius Clay to tell us accurate numbers on the subject. I&#39;m sure there were more than just Stalin, Molotov and Kalinin.


No, I don&#39;t deny that and wonder why you even ask the question. The 26th of July Movement was not a "Marxist"-Leninist party in any sense of the word and, aside from Che himself (who was not a member of any "M"L party), I&#39;ve never run across a single name associated with that movement that was known to be sympathetic to "Marxism"-Leninism.

Fulgencio Batista&#39;s secret service repeatedly reported of Marxist-Leninist elements in the Guerilla organization of the Sierra Maestra. Not only did the &#39;international Communist&#39; Ernesto Guevara worry them, but also Raúl Castro (who was a member of the Communist Party of Cuba even before the revolution) and even Fidel himself. Concerning Fidel, historians still don&#39;t know for sure whether he was already a Communist during the revolution, but it would indeed make sense. Personally, I believe that Fidel did hide it because &#39;Communism&#39; was a deterrent for many people, not only the peasants, but also the United States, who would have enforced repression against the movement if Castro had declared that the revolution was a Communist one from the very beginning.


You may or may not be right about that...but it&#39;s not what Lenin actually said.

Then give me a quotation please. Anyway, I don&#39;t care if he said it or not. It&#39;s not like I pray to Lenin and worship his writings like christians do with the bible.


Far from creating "the dictatorship of the proletariat", Leninist parties all created dictatorships of small elites--oligarchies--that claimed to rule in the name of the proletariat.

We&#39;ve had this one, haven&#39;t we? Aren&#39;t you getting tired of repeating it? I certainly am.


These little neo-aristocracies did indeed drive out or crush the old ruling classes. But no attempt was ever made to actually cede power to the working class as a whole...and worse, in Russia, there were numerous efforts to make damn sure that the workers didn&#39;t get "above themselves" and start thinking or acting like they had real power.

Communism (the state disappears, the working class has gained total class consciousness) will replace Socialism when the whole world is Socialist already, when there is no imperialism, when there is no political subversion, no reactionaries and, most importantly, no antagonistic class relations.

Considering that by 1953 the imperialists were still looking strong and there was still class struggle in the Soviet Union, I don&#39;t see why you expect the state and the vanguard to disappear.


Aawww, did I piss on your icon? Don&#39;t get mad at me; don&#39;t you know that they have a statue of him in a Las Vegas casino now?

The bourgeoisie honor one of their own.

I&#39;d never get mad at you. But I think that you have a corrupted image of Leninism and Lenin himself.


My impression (and I could be wrong, of course) is that anarchists are presently among the most active and radical elements in the anti-globalization/anti-war movements in the advanced capitalist countries.

Well, some anarchist elements are always there to be seen at demonstrations, but they are outnumbered by liberal-leftists and Communists. And I don&#39;t think of them as influential. Quite the opposite.


Your figures about Cuba are interesting...after 45 years of Leninism, only 50 per cent of the population consider themselves "revolutionary".

Well then, redstar2000, this is going to be entertaining. What has Anarchism ever achieved? Right, how could I forget, you set up (and I&#39;m quoting your fellow &#39;The Anarchist Tension&#39;) &#39;forums, trying to talk to the people&#39; and (not to forget) you fight &#39;in united front causes such as the Stop the War Coalition.&#39;

Impressive, that. Truly impressive. redstar2000, do you again want to whine about how little the Cuban revolution has achieved?


In Marx&#39;s words, the working class will become a class "for itself" as an inevitable by-product of the functioning of the capitalist system.

Yes, the working class becomes a class &#39;for itself&#39;, but that doesn&#39;t imply that class-consciousness, too, will come as an inevitable by-product of capitalism.


Your "advice" makes no sense in the "western" world...and, interestingly enough, Leninism has failed most of all in the advanced capitalist countries.

Perhaps the left will remain "dead" in the "west" until we rid ourselves of all the Leninist crap and develop a genuinely revolutionary alternative to capitalist ideology.

When the oppressed countries will have prevailed in their fight for national liberation, it will all turn to the working classes of the western world. Then, the Leninist model will work in the west, too.


Well, it is, isn&#39;t it? Without a "vanguard", nothing significant can really happen, can it? Isn&#39;t that what Leninists always tell us? No successful revolution without a "vanguard", right?

Oh, sure, the workers have a "role" to "play"...you need cannon fodder to overthrow the old ruling class and make sure it can&#39;t return. You need working class support.

But they mustn&#39;t be allowed to get the idea that they should actually run things themselves. They&#39;re "not qualified".

Go on, your approach to the art of Leninism is not only entertaining. No, I would even call it inspirational.

The people are everything that matters to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism, in fact, only exists because both Marx and Lenin were in favor of justice and humanity.


No, they should understand that what&#39;s taking place is "regime change"...new "benevolent" bosses taking over from old "malevolent" bosses.

Whenever I hear someone ranting about &#39;bosses&#39;, I&#39;d reach for my gun, if I had one. You are too emotional concerning the word &#39;authority.&#39; I know this feeling of disgust towards it, I have experienced it myself. It is important to look at things, ideas and ideologies always with reality in sight, too.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bianconcero


You blame me for &#39;repeating&#39;, &#39;re-asserting&#39; etc. ? Well, then go on. I will ignore it, as I could say the exact same thing about your replies.

I know I keep repeating myself. That&#39;s the point.

You have asserted that the whole of the working class can not become consious before a revolution, that it is impossible to do so because capitalism is so well organized etc etc. That is why you need to have a vanguard to lead the workers themselves. You have asserted these things over and over and I have answered the same way over and over.

What I have tried to say, by using the theory of dialectical materialism, is that the great majority of the working class can infact become conscious, and have explained how I envisage an anarchist movement doing so.

I then repeated it in more detail to revolution hero.


I am simply trying to get my point across, without the babble about what &#39;debate should be.&#39; I hope you leave this out from now one.

This is not a hit and run chat board. This is a debating board. If you simply try and get your point across without explaining it to me, then how am i supposed to understand.

If I feel that the debate is becoming stagnant I will say exactly how I feel. If you don&#39;t like it there is nothing I can do.


Bourgeois lying - &#39;What you are claiming is to use this vangaurd to create something that in essence already exists.&#39;

Do you or do you not want to create a workers state? A state being the institutions and instruments used by a ruling class to oppress an under class. We live in such a state.

During and after a revolution, you do not want to smash the state, you want to preserve it. You want to "create something that in essence already exists."


Bourgeois lying - &#39;And as history shows does not work. It dosnt change human consciousness. It creates new rulers and it eventually reverts back to captialism&#39;

There has in fact been no Marxist Leninist revolution, ever in history to have succeeded. It has not changed human consciousness and it has created new rulers and in most cases has in fact returned to capitalism.

It is irrelevant whether or not you think it is bouregois lying. i would also like to view your statistics please. What is the webpage or book you got them from?


Moralism - &#39;The workers in russia where cold and starved and angry, and Lenin seized on the frustration to try and bring about a shift in historical reality. But he failed&#39;

The workers in Russia were cold, starved and angry. Lenin did seize on their frustraions, he did try and bring about a shift in historical reality and he did fail.


Moralism - &#39;he failed because he did not allow it to change by itself. He forced it to change, and he did it oppressivly and with great power and authority. He was a new ruler in the same structure. nothing had changed except the name of the state.&#39;

Again this goes back to the theory of dialectical materialism. The workers where not ready to achieve communism. The country was in an embreyonic form of capitalism. It had barly a working class and the huge peasent population were not literate.

In Russia in the mid 19th century there was a group of men who went into the Russian countryside to try and teach them how to read and write so that they could go onto understand theory. It did not work because it did not have the proper support but that does not mean the idea is flawed.

Lenin led a coup of 30,000 workers in St Petersburg and installed his government. The workers could not have understood why, except that Tzarism was bad. Instead of trying to educate the workers he did seize on the moment. I do not blame him for it, he obviously thought it was the right thing to do. But it is my belief that one of the reasons it failed was because the workers and the peasents were not ready for it.

He did become the ruler of the USSR using the same structures as the old state. Armed oppression, secret police, dictatorial powers. The only difference was that it was called a Workers State, not a Tzarist state.


This is not only moralism, but also not coherent with the facts. What the Soviet Union did achieve was Socialism. Of course the party achieved Socialism with great power and authority, but so what? Power and Authority in the hands of the party, i.e. in the hands of the people, as the vanguard is part of the people.

I do not disagree. He did create a socialist state. But the outcome was not communism. If you place the power into the hands of the party it therefore can not be in the hands of the people. The only thing that makes it so, is that Lenin said it was. Executive desitions were not made by the majority of working class people. In fact they did not understand what destions had to be made.

The Labour government is part of the people. They also claim it is a government for the people. Just because they say it is, does not make it fact. I have never heard that Lenin was elected by the majority of workers in the USSR. I may be wrong. If so please tell me where I can read differently. Lenin said that he was fighting for the interests of the workers, and maybe he believed he was, but that does not mean he was. He was fighting for the party, and using the workers to achieve those goals. Regardless of whether the theory was that they would be emancipated. The point of a revolution must be that the workers lead it. That is how you get rid of the state, and that is how you emancipate the workers. They must do it by themselves. Not by a vangaurd.

I apologise if this appears like rhetoric, but it is not as complicated as it may seem. It is as simple as that. The meaning is in the words. To free the working class, they must lead themselves otherwise it is not freedom.


Idealism - [class-consciousness] &#39;We don&#39;t need to change it, it will change on it&#39;s own&#39;

Yes we have already made our points on this. But i would just like to say something further. I would like to quote the dictionary definition of idealism. I take it from &#39;The Oxford English Reference Dictionary&#39;:


Idealism

1. The practice of forming or pursuing ideals. esp. unrealistically (cf Realism)
2. The representation of things in ideal or idealized form
3. Imaginitive treatmen
4. (Philosophy) Any of the various systems of thought in which the object of perception is held to consist of ideas not resulting from any percieved material substance

When I said &#39;&#39;We don&#39;t need to change it, it will change on it&#39;s" I meant that it was the inevitable outcome of captialism based on a materialistic analyzis of history. Therefore it can not be idealism in the dictionary sense of the word. The statement, as I made it very clear, originates from Marx&#39;s theory of dialectical materialism.


You then proceed to telling me what anarchists are &#39;doing&#39; for revolution. I don&#39;t know why you keep on posting endless texts when your point could be made in a couple of short words.

- fighting with them, not for them.

You have completely misquoted me. What I said was

The Anarchist Tension

Simply holding forums and fighting in united front causes such as the Stop the War Coalition, which I dont think they are, is going to achieve anything.

I was actually criticising the anarchist movement. I said the complete opposite of what you have written. Anarchists have much influence over the anti-capitalism movement and work in a united front with directly confronting capitalism.


Your arguments are getting annoying,

I am sorry about that. You do not have to continue the debate if you do not want.


I don&#39;t know why you waste your time with this kind of stuff.

In general because I believe in it. On che-lives because it helps me understand certain things.


I see a time coming, when even anarchist idealists will realize that there is no way we can achieve anything such a class-counsciousness under capitalism.

Maybe you are right. But until then I do not see fundamental flaws in anarchism.


It&#39;s time to wake up, the bell of history is ringing.

That is why I am not a Leninist.


By holding your &#39;forums&#39; and enforcing your &#39;Stop the War&#39; - coalitions, the capital will laugh at you over and over again. You will not be able put your words and sayings (&#39;with the people, not for the people&#39; etc.) into action. You are, in fact, ignoring class struggle as such. If you wouldn&#39;t, you would acknowledge that class-struggle will always be won be those you are in power, at the head of the state.

I do not advocate that holding forums and being active in the StWC is enough. I have said that setting an example and building support within communities by taking direct action in the sense of community work is how you build for consciousness.


Your ideology does not only refuse this, but also the possibility of the working class to oppress the former rulers after the revolution with their weapons, i.e. the state, the media, schools, etc.

I do not argue that fighting for anarchism without class consciousness is how you create anarchism. Without consciousness I am sure you would need this centralised state. Just as it is needed in capitalism. I am arguing that anarchism can defend itself with mass class consciousness. I have explained why.


Furthermore, your analysis of history is not based on logical thinking. The working class is not united, it is divided by states. Every nation has a right to self-determination. Revolution in one country can only prevail if the resident working class takes immidiate action to prevent counter-revolution. The divided working class will not rise all together, not on the same day. It&#39;s not like we can simply fix a date with other oppressed people, call it &#39;Revolution Day&#39; and then simply make revolution. This will not happen, and therefor, a Socialist country will have to face political subversion not only from inside, but from outside also. The state in the hands of the proletariat (conducted by the party vanguard) will therefor be needed to oppress the reactionaries, who may be overthrown, but not defeated yet.

It&#39;s an interesting point and one I can not answer. The revolution may not come all at once.


Of course you can create resistance, and I did never deny this. But you can not create total-consciousness, as I showed previously.

But what would happen now. Why would capitalism start to be so violent? Because it felt under threat&#33; At this point you become militant. Instead of turning around and going home, you organize workers and begin to resist using direct action, violence if necessary.


Your trying to discredit our ideology by saying the vanguard is the most important to us

Redstar answered this.

I would like to finish by aplogising if I have caused offence or appeard arrogant. It was not my intention.

[redstar2000]

Fulgencio Batista&#39;s secret service repeatedly reported of Marxist-Leninist elements in the Guerrilla organization of the Sierra Maestra.

You consider those guys to be a credible source?

Back in the 1950s, every form of dissidence was considered "communist inspired" if not "communist infiltrated"?

J. Edgar Hoover&#39;s FBI considered Martin Luther King, Jr. to be a "communist". Utter nonsense, of course.

It is certainly possible that Raul was a member of the Popular Socialist Party (I think that&#39;s what the pro-USSR communists were called then). But even if that&#39;s true, I suspect he was "acting on his own"--the official PSP line was initially support for Batista.


Concerning Fidel, historians still don&#39;t know for sure whether he was already a Communist during the revolution, but it would indeed make sense.

Not to me. The program of the 26th of July Movement as of January 1, 1959 was agrarian reform...if they had anything else in mind, they cleverly hid it from everyone.


Considering that by 1953 the imperialists were still looking strong and there was still class struggle in the Soviet Union, I don&#39;t see why you expect the state and the vanguard to disappear.

You are evading my point. Even if your assumption of the need for a "workers&#39; state" was valid, the workers in the USSR were denied the right to run that state.

They were not even allowed to run "their own" vanguard party.

Forget communism; what kind of "socialism" is that?

Leninism did not only not deliver on the promises of Marx...it didn&#39;t even deliver on the promises of Lenin...the ones he made before October 1917.

All power to the soviets? Hah&#33; All power to the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party--that would have been the honest slogan.

When the workers&#39; opposition people presented a proposal at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) to transfer economic power to the trade unions...Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky all agreed that this was an "anarcho-syndicalist deviation" and it was promptly crushed.

There was no intention ever to actually allow the working class any real power.

It was a fake.


Yes, the working class becomes a class &#39;for itself&#39;, but that doesn&#39;t imply that class-consciousness, too, will come as an inevitable by-product of capitalism.

I&#39;m afraid that it does mean exactly that.

This is not all that clear in the English translation; the German phrase (so I have been informed) actually connotes a sense of pride and self-worth, a "fitness" to rule.


When the oppressed countries will have prevailed in their fight for national liberation, it will all turn to the working classes of the western world. Then, the Leninist model will work in the west, too.

Thus far, when Leninists have "prevailed", what actually happens is that they are very "radical" for a generation or two...and then they re-integrate themselves into the imperialist world...Vietnam is visibly doing that right now.

I can&#39;t rule out completely the possibility that your scenario might come to pass...though the timing would be very tricky.

But what in the world makes you think that workers in the advanced capitalist countries would ever agree to have their lives run by a small group of bourgeois dissidents "in the name of the working class"?

Most American workers have never been exposed to Leninism at all...but the ones who have been exposed to it are extremely hostile. And not because of some generic "anti-communism" but because of what life is like inside a "democratic" centralist party...it&#39;s just like having a really shitty job with zero pay.


The people are everything that matters to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism, in fact, only exists because both Marx and Lenin were in favor of justice and humanity.

Wrong&#33; Wrong&#33; Wrong&#33;

Human history is full to overflowing with people who were "in favor of justice and humanity"...or at least said they were.

In fact, it&#39;s rather difficult to find people who actually stood up and said "I&#39;m in favor of injustice and inhumanity&#33;"

What sets Marxism apart from those who are "in favor of justice and humanity" is a scientific analysis of human history.

"Justice" and "humanity" are meaningless concepts unless they are situated in specific historical situations, in specific class societies.

Marxism does not appeal to "justice" in the abstract or "humanity" in the abstract (some strains of anarchism do make such an appeal, by the way).

Marxism appeals to a specific class...invites it to overthrow its exploiters, achieve class justice for a specific class of humanity.

Moreover (and this is the tricky part), Marxism asserts that this is going to happen no matter what. It&#39;s the "next stage" of human history.

Leninism, on the other hand, weasels on this question. It "sort of" agrees with Marx...but only if the Leninists are there to provide "correct leadership". Otherwise, it "won&#39;t happen".


You are too emotional concerning the word &#39;authority.&#39; I know this feeling of disgust towards it, I have experienced it myself. It is important to look at things, ideas and ideologies always with reality in sight, too.

It&#39;s not just the "word" that bothers me...or you either. Perhaps some actual experience in a Leninist party will prove more convincing than anything I could say.

I&#39;ve been in a Leninist party; I&#39;m not just blowing theoretical smoke out of my ass.

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

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

[S.B.]

Comrades


As concerns the idea that the guerrilla activity preceding the overthrow of Batista&#39;s regime contained Marxist-Leninist elements,this is uncontestable,for no one which has ever taken up a gun for a socialist cause since the Bolshevik Revolution can escape being viewed as a Marxist-Leninist.

Following this line of reasoning it can be easily discerned why MLK.Jr was himself considered a communist,in that he campaigned for equal-rights for his people and this in fact is among the chief tenets of the communist ideology.

I myself find the entire notion of one being a communist based on the idea that such a one is a card-carrying member of a recognizable communist party to be utterly ridiculous.Communism,as any other ideology,exists first and foremost in the realm of thought and therein one consigns oneself to the various camps.

Socio-political ideologies are much the same as theologies in the way of religious thought,and as one is either a Muslim,Christian or Hindu by means of his personal beliefs and practice,likewise,one is either a Capitalist or Communist by the same approach,regardless whether he does or does not openly confess by mouth this faith before men ... for truly it is by actions alone that one bears witness to the true man.

As concerns,"Leninism did not only not deliver on the promises of Marx" ... it has been said by some that Comrade Lenin was more a Marxist than Marx himself,and were it not for the contribution of Comrade Lenin I suspect that we would not this day be gathered at such a forum discussing the various aspects of socialist thought.

As concerns the idea of workers-control of the state,I will speak plainly ... workers shouldnt be given control of the state.The entire premise of Comrade Lenin&#39;s revolutionary ideology was geared toward a hardened elite whose role it was to agitate and stir workers-support for the triumph of communism by which state-control would come to rest in the hands of the one-party who in turn would introduce social reforms by which to create an egalitarian society.

It is unfortunate that people go about espousing socialism when in fact they themselves dont even possess the essentials of such an ideology.I find this anti-Leninist trend among professing communists personally offensive in that the name V.I. Lenin has been forever etched upon communism,and those who strive to divorce the two are either fools or else think others to be fools.

Socialism has become nothing more than a mental exercise and a form of intellectual entertainment wherein people gather to discuss and debate issues that they personally would never act upon,its all a psychological game in which participants seek to crush their opponents by means of an exaggerated intellectualism.

Marx himself had said that theory has gone as far as it can,the idea now being to move theory into practice,why then all this endless chatter?I myself could proceed to be numbered among the great pontificators of socialist theories but I find the entire notion to be quite senseless in that this doesnt contribute anything to concrete reality.

The Christians continuously talk of Christs return and where has it gotten them?Likewise,pretentious idlers who never cease to debate upon socialist thought can mutter til their tongues fall off and it will not accomplish one thing.

To speak of a world that doesnt exist is delusional and to talk of a socio-political ideology which one doesnt actively pursue is a complete waste of ones time,and as a practical man I myself strive not to become entangled in matters that require one to be either a fool or a liar.


S.B.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 21 2003, 04:22 PM
The dictatorship of the prolitarian has to have pepole elected into power.
Trotsky one of the greatest leninists belived in democracy.
All of members of the soviets in 1918 where elected
Not true. In spring 1918 the Bolsheviks lost the elections to the soviets. The Bolsheviks responded by disbanding soviets and implementing a one-party state. See http://www.angelfire.com/nb/revhist17/brovkin1.pdf

In 1921 Trotsky criticized the Workers&#39; Opposition, a dissident faction within the Communist party, saying:

"They come out with dangerous slogans, making a fetish of democratic principles&#33; They place the workers&#39; right to elect representatives above the Party, as if the party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship temporarily clashed with the passing moods of the workers&#39; democracy. It is necessary to create amongst us the awareness of the revolutionary birthright of the party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship, regardless of temporary wavering even in the working classes. … The dictatorship does not base itself at every given moment on the formal principle of a workers&#39; democracy."

In CH. 7 of Terrorism & Communism Trotsky said, "the dictatorship of the Soviets became possible only by means of the dictatorship of the party. … In this “substitution” of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class." In 1937 he said "The revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution ... abstractly speaking, it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be replaced by the ‘dictatorship’ of the whole toiling people without any party, but this presupposes such a high level of political development among the masses that it can never be achieved under capitalist conditions." In "Stalinism and Bolshevism" Trotsky said:

"A revolutionary party, even having seized power … is still by no means the sovereign ruler of society. … The proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. In itself the necessity for state power arises from the insufficient cultural level of the masses and their heterogeneity. In the revolutionary vanguard, organised in a party, is crystallized the aspiration of the masses to obtain their freedom. Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power. In this sense the proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the work of the whole class, but only under the leadership of the vanguard. The Soviets are the only organised form of the tie between the vanguard and the class. A revolutionary content can be given this form only by the party. … Those who propose the abstraction of the Soviets from the party dictatorship should understand that only thanks to the party dictatorship were the Soviets able to lift themselves out of the mud of reformism and attain the state form of the proletariat."

Trotsky was not the democrat you make him out to be but an unabashed advocate of party dictatorship.

In "What is To Be Done?" Lenin said:

"The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way, in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable outcome of the development of thought among the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia."

[The Feral Underclass]

S.B

Why do you have a Libertarian flag as your avator if you are not a Libertarian?


As concerns the idea of workers-control of the state,I will speak plainly ... workers shouldnt be given control of the state.The entire premise of Comrade Lenin&#39;s revolutionary ideology was geared toward a hardened elite whose role it was to agitate and stir workers-support for the triumph of communism by which state-control would come to rest in the hands of the one-party who in turn would introduce social reforms by which to create an egalitarian society.

You prove my point&#33;


I find this anti-Leninist trend among professing communists personally offensive in that the name V.I. Lenin has been forever etched upon communism,and those who strive to divorce the two are either fools or else think others to be fools.

I&#39;m not a communist and how can anyone be personally offensive to a dead guy.


Marx himself had said that theory has gone as far as it can,the idea now being to move theory into practice,why then all this endless chatter?

Obviously people have different opinions about the necessity of debating theory. In order to put something into practice you fist have to have a full understanding of what it is your trying to implement. Debating, theorising and arguing helps you develop. Marx also said "Debate is progress."


myself could proceed to be numbered among the great pontificators of socialist theories but I find the entire notion to be quite senseless in that this doesnt contribute anything to concrete reality.

Watching someones face change in the realisation of reality is a profound thing. To argue and debate with someone for months and then win the argument is contributing to concrete reality. The reality being that capitalism has explotied and oppressed people to the extent that they do not have a sence of actual reality. To bring that realisation is contributing a lot.


To speak of a world that doesnt exist is delusional and to talk of a socio-political ideology which one doesnt actively pursue is a complete waste of ones time,and as a practical man I myself strive not to become entangled in matters that require one to be either a fool or a liar.

You obviously dont see the point of debate. Which is fine. Pragmatic people get the job done. But for what purpose are you doing it. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people out there, and on here who are trying to find a direction for their frustrations and anger. Simply being practical isnt enough.

This is the difference between anarchism and Leninism. Anarchism wants to see development within human beings to change society and Leninism wants to use human beings to develop their own ideals to change society. Forget the theory&#33; forget the understanding&#33; just follow me&#33; I will guid you to the light&#33;...Sorry mate but i&#39;d rather find the light myself.

[Bianconero]

If you simply try and get your point across without explaining it to me, then how am i supposed to understand.

Well, I had the feeling I did explain it very well. But I could be wrong. Tell me, then, what you want me to explain in more detail and I&#39;ll see what I can do.


Do you or do you not want to create a workers state? A state being the institutions and instruments used by a ruling class to oppress an under class. We live in such a state.

During and after a revolution, you do not want to smash the state, you want to preserve it. You want to "create something that in essence already exists."

We&#39;ve sure had this one already. There is indeed a huge difference between the dictatorship of the capital and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Where the dictatorship of the capital wants to enforce class-antagonisms, the dictatorship of the proletariat wants to eliminate them. The capital-dictatorship looks to further exploitation of a majority of society, i.e. of the working class. The proletarian-dictatorship, on the other hand, wants to eliminate exploitation. By stating that Marxism-Leninism wants to &#39;create something that in essence already exists&#39;, you ignore the economical aspect.

Again, &#39;The Anarchist Tension&#39;, the working class is divided, not united. The people will make their revolutions, in their own way, in their own style and in their own time. We, as true revolutionaries, have to respect every nation&#39;s right to self-determination. Any revolution will have to defend itself against subversion not only from inside, but also against imperialism - subversion from outside. Just have a look at what happened in Chile, in Guatemala or what could have happened to the democratically elected presidency of Hugo Chavez. The proletariat, when it seizes power, still needs the state, to take repressive action against the reactionaries, who are still in the position to initiate counter-revolution.


There has in fact been no Marxist Leninist revolution, ever in history to have succeeded. It has not changed human consciousness and it has created new rulers and in most cases has in fact returned to capitalism.

You saw my stats on Cuban class-consciousness. They are impressive, yet everything but &#39;perfect.&#39; Cuba has been under immense pressure not only from the United States, but from the western hemisphere in general. In addition, class-struggle is there for all to be seen in Cuba. This is mainly a result of the trade embargo the Yankee-parasites are so proud of. These arrogant pricks think their reactionary action is a true deterrant for people&#39;s socialism. The revolution, history and the people (who have, thanks to superb education-programms of the Castro-government that were initiated in 1959 already) will prove them wrong. I&#39;m confident about that.


It is irrelevant whether or not you think it is bouregois lying. i would also like to view your statistics please. What is the webpage or book you got them from?

Funny thing you ask for my sources. I got these stats from the book &#39;Profit Over People&#39; by Noam Chomsky. Your hero, remember?


and he did fail.

Lenin did not &#39;fail.&#39; He set an example to all oppressed nations on the world of how they can destroy class-antagonisms. Furthermore, he extended Marxism, he lead it into the final stage of imperialism.


Again this goes back to the theory of dialectical materialism. The workers where not ready to achieve communism. The country was in an embreyonic form of capitalism. It had barly a working class and the huge peasent population were not literate.

Well, of course 1917&#39;s Russia was more of a feudal society. Nobody did deny this, but the radical industrialisation programms did prove to be successfull. Yes, the people had to suffer in the course of industrialisation, but at least they worked for themselves, not for the capital. And please don&#39;t come with your &#39;they were exploited by the vanguard&#39; - rethoric now. That was the case after 1956, but not before.


The only difference was that it was called a Workers State, not a Tzarist state.

There is a huge difference between a state that is looking to enforce class-antagonisms and a state that is looking to eliminate them. Yes, you are right, oppression was used in both, but the nature of oppression had changed. Where the working class and the peasants were oppressed under the Tzar, people&#39;s socialism oppressed the former oppressors, western spies, traitors and reactionaries. After the revolution, the capacity of oppression was in the hands of the proletariat.


If you place the power into the hands of the party it therefore can not be in the hands of the people. The only thing that makes it so, is that Lenin said it was. Executive desitions were not made by the majority of working class people. In fact they did not understand what destions had to be made.

Did you just give yourself away or is this my bad English again?


To free the working class, they must lead themselves otherwise it is not freedom.

I&#39;ve stated my oppinion on this before. Your arguments, and those of redstar2000 didn&#39;t convince me at all. That&#39;s why I rest my case.

Then, concerning your definition of &#39;idealism.&#39;


4. (Philosophy) Any of the various systems of thought in which the object of perception is held to consist of ideas not resulting from any percieved material substance

The working class becomes a class &#39;for itself&#39;, but that doesn&#39;t imply that class-consciousness, too, will come as an inevitable by-product of capitalism. Therefor, your ideology is idealism to me. Because you assert that counsciousness will come on it&#39;s own. It won&#39;t.


I am arguing that anarchism can defend itself with mass class consciousness.

I know very well what your point is.


But what would happen now. Why would capitalism start to be so violent? Because it felt under threat&#33; At this point you become militant. Instead of turning around and going home, you organize workers and begin to resist using direct action, violence if necessary.

Well, I agree with this quotation. I realize, however, that we don&#39;t agree on the point how to get there. How to make the capital feel under threat. You suggest we &#39;fight with the workers, not for them&#39;, as &#39;an example&#39;, &#39;not as leaders.&#39; I&#39;m still failing to realize what you do actually mean by this. It still is rethoric.


It is certainly possible that Raul was a member of the Popular Socialist Party (I think that&#39;s what the pro-USSR communists were called then). But even if that&#39;s true, I suspect he was "acting on his own"--the official PSP line was initially support for Batista.

Considering that Batista took immediate action to repress the Communist movement, it is unlikely your statement is true. The Partido Socialista Popular was never happy with the development in Cuba, Havana being nicknamed &#39;Latin Las Vegas&#39; and Cuba generally becoming another Yankee-whore.


if they had anything else in mind, they cleverly hid it from everyone.

That&#39;s the very point. Of course Fidel needed to purge the army first, of course he needed to repress the former oppressors. If he would have declared the revolution to be communist from the beginning, the Yankees would have intervened in 1959 already. When the imperialists attacked in the battle of the bay of pigs, the revolution was ready to face that final fight for victory. It was indeed Castro&#39;s masterpiece.

Knowing Castro (Fidel that is), I&#39;m sure he hid it on purpose. That is, by the way, why the &#39;radical&#39; Guevara was hardly seen in public immediatly after the victory.


When the workers&#39; opposition people presented a proposal at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) to transfer economic power to the trade unions...Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky all agreed that this was an "anarcho-syndicalist deviation" and it was promptly crushed.


There was no intention ever to actually allow the working class any real power.

Well, Marxists-Leninists claim that the working class can not take controll of the revolution immediately. Why would they claim that they are ready to take controll 4 years after the revolution? Is 4 a magic number or something?


But what in the world makes you think that workers in the advanced capitalist countries would ever agree to have their lives run by a small group of bourgeois dissidents "in the name of the working class"?

The old thing, redstar2000.

Then, finally, I do of course know that Marxism &#39;appeals to a specific class...invites it to overthrow its exploiters, achieve class justice for a specific class of humanity.&#39; The point I was trying to make, though, is that Lenin certainly wasn&#39;t &#39;evil&#39;, in the sense that he wanted to oppress the working class. Lenin was a man of the people, that&#39;s why he fought for them.

[redstar2000]

As concerns the idea that the guerrilla activity preceding the overthrow of Batista&#39;s regime contained Marxist-Leninist elements, this is incontestable, for no one which has ever taken up a gun for a socialist cause since the Bolshevik Revolution can escape being viewed as a Marxist-Leninist.

Well, I "contest" it. The 26th of July Movement&#39;s program was the overthrow of the Batista dictatorship and agrarian reform. They didn&#39;t "take up the gun" for socialism...though Che undoubtedly did his best to radicalize the outlook of the people involved.

Agrarian reform is not socialism...not even Leninist socialism.


Following this line of reasoning it can be easily discerned why MLK,Jr. was himself considered a communist, in that he campaigned for equal-rights for his people and this in fact is among the chief tenets of the communist ideology.

King campaigned for civil rights under capitalism. That&#39;s not "communist ideology", that&#39;s bourgeois "equal rights before the law" stuff.


I myself find the entire notion of one being a communist based on the idea that such a one is a card-carrying member of a recognizable communist party to be utterly ridiculous. Communism, as any other ideology, exists first and foremost in the realm of thought and therein one consigns oneself to the various camps.

Not if you are a Leninist. A Leninist without a party is obligated, first of all, to form one. You can&#39;t do anything without a "vanguard" party.


Socio-political ideologies are much the same as theologies in the way of religious thought,and as one is either a Muslim, Christian or Hindu by means of his personal beliefs and practice, likewise, one is either a Capitalist or Communist by the same approach, regardless whether he does or does not openly confess by mouth this faith before men ... for truly it is by actions alone that one bears witness to the true man.

Yes, I agree, it is what people actually do that reveals their real convictions. Nevertheless, I see little to be gained beyond a transient personal safety by disguising one&#39;s communist convictions. How aggressive one is depends on practical circumstances, of course. I could quite understand, for example, that Che would not have been making Marxist speeches to peasants engaged in a rather traditional peasant rebellion.


As concerns,"Leninism did not only not deliver on the promises of Marx" ... it has been said by some that Comrade Lenin was more a Marxist than Marx himself, and were it not for the contribution of Comrade Lenin, I suspect that we would not this day be gathered at such a forum discussing the various aspects of socialist thought.

I have no idea who these "some" are who "said" that Lenin was "more a Marxist than Marx".

But if you really believe that had Lenin never existed then there would be no forums discussing socialism, then you are less of a Marxist than Lenin himself.

"Great man theories" of history are "out of fashion" even among reputable bourgeois historians now...they were never "in fashion" among serious Marxists, including Marx himself.


As concerns the idea of workers-control of the state, I will speak plainly ... workers shouldn&#39;t be given control of the state. The entire premise of Comrade Lenin&#39;s revolutionary ideology was geared toward a hardened elite whose role it was to agitate and stir workers&#39; support for the triumph of communism[sic] by which state-control would come to rest in the hands of the one-party, who in turn would introduce social reforms by which to create an egalitarian society.

Well, that&#39;s one of the questions being discussed in this thread. You evidently feel that Lenin was "right" about this.

Why?


It is unfortunate that people go about espousing socialism when in fact they themselves don&#39;t even possess the essentials of such an ideology. I find this anti-Leninist trend among professing communists personally offensive in that the name V.I. Lenin has been forever etched upon communism, and those who strive to divorce the two are either fools or else think others to be fools.

I find it incomprehensible why you should find anti-Leninism to be "personally offensive"...are you related to him or something?

In any event, my perspective is precisely to sweep away all the accumulated Leninist rubbish from the Marxist project. If there are "etchings" to be removed, the "acid" of Marxist criticism will do the job.


Marx himself had said that theory has gone as far as it can, the idea now being to move theory into practice, why then all this endless chatter? I myself could proceed to be numbered among the great pontificators of socialist theories but I find the entire notion to be quite senseless in that this doesn&#39;t contribute anything to concrete reality.

The failures of 20th century Leninism have generated a theoretical crisis in the Marxist paradigm. If Marxism is to be salvaged and renewed, it is imperative that those failures be fully and critically dealt with.

The alternative is to allow "Marxism" to become a cult of ritual formulas with no further relevance to material reality.

It&#39;s not a matter of "chatter".


Likewise, pretentious idlers who never cease to debate upon socialist thought can mutter till their tongues fall off and it will not accomplish one thing.

The problem is that it is often quite difficult to distinguish between the "pretentious idler" and the "brilliant theorist"...except in hindsight.

Late 19th century critics of Marx were known to sneer that for all of his talk of workers, Marx had never done an honest day&#39;s labor in his whole life.

It takes a while to tell...


To speak of a world that doesn&#39;t exist is delusional and to talk of a socio-political ideology which one doesn&#39;t actively pursue is a complete waste of one&#39;s time; and as a practical man, I myself strive not to become entangled in matters that require one to be either a fool or a liar.

Naturally I share your distaste for fools and liars and your desire to avoid becoming either.

But you must be aware that many of the people on this board do actively pursue what they perceive as radical political goals at this time and also try to gain greater theoretical clarity about what they really want to accomplish and the best ways to do that.

Boards like this one help in both tasks.

As in all serious matters, both theoretical and practical, the exchange of views and experiences is a necessity if progress is to be made on either front.

The Russians, for example, spent just about a century talking about the overthrow of Czarism before they got around to doing it. Who would be so bold as to say it was all just "chatter"?

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

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

[S.B.]

Greetings comrades


The Anarchist Tension,as concerns my avatar,I wasnt aware that such is being used as a Libertarian flag,I assure you that I personally devised my own avatar at first as a banner and symbol of an ideology I term as "Federal Socialism",the red portion and yellow star being symbolic of revolutionary socialism and the blue portion signifying the federal aspect.

I have read of the Libertarian views on various issues and in no way consider myself to be a Libertarian,though it is unavoidable that various ideologies will agree at times on select issues.

"I&#39;m not a communist and how can anyone be personally offensive to a dead guy." ... what I meant to convey was the fact that this anti-Leninist trend within communist circles I find offensive to myself personally in that it insults ones intelligence.

"Obviously people have different opinions about the necessity of debating theory. In order to put something into practice you fist have to have a full understanding of what it is your trying to implement. Debating, theorising and arguing helps you develop. Marx also said "Debate is progress." ...

This is a reasonable response and one which I myself agree with based on the idea that such debates and discussions serve as a catalyst for action rather than mere mental stimulus and a means of intellectual entertainment.

"To argue and debate with someone for months and then win the argument is contributing to concrete reality" ... this tends to contribute only to ones vanity.

"Anarchism wants to see development within human beings to change society and Leninism wants to use human beings to develop their own ideals to change society." ...

Anarchy is chaos wherein confusion reigns,all order is lost,authority is despised and any semblance of a meaningful life is denied by the fact that all values have been abandoned.

As concerns,"Leninism wants to use human beings to develop their own ideals to change society." ... of course,what else is there to rely upon for developing ones socialist ideas other than human beings?The very term "Society" denotes humanity and our task is to introduce social reforms ... not to transform the behavior of hogs and cattle.


S.B.

[redstar2000]

The point I was trying to make, though, is that Lenin certainly wasn&#39;t &#39;evil&#39;, in the sense that he wanted to oppress the working class. Lenin was a man of the people, that&#39;s why he fought for them.

No one is "evil" in their own eyes. No one sets out to "do evil". Everyone always has "good intentions"...at least that&#39;s what they think about themselves.

What Marxists are supposed to do is look past that and evaluate what this or that "leader", group, class actually does.

And, historically, Lenin was not "a man of the people". He actually grew up on a (small) estate and probably lived better than 95% of the Russian people. He might have even been entitled to his father&#39;s title (very minor nobility...a civil service award)...though I don&#39;t think he ever actually used it.

Among the Bolsheviks, Stalin was the only real "man of the people".

And look how he behaved.

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

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

[redstar2000]

Anarchy is chaos wherein confusion reigns, all order is lost, authority is despised and any semblance of a meaningful life is denied by the fact that all values have been abandoned.

This is caricature, of course, and remarkably similar to views expressed by those opposed to the Russian Revolution of February 1917...and for that matter, those opposed to the French Revolution of 1789.

But what struck my eye was the phrase "all values have been abandoned".

What do you suppose that could mean?

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]

Bianconero


There is indeed a huge difference between the dictatorship of the capital and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

A state is a state just as an orange is an orange&#33;


Where the dictatorship of the capital wants to enforce class-antagonisms, the dictatorship of the proletariat wants to eliminate them.

Again. This is a mere claim of intention. What you intend to do and what is and has been the reality are completely different things. Do you believe that any Leninist revolution has been succesful?


The capital-dictatorship looks to further exploitation of a majority of society, i.e. of the working class. The proletarian-dictatorship, on the other hand, wants to eliminate exploitation.

Again it is intention. The way in which you want to go about doing it is illogical. The dictatorship of the proletariat, in order to survive, must have a strong, centralised, authotarian leadership who controls every aspect of society. Co-ordinating institutions such as the the intelligence services, police force and the army. They also act as economic controllers and censors. This is not creating freedom.

The point of this dictatorship is to oppress opposition to the revolution. History has shown it could be bouregois counter-revolutionaries and starving sailors. The people who make these decisions are not elected by the majority of the working class. They are elected by the Party, whos membership comprises of unconscious, and in the past, illiterate workers and peasents.

These leaders then hold executive control over what it is and isn&#39;t ok to read in the paper and who is and who isnt a counter-revolutionary. They also have powers no different to those of Saddam Hussein about how the economy is going to operate. These people control the police and the army, made again from unconscious workers, so if someone does something they dont agree with, they can claim they are counter-revolutionaries and shoot them, imprison them or deport them. And who can complain, who will know any different. This is just the same as last time. People who do not submit to the will of the state is a criminal. No one will question you because consciousness does not exist among the workers. No one knows how to question you. You are telling them it is in their interest.

These men and women, who may or may not be elected within the party are simply people who hold unquestionable power over a large amount of people. This dictatership may be fighting capitalists but it is creating a new class system all the same.

And what will stop, when after ten years of being a leader, having all this power, controlling the lives of millions of people, you become a leader. Your mind adapts to your surroundings. The taste of power is so strong that you want to retain it. Stalin did it. He built himself a profile and created situations within the bureaucracy to get his feet firmly under the table. Are you going to deny that "being determines consciousness"?

And what about consciousness? You claim that these people will begin to spread consciousness but what happens if they decide it is too soon after the revolution. They decide that the party should wait, that we need to use the workers to fight, not to understand. You are choosing when and how consciousness comes about. It does not matter what you claim or what you believe. You simply do not have the right to decide such things. And what happens if the party executive committee realise that it isnt in the partys best interest, or in their own interest. What will happen then? Will the workers be able to recall them. No&#33; Because the workers dont have an army, a police force or intelligence service too control and they end up right where they started.


Funny thing you ask for my sources. I got these stats from the book &#39;Profit Over People&#39; by Noam Chomsky. Your hero, remember?


Chomsky isn&#39;t my hero. I got past the idolizing of old or dead people stage when I was about 14.


50 percent of the Cuban population think that the trade-embargo is the main cause for the recent problems Cuba has to face.

Surely it is obvious that this is the problem. What do the other 50% say the problem is?


Only three percent believe the current political system to be the main cause for the recent problems Cuba has to face.

And what if it was 97% who thought it. Would Castro stand down?


77 percent think that the United States are the main enemy of the Cuban people.

77% of the world believe this. What&#39;s your point?


70 percent of the Cuban population think that the revolution has had more achievements than failures.

Castro has implemented sound social programmes. What does this prove?


50 percent of the Cuban people think of themselves as &#39;revolutionary.&#39;

And the other 50%?


More than 20 percent think of themselves as educated Communists/Socialists.

So over 50 years castro has managed to politicise only 20% of the population.


Lenin did not &#39;fail.&#39; He set an example to all oppressed nations on the world of how they can destroy class-antagonisms

But he didn&#39;t. he created whole new ones&#33;&#33;&#33;


Furthermore, he extended Marxism, he lead it into the final stage of imperialism.

In an isolate, backward, unindustrialised, uneducate third world country.


Nobody did deny this, but the radical industrialisation programms did prove to be successfull.

What Lenin and Stalins three and five year plans achieved after the revolution is not quite the point. Are you saying that underdeveloped countires can have a political coup, then create a working class to then give consciousness too, or simply mold them in the image of the party?


, the people had to suffer in the course of industrialisation, but at least they worked for themselves, not for the capital.

It didnt get them very far did it?


And please don&#39;t come with your &#39;they were exploited by the vanguard&#39;

So what was the hysteric paranoia of Stalin and the purges of the thirties, the forced collectivisation, the ethnic cleansing, the mass starvation and the siberian gulags all about then?


Did you just give yourself away or is this my bad English again?

Read it again and see if you can get the point:

The Anarchist Tension

If you place the power into the hands of the party it therefore can not be in the hands of the people. The only thing that makes it so, is that Lenin said it was. Executive desitions were not made by the majority of working class people. In fact they did not understand what destions had to be made.



The working class becomes a class &#39;for itself&#39;, but that doesn&#39;t imply that class-consciousness, too, will come as an inevitable by-product of capitalism. Therefor, your ideology is idealism to me. Because you assert that counsciousness will come on it&#39;s own. It won&#39;t.

I am not saying that we should all sit around and wait for it. You are saying that the whole of the working class, or at least a majority can not become consciousness during capitalism. I am saying they can, and any movement has to work towards that. I say it will come on it&#39;s own, without the need for a vanguard party to seize on oopportunties.


I know very well what your point is.

Hurray&#33;&#33;&#33;


Well, I agree with this quotation. I realize, however, that we don&#39;t agree on the point how to get there. How to make the capital feel under threat. You suggest we &#39;fight with the workers, not for them&#39;, as &#39;an example&#39;, &#39;not as leaders.&#39; I&#39;m still failing to realize what you do actually mean by this. It still is rethoric.

My point is that in order to safe-guard a true revolution the worker must be conscious. The workers must understand what capitalism is and exactly how we fight. The workers must understand what the state is and how it exploits and oppresses and must realize that the state is the enemy of the people and must then want to work towards destroying it. That is how you achieve a pointful, lasting egalitarian society.

People, especialy Leninists, not necessarily you, but many seem to have this superiority complex about consciousness as if we have something special. As if the things we know and understand could never be understood by anyone else. Me, you, redstar, Chomsky, Lenin are absolutly no different to anyone else. The only difference is we understand something more. It is as simple as that. This does not give us the right to organize, preach or lead anyone else. Our goal still remains the same. The destruction of capitalism and the creation of a stateless, classless society.

For who do we want this though. Not just for me, or for you, or for redstar or for chomsky, but for the millions of working class people who are exploited and oppressed every day. We are simply apart of that exploited class. We need our brothers and sisters to understand and feel the same as us.

What you advocate is that we indeviduals elevate ourselves into a plain of superiority and seize on opportunities leading an unconscious people to achieve something which is abstract to them, and then to create consciousness latter. I just can not agree.

Once I have accepted this and realised that in order to create a perfect revolution we must bring about class consciousness in the workers. how do we do that? you have pointed out quite rightly that capitalism as a system subjagates people to propganda and a flase concsciousness. [False consciousness does not negate anger however] Not only that but it subjugates them to a wage and suvival. it means that they have no time to put that anger into perspective.

We have now identified as Chomsky said in his email "... structures of domination and repression." He then goes onto say "gain consciousness and understanding of them," I have, but as I said the millions of workers havent. how do you then move towards that. This is where I say "fight by example". If we agree that leading the workers negates the whole purpose of consciousness we must show them what capitalism is. We must free their time. Punch wholes in the façade of captialism. Go into communities. Not with banners and with papers and copies of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, but with working clothes and hammers. Ideas about how to make their communities better. Maybe they need to fix a school roof but they have no money, maybe they need to fight privatization from their council or set up a club for the hundreds of teenage kids who have nothing to do with their time. Get into these communities. Find out what they want, and how we can help.

In the case of the privatization of the housing benefit office in Sheffield the SWP infaltrated it and tried to lead. tried to direct it the way they wanted. But the workers new how they wanted to direct it. They wanted to fight the privatization of the housing benefit office, they did not need to be led. They needed active support. They needed people to dedicate themselves to fighting with them. Side by side. Listening to what they say and not trying to lead them. But at the same time try and argue your point about why this is happening, create debates, argue the point, without isolating yourself. This is how you build a profile. Once this kind of movement is active across a nation you get clever. You hold mass ralies or events, publicise them get noticed. Eventually people get to a point where they "...demand that they [the ruling class] justify themselves, and if they cannot, as is almost always true, work to dismantle them."

At this point you have a mass support base within the workers. Your ideas of wanting to help become more and more heard. You organize yourself based on anarchist principles. You are not an anarchist party but a workers solidarity movement trying to create a better world for working people. You can then confront capitalism more directly, through violence if necessary, as I have already said.

"We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people. We want the people to emancipate themselves"

[The Feral Underclass]

S.B


as concerns my avatar,I wasnt aware that such is being used as a Libertarian flag,

I thought the colors where red and black. Which is the colors used by anarchists around the world.


what I meant to convey was the fact that this anti-Leninist trend within communist circles I find offensive to myself personally in that it insults ones intelligence.

So you claim that any who does not agree with your beliefs is so stupid that it becomes offensive.


Anarchy is chaos wherein confusion reigns,all order is lost,authority is despised and any semblance of a meaningful life is denied by the fact that all values have been abandoned.

This is a complete defalcation of anarchist theory. This is what the bouregoisie say when trying to discredit us. It is also a good Leninist ploy, notably the SWP, to warn off young members from anarchism.

Feed the young lies and they will follow you forever. Well, until they reach 25 and realise what a complete waste of time it is to be a member of a party that makes your decisions for you&#33;


As concerns,"Leninism wants to use human beings to develop their own ideals to change society." ... of course,what else is there to rely upon for developing ones socialist ideas other than human beings?The very term "Society" denotes humanity and our task is to introduce social reforms ... not to transform the behavior of hogs and cattle.

You quoted me out of context. The point I was making is you wanted to use them to further your own careers as "professional revolutionaries" instead of fighting with conscious workers.

[crazy comie]

The dictatorship of the prolitarian will work if the top is accountable to the bottom.

[Bianconero]

And, historically, Lenin was not "a man of the people". He actually grew up on a (small) estate and probably lived better than 95% of the Russian people. He might have even been entitled to his father&#39;s title (very minor nobility...a civil service award)...though I don&#39;t think he ever actually used it.

Among the Bolsheviks, Stalin was the only real "man of the people".

And look how he behaved.

Lenin indeed lived better than the absolute majority of Russians back then. So what? My point was that he is an example of revolutionary dedication and sacrifice. Guevara was bourgeois too, yet nobody would blame him for leading a bourgeois life. Your claim that Stalin was the &#39;only&#39; man of the people among the Bolsheviks is absurd. And how did he &#39;behave?&#39;


A state is a state just as an orange is an orange&#33;

Stop acting like a whining liberal.

What I said about class-antagonisms is not a mere claim of intention. It is a result of the proletariat&#39;s historic mission to achieve communism, to end oppression and to eliminate exploitation. Destroying class-antagonisms is our historic duty and what Marxism is actually about.

And yes, Marxist-Leninist revolutions are and always have been successful. Up to 1956, Marxism-Leninism lead the proud party of Communist Russia to immense political as well as economical achievements. Cuba today is still politically independent. Cubans can still shout out with pride that they are not another Yankee-whore. You won&#39;t admit that this is an achievement? Then go on, I&#39;m finished with you.

You then proceed in &#39;examining&#39; historical &#39;facts&#39; that are in relation with the Soviet Union. As I have stated before, I&#39;m not an expert on Soviet history. I can recommend this article though, especially in the context of claims like this:


So what was the hysteric paranoia of Stalin and the purges of the thirties, the forced collectivisation, the ethnic cleansing, the mass starvation and the siberian gulags all about then?

I have experienced unbelieveable anti-Stalin propaganda not only in school, but also in the media or in books. The capital, as I view it, has declared it&#39;s war against Stalin some kind of religion. I have bought these lies in the past and I am not going to make this mistake again.

I suggest you read this article (http://www.etext.org/Politics/Staljin/Staljin/articles/lies/lies.html) and revise what you have heard about the Soviet Union afterwards.


Again it is intention. The way in which you want to go about doing it is illogical. The dictatorship of the proletariat, in order to survive, must have a strong, centralised, authotarian leadership who controls every aspect of society. Co-ordinating institutions such as the the intelligence services, police force and the army. They also act as economic controllers and censors. This is not creating freedom.

It is not only &#39;intention.&#39; Marxists-Leninists realize that it is their historic duty to eliminate class-antagonisms. Of course, the kind of society they create in authoritarian at first. But this socialist authoritarianism is an absolute necessity in order to achieve communism, as I have explained previously.


They also have powers no different to those of Saddam Hussein about how the economy is going to operate.

Yes, but they use their powers differently.


This dictatership may be fighting capitalists but it is creating a new class system all the same.

Do you know the actual definition of &#39;class?&#39; I suppose you don&#39;t, as no private individual owned any means of production before the revisionists took over.


The taste of power is so strong that you want to retain it. Stalin did it. He built himself a profile and created situations within the bureaucracy to get his feet firmly under the table. Are you going to deny that "being determines consciousness"?

You assert that &#39;absolute power corrupts absolutely.&#39; I tend to disagree, but your claim is irrelevant nevertheless. I am not denying that &#39;being determines consciousness&#39;, but it still is fact that the party vanguard is part of the working class. Therefore, the party vanguard can not create it&#39;s &#39;own&#39;, &#39;new&#39; or &#39;elitist&#39; consciousness.


And what about consciousness? You claim that these people will begin to spread consciousness but what happens if they decide it is too soon after the revolution. They decide that the party should wait, that we need to use the workers to fight, not to understand. You are choosing when and how consciousness comes about. It does not matter what you claim or what you believe.

The process of spreading class-consciousness is one of the main tasks of any Marxist-Leninist revolution. Any revolution not fulfilling this essential task can not be said to be &#39;Marxist-Leninist.&#39; The process of educating and emancipating the working class was vital in all Marxist-Leninist states, and still is. In Cuba for example, immediately after the revolution Castro started educational programms all over the island, eliminating illiteracy in great stile.


You simply do not have the right to decide such things.

Your corrupt moralism is disgusting. I have conservatives shouting this at me all the time.


And what happens if the party executive committee realise that it isnt in the partys best interest, or in their own interest.

I will not cease to repeat this, no matter how hard you try. The party and the working class are one. Therefore, the working-class&#39; interest is also the party&#39;s interest. The question of democracy within the party I answered already. There are guidelines that have to be respected on behalf of the survival of the revolution. Members can be expelled for leaving the historically correct line of Marxism - Leninism, for personal enrichment and for treason.

Your critique regarding Cuban class-consciousness is understandable. But I remind you that I did never say Cuba was perfect. The nation has, since the revolution, been under immense pressure. It is indeed not easy for a rather small island to be the main enemy of the western hemisphere in general and the United States in particular. Every capitalist state would have collapsed long ago, yet Cuba is still independent, the Cubans aren&#39;t selling out to corporations, they are still holding the revolution up with pride.

When revolutions all over the world will have prevailed, Cuba&#39;s economical situation will turn to the better. Then, it will concentrate on spreading consciousness among the people. For now, the revolution needs all of it&#39;s force to withstand imperialist intervention.

The Soviet Union collapsed because those who are in favor of exploitation and class-antagonism took over from inside. These happenings are not an inevitable outcome of Marxist-Leninist ideology. This is what can happen, but is not necessarily going to happen. Therefore, it is the absolute task of the progressive left to examine counter-revolution in the past. For the benefit of the people in the future.


n an isolate, backward, unindustrialised, uneducate third world country.

I was basically referring to Lenin&#39;s achievements on a scientifical basis. He extended Marxism, led it into the final stage of imperialsim. This is one of his greatest achievements and for that I support him.


Are you saying that underdeveloped countires can have a political coup, then create a working class to then give consciousness too, or simply mold them in the image of the party?

Marxism-Leninism isn&#39;t dogmatic. If is was, then it would assert that revolution can not happen in backward countries. Marxism-Leninism did prove this bourgeois statement wrong. The alliance of workes and peasant did industrialize the country in a period of approximately ten years. Urbanisation comes as a result of industrialisation. Consciousness is always a task, during industrialisation and afterwards.

Another thing is that you have repeatedly ignored my claim that class-consciousness will not come as an inevitable by-product of capitalism. Your answers on this are always long, but always pure rethoric and not concrete. I accept this, but I am surely not going to pay any attention to this from now on, &#39;The Anarchist Tension.&#39; Your last attempt to impress me with huge lines and pretty expressions was neither convincing nor impressing, in fact it wasn&#39;t even entertaining any more.

Your constant dropping in of Chomsky and Malatesta quotes isn&#39;t changing this either.


you have pointed out quite rightly that capitalism as a system subjagates people to propganda and a flase concsciousness. [False consciousness does not negate anger however] Not only that but it subjugates them to a wage and suvival. it means that they have no time to put that anger into perspective.

We have now identified as Chomsky said in his email "... structures of domination and repression." He then goes onto say "gain consciousness and understanding of them," I have, but as I said the millions of workers havent. how do you then move towards that. This is where I say "fight by example". If we agree that leading the workers negates the whole purpose of consciousness we must show them what capitalism is.

Right there, for example, you at first make a valid approach to the point. (&#39;it means that they have no time to put that anger into perspective.&#39;) Then, however, you decide to repeat what you just falsified yourself. You again repeat your phrases, &#39;fighting by example&#39;, where does that lead you? Do you think this is of any help?

I&#39;m finished with you, there is not more behind this. I&#39;m beginning to seriously doubt your motives. Do you simply want to play or do you want to fight? What is it? I&#39;m going to ask again: Do you think this is funny? Do you want to repeat your utopian phrases?

What&#39;s the matter with you? Do you want change or are you simply looking for drama?

[redstar2000]

Your claim that Stalin was the &#39;only&#39; man of the people among the Bolsheviks is absurd.

Yes, I phrased that very badly, didn&#39;t I?

I should have said this: Stalin was the only Bolshevik leader who was "a man of the people".


And how did he &#39;behave?&#39;

The Crimes of Stalin (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=5200&s=)


The party and the working class are one.

That&#39;s a purely metaphysical assertion. It has as much validity as the assertion that "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are One".

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]

Stop acting like a whining liberal.

Liberal, Conservative, Bouregois, reactionary all at the same time....I am doing well&#33;&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s nice when you learn new words...But you should understand what the mean before you use them though&#33;


It is a result of the proletariat&#39;s historic mission to achieve communism, to end oppression and to eliminate exploitation.

I have come to the conclusion that your insane so I forgive you for your stupidity. the "historic mission."? GO AND READ A HISTORY BOOK&#33;&#33;&#33; What was intended and what the actual HISTORICAL REALITY was is not the same thing.


Destroying class-antagonisms is our historic duty and what Marxism is actually about.

Really...well, bugger me side ways, I would have never guessed&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Again all intentions. Your duty maybe be to destroy class-antagonisms but ever time you have tried YOU HAVE FAILED&#33;&#33;&#33;


Yes, but they use their powers differently.

When?


I have experienced unbelieveable anti-Stalin propaganda not only in school, but also in the media or in books. The capital, as I view it, has declared it&#39;s war against Stalin some kind of religion. I have bought these lies in the past and I am not going to make this mistake again.

:blink:


The process of spreading class-consciousness is one of the main tasks of any Marxist-Leninist revolution.

And I want to stroke the popes nice grey head....your about as convincing as Tony Blair. Is this a trick you stalinists learn. Do you have a ten plank of "ignore historical fact" or does it just come naturally?


Any revolution not fulfilling this essential task can not be said to be &#39;Marxist-Leninist.&#39;

Then there has never been a Marxist-Leninist revolution?


Your corrupt moralism is disgusting. I have conservatives shouting this at me all the time.

The voices in your head again is it&#33;

Corrupt moralism? Do you just find random pretty sounding adjectives to string together with semi-profound sounding nouns and think that it&#39;s going to mean anything?


Another thing is that you have repeatedly ignored my claim that class-consciousness will not come as an inevitable by-product of capitalism. Your answers on this are always long, but always pure rethoric and not concrete.

Don&#39;t lecture me about rhetoric...your practically invented it...I am not ignoring your claims, I dont agree with them and if you have not understood the facts in my posts that&#39;s your fucking problem.


Your last attempt to impress me with huge lines and pretty expressions was neither convincing nor impressing, in fact it wasn&#39;t even entertaining any more.

Your constant dropping in of Chomsky and Malatesta quotes isn&#39;t changing this either.

Yes it is becoming quite tiresome. When I write a post I include in it my argument, why I think it and how I can prove it. I use quotes from Chomsky and Malatesta because they sum up what I am trying to say in a few lines. I was not trying to impress you, or convince you, simply tell you my point in the best way I could. If you don&#39;t agree that this has been the case. Tuff&#33;


Then, however, you decide to repeat what you just falsified yourself. You again repeat your phrases, &#39;fighting by example&#39;, where does that lead you? Do you think this is of any help?

You stupid stupid person...sorry but this is getting a biut silly now. You asked me to explain what i meant by &#39;fighting by example&#39; which I did, in no uncertain terms...well you would have thought that was the case, evidently not. Maybe I should draw pictuers with crayons and use words with one syllable...maybe then you will understand&#33; What is it about the expression "fighting by example" do you not understand...where will it lead me? It will explain to you how I see fighting for class consciousness. There is no mystic conitation behind the words...I mean what I said, "FIGHTING BY EXAMPLE", you lunatic&#33;


I&#39;m finished with you, there is not more behind this. I&#39;m beginning to seriously doubt your motives. Do you simply want to play or do you want to fight? What is it? I&#39;m going to ask again: Do you think this is funny? Do you want to repeat your utopian phrases?

Pah&#33; what would you know about fighting. how many working class people do you actually talk too. Do you even belong to a political movement? I doubt you have any experience with where it actually matters. Stop with this bullshit, you sound like a ****.

And is utopian supposed to be some kind of an offense. I dont mind being called utopian im fine with that.


What&#39;s the matter with you? Do you want change or are you simply looking for drama?

I want to fight for the working class&#33;.....what do you want?.

I think this discussion is over&#33;

[S.B.]

Comrades


It seems unavoidable for me,as any other man,to escape the idea of isms and the desire to label myself as if I were a thing.Again and again I find myself falling into this ideological trap wherein the ego strives to affix itself to first one thing then another.

This struggle of the ego is borne out in Sartres thoughts on existentialism,its the idea of man being faced with the reality of his temporal existence and constantly change of his psyche which causes him to reach for divinity,to preserve and perpetuate the ego,in effect,to become as God.

Having found himself being thrown into an absurd world he is consumed with a feeling of alienation,all about him he witnesses the stationary existence of objects while he himself by nature is changeable,thus he longs to become as solid as a thing,herein he seeks an identity by which to prove his integrity ... that he is indeed as granite.

On one level I myself recognize no barriers among men,be they in terms of race,religion,etc while on another level,a lower level,I continuously seek to be a recognizable part of a larger whole,yet a somewhat compact,segregated whole.

As for race or gender,these are bestowed by nature hence one cannot rightly boast of either.I myself was born in the U.S. to a Protestant family,a matter in which I had no choice nor influence.

Time and again I have declared "I am a socialist",then its "I am a revolutionary socialist" or quite simply Bolshevik in order to convey the same thought with less words.In an earlier epoch no doubt I would have simply claimed to be a democrat,for to me the idea of socialism is one in which social-thinkers sought to formulate the tenets of a true democracy to replace that which political opportunists had established in the name of democracy.

It is for this cause that socialism cannot be mentioned without democracy being echoed in the utterance.As for ideologies altogether,one exists solely apart from such and an ideology depends upon the person ... not he upon it.

One is scarcely in complete agreement with a single ideology,rather one picks and chooses from the various ideologies and incorporates these select ideas into that one particular ideology which initially possessed a greater amount of agreement,in this an ideology must agree with ones own inner constitution,for at the end of the day an ideology must conform to the man,not he to it.

These things I were compelled to state in order to avoid any possible confrontations at this site in the future as concerning isms,and though I may state that I am indeed a socialist,thereby I likewise confirm confidence in true democracy,as well as the reality of revolution as means to establish such a democracy in the realization that a ruling elite will by no other means relinquish their power.

In the course of my great experiment in socio-political thought I had once claimed to be an Anarcho-Socialist in that I acknowledge the fact that often is the case that reformers having overthrown a repressive government simply replaces it with another form of tyranny,it truly is a perplexing matter to consider a society without any form of government and for this cause I must insist upon the existence of a state,one in which the people have greater influence and control.

It is difficult to mention Comrade Lenin without being set upon by those who aim to label and discredit you as being a Leninist,as though this implies an evilness,when in effect it makes such name-flingers no better than racists who constantly spit out slurs against select portions of humanity.

I am by no means in full agreement with Comrade Lenin in that I acknowledge that he made miscalulations in his ideas and decisions,but neither can I dismiss his contributions to communism no more than I can of Chairman Mao or Che himself,for even Che criticized Comrade Lenin in the sense of the Marxist notion of criticism/self-criticism,this is indeed an acceptable mode of theorethical investigation within the communist community.

With all the before-mentioned now in place one is at liberty to label me as they wish,this is their concern - not mine.In reality I am as complex as any other,however,in concerns of socio-political views I simply wish to advocate the need for true democracy,call it socialism,communism or whatever you wish,and I am convinced that such can only come by means of an abrupt act carried out by a determined people,call it revolution or whatever you wish.

In life I may be called a socialist,communist,revolutionary or simply a bastard ... these are of little importance,the real acid test is to die as a man.


K.S.B.

[crazy comie]

If the dictatorship of the prolitarian makes the top acountable to the bottom then it could work.Even in the one party form.

[Bianconero]

Liberal, Conservative, Bouregois, reactionary all at the same time....I am doing well&#33;&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s nice when you learn new words...But you should understand what the mean before you use them though&#33;

You sure are doing well, cowboy. Sitting at home reading Bakunin and Chomsky living in your private anarchist imaginary elf-land.


I have come to the conclusion that your insane so I forgive you for your stupidity. the "historic mission."? GO AND READ A HISTORY BOOK&#33;&#33;&#33; What was intended and what the actual HISTORICAL REALITY was is not the same thing.

I have come to the conclusion that you are a 15 year old who wants to piss his parents off. You are not only a joke, but your &#39;insults&#39; are laughable, too. It is so cute to see how you are trying to analyse. &#39;Can I put you into my &#39;insane stalinist&#39; - box?&#39;


Your duty maybe be to destroy class-antagonisms but ever time you have tried YOU HAVE FAILED&#33;&#33;&#33;

&#39;NO&#33;&#33;&#33; WE HAVE NOT FAILLLEDD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39;

Just giving it a try, maybe that&#39;s the language you understand.


:blink:

That sure helps.


Corrupt moralism? Do you just find random pretty sounding adjectives to string together with semi-profound sounding nouns and think that it&#39;s going to mean anything?

&#39;You simply do not have the right to decide such things.&#39;

What is this other than moralism? Is there anything scietifical behind your quote that I oversaw?


You stupid stupid person...sorry but this is getting a biut silly now. You asked me to explain what i meant by &#39;fighting by example&#39; which I did

Where did I ask you that? And why should I ask you, you have &#39;explained&#39; it before. I understood from the beginning what your agenda is. But putting forward sayings and phrases (I am not going to repeat them now) is not enough for me. And no matter how long your postings were, they were all based on the same drivel.


well you would have thought that was the case, evidently not. Maybe I should draw pictuers with crayons and use words with one syllable...maybe then you will understand&#33; What is it about the expression "fighting by example" do you not understand...where will it lead me? It will explain to you how I see fighting for class consciousness. There is no mystic conitation behind the words...I mean what I said, "FIGHTING BY EXAMPLE", you lunatic&#33;


Pah&#33; what would you know about fighting. how many working class people do you actually talk too. Do you even belong to a political movement? I doubt you have any experience with where it actually matters. Stop with this bullshit, you sound like a ****.

And is utopian supposed to be some kind of an offense. I dont mind being called utopian im fine with that.

Let me clear things up for you, &#39;you stupid stupid person.&#39; No offense intended, I don&#39;t really care for you, actually. To begin with, I am currently active in my local socialist youth movement, which is basically our local social-democrats&#39; youth organization. The youth is, of course, socialist, not &#39;social-democratic.&#39; The reason why I won&#39;t let you go through with these &#39;fight by example&#39; - phrases is that we have already tried that. I have tried it, my comrades over here have tried it and we have failed. Fighting by example, it is all not that easy. Of course we can link up with the workers, help them, talk to them, ask them questions, what they want, what they need, what their worries are or what they want to achieve. Of course we can link up with them, working with them and &#39;showing them their way to freedom.&#39; But it isn&#39;t working. It - is - not - working. I&#39;ve been doing this kind of political work for quite some time and it gets you nowhere, it leads you nowhere. It is a dead end. Back in the sixties, the movement was looking incredibly strong. There were many approaches to the issue of class-consciousness and they all failed under capitalism. Over here, we had social-democrats ruling the country for 30 years. These are the best conditions to do progressive political work under capitalism. And we failed nevertheless. The reactionaires were still there, in controll of the state, making use of the propaganda machinery to undermine our ideas. They have prevailed, for now.

[Bianconero]

The Crimes of Stalin

redstar2000, while reading through this (a couple of weeks ago) I found the &#39;Stalinists&#39; to be far more convincing actually.

[crazy comie]

Finnding stalinists convincing you nust be having problems.

[redstar2000]

To begin with, I am currently active in my local socialist youth movement, which is basically our local social-democrats&#39; youth organization. The youth is, of course, socialist, not &#39;social-democratic.&#39; The reason why I won&#39;t let you go through with these &#39;fight by example&#39; - phrases is that we have already tried that. I have tried it, my comrades over here have tried it and we have failed. Fighting by example, it is all not that easy. Of course we can link up with the workers, help them, talk to them, ask them questions, what they want, what they need, what their worries are or what they want to achieve. Of course we can link up with them, working with them and &#39;showing them their way to freedom.&#39; But it isn&#39;t working. It - is - not - working. I&#39;ve been doing this kind of political work for quite some time and it gets you nowhere, it leads you nowhere. It is a dead end.

Very well. Let&#39;s assume that you are "right" about that. What is the Leninist alternative?

Start a guerrilla war in the countryside? Win over the peasantry by enforcing land reform in the "liberated zones"? Defeat the regular army and such U.S. forces that may assist it? Ride into the capital city in triumph on the back of a captured U.S. tank?

It&#39;s been done...so there&#39;s no particular reason why it couldn&#39;t be done again.

But exactly what have you done? Yes, you have smashed an old and probably senile ruling class. Yes, you will proceed at once to establish a much more egalitarian society.

Is that "enough"? Is that "all" you want to achieve?

If it is, fine. Go for it. Most guerrilla warfare attempts have failed or enjoyed only partial successes...but if you&#39;re really good at it and catch a few breaks, there&#39;s no reason why you can&#39;t pull it off.

History has already demonstrated what the ultimate outcome of your endeavors will be...a new and much more vigorous capitalist ruling class. Yes, you can still point to Cuba and say "not necessarily"...but, if you&#39;re honest, you&#39;ll have to admit that Cuba is on "the knife&#39;s edge". It would take very, very little to restore capitalism in Cuba and, if that happens, the destruction of the Leninist paradigm will be complete.

On the other hand, let&#39;s go back to your quote...about "the dead end". Did you perhaps anticipate that organizing at the bottom of the social order was going to be "quick and easy"? That people would see the "obvious" merits of your ideas as soon as you informed them?

Every revolutionary learns a painful lesson sooner or later: overcoming the inertia of a class society is enormously difficult. Like it or not, all attempts at change in the social order ultimately depend on changes in material conditions...something over which we generally have zero control.

When "the tide of events" is flowing our way, things become "easy"...people are extremely interested in what we have to say and "flock to our banners". When the case is otherwise, "nothing works"...sheer willpower cannot overcome material conditions.

Anarchists can recruit a few more anarchists and Leninists can recruit a few more Leninists and social democrats can recruit some more social democrats...but in a period of reaction, no one is going to win many recruits or make a significant difference in the outcome of events.

Only when there are significant changes in class reality do significant political changes become possible and perhaps inevitable.

The reality of the situation is that we all "do what we can"...and wait for the tide to turn again.

It always has.

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

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

[crazy comie]

We must wait untill a ecnomic depresion before we would be able to gain sport for a true prolitarian revoulotion.

[Morpheus]

The last time a major depression happened it resulted in Fascism, not worker revolution.

[crazy comie]

well facism is highly desspised now and deppresion only led to it in germany and italy. The communists almost got inpower in alot of countrys.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Gawd, I couldn&#39;t read 99% of this thread... My apologies to the gems contained herein. It&#39;s like debating dot.commies... Hell -- probably IS debating them in some way.
(I know I don&#39;t want to read another "Dictatorship is BAD..." posting ever again in my life&#33;)

It&#39;s important to understand that "Die Diktaur des Proletariats" is about a necessary and objective situation developing out of all social revolutions. It&#39;s not a debatable point in itself. If workers don&#39;t organize an armed state right off the bat, there will be a counter-revolution -- and sooner, rather than later. And those bastards will slaughter workers. In large numbers. History proves this over and over.

I suppose one of the reasons some (most? all?) anarchists don&#39;t like dictatorship of the proletariat is because it demonstrates one compelling reason for the necessity of state structure after the Revolution (another would be the imperatives of production at the present level of society).

And we know (most of us) why supporters of the status quo don&#39;t like it.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Gawd, I couldn&#39;t read 99% of this thread... My apologies to the gems contained herein. It&#39;s like debating dot.commies... Hell -- probably IS debating them in some way.
(I know I don&#39;t want to read another "Dictatorship is BAD..." posting ever again in my life&#33;)

It&#39;s important to understand that "Die Diktaur des Proletariats" is about a necessary and objective situation developing out of all social revolutions. It&#39;s not a debatable point in itself. If workers don&#39;t organize an armed state right off the bat, there will be a counter-revolution -- and sooner, rather than later. And those bastards will slaughter workers. In large numbers. History proves this over and over.

I suppose one of the reasons some (most? all?) anarchists don&#39;t like dictatorship of the proletariat is because it demonstrates one compelling reason for the necessity of state structure after the Revolution (another would be the imperatives of production at the present level of society).

And we know (most of us) why supporters of the status quo don&#39;t like it.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Gawd, I couldn&#39;t read 99% of this thread... My apologies to the gems contained herein. It&#39;s like debating dot.commies... Hell -- probably IS debating them in some way.
(I know I don&#39;t want to read another "Dictatorship is BAD..." posting ever again in my life&#33;)

It&#39;s important to understand that "Die Diktaur des Proletariats" is about a necessary and objective situation developing out of all social revolutions. It&#39;s not a debatable point in itself. If workers don&#39;t organize an armed state right off the bat, there will be a counter-revolution -- and sooner, rather than later. And those bastards will slaughter workers. In large numbers. History proves this over and over.

I suppose one of the reasons some (most? all?) anarchists don&#39;t like dictatorship of the proletariat is because it demonstrates one compelling reason for the necessity of state structure after the Revolution (another would be the imperatives of production at the present level of society).

And we know (most of us) why supporters of the status quo don&#39;t like it.

[VukBZ2005]

I Believe that We should abondon the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"
althogether and go straight towards Communism.

[VukBZ2005]

I Believe that We should abondon the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"
althogether and go straight towards Communism.

[VukBZ2005]

I Believe that We should abondon the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"
althogether and go straight towards Communism.

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s important to understand that "Die Diktaur des Proletariats" is about a necessary and objective situation developing out of all social revolutions. It&#39;s not a debatable point in itself.

It&#39;s important to understand that what was perceived as "necessary" and an "objective situation" in Marx&#39;s time (and even Lenin&#39;s time) is not eternal.

That workers must arm themselves and retain those arms even after the overthrow of the old ruling class (pace Engels) is not in dispute.

It seems to me that the working class which actually makes the next wave of proletarian revolutions will have no need to set up a "new state apparatus" after the old one is dismantled.

Indeed, I think such a "new state" would be a grave error and would almost certainly lead to the gradual emergence of a new ruling class.

We don&#39;t want that&#33;


...another [compelling reason] would be the imperatives of production at the present level of society...

In the advanced capitalist countries, the "imperatives of production" are far more "manageable" than was the case for the "old-timers". Indeed, the problem that future successful revolutionaries are most likely to face is wasteful over-production...too much useless crap.

The SUV for example.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s important to understand that "Die Diktaur des Proletariats" is about a necessary and objective situation developing out of all social revolutions. It&#39;s not a debatable point in itself.

It&#39;s important to understand that what was perceived as "necessary" and an "objective situation" in Marx&#39;s time (and even Lenin&#39;s time) is not eternal.

That workers must arm themselves and retain those arms even after the overthrow of the old ruling class (pace Engels) is not in dispute.

It seems to me that the working class which actually makes the next wave of proletarian revolutions will have no need to set up a "new state apparatus" after the old one is dismantled.

Indeed, I think such a "new state" would be a grave error and would almost certainly lead to the gradual emergence of a new ruling class.

We don&#39;t want that&#33;


...another [compelling reason] would be the imperatives of production at the present level of society...

In the advanced capitalist countries, the "imperatives of production" are far more "manageable" than was the case for the "old-timers". Indeed, the problem that future successful revolutionaries are most likely to face is wasteful over-production...too much useless crap.

The SUV for example.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

It&#39;s important to understand that "Die Diktaur des Proletariats" is about a necessary and objective situation developing out of all social revolutions. It&#39;s not a debatable point in itself.

It&#39;s important to understand that what was perceived as "necessary" and an "objective situation" in Marx&#39;s time (and even Lenin&#39;s time) is not eternal.

That workers must arm themselves and retain those arms even after the overthrow of the old ruling class (pace Engels) is not in dispute.

It seems to me that the working class which actually makes the next wave of proletarian revolutions will have no need to set up a "new state apparatus" after the old one is dismantled.

Indeed, I think such a "new state" would be a grave error and would almost certainly lead to the gradual emergence of a new ruling class.

We don&#39;t want that&#33;


...another [compelling reason] would be the imperatives of production at the present level of society...

In the advanced capitalist countries, the "imperatives of production" are far more "manageable" than was the case for the "old-timers". Indeed, the problem that future successful revolutionaries are most likely to face is wasteful over-production...too much useless crap.

The SUV for example.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Yes, it&#39;s important to point out that workers&#39; hegemony would only last so long as is necessary. I didn&#39;t state that explicitly (shouldn&#39;t need to, really). But as for us being beyond this state of affairs?? Wishful thinking that will get people killed if too many marxists continue to believe this canard... Our enemy isn&#39;t that demoralized. And it certainly isn&#39;t that powerless, nor will it be. Hell -- they have nuclear and bioterror weapons&#33;

As for "going straight to communism": such comments only demonstrate the writer&#39;s total lack of comprehension of how the world actually worx. Such a huge organizational jump will just not be possible -- as all anarchists and "libertarian communists" are going to find out this coming century. For the second time in history at that; and no matter how wildly successful the world socialist revolution (i.e. how demoralized and resource-less our bourgeois enemy and their forces will be at that point in time).

So: as for for us &#39;being beyond all that 19th century guff&#39;[sic] -- again, such proponents don&#39;t get it. What we do want to avoid is the monopolization of power by yet another rising elite such as a typical party or labor "aristocracy"; but what so many critics of "old-fashioned" marxism miss is that the whole experience of stalinism and social-democracy in the past 100-odd years is of popular revolt by poorly-led masses of workers, too often in backwards countries, where they were not the majority of the population -- in fact, the wrapping of bourgeois-nationalist democratic revolution in &#39;red&#39; colors. No matter their enthusiasm and actual self-organization, these masses of workers and peasants were incapable of maintaining power in their own hands, for very objective, sad reasons. Reasons which may or may not exist today (we can count on things to be different today).

And today?: the working-class of the entire planet is not only far more numerous than in 1917 -- it is the majority of the world&#39;s population. The peasantry no longer exists as the major force it was at the turn of the 20th century. The so-called "middle-class" has become more and more proletarianized itself -- as Marx and many others "prophesied". Besides all this, the world&#39;s working-class has far more resources at its disposal than it had 100 years ago. And it is for these and other reasons that the world bourgeoisie is reacting now with such gutteral fear and hatred of the world working-class, and is building a huge police state apparatus and military to stave off inevitable revolution -- its ideological/economic offensive beginning to fail -- desperate acts which will fail, no matter how many workers they murder in the process. And in spite of their nuclear and bioterror blackmail.

In all the advanced and advancing industrialized countries, the working-class has such "critical mass", that when the workers do actually take democratic power directly into their hands, it will be far less probable that a state of affairs could occur -- even in a revolutionary civil war -- where they could be thrust aside by any other "class" of people. Bureaucrats included. However, as matters stand today, working-class consciousness is so low in the West that we can be having such a discussion, with far more heat than light on the matter.

We really, really require are parties with programs leading us, filling in that vital missing link. None of this &#39;spontaneous&#39; crap, so beloved of petit-bourgeois individualists on the Left and Right.

[Subversive Rob]

And today?: the working-class of the entire planet is not only far more numerous than in 1917 -- it is the majority of the world&#39;s population. The peasantry no longer exists as the major force it was at the turn of the 20th century.

False. The peasantry constitutes at least half of the world&#39;s population. And capitalism can&#39;t fix that, something many "Marxists" have neglected.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gringo&#045;a&#045;Go&#045;Go
But as for us being beyond this state of affairs?? Wishful thinking that will get people killed if too many Marxists continue to believe this canard... Our enemy isn&#39;t that demoralized. And it certainly isn&#39;t that powerless, nor will it be. Hell -- they have nuclear and bioterror weapons&#33;

Do you imagine that a centralized state apparatus will "save us" from nuclear/bioterror weaponry?

I don&#39;t see how it could.

Nor do I see how a bourgeoisie that has been overthrown and with its professional military dispersed would be in any position to use "wmds" on more than a minor scale.

Of course, a foreign country that was still capitalist could resort to the use of such weapons...at grave risk to itself.

Even if the targeted country did not or could not retaliate, imagine the "blowback" throughout the entire world such an act would generate...not least among the population of the country that did it.

Suppose the whole world regarded Americans the same way as Iraqis do now?

So yes, the hypothetical "balance of power" between future classless societies and whatever remaining capitalist countries still exist has changed since the days of Marx and Lenin.

The centralized state apparatus is no longer necessary.


As for "going straight to communism": such comments only demonstrate the writer&#39;s total lack of comprehension of how the world actually works. Such a huge organizational jump will just not be possible -- as all anarchists and "libertarian communists" are going to find out this coming century.

Your statement is rich in confidence but poor in substance.

Saying it doesn&#39;t make it so.


So: as for for us &#39;being beyond all that 19th century guff&#39;[sic] -- again, such proponents don&#39;t get it. What we do want to avoid is the monopolization of power by yet another rising elite such as a typical party or labor "aristocracy"...

Does not a centralized state apparatus act as a "natural attractor" for those with elitist aspirations, a kind of "political center of gravity" towards which such elements move?

If they have "a place to stand" and a "lever of power", will they not, sooner or later, seek to "move the earth"? Whether the rest of us wish to be moved or not?


And today?: the working-class of the entire planet is not only far more numerous than in 1917 -- it is the majority of the world&#39;s population.

Premature...but not by all that much.

The last projection I ran across suggested that the world will be evenly divided between urban and rural inhabitants by around 2050...and a couple of decades after that, the rural population will start to decline in absolute numbers.

A great many of these "city-dwellers" will be displaced peasants living in third-world shanty-towns -- not yet really working class. And many rural inhabitants will increasingly be agricultural wage-laborers and not "true peasants" at all.

So, with all the complexities considered, I think it quite plausible that your statement will be accurate by 2100.

The "end" of the peasantry as a major class is "on the horizon".


[What] we really, really require are parties with programs leading us, filling in that vital missing link. None of this &#39;spontaneous&#39; crap, so beloved of petit-bourgeois individualists on the Left and Right.

We&#39;ve had hordes of "parties with programs" and with the expressed desire to "lead us". Many of them are still around today, though in much reduced circumstances.

How has that ever helped us?

How could they ever help us when their real ambition is (and has always been) getting their own butts firmly planted in the plush seats of power?

Moreover, why do you feel the "need" to be "led"? Is it "too much work" to figure out "what is to be done" yourself?

I&#39;ll overlook the slur about "petit bourgeois individualists" since I understand that it&#39;s Leninist code for "won&#39;t shut up and follow orders".

In my case, at least, that&#39;s true. :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Subversive Rob]

According to Samir Amin, if the rural class is allowed to decline naturally, i.e. capitalism is introduced into the equation, then about 5 billion peasants will die, because there is not enough work to support them under a capitalistic framework. Kind of makes you look at the peasantry in a new light....

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Subversive [email protected] 16 2004, 11:00 AM
According to Samir Amin, if the rural class is allowed to decline naturally, i.e. capitalism is introduced into the equation, then about 5 billion peasants will die, because there is not enough work to support them under a capitalistic framework. Kind of makes you look at the peasantry in a new light....
There are only 6 billion people in the world?

[Subversive Rob]

Assuming the population increases, and I think the number is a bit higher than 6 billion at the moment. Hell I&#39;m just quoting figures from the book. But the fact does remain that a significant amount of people will die if capitalism "modernises" the third world (now if that isn&#39;t a revolutionary spur...)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Subversive [email protected] 16 2004, 02:03 PM
But the fact does remain that a significant amount of people will die if capitalism "modernises" the third world (now if that isn&#39;t a revolutionary spur...)
I&#39;m not really understanding the argument here, but I will say that people are already dieing in the third world regardless of any modernisation that my happen.

[Subversive Rob]

If capitalism (as in IMF laissez faire capitalism) and free trade is introduced into agriculture, as was recently suggested. The poorer peasants will no be able to compete with the more modern farms. Since they are largely subsistence farmers once they get forced off of their land they will have no homes. However, the normal exodus that took place earlier on in capitalism&#39;s development is impossible today, due to mechanisation etc. Therefore if normal capitalist development takes places millions of peasants will be replaced and have no means of support.