How would Anarchy ever even work? [Archive]

View Full Version : How would Anarchy ever even work?

safeduck

26th October 2011, 00:12

So, How would Anarchy ever work? I just cant see how you could have a country with no leaders and would there be no laws what so ever?

Thanks.

Art Vandelay

26th October 2011, 04:09

Sorry to say, but your question should be how could communism/anarchy ever work, because there would be no leaders or laws in each, along with no countries.

Sugarnotch

26th October 2011, 04:12

There would still be structure, only it'd be nonhierarchical and bottom-up.

Hivemind

26th October 2011, 04:16

In reality, anarchism can surely work, and it has in the past (in the forms of Anarchist Spain, and the Free Territory in Ukraine, to name the two big ones). It gives the people the power and responsibilities of organizing with each other for the benefit of everyone, since everyone is a cog in a machine, and the machine needs to keep running. There's much more to it than that, of course.

There's many kinds of anarchism, but the most important ones are, in my opinion: anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism. Anarcho-communism is the one I subscribe to, because out of all the revolutionary books I've read, my desire points in its direction. If you want to really know about how anarchism(s) can work, you should read a book or two. I recommend Now and After: the ABCs of Communist Anarchism, by Alexander Berkman, because it's a good first step and he writes clearly.

PC LOAD LETTER

26th October 2011, 04:25

The EZLN's tendency Zapatismo is influenced by anarchist thought as well ...

Grenzer

26th October 2011, 04:26

PC LOAD LETTER

26th October 2011, 04:30

I really don't think Anarchism can work, no disrespect intended to any Anarchists here though.

I'm not very well informed regarding the CNT in Spain, but the Ukrainian Free Territory was doomed to failure. It was pretty much entirely a peasant movement with no real ambition to industrialize. Their desires were just an impossibility given the material conditions. It's easy to blame the Bolsheviks, but if they hadn't crushed Makhno, someone else would have. In my opinion, their hysteria over "statism" prevents them from acting in a pragmatic and realistic way. I really don't know too much about anarchism, but anarcho-syndicalism seems to be the most promising branch.

Also, Rosario is dead wrong. There would indeed be laws and leaders in a communist nation up until the point where communism is actually achieved from my understanding. Whether or not the state will actually "wither away;" however, is another matter entirely.

Anarchism really seems to be more of an ideal, rather than a set of working theories to achieve something. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, however.
Anarchist Communists simply desire to skip the whole "transitional worker's state" sham, eliminate all nations and governments, and move directly into Communism.

Le Socialiste

26th October 2011, 04:34

You're mistaking anarchism for chaos and lawlessness, which is - sadly - a common misperception. Anarchism and communism work towards the same end, which is the dissolution of the state and the establishment of a classless, stateless society. There would still be a necessary structure in place, but it would be built along nonhierarchical and non-authoritarian grounds. The end goals of anarchism and communism remain the same; the difference lies in how one goes about establishing it. Anarchism has accumulated a bad rap over the years, with most people associating it with chaos. It's not.

Art Vandelay

26th October 2011, 04:37

I really don't think Anarchism can work, no disrespect intended to any Anarchists here though.

I'm not very well informed regarding the CNT in Spain, but the Ukrainian Free Territory was doomed to failure. It was pretty much entirely a peasant movement with no real ambition to industrialize. Their desires were just an impossibility given the material conditions. It's easy to blame the Bolsheviks, but if they hadn't crushed Makhno, someone else would have. In my opinion, their hysteria over "statism" prevents them from acting in a pragmatic and realistic way. I really don't know too much about anarchism, but anarcho-syndicalism seems to be the most promising branch.

Also, Rosario is dead wrong. There would indeed be laws and leaders in a communist nation up until the point where communism is actually achieved from my understanding. Whether or not the state will actually "wither away;" however, is another matter entirely.

Anarchism really seems to be more of an ideal, rather than a set of working theories to achieve something. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, however.

If you think that there would be leaders in a communist revolution then you must be some sort of leninist and therefor your views are so far set from marx's then, me as an anarchist, are probably closer to marx's views than your own. If your not however then you need to re look at what communism is, because the only person dead wrong here is you. There would absolutely not be leaders in a communist revolution anymore than perhaps some people would be able to accomplish more than others. And there would be no laws except for the law of the proletarians exerting their will over the bourgeoisie.

Hivemind

26th October 2011, 04:38

Anarchist Communists simply desire to skip the whole "transitional worker's state" sham, eliminate all nations and governments, and move directly into Communism.

Yeah.

I don't like the idea of a vanguard party "leading" the people towards a communist society, because people can easily fuck everything up (whether on purpose or because of incompetence) if power is concentrated to a few people like it was in the USSR at times. You eliminate the old state and replace it with a new one, and a very centralized one. It doesn't seem very logical and practical to me.

Anarcho-communists want maximum decentralization, and to skip the transitional state and go straight into the classless, stateless society.

PC LOAD LETTER

26th October 2011, 04:38

CommunityBeliever

26th October 2011, 04:42

So, How would Anarchy ever work?

As far as I see it there are two types of coercion: physical coercion, which primarily arises from the forceful control over property, and indirect coercion which arises from the scarcity of resources we depend on. We can abolish both of these forms of coercion by creating a society with vastly improved productive forces that are owned in common, then we will have a society where every people undertake is voluntary, in other words, anarchism. This is the ultimate goal of every leftist, and contrary to what comrade Hivemind said, no country, even "Anarchist Spain" is deserving of the label.

I just cant see how you could have a country with no leaders and would there be no laws what so ever?

Leaders and laws only exist to mediate class antagonisms between those that own property and those that don't. In a society where there are incredibly advanced productive forces owned in common, there is no need for any of this.

Hivemind

26th October 2011, 04:44

A lot of those misconceptions are because of 13-year-old kids sketching the circle-A in school textbooks and using it as an excuse to act like jackasses

That and, of course, misinformation passed down through generations through media and upbringing. It's the same as communism in terms of how it gets its bad rep. My parents are from "communist" Romania, and they honestly believe that they lived under communism. Neither of them knows what it is, yet they denounce it all the time. Many other people do. Couple that with the misinformation spread through media that "communism" is authoritarian and evil and "goes against human nature" has a true, everlasting impact on many human beings who parrot the bullshit on and on and on. This happens to Anarchism as well. They say that there's no laws or rules, just chaos, everybody killing everybody, and that a state is needed to protect society. People are too easily impressionable and they take it to heart. The only way to fix this is to show people that they don't know what either communism or anarchism is in actuality, and the misinformation slowly goes away. At least, that's the hope.

PC LOAD LETTER

26th October 2011, 05:01

That and, of course, misinformation passed down through generations through media and upbringing. It's the same as communism in terms of how it gets its bad rep. My parents are from "communist" Romania, and they honestly believe that they lived under communism. Neither of them knows what it is, yet they denounce it all the time. Many other people do. Couple that with the misinformation spread through media that "communism" is authoritarian and evil and "goes against human nature" has a true, everlasting impact on many human beings who parrot the bullshit on and on and on. This happens to Anarchism as well. They say that there's no laws or rules, just chaos, everybody killing everybody, and that a state is needed to protect society. People are too easily impressionable and they take it to heart. The only way to fix this is to show people that they don't know what either communism or anarchism is in actuality, and the misinformation slowly goes away. At least, that's the hope.Yeah, I agree with you that the key for turning public sympathy back towards Socialism / Communism is educating people on the real principles. We, as self-professed socialists, communists, and anarchists, need to try and un-do the decades of propaganda put out by the bourgeoisie. I've spread socialist sympathies among my friends by explaining to them in a friendly (not condescending way) how daily events in their life (such as their gripes about feeling underappreciated at work and underpaid) relate to capitalism itself. None of them are self-professed socialists or anything, but I know they'd be quick to sympathize with any kind of worker's revolt or socialist movement in the US because of this. One of my friends used to be a huge individualist ... a serious "libertarian". Then he went to jail a few times. Was unemployed for an extended period of time. He's since adopted an anarchist philosophy ... although he's reluctant to adopt the label 'communist' ... he agrees with the principles.

Slowly, sentiments will change among the average people. It's my experience that class consciousness IS spreading ... slowly. We need to nurture this and educate people.

One of my managers (who I can't stand, but I'm still cordial with because she's my manager and I don't want to get fired) and I got into a quick discussion on politics today after I mentioned how I got the evil eye and some rude comments from the cashier at Barnes & Noble for buying a book containing some of Marx's short essays and letters to Engels, along with the Communist Manifesto. She goes "OH MY GOD. Why did you buy this?!" So I tell her I'm a socialist. She said on Friday we're going to have a serious political discussion when she has more time (she was leaving work for the day).

I'm looking forward to it not as a chance to prove someone wrong (I'm not a dick), but as a chance to educate someone on what Communism/Socialism and Anarchism actually are. I don't care if she still doesn't agree with me. I just want people to be informed. Sentiments will change once we've accomplished that.

Hivemind

26th October 2011, 05:06

Aye, the only problem is if they want to open their mind and listen, or if they're too far gone to the point where they stick their fingers in their ears and yell LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Then it's just a waste of time. I've encountered some really open minded people who listened to what I had to say, and others who were just facepalm worthy.

MagÃ³n

26th October 2011, 05:40

The EZLN's tendency Zapatismo is influenced by anarchist thought as well ...

I wish people would stop claiming the EZLN as an example of Anarchism. Yes, they're influenced by Anarchist theory in some respect, but they're also influenced by many other Leftist ideas as well, not just Anarchism. You won't probably find a Zapatista nowadays, calling themselves a Marxist or Anarchist, you'll find them simply calling themselves Communist/Socialist, or maybe not even that, and they'll just say they're autonomous (not like the Autonomous/Operaismo, but autonomous).

The EZLN is more or less, just a collection of anti-statists, come together for an obvious fight for a Communist goal.

As for the original question on whether Anarchism, can be achieved: Yes, but like actual Communism (ie no state, no rulers, no ridiculous monetary system, etc.), has never actually been properly tested in the world. Even places like the Free Territory Ukraine and Catalonia, Spain, cannot be said to be proper examples of Anarchist theory at work. They were tests to a point in Anarchist theory, but never the complete package.

PC LOAD LETTER

26th October 2011, 05:59

I wish people would stop claiming the EZLN as an example of Anarchism. Yes, they're influenced by Anarchist theory in some respect, but they're also influenced by many other Leftist ideas as well, not just Anarchism. You won't probably find a Zapatista nowadays, calling themselves a Marxist or Anarchist, you'll find them simply calling themselves Communist/Socialist, or maybe not even that, and they'll just say they're autonomous (not like the Autonomous/Operaismo, but autonomous).

The EZLN is more or less, just a collection of anti-statists, come together for an obvious fight for a Communist goal.

As for the original question on whether Anarchism, can be achieved: Yes, but like actual Communism (ie no state, no rulers, no ridiculous monetary system, etc.), has never actually been properly tested in the world. Even places like the Free Territory Ukraine and Catalonia, Spain, cannot be said to be proper examples of Anarchist theory at work. They were tests to a point in Anarchist theory, but never the complete package.Hey, Nin. Chill out. You agreed with me. Nobody's saying the EZLN are anarchist. At least not in this thread. Why are you trippin out?

I'm sure people appreciate the elaboration on the EZLN ... but do you have to be so angry about it?

MagÃ³n

26th October 2011, 06:48

PC LOAD LETTER

26th October 2011, 07:24

I'm not, I'm just saying I wish people would quite using the EZLN as an example of Anarchism, just because they're influenced a bit by Anarchism. They're just as equally capable as being an example of certain Marxist theories, as Anarchist ones. I'm not angry, I didn't post it to be as if I was, I just get tired of people posting the EZLN is Anarchist in some way solely.
Fair enough.

In my defense I was alluding to the legitimacy of anarchism by giving an example of a current revolutionary group that is influenced by anarchist thought.

If it were a topic questioning the legitimacy of Marxism ... or Communism / Socialism ... or indigenous rights, I'm sure the EZLN would be listed in that situation, along with a host of other groups, as evidence that they are legitimate movements and legitimate positions.

In other words, don't assume that because I said they're influenced by anarchist thought that I somehow think they are singularly influenced by anarchist thought. In other words ... Hoxha was a Marxist-Leninist ... that doesn't mean he masturbated to photos of Joseph Stalin every night. I'm sure it was only Thursday nights.

disbeliever

26th October 2011, 07:37

It's already working

tir1944

26th October 2011, 14:03

It's already working In Somalia?
What exactly are you referring to?

MagÃ³n

26th October 2011, 18:17

In Somalia?
What exactly are you referring to?

Can't tell if just stupid or trolling?

Void

26th October 2011, 18:18

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/309686_264800526890701_100000822675256_681811_2070 063003_n.jpg

tir1944

26th October 2011, 18:29

Can't tell if just stupid or trolling?
Probly just stupid.
But less stupid than this comment,i think:

Can't tell if just stupid or trolling?

MagÃ³n

26th October 2011, 18:34

Probly just stupid.
But less stupid than this comment,i think:

No, I think asking whether someone's stupid or just trolling, on the matter of calling Somalia "Anarchist", is much less stupid. I mean, do you really think Somalia is "Anarchist" or has "Anarchist" traits?

If so, the you're just flat out stupid. If not, then I see you be trollin'.

tir1944

26th October 2011, 18:35

No, I think asking whether someone's stupid or just trolling, on the matter of calling Somalia "Anarchist", is much less stupid. I mean, do you really think Somalia is "Anarchist" or has "Anarchist" traits?No,but i assumed that HE/SHE though Somalia might be "anarchist".After all you can read such stuff on the internet.OK?

Lanky Wanker

15th November 2011, 10:03

A lot of those misconceptions are because of 13-year-old kids sketching the circle-A in school textbooks and using it as an excuse to act like jackasses

And for anyone who wants a song on this topic, check out Anarchy For Sale by the Dead Kennedys. I wanna play that live with my band if any mohawkers with huge A signs on their leather jackets storm in.

Decommissioner

15th November 2011, 10:24

Asking how anarchism will work to me is analogous to asking how communism will work. I think the real question is how anarchist tactics differ from those of a socialist/communist, that seems to be where the practitioners of either tend to disagree. Unless there are people here who actually want a society with hierarchical power structures and police :confused: (even if you think such a society is impossible, I see no reason to not aim for such a society)

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 11:01

So, How would Anarchy ever work? I just cant see how you could have a country with no leaders and would there be no laws what so ever?

Thanks.

As other people have pointed out, Anarchism is an attempt to achieve Communism in the sense of a classless stateless society.

But to answer the question of how such a society could work, there has to be an understanding of how laws and leadership works in class societies currently and in the past. Why are there laws, why are there formal leaders when this has not been the case prior to class societies.

Laws are designed to enforce order in society, in class society, a particular order of society around the interests of that ruling class. So feudalism, for example, didn't need all the trade laws that exist in capitalist societies, they had rules for enforcing the caste system (which regulated trade in some ways, but not in the "rule-of-law" sort of way that it does now) and so rules about commerce and trade were more about ensuring that it was subordinate to the dominant lord-peasant system.

Official leaders in capitalist societies are generally designed to act as a buffer between the population and the class rulers of society, the capitalists themselves. So that can be done through parliaments and congresses where popular grievances can be aired, but the actual ruling of society is done behind closed doors either in board-rooms or in meetings between representatives of big business and elected representatives. Or it can be done through strong-men who use repression in order to discourage popular demands.

Anarchy/Communism would not have class divisions and so there would be no need for laws to enforce one particular class's order in society. So there might still be bodies of elected people to settle individual disputes, there would be no need to ensure that one group was not challenged for rule of society. There would be no division between those who produce and those who control what is produced and how, so large decisions involving many people could be achieved either on the basis of mutuality or agreement on a "common good".

As a socialist, where I disagree with anarchism is the idea that we can go straight from class society to a classless society. I think that right after a revolution there will still be some class divisions for a short time and so it will be important for workers, as a class, to have proletarian democracy to ensure that worker's have hegemony over society and that no group of bureaucrats or small business people subvert working class interests (which would essentially be to get rid of class differences) for their own class interests. As workers collectivize and democratize the rest of society and there is no longer any real point in being a individual small producer or whatnot, then classes would be less distinct and gradually, whatever means worker's used to ensure worker's power in society would loose their usefulness and necessity.

But that's a disagreement about how to achieve, not what we want to see humanity achieve.

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 11:13

I'm not very well informed regarding the CNT in Spain, but the Ukrainian Free Territory was doomed to failure. It was pretty much entirely a peasant movement with no real ambition to industrialize.

Where did you get that information from?

Their desires were just an impossibility given the material conditions. It's easy to blame the Bolsheviks, but if they hadn't crushed Makhno, someone else would have.

Who?

In my opinion, their hysteria over "statism" prevents them from acting in a pragmatic and realistic way.

What hysteria? Our opposition to the state is not hysterical, in fact in mny ways it pragmatic and realistic. The state is not a tool that the working class can use to create a stateless society.

I really don't know too much about anarchism

Then how are you criticising it?

Also, Rosario is dead wrong. There would indeed be laws and leaders in a communist nation

You have failed to understand communism. Communism is an internationalist tendency. Nation states wouldn't exist. Why would require leadership in a communist society? And laws are a bourgeois construct, so why would we maintain them?

Don't conflate socialism with communism, because they're not the same thing.

Whether or not the state will actually "wither away;" however, is another matter entirely.

No it won't, which is precisely why anarchists oppose the state.

Anarchism really seems to be more of an ideal, rather than a set of working theories to achieve something. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, however.

From what are you basing this assumptions?

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 11:14

As a socialist, where I disagree with anarchism is the idea that we can go from class society to a classless society.

You mean straight to a classless society?

Social anarchists don't believe that...

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 11:16

In Somalia?
What exactly are you referring to?

I assume they're referring to the fact that people already operate based on anarchist principles in their lives. For example, within your friendship group, you don't have leaders a codified rules on how to interact and solve problems. It's a pretty basic example but you get the point.

Smyg

15th November 2011, 11:18

This thread was a hilarious read, with all these silly misconceptions and idiocies.

thefinalmarch

15th November 2011, 11:22

I assume they're referring to the fact that people already operate based on anarchist principles in their lives. For example, within your friendship group, you don't have leaders a codified rules on how to interact and solve problems. It's a pretty basic example but you get the point.
The social structure of your friendship group isn't based on relations to the means of social production :closedeyes:

Rainsborough

15th November 2011, 11:25

If you think that there would be leaders in a communist revolution then you must be some sort of leninist and therefor your views are so far set from marx's then, me as an anarchist, are probably closer to marx's views than your own. If your not however then you need to re look at what communism is, because the only person dead wrong here is you. There would absolutely not be leaders in a communist revolution anymore than perhaps some people would be able to accomplish more than others. And there would be no laws except for the law of the proletarians exerting their will over the bourgeoisie.

Um, I always thought Lenin was a Marxist? And if Marx's ideas were close to Anarchism why did Bakunin and Marx split?

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 11:28

You mean straight to a classless society?

Social anarchists don't believe that...Yes, good looking out.

Rafiq

15th November 2011, 11:52

Depends on what you mean by Anarchism...

If you mean as a future society, no, I don't buy into that being extremely efficient or productive, but it might 'work'.

Ernesto Che Makuc

15th November 2011, 12:22

thefinalmarch

15th November 2011, 12:27

Ernesto Che Makuc

15th November 2011, 12:58

I hate this post so much.

hate it love it i dont care

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 12:58

The social structure of your friendship group isn't based on relations to the means of social production :closedeyes:

Right? And?

Huey P. Newton1233

15th November 2011, 12:59

There would still be structure, only it'd be nonhierarchical and bottom-up.

I used to be an anarchist then I became a Marxist trust me kid Anarchy would not work because their would be so many reactionaries that would easily take you over man :hammersickle:

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 13:01

Depends on what you mean by Anarchism...

If you mean as a future society, no, I don't buy into that being extremely efficient or productive, but it might 'work'.

What would make it inefficient and unproductive?

thefinalmarch

15th November 2011, 13:07

Right? And?
it just seemed like a bad example

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 13:09

it just seemed like a bad example

A bad example of what?

thefinalmarch

15th November 2011, 13:12

A bad example of what?
of anarchism in action

your example was:

really small scale, bearing no relation to political or economic organisation
and had no relation to the aftermath of a revolution

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 13:13

of anarchism in action

your example was:

really small scale, bearing no relation to political or economic organisation
and had no relation to the aftermath of a revolution

Why does my example not relate to those things?

thefinalmarch

15th November 2011, 13:16

Why does my example not relate to those things?
you just said some abstract thing about not having rules in a friendship group

GatesofLenin

15th November 2011, 13:22

If you think that there would be leaders in a communist revolution then you must be some sort of leninist and therefor your views are so far set from marx's then, me as an anarchist, are probably closer to marx's views than your own. If your not however then you need to re look at what communism is, because the only person dead wrong here is you. There would absolutely not be leaders in a communist revolution anymore than perhaps some people would be able to accomplish more than others. And there would be no laws except for the law of the proletarians exerting their will over the bourgeoisie.

Sorry to burst your bubble Rosario but if the whole world would switch to communism, we would need leaders to maintain order. There's no way 7 billion people can live as one.

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 13:25

you just said some abstract thing about not having rules in a friendship group

That's not an answer to my question. You have claimed that the dynamic within friendship structures is not relateable to political and economic organisation. I am asking you why you think that.

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 13:30

Sorry to burst your bubble Rosario but if the whole world would switch to communism, we would need leaders to maintain order. There's no way 7 billion people can live as one.

You think leaders can maintain order? Do you actually live in the world? And what does "order" mean anyway, and for whom would this order be kept? And more importantly why can it not be achieved by the collective efforts of the working class?

In any case, the whole world wouldn't just "switch" to communism. There would be a transition. And of course no one is suggesting that seven billion people can live as one. Not even in the most utopian of communist movements would that happen. No one should ever expect that to be the case.

The point is that people in times of social, political and economic upheaval have the motivation to work together, without the centralisation of political authority. It simply requires organisation.

Jimmie Higgins

15th November 2011, 14:17

human are to much greedy for the property and will never achieve modest. If every human was modest and would only have the things necessary for your life (food,water,place to live,...) and that they would respect the property and the rules of other anarchy politics would be possible

If we want to achieve anarchy first we need to change human nature.Well I disagree, people get free running tap-water and yet somehow they do not full jugs of it up and horde it in their house. However, if you lived in a dry climate and the water either wasn't free or arrived inconsistently, I'm sure people would horde it. So what is "greed"? Sometimes it's just self-preservation under harsh conditions - but it's the conditions, not human nature which are decisive.

As for non-essential goods: people desire status symbols and nice things in capitalism because it is denied to them and because the more money you have in capitalist societies, the better you are treated. Are people snobs if they dress up for a job interview or do they realize that if you look like you have money people will think you are a better person. So like it or not, money sort of equals freedom and that's the origin of a lot of so-called materialist greed in modern countries.

But I say, what's wrong with people wanting nice things? Without class society, inequality, etc people won't care about material things for status, just for use and enjoyment. And that's one of the big reasons for communism/anarchism - so that the surplus that we produce actually goes towards things we all want and things that will enrich our collective and individual lives.

Primitive communism is as much human nature (probably more since most of humanity's existence was in small communal bands) as modern desire for material goods, but primitive communism was based on scarcity and lack of surplus. Modern communism is about how to better and more democratically organize society to produce and enjoy the surplus made possible through modern industrial means.

Smyg

15th November 2011, 15:46

Hivemind

15th November 2011, 16:39

It seems like it's really hard for people to understand that anarchism and communism are essentially the same; the end goal is identical: a classless, stateless society. The only difference is in how this end goal is achieved.

Some of the posts in this thread are baffling. Especially this one:

human are to much greedy for the property and will never achieve modest. If every human was modest and would only have the things necessary for your life (food,water,place to live,...) and that they would respect the property and the rules of other anarchy politics would be possible

If we want to achieve anarchy first we need to change human nature.

What in the fuck? Some of you aren't even communists because the communism you advocate is severely skewed from what it is meant to be, as illustrated by this post:

Sorry to burst your bubble Rosario but if the whole world would switch to communism, we would need leaders to maintain order. There's no way 7 billion people can live as one.

Communist leaders, eh? This is an oxymoron, for under a classless, stateless society there would be no leaders, at least not in the traditional term of ruling or being above others. What kind of communistic drugs are you smoking that makes you think that it's ok to overthrow one ruler and replace him with another? Hasn't history shown us, time and time again, that it doesn't end up the way we want it to be? A lot of the major revolutions that put certain people in positions of power have turned to absolute shit.

Even a lab rat stops reaching for the piece of cheese after he gets shocked once or twice. It's time to rethink a lot of things.

Marxaveli

15th November 2011, 18:04

human are to much greedy for the property and will never achieve modest. If every human was modest and would only have the things necessary for your life (food,water,place to live,...) and that they would respect the property and the rules of other anarchy politics would be possible

If we want to achieve anarchy first we need to change human nature.

False. Outside of our will to survive and reproduce, there is no such thing as human nature. Our nature is not predetermined or something we are born with, besides those two things and those things only. Everything else about our nature is acquired and integrated via the society we live in: environment, culture, economic conditions, and so forth. Thus it is technically not human nature. If society is changed, peoples nature (if you can even call it that) will change too. We seem greedy, but that is because we have been born into a capitalist world. Had the world been socialist, we would be the opposite of greedy - altruistic. Human nature does not need to be changed. SOCIETY needs to be changed. Human nature is a form of idealism in my opinion, a common bourgeois talking point. "Communism can never work due to human nature". A complete load of horseshit if you ask me.

That said, I don't consider myself an anarchist, though I guess my political compass stats would suggest I'm pretty close to it. I kind of get annoyed with all the different labels though, and the only reason I label myself a Libertarian Marxist is to distinguish myself from the authoritarian branches of Marxism, which I fundamentally disagree with. But outside of that, I dont care to gravitate towards any particular tendency. We should all be working together, afterall we all have the same goal.

ColonelCossack

15th November 2011, 19:46

Belleraphone

15th November 2011, 21:46

I'd love it if anarchism could work, but (unfortunately) I just don't really see it. That's why I'm not an anarchist, I suppose... :laugh:

Of course, after the revolution, the state would wither away, like Lenin wrote in The State and Revolution. We wouldn't have a state forever, lol. :p
Because statist communism has been so much more successful, the kibbutzand the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain were total failures. Lenin was obviously right, the USSR withered away into an anarchist utopia :rolleyes:

kurr

15th November 2011, 22:13

I used to be an anarchist then I became a Marxist trust me kid Anarchy would not work because their would be so many reactionaries that would easily take you over man :hammersickle:

I'm at the same point to be honest. Every anarchist I've met and tried to do work with has been utterly unreliable, without any political understanding whatsoever, and just wanted to sit around and do drugs. I'm too old for that right now and I have a lot of responsibility. There was a time in my life to party but now I really need to do real work. Anarchism doesnt really answer a lot of questions for me and as a movement, is so marginal and "dead" its not even funny. Dont get me wrong, much of the left is.I've already joined the Marxist-Leninist group here so maybe I'll try to get some questions answered that my friends werent too clear on in the future.
I assume they're referring to the fact that people already operate based on anarchist principles in their lives. For example, within your friendship group, you don't have leaders a codified rules on how to interact and solve problems. It's a pretty basic example but you get the point.

See, this is one reason why I'm becoming disillusioned with Anarchism. A society is not your fucking friend group. You dont fix things like global conflict and genocide with "friendship power". Anarchists don't have any solutions. They don't have models. See that's the advantage that Leninists have. That's something that I had to swallow my pride and just accept. I had been convincing myself for a year now otherwise and it made me more miserable then I should've been if I had just been realistic. And by the wya I'm not talking about the idealistic Trots but the real Leninists. They have something to build on. To say yeah it wasnt perfect but here is what we can do to improve.

SocialistTommy

15th November 2011, 22:24

I don't think it can work tbh, I have tried to be more open minded towards anarchism, but it just doesn't make sense to me, I feel that there needs to be some sort of law and order in society.

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 22:31

I don't think it can work tbh, I have tried to be more open minded towards anarchism, but it just doesn't make sense to me, I feel that there needs to be some sort of law and order in society.

Anarchism isn't about "lawlessness" and disorder. As Proudhan said "anarchy is order". Your opinion is based on a bourgeois stereotype and misconception. I suggest actually reading something written by an anarchist.

The Insurrection

15th November 2011, 22:32

I'd love it if anarchism could work, but (unfortunately) I just don't really see it.

Why not?

Of course, after the revolution, the state would wither away, like Lenin wrote in The State and Revolution. We wouldn't have a state forever, lol. :pHow can it "wither away"? The purpose of maintaining the bourgeois state during and after a revolution is for the consolidation of political and economic power. The purpose of a state is to protect that power. How then can it become obsolete. Moreover, this theory has never been achieved in practice.

ColonelCossack

16th November 2011, 00:21

Why not?

How can it "wither away"? The purpose of maintaining the bourgeois state during and after a revolution is for the consolidation of political and economic power. The purpose of a state is to protect that power. How then can it become obsolete. Moreover, this theory has never been achieved in practice.

The point would not to have a state for the sake of a state; it would be a state for the sake of the people. Its primary aim, unlike bourgeois states, wouldn't be to prolongue its own existence, it would be to protect the revolution from reactionary elements- and in doing so, the state would be bringing about its own demise, because after it's done its job it would become unnecessary.

What would you do if reactionary elements appeared after a revolution, but there was no state to prevent them from scuppering that revolution? Some kind of way of stopping that, I think, would be necessary until there aren't any bourgeois elements left in society.

Just because something has never been achieved in practise does not make it impossible. Full communism has never been achieved; it's still possible.

Marxaveli

16th November 2011, 00:27

Not full communism, communism period has never been achieved. But yes, I agree with Marx that a period of socialism would be needed first, until it became so deeply embedded within society that it would be considered full-blown communism.

ColonelCossack

16th November 2011, 00:28

Because statist communism has been so much more successful, the kibbutzand the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain were total failures. Lenin was obviously right, the USSR withered away into an anarchist utopia :rolleyes:

That isn't a scientific explanation of why Leninism is doomed to corruption and bureacracy...

I think the reason most of 20th century communism went quite skewy was that it happened in the USSR, and when other countries had revolutions they may have followed suit... now most of those are gone, If you used a clean slate, so to speak, perhaps things might turn out differently.

And does Spain have anarchism now?

La Peur Rouge

16th November 2011, 00:38

I agree with Marx that a period of socialism would be needed first.

Where does Marx say this?

thefinalmarch

16th November 2011, 00:47

statist communism
doesn't exist.

never has, never will.

Misanthrope

16th November 2011, 00:49

So, How would Anarchy ever work? I just cant see how you could have a country with no leaders and would there be no laws what so ever?

Thanks.

Read the stickies figure out what anarchism is first.

Rafiq

16th November 2011, 00:55

What would make it inefficient and unproductive?

Well, if the Anarchism that means dumping central planning, I don't see how methods in organization are just going to spring out of some kind of "Worker's spirit".

This mentality that workers are just going to be able to work whenever and rest whenever may prove itself possible within a few years after the post revolutionary situation is over, however, a lot of problems are going to arise. I mean we are talking the whole Earth here. 7 Billion people. There is going to be a need for massive, massive organization and carefully constructed planning, centrally. I don't like this Idea of "self governing communities" existing that would basically just end up living off of the fruits that were produced back in capitalist times. What do I mean by this? Without strong central organization, I would imagine that in communities not a lot of new buildings would be built, there wouldn't be that much advances in technology, and our methods would stay the same. Basically our society right now with just a different way people organize themselves.

But if coarse if we are playing the hypothetical future society game, I would imagine that some form of special governance for certain communities would be needed to meet the conditions of that specific community as a universal "law" wouldn't be able to apply everywhere. I don't like the Idea of reaching this new, static state of affairs in which we all can just sit back and relax and smoke some Al-girra. A future society, should it not be a step back from capitalism, will be a process, just like capitalism, never static and never resting.

I would imagine that something that is going to replace capitalism is going to have to tear down the remnets of the old society and almost build from scratch completely. And I don't see that as something possible with "An Anarchist society". I support Anarchism so long as it remains as a movement, not an ethical doctrine in which we should base a future society off of. Never the less a future society is irrelevant to the current situation we are all facing now, and because of this I can still say that there are some Anarchist organizations in which genuially represent the interests of the proletariat... For now.

Decommissioner

16th November 2011, 01:07

It seems some may have differing opinions on what a leader is. It seems both those for/against leaders seem to use the term as a hierarchical state position. I am for "leaders" only in a strict funtional way ie a workers council recieves data from another council through a "leader" or "manager," the council decides how much is needed to produces, who works when..whatever, the goings ons of a workplace, and then through the "leader" send out information to other councils. To me this constitutes workers government, and those in charge of coordinating the decisions workers come to through democratic means can be viewed as "leaders."

I guess the way I envision it and always assumed how a world communist society would look could be seen as a hybrid of central planning and decentralised community planning. Communities would receive good from the global economy, and communities would decide how to give back to the global community while producting for themselves. People say this is impossible because the world population is so huge, but I think that makes this model even more possible. It means workers can supply their own demand. Smaller councils can play a part in bigger councils that coordinate what they need from others.

RedGrunt

16th November 2011, 01:07

Where does Marx say this?

Lenin is the source for the official split between socialism and communism as terms. Marx only spoke of a lower and higher phase but he did not seperate the terms.

Belleraphone

16th November 2011, 02:57

doesn't exist.

never has, never will.
You obviously didn't understand my post. Try again.

That isn't a scientific explanation of why Leninism is doomed to corruption and bureacracy...

I think the reason most of 20th century communism went quite skewy was that it happened in the USSR, and when other countries had revolutions they may have followed suit... now most of those are gone, If you used a clean slate, so to speak, perhaps things might turn out differently.

And does Spain have anarchism now?
Spain's anarchism was crushed from huge external fascist armies that were defeated along with the republicans. The Russian and Chinese revolutions were corrupted internally.

And there is a scientific reason why your method will fail. Someone will always seize power and use it to oppress the proletariat. Sure, USSR was better than Tsar Russia, but the working class ended up being betrayed. Anarchist societies have been much more successful when they were established.

thefinalmarch

16th November 2011, 03:42

You obviously didn't understand my post. Try again.
I do. You were referring to the ideological bankruptcy of Marxism-Leninism, but you labelled it as a "statist" approach to communism. On the contrary, I don't consider it to be communism at all -- utopian socialism or social democracy at the barrel of a gun, maybe, but communism, no.

Marxaveli

16th November 2011, 03:51

Well said, final. It is so funny to me that Marxist-Leninists continue to hold on to this approach and insist upon it, when it has failed time and again. As I've said numerous times before, power corrupts, no matter how well intended and democratic the party may be. Authoritarianism and Communism are NOT compatible, it's that simple.

Geiseric

16th November 2011, 04:03

If you think that any attempt to take power from the bourgeoisie through a revolution will end up as most capitalists say like the U.S.S.R. ended, why are you advocating a revolution?

Marxaveli

16th November 2011, 04:06

I'm all for a revolution. But it must come from the proletariat itself, not a centralized vanguard party that represents the workers. The workers never achieve the full control to the means of production under so-called state-sponsored socialism. Democracy, both in a economic and political context, is the essential component of socialism. If there is little or no democracy, then it aint socialism.

Geiseric

16th November 2011, 04:15

If you're referring to the Bolsheviks as your idea of a vanguard party, to my knowlege Lenin never said the were the vanguard incarnate. The Vanguard is compromised of every class conscious worker who strives for the end of capitalism, and educates other workers to hopefully raise class consciousness, for the end goal of a revolution. The Bolsheviks were a party composed of members of the Vanguard. The Mensheviks were not part of the vanguard, since they weren't revolutionary in the socialist sense. That's how I understand it at least.

Geiseric

16th November 2011, 04:21

Belleraphone

16th November 2011, 04:21

I do. You were referring to the ideological bankruptcy of Marxism-Leninism, but you labelled it as a "statist" approach to communism. On the contrary, I don't consider it to be communism at all -- utopian socialism or social democracy at the barrel of a gun, maybe, but communism, no.
Statist communism is a contradiction. I am not a Marixst-Leninist.

Marxaveli

16th November 2011, 04:28

Right, but if the vanguard has any sort of political power, things will go sour, as history has well demonstrated. Thus any vanguard can only lead through fundamental knowledge and intellect, but they must have no political autonomy over the proletariat. After the revolution, unions, councils and civil assemblies can be developed through direct democracy, and the appointed delegates can be recalled at any time if they are seen as unfit or detrimental to the revolutions cause in any way.

Geiseric

16th November 2011, 04:51

The proletariat all gain power as a revolution is won over all counter revolutionary elements. In terms of political power, any power the proletariat has won is de facto also won by the vanguard of the proletariat, which is composed of the revolutionary proletariat itself. There is no seperate division between the revolutionary proletariat and the vanguard. There is however falsely conscious workers and elements of the proletariat that aren't part of the vanguard.

thefinalmarch

16th November 2011, 04:56

Statist communism is a contradiction. I am not a Marixst-Leninist.
I understand that. I don't see how you disagree with my most recent post, then.

thefinalmarch

16th November 2011, 04:58

NormalG

16th November 2011, 05:16

thefinalmarch

16th November 2011, 05:20

Can you elaborate on what a vanguard party is ?
This is alright, I think: http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard

Marxaveli

16th November 2011, 05:21

By the way, maybe it's best to think of a vanguard as an organic mass, composed of the most revolutionary workers who have developed a more advanced political and class consciousness through their participation in their class struggles.

I would be ok with this, so long as such a faction has the same political autonomy as the rest of the workers.

Geiseric

16th November 2011, 05:28

The revolutionary vanguard is the mass of people who are part of and support the socialist revolution. A political party is simply any group trying to achieve state power to fulfill their goals. A vanguard party is a political party that is organised to bring to aggitate, educate, and organise people around a socialist revolution.

thefinalmarch

16th November 2011, 05:47

I would be ok with this, so long as such a faction has the same political autonomy as the rest of the workers.
Of course. It doesn't necessarily have to be a formal organisation. It can and probably will be an informal mass. Then again, it will be the material conditions at the time which determine what form of organisation the working class will use to establish its class dictatorship.

The Insurrection

16th November 2011, 11:04

The point would not to have a state for the sake of a state; it would be a state for the sake of the people. Its primary aim, unlike bourgeois states, wouldn't be to prolongue its own existence, it would be to protect the revolution from reactionary elements- and in doing so, the state would be bringing about its own demise, because after it's done its job it would become unnecessary.

I understand the theory, I'm asking you to explain to me how a state becomes unnecessary.

The centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political cadre, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority "protecting the revolution". It's purpose is to maintain a defence of that revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority must become entrenched within its role, otherwise it cannot function adequately, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power (i.e. a withering away) are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend the revolution (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own decentralised political and economic power if centralised political authority exists; you cannot have these two processes unfolding together simulatenously, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed. It usually results in the latter. So I ask again: How do you intend the process of the state becoming unnecessary to actual work?

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, since that's when workers are actually in control. That process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

The withering away theory is fundamentally flawed. It's all fine and well saying "Just because something has never been achieved in practise does not make it impossible" but since every attempt to apply your theories into practice has failed, there must come a point where you accept the theory has been falsified.

What would you do if reactionary elements appeared after a revolution, but there was no state to prevent them from scuppering that revolution? Some kind of way of stopping that, I think, would be necessary until there aren't any bourgeois elements left in society.Workers self-management is perfectly adequate.

Full communism has never been achieved; it's still possible.How do you know that?

The Insurrection

16th November 2011, 11:10

Well, if the Anarchism that means dumping central planning, I don't see how methods in organization are just going to spring out of some kind of "Worker's spirit".

It depends what you mean by "central planning"? I don't think any social anarchist denies that a degree of central planning is required, but the question is, how is that central planning organised. For anarchists it must be done through the self-organisation of workers collectives and plenums, separated from centralised political authority and managed by workers directly, in the best interests of all workers.

This mentality that workers are just going to be able to work whenever and rest whenever may prove itself possible within a few years after the post revolutionary situation is over, however, a lot of problems are going to arise. I mean we are talking the whole Earth here. 7 Billion people. There is going to be a need for massive, massive organization and carefully constructed planning, centrally.

I don't understand why you think social anarchists would reject that?

I don't like this Idea of "self governing communities" existing that would basically just end up living off of the fruits that were produced back in capitalist times. What do I mean by this? Without strong central organization, I would imagine that in communities not a lot of new buildings would be built, there wouldn't be that much advances in technology, and our methods would stay the same. Basically our society right now with just a different way people organize themselves.

You think without "strong central organisation", the workers would want to live in squaller? I don't understand where the connection between central planning and peoples motivation comes from? How are you making that link?

I would imagine that something that is going to replace capitalism is going to have to tear down the remnets of the old society and almost build from scratch completely. And I don't see that as something possible with "An Anarchist society".

I don't think you really understand what anarchism is.

Rafiq

16th November 2011, 12:03

ColonelCossack

16th November 2011, 16:10

You obviously didn't understand my post. Try again.

Spain's anarchism was crushed from huge external fascist armies that were defeated along with the republicans. The Russian and Chinese revolutions were corrupted internally.

And there is a scientific reason why your method will fail. Someone will always seize power and use it to oppress the proletariat. Sure, USSR was better than Tsar Russia, but the working class ended up being betrayed. Anarchist societies have been much more successful when they were established.

How can you possibly know that that will always happen? That sounds quite similar to the infamous "human nature" argument against communism itself...

Why would someone always seize power and oppress the proletariat? And if they would, why, in an anarchist society, couldn't some reactionary decide to force people into following them, independently from the revolution, and form their own government?

Huey P. Newton1233

16th November 2011, 16:24

I'm just stating my opinion i mean true communism really doesn't have leaders :tt1: but thats just idealist me talking :(

ColonelCossack

16th November 2011, 18:46

I understand the theory, I'm asking you to explain to me how a state becomes unnecessary.

The centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political cadre, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority "protecting the revolution". It's purpose is to maintain a defence of that revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority must become entrenched within its role, otherwise it cannot function adequately, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power (i.e. a withering away) are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend the revolution (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own decentralised political and economic power if centralised political authority exists; you cannot have these two processes unfolding together simulatenously, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed. It usually results in the latter. So I ask again: How do you intend the process of the state becoming unnecessary to actual work?

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, since that's when workers are actually in control. That process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

The withering away theory is fundamentally flawed. It's all fine and well saying "Just because something has never been achieved in practise does not make it impossible" but since every attempt to apply your theories into practice has failed, there must come a point where you accept the theory has been falsified.

Workers self-management is perfectly adequate.

How do you know that?

I think most of 20th century communism failed because the Soviet union did- if the USSR hadn't gone wrong, I don't think the subsequent communist struggles in countries like China would have gone wrong either. My point being, that 20th century communism was only really one example- if, now the slate has been wiped clean, we started again, things might not go like they did.

Here's how it would wither away; there's a revolution, there are still considerable bourgeois elements in society, the revolutionaries continue to protect the revolution from said bourgeois elements, bourgeois elements cease to be bourgeois elements (through education, death by old age, or if the violently assault the proletariat, direct action to stop them), this "state" is no longer needed, "state" disappears. I don't see any problem why that couldn't work; the only real objection is one based on "human nature". Remember: it's not a state for the sake of being a state, It's a state for the sake of the proletariat, and when there is no need for this, the "state" would go.

After the revolution, there are still likely to be tens of thousands- if not hundreds of thousands- of reactionaries. If these decide to band together to destroy the revolution, and there's no way to stop them, what would happen? although they probably wouldn't be able to defeat the united proletariat, there would likely still be many unnecessary deaths. What's wrong with preventing this? I don't want anyone to die, who does? these people could probably learn to support the revolution when their errors are pointed out.

Also, although I don't know communism would work, I very much think that it would. Just like I think

The Insurrection

16th November 2011, 19:27

I think most of 20th century communism failed because the Soviet union did- if the USSR hadn't gone wrong, I don't think the subsequent communist struggles in countries like China would have gone wrong either.

What is that view based on?

My point being, that 20th century communism was only really one example- if, now the slate has been wiped clean, we started again, things might not go like they did.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

Here's how it would wither away; there's a revolution, there are still considerable bourgeois elements in society, the revolutionaries continue to protect the revolution from said bourgeois elements, bourgeois elements cease to be bourgeois elements (through education, death by old age, or if the violently assault the proletariat, direct action to stop them), this "state" is no longer needed, "state" disappears. I don't see any problem why that couldn't work

I just explained above why it wouldn't work...You've basically just re-stated your opinion without addressing my criticism.

the only real objection is one based on "human nature".

My objection has nothing to do with human nature.

Remember: it's not a state for the sake of being a state, It's a state for the sake of the proletariat, and when there is no need for this, the "state" would go.

How does the state stop being "a state for the sake of the proletariat"? I want you to explain to me the process involved. How does a state suddenly become redundant after years of consolidation and the emergence of de-centralised workers power begins? How do those processes operate simultaneously?

After the revolution, there are still likely to be tens of thousands- if not hundreds of thousands- of reactionaries. If these decide to band together to destroy the revolution, and there's no way to stop them, what would happen?

Well, then I guess we'll all die. But of course this isn't binary. It's not "have a state" or "we all die". There's also a third option.

although they probably wouldn't be able to defeat the united proletariat, there would likely still be many unnecessary deaths. What's wrong with preventing this? I don't want anyone to die, who does? these people could probably learn to support the revolution when their errors are pointed out.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Rafiq

16th November 2011, 20:19

It depends what you mean by "central planning"? I don't think any social anarchist denies that a degree of central planning is required, but the question is, how is that central planning organised. For anarchists it must be done through the self-organisation of workers collectives and plenums, separated from centralised political authority and managed by workers directly, in the best interests of all workers.

Again, this is all too specific. You cannot formulate a new society solely on the basis of ethics. Whatever is in the interest of the proletariat and whatever is the most efficient and productive means of such. A "central political authority" is going to be necessary, too. The whole world cannot be run by worker's collective, concrete central planning and centralized decisions are going to be absolutely necessary to organize and assure the rule of the proletariat isn't threatened for the seven billion people on Earth.

I don't understand why you think social anarchists would reject that?

Perhaps they may say they don't reject it. But the means of doing such I find unrealistic and naive.

You think without "strong central organisation", the workers would want to live in squaller? I don't understand where the connection between central planning and peoples motivation comes from? How are you making that link?

Without strong central organization we will be living in the same society we have now, just with different ways people organize themselves. And yes, the motivation to work is going to need to be organized as well, because I have high doubts that Worker's are just going to work out of some good-spirited moralism. Actually this reminds me of how the Miseans think monopolies and the likes aren't going to form under their free market libertarian society because of the ethical nature of the entrepenuer. It's naive.

I don't think you really understand what anarchism is.

I don't think anyone on planet earth knows exactly what Anarchism is. For me, the anarchism I would support is the strain of socialist politics in which represent the interests of the proletariat. But if you mean the Anarcho-Utopianism, that of which chains the proletariat to ethical shackles of Anti-Authoritarianism and what we should and should not do in the future, I oppose it completely.

The Insurrection

16th November 2011, 20:42

Again, this is all too specific. You cannot formulate a new society solely on the basis of ethics. Whatever is in the interest of the proletariat and whatever is the most efficient and productive means of such.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. I'm not being ethical about it. I don't even know what is meant by that...?

A "central political authority" is going to be necessary, too.Central political authority negates workers democracy. You cannot have both. So either you want to establish a socialist state or you want to create a communist society. You cannot dry clothes by using water, just as you cannot create a stateless society by using a state.

The whole world cannot be run by worker's collective, concrete central planning and centralized decisions are going to be absolutely necessary to organize and assure the rule of the proletariat isn't threatened for the seven billion people on Earth. I don't understand why the two are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps they may say they don't reject it. But the means of doing such I find unrealistic and naive. That sentence makes no sense.

Without strong central organization we will be living in the same society we have now, just with different ways people organize themselves.There's no problem with central organisation, providing it's operated on a politically decentralised basis and by the workers who operate within those industries. Industrial collectives or unions etc, local, national and international will co-ordinate without other industrial collectives, locally, nationally and internationally. But in order for that economically democratic process to exist, it has to happen outside of centralised political authority. There are examples of this working, there is no reason why those examples could not have been extended internationally, had the political situation been favourable.

And yes, the motivation to work is going to need to be organized as well, because I have high doubts that Worker's are just going to work out of some good-spirited moralism.Your attitude towards working class people is outrageous. You talk about us as if we're stupid. I mean, why would we have had a revolution if we weren't prepared to organise our lives...? Because that's what this is about. It's about having economic and political freedom, not establishing a new political and economic elite.

Actually this reminds me of how the Miseans think monopolies and the likes aren't going to form under their free market libertarian society because of the ethical nature of the entrepenuer. It's naive. You're conflating organisation by workers and the free market...That's an original approach.

I don't think anyone on planet earth knows exactly what Anarchism is.Well, actually, that's not true...

The tradition of anarchism is as old as Marxism and there is extensive writing on the subject. Perhaps you could read some of it?

For me, the anarchism I would support is the strain of socialist politics in which represent the interests of the proletariat.You mean social anarchism...

But if you mean the Anarcho-Utopianism, that of which chains the proletariat to ethical shackles of Anti-Authoritarianism and what we should and should not do in the future, I oppose it completely.If you want to create communism, then you have to try and understand what will and will not work. Anti-authoritarianism isn't just a fanciful whim, it's a reasoned position based on historical reality: Authoritarian socialism does not create communism. Period.

Craig_J

16th November 2011, 20:50

So if a crime is commited in an anarchic state, such as a murder, what would happen with the prepetrator?

Who decides the laws?

Who decides the sentance?

ColonelCossack

16th November 2011, 20:55

What is that view based on?

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean.

I just explained above why it wouldn't work...You've basically just re-stated your opinion without addressing my criticism.

My objection has nothing to do with human nature.

How does the state stop being "a state for the sake of the proletariat"? I want you to explain to me the process involved. How does a state suddenly become redundant after years of consolidation and the emergence of de-centralised workers power begins? How do those processes operate simultaneously?

Well, then I guess we'll all die. But of course this isn't binary. It's not "have a state" or "we all die". There's also a third option.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't know, I thought I made my points pretty clearly...

I will put my point more plainly; how would you go about protecting the revolution, and the revolutionary proletariat, from those to seek to destroy it?

I also think that another clear concept is that the purpose of a "state" (in inverted commas) in a socialist society is to do the above... and when there is no problem, the "state" should recognise this and duly leave. And as the threat gradually gets smaller, so does the force- the "state", if you will- to stop it. Not that difficult.

I'm not saying that it's either "have a state" or "die"- as I explained immediately after what you were referring to, but unfortunately failed to comprehend. What I was saying that it is inevitable that there will be some reactionary resistance to the revolution. While this resistance probably wouldn't defeat the revolution, it would result in the deaths of proletarians- if there is nothing to stop it. Still with me?

We need a way to stop the aforementioned reactionary resistance, do we not? and that- whatever form it may take- is what I advocate.

Ah well, I've made my points- and I do not deny that they have flaws, many of which you mentioned. You've also made your own points, which themselves, undeniably, have flaws- which I myself have mentioned. However, I think that the flaws in your theory outweigh these in mine, but I suppose we just disagree on that particular point point... :p

The Insurrection

16th November 2011, 21:16

I don't know, I thought I made my points pretty clearly...

Yes, you made your point clear, you just haven't addressed my argument.

I will put my point more plainly; how would you go about protecting the revolution, and the revolutionary proletariat, from those to seek to destroy it?

By fighting them.

I also think that another clear concept is that the purpose of a "state" (in inverted commas) in a socialist society is to do the above... and when there is no problem, the "state" should recognise this and duly leave.

How? How does that happen? How does the state "suddenly leave"? Bearing in mind the state isn't a person, it's a centralised system of control and repression. It's a structure. During the periods of counter-revolution those controlling the state aim to consolidate their control; to make the structure strong and therefore create structures to protect it? I am asking how the process happens not why it happens.

And as the threat gradually gets smaller, so does the force- the "state", if you will- to stop it. Not that difficult.

Yes, you've said this. What you're doing is explaining the theoretical reasoning. You are presenting the "why". I am asking you how.

I'm not saying that it's either "have a state" or "die"- as I explained immediately after what you were referring to, but unfortunately failed to comprehend. What I was saying that it is inevitable that there will be some reactionary resistance to the revolution. While this resistance probably wouldn't defeat the revolution, it would result in the deaths of proletarians- if there is nothing to stop it. Still with me?

:lol:

Yes, I'm with you. Surprisingly enough I was with you when you first said it. You don't seem to be able to comprehend your own argument, so I wouldn't be so critical of others.

The point of your very simple argument is that you think the state is the only way to prevent the "proletarians" from "dying", ergo you think that nothing else can do that. So it follows that you are arguing in a binary way. Either the state exists and saves people or the state doesn't exist and people die.

Unless you want to agree that the state doesn't have to exist and people "won't die"

We need a way to stop the aforementioned reactionary resistance, do we not? and that- whatever form it may take- is what I advocate.

So you don't agree that the state is necessary then?

Ah well, I've made my points- and I do not deny that they have flaws, many of which you mentioned. You've also made your own points, which themselves, undeniably, have flaws- which I myself have mentioned.

You haven't mentioned any flaw in my argument. You've failed to actually refer to it or directly respond to it or even understand it, let alone explained the flaws in it...

However, I think that the flaws in your theory outweigh these in mine, but I suppose we just disagree on that particular point point... :p

You don't even know what my argument is, let alone refuted it.

Belleraphone

16th November 2011, 21:41

How can you possibly know that that will always happen? That sounds quite similar to the infamous "human nature" argument against communism itself...
Not really, all it takes is one ambitious leader. A foriegn capitalist/fascist country could even infiltrate the revolution.

Why would someone always seize power and oppress the proletariat? If there is power to be seized, it will be seized.

And if they would, why, in an anarchist society, couldn't some reactionary decide to force people into following them, independently from the revolution, and form their own government?

Because the people are liberated and free and would have no need to follow anyone else. Anarchy is about No Gods, No Masters.

The Insurrection

17th November 2011, 12:26

So if a crime is commited in an anarchic state, such as a murder, what would happen with the prepetrator?

Who decides the laws?

Who decides the sentance?

There's no such thing as an anarchist state. If murder is committed in a community then the community have a duty to apprehend them, probably by instituting a workers militia for the purpose. They would then apprehend the person and deal with them accordingly. During a transitional period, I imagine certain bourgeois legal methods would be employed, such as a court and the idea of 'fair' trial, but in my view we would want to aim for an ultimate process based on compassion, rehabilitation and forgiveness, rather than prison, which is wholly 'unbeneficial' in preventing and rehabilitating anti-social people.

hatzel

17th November 2011, 12:38

Geiseric

17th November 2011, 16:34

The Insurrection

17th November 2011, 18:17

The Insurrection, when you were asked, "what will you do to those who seek to end the progress of the revolutionary proletariat?" You replied "Fight them," so that in itself means that you believe in a state, because any group who tries gaining economic, political, and social power is a state.

Is it though?

A federation of unions by going on general strike uses state power, and if any group creates a militia that's also state power. There's no avoiding the use of state power in a revolution, a revolution is in itself an expression of the power of a workers state.

A reject the idea that a state is just a rhetorical device. I mean, if you awnt to call all those things a state, that's up to you, but this isn't about semantics. A state is a structure of centralised political authority. That's it's historical development and function.

The denial of a "state" in the bourgeois style and sense is totally acceptable, however the denial of a workers state is the denial of a revolution.

How are you qualifying this view?

Craig_J

17th November 2011, 21:07

There's no such thing as an anarchist state. If murder is committed in a community then the community have a duty to apprehend them, probably by instituting a workers militia for the purpose. They would then apprehend the person and deal with them accordingly. During a transitional period, I imagine certain bourgeois legal methods would be employed, such as a court and the idea of 'fair' trial, but in my view we would want to aim for an ultimate process based on compassion, rehabilitation and forgiveness, rather than prison, which is wholly 'unbeneficial' in preventing and rehabilitating anti-social people.

Rehabilitation methods only work around 40% of the time though.

The other 60% of the time the offender still goes on to reoffend.

True, it has a higher success rate than prison but still you can't let people walk free. If, for example there's a peadophile lose I want him locked up. I don't want him ever let out. And the thought of Anarchism letting him just walk free would be terrifying.

But at the same time yes I do want people to have fair trials. But I think Anarchism would stop there being a proper system in place for this to happen. Without defined laws and punishments you could end up with a"community" handing a short sentance for a small crime in one area but in another handing a sentance 100x longer. It just doesn't seem like justice to me.

Then you have the problem of defining which community is which. And without someone or a group of people to call the shots it could even become problematic deciding what a law is.

And it could lead to different people in communitys recieving unequal treatment. I.e "my best mate Terry can get what he wants and do what he wants but if Fred does anything I will come down upon him!"

In the end I just think Anarchy is unworkable. A lovely idea to have and in my opnion definantly the most Utopian Ideology. In a dream world it would be simply perfect.

But we live in a imperfect world with imperfect people. And that has always been the case and I'm afraid the way human minds can be changed or just happen to be just means we will always live in a world with imperfect people. And so Anarchism is something which sadly can never work.

Craig_J

17th November 2011, 21:10

Rafiq

18th November 2011, 01:19

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. I'm not being ethical about it. I don't even know what is meant by that...?

You are being ethical. The core of Anarchist thinking is based off of ethics. The very reason the Anarchists exist (rather then joining the Marxists) is a matter of ethics. A universal morality against Authoritarianism and Hierarchy. Tell me Anarchists do not base things off of whether they are authoritarian enough. One of the only reasons they are not anarcho capitalists is because (And, Rightfully so, admittedly) Libertarianism maintaining the capitalist social structure is just as authoritarian (Bosses over workers).

Central political authority negates workers democracy. You cannot have both. So either you want to establish a socialist state or you want to create a communist society. You cannot dry clothes by using water, just as you cannot create a stateless society by using a state.

It depends on what you mean by a state. Centralized political authority would technically be created and dominated by the workers themselves, you know. But it would have to exist, none the less.

I don't understand why the two are mutually exclusive.

They are not. But a central authority (delegated by the workers themselves) would have to dominate the decisions of small worker's collectives, should it be necessary for the sake of everyone else.

That sentence makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Even Makhno couldn't help but give in to creating a state and a secret police, he just didn't admit it. If you want a revolution to survive. Authoritarianism is absolutely necessary, along with the state.

Your attitude towards working class people is outrageous. You talk about us as if we're stupid. I mean, why would we have had a revolution if we weren't prepared to organise our lives...? Because that's what this is about. It's about having economic and political freedom, not establishing a new political and economic elite.

I am not doubting that the revolutionary proletariat would be motivated for a couple years after post revolution. But the problem is: What about their kids? Their kids kids? Revolutionary spirit only lasts so long. And this is my problem. You cannot formulate a society on the basis of moralism, or that people are going to do moral things. You must formulate a society in which people will do "good things" as a result of conditions, not a cause.

You're conflating organisation by workers and the free market...That's an original approach.

It was a good comparison. Free Marketters and Libertarians such as your self share the same naive belief: that under their system, people are going to act and the system will operate solely on the basis that people are going to do things out of morals. Free Marketters use this as an excuse and say that monopolies will not form.

Well, actually, that's not true...

A lot of people call themselves anarchists. Who are you to tell them that their version is the wrong one?

The tradition of anarchism is as old as Marxism and there is extensive writing on the subject. Perhaps you could read some of it?

Actually I thought Anarchism was older. But none the less it has transformed into something entirely different. Anarchism, like the word Socialism, could never be defined in an absolutist sense because they are generally muddled words.

If you want to create communism, then you have to try and understand what will and will not work.

I agree. But I am not opportunist. The end goal should be bringing the proletariat to power, not achieving a society that conforms best to your ideology. Ideology is just a weapon for us, not something sacred.

Anti-authoritarianism isn't just a fanciful whim, it's a reasoned position based on historical reality: Authoritarian socialism does not create communism. Period.

And what's your proof? Please mention the 20th century experience, because, again, I have something cooking up.

And what about Libertarian Socialism? Makhno had to conform to authoritarian measures to protect the revolution, and it still failed. I could say the same thing.

But please, carry on with the example of the Bolshevik Revolution and it's followers. Because not only have I predicted your response, I have something perfect to counter it with, but I can't use it because you have not responded, yet.

The Insurrection

18th November 2011, 13:45

You are being ethical. The core of Anarchist thinking is based off of ethics.

No. The core of social anarchist thinking is, essentially, class.

The very reason the Anarchists exist (rather then joining the Marxists) is a matter of ethics.But what does that mean? What are you basing this view off?

A universal morality against Authoritarianism and Hierarchy.Based on the contradictions inherent in the withering away theory, anarchism rejects authoritarianism and hierarchy because it doesn't work in establishing a communist society. These concepts are antithetical to the idea of establishing workers democracy. It has nothing to do with morality.

Tell me Anarchists do not base things off of whether they are authoritarian enough. One of the only reasons they are not anarcho capitalists is because (And, Rightfully so, admittedly) Libertarianism maintaining the capitalist social structure is just as authoritarian (Bosses over workers). Is it not possible that you don't really know what anarchism is? I'd be interested to know what works you've read.

It depends on what you mean by a state. Centralized political authority would technically be created and dominated by the workers themselves, you know.How is that possible in reality? Centralisation of political authority is predicated on hierarchy, so how do the "workers" as a homogeneous class force "dominate" centralised political authority? They can't. Representatives do it for them. What you're saying is just rheotical, it bears no relevance to reality.

Centralised political authority is "dominated" by representatives of the workers. In the process of "dominating" the state and "defending" the revolution their task is to consolidate their control and power and in so doing, entrenching it (a standard consequence of centralising political authority - they aim of doing so is to entrench that authority to better defend it). They must suppress any expression of power that runs contradictory to their centralised political authority (by the very nature of the task they have undertaken), including expressions of workers power. Ergo, the actual process of "withering away" becomes impossible.

They are not. But a central authority (delegated by the workers themselves) would have to dominate the decisions of small worker's collectives, should it be necessary for the sake of everyone else.If it is the case that they "have to", then you will never be able to create a communist society.

It makes perfect sense.Please explain how this makes any sense:

"Perhaps they may say they don't reject it. But the means of doing such I find unrealistic and naive. "

:confused:

If you want people to understand what you're saying, you need to be better at saying it.

Even Makhno couldn't help but give in to creating a state and a secret police, he just didn't admit it.That flies against all historical evidence. I'll be happy to address any evidence you think you have, if you can present it.

If you want a revolution to survive. Authoritarianism is absolutely necessary, along with the state.What does it mean for a "revolution to survive" in your view?

I am not doubting that the revolutionary proletariat would be motivated for a couple years after post revolution. But the problem is: What about their kids? Their kids kids? Revolutionary spirit only lasts so long. And this is my problem. You cannot formulate a society on the basis of moralism, or that people are going to do moral things. You must formulate a society in which people will do "good things" as a result of conditions, not a cause. I agree.

It was a good comparison. Free Marketters and Libertarians such as your self share the same naive belief: that under their system, people are going to act and the system will operate solely on the basis that people are going to do things out of morals. Free Marketters use this as an excuse and say that monopolies will not form. Except that's not my view...If you can present to me a social anarchist who has stated this view, I will concede.

A lot of people call themselves anarchists. Who are you to tell them that their version is the wrong one? People call themselves Elves and Wizards, that doesn't mean they are. Social anarchism is based on a very clear set of ideas.

Actually I thought Anarchism was older.Not really. Social anarchism was developed by Bakunin, partly as a reaction to Marx.

But none the less it has transformed into something entirely different.Such as what?

Anarchism, like the word Socialism, could never be defined in an absolutist sense because they are generally muddled words. Social anarchism can easily be defined.

I agree. But I am not opportunist. The end goal should be bringing the proletariat to powerBut your end goal doesn't bring the workers to power, it brings representatives of the workers to power. That's not the same thing.

And what's your proof? Please mention the 20th century experience, because, again, I have something cooking up. It's not so much proof, it's more of a theoretical correction. Although I would contend that the applications of the "withering away" theory has proven that correction to be true.

In short, the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political cadre, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority "protecting the revolution". It's purpose is to maintain a defence of that revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority must become entrenched within its role, otherwise it cannot function adequately, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power (i.e. a withering away) are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend the revolution (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own decentralised political and economic power if centralised political authority exists; you cannot have these two processes unfolding together simultaneously, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed. It usually results in the latter.

This contradiction must always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, since that's when workers are actually in control. That process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

And what about Libertarian Socialism? Makhno had to conform to authoritarian measures to protect the revolution, and it still failed. I could say the same thing. What authoritarian measures are you referring to?

But please, carry on with the example of the Bolshevik Revolution and it's followers. Because not only have I predicted your response, I have something perfect to counter it with, but I can't use it because you have not responded, yet.Go ahead.

el_chavista

18th November 2011, 14:14

May I ask you a question? What about Kautsky's stand against anarchism due to the fact that "you need a State to do a central planning"? Thank you in advance.

The Insurrection

18th November 2011, 19:51

May I ask you a question? What about Kautsky's stand against anarchism due to the fact that "you need a State to do a central planning"? Thank you in advance.

Anarchists would reject the premise of that statement.

La Peur Rouge

18th November 2011, 21:07

It's hardly exactly the same. Anarchism and a complete extermination of the state is a lot different to communism where there still is still a ruling class (In this case the Proleteriat) who can decide on laws.

No, communism is stateless. Stateless does not mean without government.

Rafiq

19th November 2011, 14:23

No. The core of social anarchist thinking is, essentially, class.

Yes, but that is the basis of all socialist ideology. The point is, is that what divides Anarchists from everyone else is ethics. Anarchism is 100% structured off of ethics.

But what does that mean? What are you basing this view off?

I told you, Anarchists view centralized political authority, 'authority' itself and hierarchy to be the cause of the world's problems throughout human history, thus making an absolutist ethical stance against them.

Based on the contradictions inherent in the withering away theory,

There are none. The contradictions only form when the Revolution is contained.

anarchism rejects authoritarianism and hierarchy because it doesn't work in establishing a communist society.

And what is a communist society? What is your goal, to bring to power the proletariat or to establish a Utopia? And you have no proof for that statement. If anything we can see that resorting to means of Non Authoritarianism have not worked in establishing and organizing something to replace capitalism. The closest we got were the Bolsheviks.

These concepts are antithetical to the idea of establishing workers democracy. It has nothing to do with morality.

And this jargon about democracy being something sacred. So to you, Authoritarianism is immoral, right? No matter the reason you say it is immoral, it is still an ethical stance.

Is it not possible that you don't really know what anarchism is? I'd be interested to know what works you've read.

I've read works by Mr. Kropotkin Nachayev, of Bakunin. Now let's stop derailing our conversation and continue.

How is that possible in reality? Centralisation of political authority is predicated on hierarchy, so how do the "workers" as a homogeneous class force "dominate" centralised political authority?

Centralized Political Authority = The Proletariat. And if you think a society without delegets to represent the interests of the masses is going to work you are fooling yourself.

They can't. Representatives do it for them. What you're saying is just rheotical, it bears no relevance to reality.

And, since we are playing this bullshit utopian game, how's a say if the representatives aren't acting on behalf of the proletariat they are removed of their power by an armed worker's militia? There are hundreds of possibilities. You are playing the "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely game" which is in itself a Bourgeois concept and is crap.

Centralised political authority is "dominated" by representatives of the workers.

7 Billion people on earth. It is necessary. Stop being naive and take your head out of your ass (I'm saying this in the nicest way possible). The world is not going to managed completely being run by small little towns or collectives. There needs to be a centralized political authority to assure the rule of the proletariat is in place and needs to be in place to organize society. It will have hundreds, if not thousands of uses. It is 100% necessary. Sure, if we could all sing songs and live at some happy town and dominate everything and take care of ourselves in every matter then I'd be all for it. But you are puting a veil on the external threats that are possible and are denying all of the problems that could arise out of that. Trust me, it's not going to work.

In the process of "dominating" the state and "defending" the revolution their task is to consolidate their control and power and in so doing, entrenching it (a standard consequence of centralising political authority - they aim of doing so is to entrench that authority to better defend it).

Blah Blah blah. I've heard this all before, stop making baseless statements. I mean you don't even have any proof, just shit predictions based off of Bourgeois concepts, that of which were already destroyed by Psychology and Social science.

They must suppress any expression of power that runs contradictory to their centralised political authority (by the very nature of the task they have undertaken), including expressions of workers power. Ergo, the actual process of "withering away" becomes impossible.

Oh god. Stop talking out of your ass. The rule of the proletariat is the fucking centralized political authority, it is not as if there would be a contradiction between the delegetes who represent them and the worker's themselves. That's absurd.

Should the revolution be isolated, then a contradiction would have to form and the "representatives" would have to take desperate measures(with a revolution under constant seige and sabatoge) and eventually would become a class antagonism and slowly revert back to capitalism. That's what happened to the Bolsheviks, and it's a perfectly scientific explanation, unlike this horse-shit "Power corrupts" deal.

If it is the case that they "have to", then you will never be able to create a communist society.

Then so be it. I am for the rule of the proletariat and the dictatorship of their interests. If that doesn't resemble your vision of a communist society then I could care less. Because what you put forward is unattainable and unrealistic.

Please explain how this makes any sense:

"Perhaps they may say they don't reject it. But the means of doing such I find unrealistic and naive. "

:confused:

If you want people to understand what you're saying, you need to be better at saying it.

The means of attaining such exclude using the state to the advantage of the proletariat and the means of organizing the masses are unrealistic.

That flies against all historical evidence. I'll be happy to address any evidence you think you have, if you can present it.

Free territory was a state. It had borders and it had a central authority to govern it.

Are you denying Makhno's secret police? kontrarrazvedka? You're a fool.

Read the Makhno Myth.

(the counter put forward by Anarchists is not even a counter argument, they just talk about how bad the bolsheviks were blah blah blah).

What does it mean for a "revolution to survive" in your view?

To not be destroyed and overrun by counter revolutionaries and or third party reactionary forces? Imperialist countries? Think with your head, not with your ass.

Except that's not my view...If you can present to me a social anarchist who has stated this view, I will concede.

I'm asking you, without a centralized political authority to organize things, what is going to motivate worker's to do things? Society is going to be destroyed and re built, who is going to organize that for each town? City? County? Region? In reality it would have to be a centralized political authority to make those kinds of descisions.

Who is going to allocate resources from one side of the world to another? Who is going to organize those resources and commit effort to find ways to get them? There are thousands of unanswered questions. It is useless answering them, but to say that none of it will involve a centralized political authority is absurd and an embarrassment to the revolutionary left itself. We need to counter this "All power corrupts" jargon in front of hte masses already, and the last thing we need is anarchists going along with it opportunistically and presenting their solution to everything.

People call themselves Elves and Wizards, that doesn't mean they are. Social anarchism is based on a very clear set of ideas.

Ah yes, but the Anarcho capitalists would say the same thing about their ideology, too. What is more important, to you, Ideology or the rule of the proletariat? Are you willing to sacrifice a lot of dated rhetoric in your ideology in order to assure that? This is a question that the Left will have to face, and from it we will see the distinction between the opportunists and the revolutionaries.

Not really. Social anarchism was developed by Bakunin, partly as a reaction to Marx.

I am pretty sure the term "Anarchism" has existed before the term "Marxism. I could be wrong though, but it's irrelevant.

Such as what?

Before:

http://www.theserpentswall.com/_/images/p28-image1.jpg

After:

http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Anarchists_sr.jpg

Social anarchism can easily be defined.

Not Anarchism itself, though.

But your end goal doesn't bring the workers to power, it brings representatives of the workers to power. That's not the same thing.

So your Ideology tells you.

But Representatives of the workers = the interests of the workers.

Let me ask you a question, good ol' pal.

Do you think that the Bourgeois representatives are none other then presidents, congress men and the likes? Okay, you do? Good.

now, Are the interests of the government (state) today different from the interests of the big Bourgeoisie? (not petite bourgeois tea partyers)

Is our system the rule of the Representatives or of the Bourgeoisie itself?

Or is it a system in which the Bourgeoisie rules and uses Representatives as puppets to put forward their political and class interests?

Why would it be any different with the proletariat? This is my point. Think about it. If power truly always corrupts, why has there not been a class antagonism between the American State and the Bourgeoisie inside of it? Why is the American state not a class but a representative of a class and somehow you find that realistic, but not a state that represents the interests of the proletariat?

Because your head is soaked with Bourgeois philosophical propaganda.

It's not so much proof, it's more of a theoretical correction. Although I would contend that the applications of the "withering away" theory has proven that correction to be true.

No, if anything it has proven the Marxists to be true. The Anarchists just came along and hijacked the situation to their own ideological liking.

This contradiction must always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxists may be.

You can't just fucking say that. You don't have any proof to present forward. You just want it to be that way because it conforms to your opportunistic ideology and not to the interests of the proletariat.

Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised,

Then Ral, actual workers democracy will never exist, if this be true. Clear your head, sit down for a little bit and think. think about the seven billion people on earth and think about all of hte problems they face today. Do you really, really deep down in your heart believe that it is going to work decentralized? Is Pakistan going to be relieved of all of it';s problems in a decentralized manner? Afghanistan? Material and Social conditions are ever changing and ever evolving, but to the Anarchists it is the opposite, no?

What authoritarian measures are you referring to?

Setting up a State and a Secret Police and appointing representatives (Makhno) himself, personally.

Go ahead.

that the Bolshevik revolution was the only succesful proletariat revolution in history and failed because the revoltuion was contained, isolated, and constantly under seige and eventually a class antagonism formed and that is why it ended up the way it was? No you are right, it was because power corrupts no matter what :rolleyes:

Rafiq

19th November 2011, 14:24

No, communism is stateless. Stateless does not mean without government.

Communism is not a blueprint. It has evolved and will evolve as a movement.

Rafiq

19th November 2011, 14:33

I think that people in this thread should stop answering questions like "but but but what would an anarchist society do in this situation?!" when the answer is exactly the same thing a communist society would have to do. There's really no point debating the finer details of anti-statist theory with people who are totally unaware that they too are supposed to be advocating anti-statism...

Because Communism is not a plan for the future, it is a movement which represents (or represented) the interests of the proletariat.

If a state is more efficient then not having one I don't see a problem with it. The point is to abolish capitalism, for several reasons, whether you be an academic who understands it's destructive nature or a proletarian who wishes to exert his class interests.

The point is not to formulate a society based on ideology. Like I said, Ideology for us should be a tool.

But for some Anarchists it is not. For some anarchists the basis of their thinking is their ideology, while the basis for my thinking is a science.

Those kinds of questions will be solved later, but my point is that I am not sticking to some kind of "It has to be this way" kind of thinking because I know things could change, some things might not work and some things would have to transform.

Why is it different for anarchists?

hatzel

19th November 2011, 15:45

Because Communism is not a plan for the future, it is a movement which represents (or represented) the interests of the proletariat.

If a state is more efficient then not having one I don't see a problem with it. The point is to abolish capitalism, for several reasons, whether you be an academic who understands it's destructive nature or a proletarian who wishes to exert his class interests.

The point is not to formulate a society based on ideology. Like I said, Ideology for us should be a tool.

But for some Anarchists it is not. For some anarchists the basis of their thinking is their ideology, while the basis for my thinking is a science.

Those kinds of questions will be solved later, but my point is that I am not sticking to some kind of "It has to be this way" kind of thinking because I know things could change, some things might not work and some things would have to transform.

Why is it different for anarchists?

Now...this is interesting, because we appear to be of opposite opinions. By which I mean we're actually of (roughly) the same opinion, but we've flipped words round.

I personally look at the word 'communism' as referring to a particular socio-politico-economic arrangement, one with certain defined and defining characteristics. That is to say it is stateless, classless, moneyless, with common ownership of the means of production, all that stuff that I obviously don't have to go through, because we all know what we're talking about here. 'Communists,' then, are (to me) those who advocate the establishment of such a society. They may be flexible in the exact details, the particularities of this future society, but the basic framework remains the same. And the communist strives towards this society, and this society only, for themselves as for others.

Anarchy, however...well, for me this is not a call for a particular socio-politico-economic system to be established. I've never seen anarchy as something to be bestowed on society, everybody brought into a certain arrangement; anarchic social relationships can exist in any number of socio-politico-economic systems, be it communist, parecon, mutualist or otherwise. It may be technological or it may be 'primitive.' It may be urban or rural, industrial or agricultural. There may be a market or there may not be. It may be administered by radically participatory democratic systems, by instantly recallable delegates or by flipping a coin in some ritual ceremony, whatever the people themselves think is best. I have my preferences, there are systems I see as more fitting, better suited to anarchy, but I don't demand others agree with me, nor do I seek to establish this preferred system for all humanity.

Anarchy has, as far as I'm concerned, always been a way of approaching the world, however it is. It's something defined within individual in their social relationships, rather than a society of a given nature. Of course anarchists may call for the establishment of a communist (for example - I would not call myself a communist because I do not explicitly call for the establishment of a communist economy, though neither would I oppose its establishment) society, but this is not because this society is itself anarchic, but because it may be conductive to anarchy, because it allows anarchy to flourish more easily. Whether each and every person on the face of the planet, or even in a given area, will be 'anarchs' (not borrowing the term directly from Jünger, because I don't mean it in that exact sense, I just can't think of another fitting term. Perhaps autarchic, autonomous, something like that) I don't know, and I cannot guarantee that everybody will embrace anarchy, rather than organising themselves hierarchically, or submitting to authority. Much less that they will all embrace the same form of anarchy. In fact, I would find all this irrelevant, and I see no reason to delay the establishment of my own anarchy, in my social relationships with like-minded peers, until everybody else feels like 'catching up,' by which I mean adopting the same system (this wouldn't really be catching up, mind you). In fact, I don't even want everybody to adopt the same system; I want them to adopt their own anarchic system, which may or may not be the same as mine. And I call for the surpassing of the State, and contemporary monist political systems, so that these new forms of social relationships may have the opportunity to be developed. I don't really care if people want to submit themselves to authority, as long as they are not obligated to.

Anyway, to answer your question: the reason its different for anarchists is because there were communists in this very thread demanding to know exactly how everything's going to be handled. Which suggested to me that they weren't like you in thinking that we'd figure stuff out later on, and wanted blueprints now. And I merely suggested that their own blueprints would probably be as good as anything the anarchists could offer up. And if they don't have perfectly blueprints for how stuff could be handled in the absence of a State (a situation they call for), then they shouldn't expect the anarchists to prove the legitimacy of their ideas by proving such blueprints. Because both would be equally speculative. Luckily you acknowledge this, but a few of the other posters in the thread seem to demand exact details of the running of a hypothetical future society. Or think that they can give such details.

The Insurrection

19th November 2011, 16:10

Yes, but that is the basis of all socialist ideology. The point is, is that what divides Anarchists from everyone else is ethics. Anarchism is 100% structured off of ethics. If anarchism is structured around class, how then is it structured around ethics? Can you please point to a social anarchist and their writing that corroborates your assertion? If you can't then I suggest you stop making claims you can't back up.

I told you, Anarchists view centralized political authority, 'authority' itself and hierarchy to be the cause of the world's problems throughout human history, thus making an absolutist ethical stance against them. But that's not true. Provide me with documentary evidence to support this claim.

There are none. The contradictions only form when the Revolution is contained.I articulated a contradiction to you. You've simply just ignored my argument and restated your opinion...

And what is a communist society? What is your goal, to bring to power the proletariat or to establish a Utopia?A communist society is one that is classless, stateless and controlled directly by the working class in their communities and workplaces. I don't know what you mean by "utopia"?

And you have no proof for that statement.I don't have proof, just as you don't have proof that authoritarianism can create communism. I have, however, presented a theoretical correction to your "withering away" theory, which you have seemingly ignored.

If anything we can see that resorting to means of Non Authoritarianism have not worked in establishing and organizing something to replace capitalism. The closest we got were the Bolsheviks. I suggest you research the Spanish civil war. You can read this pamphlet. It's very short, but gives you basic history and references: Anarchism in Action: The Spanish Civil War (http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_intro.html)

It demonstrates how the workers were able to organise production and distribution, as well as structured decentralised political organisation.

And this jargon about democracy being something sacred. So to you, Authoritarianism is immoral, right? No matter the reason you say it is immoral, it is still an ethical stance. Again, you're making very little sense. Are you saying that workers democracy is jargon? For me, workers democracy is a structure of political organisation where the working class have direct control over how their communities and production is organised.

I've read works by Mr. Kropotkin Nachayev, of Bakunin. Now let's stop derailing our conversation and continue. It's not a derailment, it's part of this discussion. I am calling into question your ability to critique anarchism. It seems to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of the theories and practices that make up the ideology.

Anyway, Nechayev wasn't an anarchist, so why would you read anything by him? Which texts by Kropotkin and Bakunin have you read? It seems to me that you're just bullshitting.

Centralized Political Authority = The Proletariat. And if you think a society without delegets to represent the interests of the masses is going to work you are fooling yourself.I am asking you how the centralised political authority can equate to the proletariat? Just stating it is a rhetorical device that bears no reference to reality. Kindly explain how that would manifest itself in the material world. That's to say, beyond your mind.

And, since we are playing this bullshit utopian game, how's a say if the representatives aren't acting on behalf of the proletariat they are removed of their power by an armed worker's militia?That would bring the workers militia into direct conflict with the state, leading to the issue I have already raised and which you have failed to address.

There are hundreds of possibilities. You are playing the "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely game" which is in itself a Bourgeois concept and is crap. I realise that it's far easier for you, with your limited understanding, to reduce my argument to a platitude. It makes it more convenient for you to criticise me. Unfortunately, as I've already argued, this has nothing to do with "power corrupting". That's a completely separate argument to the one I've made.

As I said. Twice. This is about what the material conditions the state creates and the contradiction inherent in the withering away theory. I can re-state my opinion:

In short, the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political cadre, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority "protecting the revolution". It's purpose is to maintain a defence of that revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority must become entrenched within its role, otherwise it cannot function adequately, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power (i.e. a withering away) are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend the revolution (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own decentralised political and economic power if centralised political authority exists; you cannot have these two processes unfolding together simultaneously, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed. It usually results in the latter.That argument has nothing to do with people being "corrupted by power", but by the very nature of the state being such, that its structures are unable to "wither away".

7 Billion people on earth. It is necessary.Says who? Since you're so insistent on evidence, why not provide some.

Stop being naive and take your head out of your ass (I'm saying this in the nicest way possible). The world is not going to managed completely being run by small little towns or collectives. There needs to be a centralized political authority to assure the rule of the proletariat is in place and needs to be in place to organize society. It will have hundreds, if not thousands of uses. It is 100% necessary. Sure, if we could all sing songs and live at some happy town and dominate everything and take care of ourselves in every matter then I'd be all for it.Do you really consider this a political position? I mean, dude. Come on. You seem to consider yourself knowledgeable on this subject, yet your argument basically boils down to: Anarchists are idiots and the world is big...

I haven't suggested that small towns or collectives completely manage the world. For someone who claims to have read Kropotkin and Bakunin, I'm surprised that you think I would be...

But you are puting a veil on the external threats that are possible and are denying all of the problems that could arise out of that. Trust me, it's not going to work. Where have I done this?

Blah Blah blah. I've heard this all before, stop making baseless statements. I mean you don't even have any proof, just shit predictions based off of Bourgeois concepts, that of which were already destroyed by Psychology and Social science. Yes, I've always considered "Blah Blah Blah" to be a powerful argument. :rolleyes:

I'd like to point out that you have not provided any proof to substantiate your claims either. And for the record, I've never claimed that there was proof. I have offered a theoretical correction, which you have ignored. Just continuously saying "you have no proof" is no more an argument than saying "Blah Blah Blah".

When I say: "In the process of "dominating" the state and "defending" the revolution their task is to consolidate their control and power and in so doing, entrenching it (a standard consequence of centralising political authority - they aim of doing so is to entrench that authority to better defend it)", I am not saying that the 'representatives' that control the state are corrupted by power (I actually made a point of saying the opposite). I am asserting that in order to defend the revolution and consolidate centralised political authority, they have to entrench their mechanisms of power, which become unable to "wither away", since the state is designed to be maintained. The conflicts that arise for which state has to contend will require an entrenchment of that authority, otherwise the state wouldn't be able to function. Ergo, the state cannot simply "wither away", since that is antithetical to its functions.

This isn't a psychological or social sciences issue, it's a structural issue - it's the consequences of reality.

Oh god. Stop talking out of your ass.Frustration is sometimes a consequence of confusion. I realise that what I'm presenting to you is probably a little too theoretical for you, but I think resorting to profanity just weakens your position in this discussion. If you don't understand something I suggest you just say so.

The rule of the proletariat is the fucking centralized political authority, it is not as if there would be a contradiction between the delegetes who represent them and the worker's themselves. That's absurd. Again, you're relying on a rhetorical device. Centralisation of political authority i.e. the state cannot be the rule of the proletariat, it's the rule of 'representatives' of the proletariat, since the entire proletariat cannot, by definition, participate in the state.

There won't be a contradiction between the "delegates" and the workers if that delegation is not tied to the state, otherwise the interests of the delegates becomes the protection of the state, and the state, as Lenin himself argues in The State and Revolution, is essentially an enemy of the working class. This is what I'm referring to when I talk about contradiction.

Put more simply, in the context of the state (centralised political authority etc): The intentions of the delegates and the reality of their job comes into conflict.

Is that clearer?

Should the revolution be isolated, then a contradiction would have to form and the "representatives" would have to take desperate measures(with a revolution under constant seige and sabatoge) and eventually would become a class antagonism and slowly revert back to capitalism. That's what happened to the Bolsheviks, and it's a perfectly scientific explanation, unlike this horse-shit "Power corrupts" deal. How is it a scientific explanation? I'm interested to know how you qualify your theory as "science"?

Anyway, revolutions will always be isolated, even if many of them exist simultaneously, since each capitalist nation state will seek to contain their respective disorder. Of course steps will emerge where national working classes operate in harmony to each others interests, but I don't see how that's relevant if, as you argue, the emergence of national "workers" states have to emerge. Unless you're suggesting that an international workers state will be created mid and immediately post revolution (which you're obviously not, because that would be ridiculous) my correction/objection still stands.

Then so be it. I am for the rule of the proletariat and the dictatorship of their interests.But the interests of the workers is to smash the state, so you cannot create a "workers" state that fights for their interests, since the state exists in opposition to them.

If that doesn't resemble your vision of a communist society then I could care less. Because what you put forward is unattainable and unrealistic. I don't think you've grasped what it is that I'm "putting forward", so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

Free territory was a state. It had borders and it had a central authority to govern it.The military did, yes. The workers and peasants councils and plenum's were not centralised. Try reading Peter Arshinov's History of the Machnovist Movement. (http://libcom.org/history/history-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921-peter-arshinov)

Are you denying Makhno's secret police? kontrrazvedka? You're a fool. The Kontrrazvedka weren't a "secret police", they were a clandestine counter-espionage and intelligence organisation. Makhno didn't set it up, it was the creation of the Revolutionary Military Council, although Makhno did have his own unit.

In any case, I don't consider a clandestine counter-espionage and intelligence unit to be "the state".

Read the Makhno Myth. The problem here is that Makhno is one aspect of the Ukrainian revolution. Undoubtedly he was a significant part of it, but it's important not to fetishise him. Whatever his myths, whatever the truth, he remains one part of a larger movement. Not the sum of it.

To not be destroyed and overrun by counter revolutionaries and or third party reactionary forces? Imperialist countries? Think with your head, not with your ass. You're a very rude person. FYI.

I don't see any reason why political authority has to be centralised in order for this to happen. We, the working class, have demonstrated quite adequately that we are capable of organising our own lives.

I'm asking you, without a centralized political authority to organize things, what is going to motivate worker's to do things?Immediately after the revolution, the need to sustain our lives would probably be the main motivating factor, as well as efforts to re-construct society.

Society is going to be destroyed and re built, who is going to organize that for each town? City? County? Region? In reality it would have to be a centralized political authority to make those kinds of descisions. The working class.

Who is going to allocate resources from one side of the world to another?The industrial and trade plenums set up by the workers who operate within them.

Who is going to organize those resources and commit effort to find ways to get them? There are thousands of unanswered questions.No. There is only one question. Who is going to organise society. The answer is: The working class.

It is useless answering them, but to say that none of it will involve a centralized political authority is absurd and an embarrassment to the revolutionary left itself.Based on what evidence?

So your Ideology tells you. You don't disagree with me.

But Representatives of the workers = the interests of the workers. But this is rhetoric. This is the definition of rhetoric. You keep arguing against idealistic statements, but your whole argument is predicated on one.

How can the interests of these state representatives be the interests of the workers if the interest of the workers is to smash the state?

Do you think that the Bourgeois representatives are none other then presidents, congress men and the likes? Okay, you do? Good.

now, Are the interests of the government (state) today different from the interests of the big Bourgeoisie? (not petite bourgeois tea partyers)

Is our system the rule of the Representatives or of the Bourgeoisie itself?

Or is it a system in which the Bourgeoisie rules and uses Representatives as puppets to put forward their political and class interests?

Why would it be any different with the proletariat? This is my point. Think about it. If power truly always corrupts, why has there not been a class antagonism between the American State and the Bourgeoisie inside of it? Why is the American state not a class but a representative of a class and somehow you find that realistic, but not a state that represents the interests of the proletariat?

Because your head is soaked with Bourgeois philosophical propaganda. But my argument isn't predicated on the platitude "power corrupts"...I have explained why it would be different. Several times now.

No, if anything it has proven the Marxists to be true. The Anarchists just came along and hijacked the situation to their own ideological liking. :confused:

What on Earth are you talking about?

Then Ral, actual workers democracy will never exist, if this be true. Clear your head, sit down for a little bit and think. think about the seven billion people on earth and think about all of hte problems they face today. Do you really, really deep down in your heart believe that it is going to work decentralized? Is Pakistan going to be relieved of all of it';s problems in a decentralized manner? Afghanistan? Material and Social conditions are ever changing and ever evolving, but to the Anarchists it is the opposite, no? This has nothing to do with my heart, it's about material reality. Do I think that the international working class can co-ordinate production and distribution without a state? Yes, I do.

The Insurrection

22nd November 2011, 19:31

Well?

Rafiq

22nd November 2011, 22:56

If anarchism is structured around class, how then is it structured around ethics? Can you please point to a social anarchist and their writing that corroborates your assertion? If you can't then I suggest you stop making claims you can't back up.

You ignore my point. I said that almost all currents of Socialism were structured around class. So what is the difference between a non-Anarchist socialist and an Anarchist? It is a matter of ethics. In this sense Anarchism itself was built around and hold's it's ideological basis on ethics, and if you were to remove these ethics then Anarchism becomes plain old, normal socialism.

Understand?

But that's not true. Provide me with documentary evidence to support this claim.

Must I waste my time in doing so? I'm sure you will come across countless examples when reading them. Almost every anarchist I have come across both in real life and on the internet criticized things for being authoritarian sometimes, without even mentioning class. (Well I'd support this but it's too authoritarian).

I articulated a contradiction to you. You've simply just ignored my argument and restated your opinion...

:confused: What are you getting at? You said there was a contradiction in the Bolshevik method and I said that the contradiction only formed after the revolution was contained. Is that so hard to understand?

A communist society is one that is classless, stateless and controlled directly by the working class in their communities and workplaces. I don't know what you mean by "utopia"?

A "communist society" could change. Again, such a specific aim is Utopian. So is that your goal? A classless, stateless society controlled directly (Without the need of representatives) by the working class in their communities and workplaces? Such a static demand, don't you think?

But what is your goal? What if retaining the state best serves the interests of hte proletariat? What if you discover that control directly via workplace isn't really that efficient? This is my point.

This is why I ask if your goal is establishing a Utopia or Bringing to power the proletariat. I would assume that your goal is the latter.

I don't have proof, just as you don't have proof that authoritarianism can create communism. I have, however, presented a theoretical correction to your "withering away" theory, which you have seemingly ignored.

1. But your supposed theoretical correction held on to the idea that "Power corrupts all the time" which is basically a Bourgeois philisophical viewpoint.

I suggest you research the Spanish civil war. You can read this pamphlet. It's very short, but gives you basic history and references: Anarchism in Action: The Spanish Civil War (http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_intro.html)

I read it. I don't buy that this is what we should model planet Earth on.

I read it, but have you read http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

It demonstrates how the workers were able to organise production and distribution, as well as structured decentralised political organisation.

So comes the same question I ask ML's about the SU... Where is it now? If it worked so well, why couldn't they organize themselves in a fashion in which they could hoard off the enemies (similar to how the bolsheviks did it?).

Again, the closest we got to world revolution was the Bolsheviks. The closest we got to the proletarian overthrowing the bourgeoisie were the Bolsheviks.

Again, you're making very little sense. Are you saying that workers democracy is jargon? For me, workers democracy is a structure of political organisation where the working class have direct control over how their communities and production is organised.

No but democracy as a basis for your ideological and political views is absurd. Useful sometimes, not so much other times.

It's not a derailment, it's part of this discussion. I am calling into question your ability to critique anarchism. It seems to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of the theories and practices that make up the ideology.

I'm arguing with a brick wall here. How can you say that? I was on the verge of becoming an Anarchist, actually. Please, stop talking out of your ass. I'm very familiar with Anarchism and I don't need people saying otherwise because they feel like taking a blind shot as to what I know and what I do not.

Anyway, Nechayev wasn't an anarchist, so why would you read anything by him? Which texts by Kropotkin and Bakunin have you read? It seems to me that you're just bullshitting.

Nachayev was friends with Bakunin, real good friends, but w/e.

I've read God and State, Power corrupts the best, what is authority by Bakunin, Mutual Aid&Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin and

I am asking you how the centralised political authority can equate to the proletariat? Just stating it is a rhetorical device that bears no reference to reality. Kindly explain how that would manifest itself in the material world. That's to say, beyond your mind.

I'm having trouble with you not understanding this. The Proletariat organizing itself into a central authority by electing representatives to carry out their interests and forming an armed worker's militia locally to assure those interests are carried out. I don't see the problem.

Also, if we are talking about a world scale, a central political authority will be absolutely necessary. Perhaps you think that the only way for the proletariat to be in power is for workers to vote on every little fucking thing and not have representatives. How fucking naive.

"Gotta take a shit"

"Let's vote on it! 7 billion people huddle up! Vote yes or no can he do it?"

You get the idea.

That would bring the workers militia into direct conflict with the state, leading to the issue I have already raised and which you have failed to address.

Just like the Bourgeoisie (mega bourgeoisie) get's into direct conflict with the state that they control, right :laugh:. Again, maybe that would happen if we are playing the "Power corrupts always" game, but that's Bourgeois philosophy.

I realise that it's far easier for you, with your limited understanding, to reduce my argument to a platitude. It makes it more convenient for you to criticise me. Unfortunately, as I've already argued, this has nothing to do with "power corrupting". That's a completely separate argument to the one I've made.

No, it's fucking not.

Why do you think the state would corrupt and form a class antagonism with the proletariat that would control it? And the revolution will have to be protected at all costs.

I fail to see how that would lead to a class contradiction with the proletariat, unless of course, the revolution is contained and the state is forced to take such drastic measures that it would, in the end, like you stated, form a class contradiction with the proletariat.

That is of course, if the revolution is contained. The only reason the state would have to take such desperate measures if it was, say, being attacked by 17 different powers all at once, like it was in Bolshevik Russia.

You've solved half of the puzzle, good job. But the question is what would drive the state to take such measures? Because they are assholes who corrupted from their power? Bourgeois Idealism.

As I said. Twice. This is about what the material conditions the state creates and the contradiction inherent in the withering away theory. I can re-state my opinion:

Again, the material conditions set forth were not intentionally "created by the state", rather they were a result of the containing of the revolution. The state's actions were a response to conditions, not a cause of them. using the phrase "Material conditions" does not make you a materialist, by the way.

That argument has nothing to do with people being "corrupted by power", but by the very nature of the state being such, that its structures are unable to "wither away".

It has everything to do with it. I'm not asking you if you think the state will form a class antagonism with the proletariat, or that it would take desperate measures, I already know your fucking position. I'm asking you why you think they would take those measures and since you think that as long as the state exists and that those measures cannot be prevented, you are, openly implying that it would naturally corrupt.

Completely Idealist, and Bourgeois.

Says who? Since you're so insistent on evidence, why not provide some.

It's really not hard. Just think about it, I won't hold your hand. Think about it long and hard.

Do you really consider this a political position? I mean, dude. Come on. You seem to consider yourself knowledgeable on this subject, yet your argument basically boils down to: Anarchists are idiots and the world is big...

No. I don't think Anarchists are idiots, I think that there are a lot of intelligent anarchists and a lot of which are probably a billion times more so then I am.

All I am trying to say is that the model in which some Anarchists want to run the world is impractical to the massive population earth has. Even under Authoritarian capitalism it has proven difficult to organize the masses. It is not so much trying to provide proof as it is basing it off of experience from real life.

I haven't suggested that small towns or collectives completely manage the world. For someone who claims to have read Kropotkin and Bakunin, I'm surprised that you think I would be...

Actually Bakunin was a pretty authoritarian guy, if you read works from him. I don't think he suggested anything close to that, but you are.

Where have I done this?

Where have you not done this?

Yes, I've always considered "Blah Blah Blah" to be a powerful argument. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I know it's stupid. But you have to know where I am coming from. I've heard all of that before. I don't care, it's something I have heard you say. It's not complex at all to me, I understand perfectly what you are trying to get at. My problem is that you aren't aware of my response to it.

In the process of "dominating" the state and "defending" the revolution their task is to consolidate their control and power

See what I mean? Stop right there. They are representatives of the proletariat. There task would have to be to assure the proletariat retains their control and power. You are assuming a class contradiction would occur from day 1. Absurd.

and in so doing, entrenching it (a standard consequence of centralising political authority - they aim of doing so is to entrench that authority to better defend it).

Again, I like this quote from a user here, about how people throw a ball of piss filled snow and just let it expand as it roles down a hill of bull-shit. My refution to this is above.

I have offered a theoretical correction

:laugh: You call that a theoretical correction? You just blattered the same shit I've heard for a long time. I told you why it was crap. Address that for me and then we can talk about "who is offering things". I'm asking why the state would take those measures, and if they did it to hoard off invaders then we can already see the revolution was contained, no?

, which you have ignored. Just continuously saying "you have no proof" is no more an argument than saying "Blah Blah Blah".

Because your whole argument or "Theoretical correction" is based within the constraint of Bourgeois thinking and Idealist thought.

I am not saying that the 'representatives' that control the state are corrupted by power (I actually made a point of saying the opposite).

You are, whether you think you are or not.

I am asserting that in order to defend the revolution and consolidate centralised political authority, they have to entrench their mechanisms of power,

Just like how the state does today, and how it entrenches it's mechanism of power over the bourgeoisie? Damn, I guess we don't need to go after the Bourgeoisie, since the state is an independant interest and has no class character.

which become unable to "wither away", since the state is designed to be maintained. The conflicts that arise for which state has to contend will require an entrenchment of that authority, otherwise the state wouldn't be able to function. Ergo, the state cannot simply "wither away", since that is antithetical to its functions.

Again, only if the revolution is contained. Think about me fucking saying that.

This isn't a psychological or social sciences issue, it's a structural issue - it's the consequences of reality.

No, it is a social sciences issue. You have no right to assert what is "reality" and what is not, because you and I both no very well that when you say "reality" you mean "My belief on how humans will behave given certain conditions". reality is not some abstract thing that is separate from how humans behave. You are just assuming, based off of Classic Bourgeois thought that humans are going to act that way. When someone destroys this bourgeois mode of thinking, your whole theory shatters to pieces. this is why when I studied materialism my libertarian ideas fell apart and I could no longer maintain them.

Frustration is sometimes a consequence of confusion. I realise that what I'm presenting to you is probably a little too theoretical for you, but I think resorting to profanity just weakens your position in this discussion. If you don't understand something I suggest you just say so.

Don't insult me you fucking asshole, there is nothing you have posted which is too intellectually advanced for me to grasp.

I understand what you are saying very well, and I am telling you it is a load of Idealist crap.

Again, you're relying on a rhetorical device. Centralisation of political authority i.e. the state cannot be the rule of the proletariat, it's the rule of 'representatives' of the proletariat, since the entire proletariat cannot, by definition, participate in the state.

So are we living under the rule of the Bourgeoisie or rule of the State?

There won't be a contradiction between the "delegates" and the workers if that delegation is not tied to the state,

explain what exactly the state is then. "state" is a muddled word. And explain how delegates would not form a centralized political authority? What seperates a delegete and a representative of the proletariat?

otherwise the interests of the delegates becomes the protection of the state,

The State which is dominated by the proletariat, just like the Bourgeois state.

and the state, as Lenin himself argues in The State and Revolution, is essentially an enemy of the working class. This is what I'm referring to when I talk about contradiction.

The State controlled by the Bourgeoisie is an enemy of the working class, according to Lenin. Not a State itself.

Perhaps you should re-read?

Put more simply, in the context of the state (centralised political authority etc): The intentions of the delegates and the reality of their job comes into conflict.

You don't have to put it in simple terms, I understand exactly what you are saying. However that won't happen so long as they aren't forced to take desperate action, and these guys will only take desperate action if the revolution is contained, to put it in simple terms, for you.

That clearer?

Is that clearer?

It is still just as much bullshit.

How is it a scientific explanation? I'm interested to know how you qualify your theory as "science"?

Because it is not based off of Bourgeois thinking. It's a perfectly reasonable explanation, other then "Power will corruptz bro" which is at best unscientific.

Anyway, revolutions will always be isolated,

You don't know what I mean by "Isolated" (Hint: It involves literally having no international comrades to help yo ass out)

even if many of them exist simultaneously, since each capitalist nation state will seek to contain their respective disorder.

But to what extent. Had a revolution occurred in Britain and Germany, but not France, that would have been enough for the revolution to survive. But it spread to no industrialized countries, when, a little friend of mine, Karl Marx, said that was an absolute necessity for any proletarian revolution to survive, so you understand why I would hold his position and apply it instead of resorting to opportunistic bullshit conclusions.

Of course steps will emerge where national working classes operate in harmony to each others interests, but I don't see how that's relevant if, as you argue, the emergence of national "workers" states have to emerge.

Do you really not understand? Proletariat seizes power in <insert name>. right away they are invaded by NATO.

Whoops, revolution occurs in major NATO powers and NATO is disbanded.

NATO is no longer invading, sieging the country, or training, or providing arms to counter revolutionary forces, and gets it's spies out.

Unless you're suggesting that an international workers state will be created mid and immediately post revolution (which you're obviously not, because that would be ridiculous) my correction/objection still stands.

No, but I doubt Worker's states are going to attack each other, or work against the interests of each other.

But the interests of the workers is to smash the state, so you cannot create a "workers" state that fights for their interests, since the state exists in opposition to them.

The state is an instrument of a class. We only oppose it when it is in the hands of the Bourgeoisie.

I don't know if a society can exist without the state, but the only, and I mean only way in which you can destroy the state is with the state.

I don't think you've grasped what it is that I'm "putting forward", so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

I don't give three fucks what you think. I am perfectly aware as to what you are putting forward. It's not something relatively new to me.

The military did, yes. The workers and peasants councils and plenum's were not centralised.

What does it mean for a peasant or worker's council to be centralized? I am not advocating them being decided centrally in all instances, as conditions would vary by region and it would be impractical to form a Universal worker's council centralized that would decide everything. But should it be necessary for the decisions made by a worker's council to be overridden for the sake of everyone else, I don't see a problem. This is why a centralized political authority is necessary, just like it was in Anarchist ukraine. If a worker's or peasants council were to get in the way of everyone as a whole, they would must likely be met with authority. Sorry to break it to you.

Try reading Peter Arshinov's History of the Machnovist Movement. (http://libcom.org/history/history-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921-peter-arshinov)

I told you to read the Makhno Myth. Which seems a lot more credible then that.

The Kontrrazvedka weren't a "secret police", they were a clandestine counter-espionage and intelligence organisation. Makhno didn't set it up, it was the creation of the Revolutionary Military Council, although Makhno did have his own unit.

:laugh: Just like the NKVD wasn't a secret police, it was a clandestine counter revolutionary and intelligence organization. You are no better then a Stalinist. Of course, there is no difference between a secret police and what you mentioned.

And I mention Makhno because he is the symbol that represented the Free territory, so usually we associate him with the decisions made by the Revolutionary Military council, although I don't know the legitimacy of that, I'll just assume you are right.

In any case, I don't consider a clandestine counter-espionage and intelligence unit to be "the state".

Ah but to have a centralized political authority with representatives to the "workers" (Free territory was run by peasants) and to have borders with a standing military, I think that could qualify as a State, unless the Bolsheviks did not rule a state.

The problem here is that Makhno is one aspect of the Ukrainian revolution. Undoubtedly he was a significant part of it, but it's important not to fetishise him. Whatever his myths, whatever the truth, he remains one part of a larger movement. Not the sum of it.

I know, but again, he symbolically represents it. I could replace "Makhno" with "Black Army".

You're a very rude person. FYI.

You're even worse then me, the difference is that I don't try to pretty up my rudeness with trying to sound intelligent, what you said, about me not being able to grasp what you are saying, or not having the theoretical skill, is just as offensive as someone calling you a dumb fuck.

I don't see any reason why political authority has to be centralised in order for this to happen. We, the working class, have demonstrated quite adequately that we are capable of organising our own lives.

A centralized political authority would be necessary to mobilize and organize the worker's against the hoards.

You would be naive to think the workers will organize their own lives in this sense. I support the worker's, but in no way do I hold them as some kind of Super-Human naturally good-hearted people. They will need to be organized by an external force, a force that the majority of them placed to represent them.

Immediately after the revolution, the need to sustain our lives would probably be the main motivating factor, as well as efforts to re-construct society.

So morals, right?

I think worker's would be able to sustain their lives without drastically building a new society or producing something more efficient then capitalism. And what do you mean by efforts to re construct society? Where will that come from? What makes you think there will be any efforts without strong central organization? The good-spirit of the workers?

this is why I compared it to Free Marketters thinking capitalists will not form monopolies or infringe on the rights of others out of good-spirit or morals.

don't be naive. You're not that dumb.

The working class.

:laugh: And how are they going to do that? What does this statement even mean? The working class?

You're telling me that in this new society, workers are going to just organize themselves without representatives? How will they communicate with each other from one side of the world to another? With phones? Who the hell is going to operate the phone towers? Satalites?

"the working class".

ridiculous. Also: The sky is blue.

I'm saying the fashion in which you think they will do that is absurd.

The industrial and trade plenums set up by the workers who operate within them.

Why would they want to form those?

No. There is only one question. Who is going to organise society. The answer is: The working class.

See above.

Based on what evidence?

I won't hold your hand. It's not hard at all to see why. Just like it's not hard to see that the proletariat will eventually mobilize against the bourgeoisie.

Think.

You don't disagree with me.

I do. I don't see a difference between the rule of the proletariat and the carrying out of their interests by Representatives.

But this is rhetoric. This is the definition of rhetoric. You keep arguing against idealistic statements, but your whole argument is predicated on one.

You don't even know what Idealism is. It's not rhetoric, and if it is, not more then the crap you have posted.

How can the interests of these state representatives be the interests of the workers if the interest of the workers is to smash the state?

How can the worker's use a military if the interests of the worker's is to destroy the bourgeois military?

The workers want to smash the state because it is controlled by the bourgeoisie, just like they want to disarm the bourgeoisie and take their weapons.

But my argument isn't predicated on the platitude "power corrupts"...I have explained why it would be different. Several times now.

No, you haven't. You just said the same thing in a different way, linguistically.

:confused:

What on Earth are you talking about?

We (Marxists) have predicted that should a revolution not spread to the industrialized nations, it will fail..

When the bolshevik revolution failed the Anarchists came and sought this as an ideological victory, that Bakunin was correct all along. Little did they know it had nothing to do with that.

This has nothing to do with my heart, it's about material reality

Again, just because you use the word "Material" doesn't make you a materialist, because for you Material reality = the reality that is the symbolic representations that your ideology makes of it.

Answer the question. Do you think, deep down in your head, that pakistan will be relieved of it's problem in a decentralized manner? Uganda? Congo? Burma?

. Do I think that the international working class can co-ordinate production and distribution without a state? Yes, I do.

See this is rhetoric.

You are not even answering my question, you are resorting to emotional arguments.

Stop with the shit, really. Get your head out of your ass and think about it.

You are wording your views differently, it still makes them just as shit as ever.

Rafiq

22nd November 2011, 22:58

And, so sorry it took so long for me to reply, as the thread got lost in my recent posts all the way to the second page (which I never visit).

The Insurrection

23rd November 2011, 11:52

You ignore my point. I said that almost all currents of Socialism were structured around class. So what is the difference between a non-Anarchist socialist and an Anarchist? It is a matter of ethics.

If it is a matter of ethics why not point to a piece of writing that confirms your assertion?

In this sense Anarchism itself was built around and hold's it's ideological basis on ethics, and if you were to remove these ethics then Anarchism becomes plain old, normal socialism.

What ethics? Where does this basis come from? Where has it been written about?

These are genuine questions that I would like a response to.

Understand?

Yes, I understand it's your opinion, but you just keep stating it over and over, as if just saying the words make it true. You need to demonstrate this is the case.

The fact of the matter is, no social anarchist has ever discussed ethics as an actual starting point or foundation on which anarchism should be built. I don't even understand what you mean when you say "ethics", since there are many different kinds of ethics?

Do you want to explain what kind of ethics anarchism founds itself in?

Must I waste my time in doing so?

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, then stop participating in it. If you want to carry on, then why would it be a waste of time proving that you are right? If it's true what you are saying, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point to a text.

I'm sure you will come across countless examples when reading them. Almost every anarchist I have come across both in real life and on the internet criticized things for being authoritarian sometimes, without even mentioning class. (Well I'd support this but it's too authoritarian).

Well, now you've met a real anarchist who has a firm grasp over the ideology, so I suggest you stop pissing about and start substantiating your claims.

What are you getting at?

I'm getting at the fact you haven't addressed my argument.

You said there was a contradiction in the Bolshevik method and I said that the contradiction only formed after the revolution was contained. Is that so hard to understand?

Actually, this is what you said:

Stop being naive and take your head out of your ass (I'm saying this in the nicest way possible). The world is not going to managed completely being run by small little towns or collectives. There needs to be a centralized political authority to assure the rule of the proletariat is in place and needs to be in place to organize society.

This is you just re-stating your opinion.

Then you said:

Blah Blah blah. I've heard this all before, stop making baseless statements. I mean you don't even have any proof, just shit predictions based off of Bourgeois concepts, that of which were already destroyed by Psychology and Social science.

You make a claim that my statement is baseless and that I need proof and make assertions that my argument is based on psychology and social science, without substantiating that claim.

You then say:

Oh god. Stop talking out of your ass. The rule of the proletariat is the fucking centralized political authority, it is not as if there would be a contradiction between the delegetes who represent them and the worker's themselves. That's absurd.

Which doesn't at all address my argument, which is that the interests of the representatives, whose aim is to manage and protect the state and the workers "themselves" (you ironically make a distinction between representatives and workers, despite having previously argued that they were the same thing) whose aim is to create direct workers democracy and a stateless society.

It's true that you also say:

Should the revolution be isolated, then a contradiction would have to form and the "representatives" would have to take desperate measures(with a revolution under constant seige and sabatoge) and eventually would become a class antagonism and slowly revert back to capitalism. That's what happened to the Bolsheviks, and it's a perfectly scientific explanation, unlike this horse-shit "Power corrupts" deal.

So now apparently you agree with me, which is odd, since you've just spent three quotes to to tell me how "blah blah blah" and "naive" my argument is and how I'm "talking out of my ass". But you also disagree with me in the same paragraph saying my argument is based on the platitude "power corrupts", despite the fact nothing in my argument demonstrates that this is predicated on the platitude "power corrupts". What's worse, you never explain it.

You haven't addressed my argument, you've called me names and then tentatively agreed with me to make some vague point about "containment" and then contradicted yourself by disagreeing with me again. You don't have a handle on your argument. It's inconsistent and failing to acknowledge my contribution.

A "communist society" could change. Again, such a specific aim is Utopian. So is that your goal? A classless, stateless society controlled directly (Without the need of representatives) by the working class in their communities and workplaces? Such a static demand, don't you think?

A static demand? You asked me what a communist society would be, and I gave you a response based on what a communist society would be...

But what is your goal?

In life? I don't understand your question. My goal is for me and my fellow workers to control society...

What if retaining the state best serves the interests of hte proletariat?

There's no evidence to support that.

What if you discover that control directly via workplace isn't really that efficient? This is my point.

Efficient at what?

This is why I ask if your goal is establishing a Utopia or Bringing to power the proletariat. I would assume that your goal is the latter.

But your immediately previous questions weren't about ascertaining whether I want to bring the workers to power, they were trying to ask me whether I would consider changing my views if the state were more efficient and better at organising.

1. But your supposed theoretical correction held on to the idea that "Power corrupts all the time" which is basically a Bourgeois philisophical viewpoint.

Can you demonstrate to me where that's the case, please? Please show me where my ideas are "held" on the notion of "power corrupts".

I read it. I don't buy that this is what we should model planet Earth on.

So you acknowledge that it worked. Now you just reject it because why? You don't like it?

I read it, but have you read http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

It won't open.

So comes the same question I ask ML's about the SU... Where is it now? If it worked so well, why couldn't they organize themselves in a fashion in which they could hoard off the enemies (similar to how the bolsheviks did it?).

It wasn't a question of organising better, it was a question of participation in the state and the forced De-armament of the workers militias. Why would they not defend themselves from the socialist state? They were under prepared. They stupidly and naively didn't expect people who called themselves communists to attack them, smash up their communes and take away their arms. This is what you get for trusting Leninists.

Again, the closest we got to world revolution was the Bolsheviks.

Because of revolutions in Russia and Germany? I don't understand how you're making that argument...Perhaps you could explain.

The closest we got to the proletarian overthrowing the bourgeoisie were the Bolsheviks.

Again, I don't understand, if you've read that pamphlet, how you can make this assertion, since large parts of Spain were collectivised. Of course the anarchist revolution in Spain wasn't as big as the one in Russia, but it was the furthest along in terms of transition to a workers society. That's evidenced in that pamphlet you've allegedly read.

No but democracy as a basis for your ideological and political views is absurd. Useful sometimes, not so much other times.

You think the objective of creating direct workers democracy is absurd? Hmm. Well, that's not really a surprise.

I'm arguing with a brick wall here. How can you say that?

Because you show a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject of anarchism and consistently fail to substantiate your wild accusations and claims about the ideology, relying on prejudicial views and misconceptions. Your argument against anarchism is predicated on this platitude "power corrupts" and that we base our ideology on "ethics", despite never actually proving that this is the case by pointing to a document written by a social anarchist.

In my experience of people arguing against anarchism, that usually means they have no idea what they're talking about and base their knowledge on experience with some lifestyle anarchist they met somewhere and some point.

I'm the real deal, I'm afraid. I know what I'm talking about. Your "power corrupts" and "ethics" nonsense doesn't wash with me.

I was on the verge of becoming an Anarchist, actually. Please, stop talking out of your ass. I'm very familiar with Anarchism and I don't need people saying otherwise because they feel like taking a blind shot as to what I know and what I do not.

Yet you have no idea what anarchism is. You think Nechayev was an anarchist for crying out loud. That's just a text book error. Anyone who's read even a rudimentary history of the theory knows that Nevchayev wasn't an anarchist. Maybe you think you know what you're on about, but you don't.

I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, and I'm sorry if your what I'm saying offends your ego, but you know very little about anarchism and I think it would serve you better if you just accepted that.

Nachayev was friends with Bakunin, real good friends, but w/e.

It's spelled "N-e". They were friends briefly, until Nechayev fucked him over and he was never anarchist.

I've read God and State, Power corrupts the best, what is authority by Bakunin, Mutual Aid&Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin

I find that very, very hard to believe. Someone who has read these texts doesn't base their entire criticism of anarchism off of a platitude. There are far more standard and legitimate criticisms of anarchism that you could level if you'd actually read those works.

Lets take Conquest of Bread. Please pin-point where, in that text, does Kropotkin claim or make the argument that anarchism is based on ethics or "power corrupts"?

I'm having trouble with you not understanding this. The Proletariat organizing itself into a central authority by electing representatives to carry out their interests and forming an armed worker's militia locally to assure those interests are carried out. I don't see the problem.

You are identifying the contradiction I have outlined. You accept that the proletariat cannot organise itself into central authority (I mean, that sentence doesn't even make sense), they have to "elect representative" to carry out "their interests".

We acknowledge that "central authority" means the creation of a government, judicial system, security apparatus etc. What then is the function of these representatives within these structures of centralised authority? First and foremost it is to maintain and operate these structures. Do you agree with that?

In the course of maintaining and operating these structure it becomes their responsibility to protect them since that's really what these structures are designed to do - the central army, the central security apparatus, the judiciary, the government, they all exist for the purpose of consolidating political authority. They exist to defend the state as a whole. So how then do the workers, i.e. those who are not representatives, express their aspirations for direct democracy? How do they express their interests of control society?

Also, if we are talking about a world scale, a central political authority will be absolutely necessary. Perhaps you think that the only way for the proletariat to be in power is for workers to vote on every little fucking thing and not have representatives. How fucking naive.

:lol:

I thought you'd read Mutual Aid and Conquest of Bread. It outlines pretty clearly in those books precisely what I think.

No, I don't think the workers should vote on "every little fucking thing", that would be completely pointless and impractical. What I am suggesting is that communities are organised by those who live in them; industry and trade should be organised by those who work in them and that there is federated, direct democratic structure by which to link them all.

"Gotta take a shit"

"Let's vote on it! 7 billion people huddle up! Vote yes or no can he do it?"

You get the idea.

But why would you think that's how it would work? :blink:

This is just petty. For someone who claims to have read Mutual Aid and Conquest of Bread, you really fail to grasp the finer details. That's really surprising considering the detail of those books...

Just like the Bourgeoisie (mega bourgeoisie) get's into direct conflict with the state that they control, right :laugh:.

Well yes. The bourgeois state routinely comes into conflict with the capitalist class.

Again, maybe that would happen if we are playing the "Power corrupts always" game, but that's Bourgeois philosophy.

That doesn't make any sense in the context of what I said.

Why do you think the state would corrupt and form a class antagonism with the proletariat that would control it?

I don't contend that the state would "corrupt", I contend that the state is, by it's very nature, not capable of withering away, since the modus operandi of its structures is specifically designed to perpetuate itself.

And the revolution will have to be protected at all costs.

Are you making a statement or asking me a question?

I fail to see how that would lead to a class contradiction with the proletariat, unless of course, the revolution is contained and the state is forced to take such drastic measures that it would, in the end, like you stated, form a class contradiction with the proletariat.

This containment vs non-containment is a false dichotomy. An international revolution would be made up of national revolutions, not one, co-ordinated international revolution. By their very nature, the revolutions would be "contained". Marxist-Leninists would still seek to form centralised political authority; would still seek to consolidate that state and form representatives to operate it. There would still likely be a civil war and the state would still have to contend with defence.

I reject this containment/non-containment binary.

That is of course, if the revolution is contained. The only reason the state would have to take such desperate measures if it was, say, being attacked by 17 different powers all at once, like it was in Bolshevik Russia.

Why 17? Why not 1? Why not with internal civil war?

You've solved half of the puzzle, good job.

So now you agree with me...? :huh:

But the question is what would drive the state to take such measures? Because they are assholes who corrupted from their power? Bourgeois Idealism.

I don't know what you mean by "measures". The state will always consolidate it's power, that's the purpose of the state.

Again, the material conditions set forth were not intentionally "created by the state",

I know that.

rather they were a result of the containing of the revolution. The state's actions were a response to conditions, not a cause of them. using the phrase "Material conditions" does not make you a materialist, by the way.

I never said it did.

Are we talking about political conditions or economic ones? I think it's important not to conflate the two, although of course there is obvious cross-over, especially when the Soviet Union is concerned.

You, and other Leninists, argue for the creation of centralised political authority, irrespective of whether the revolution is international. In that case, I don't see how the conditions of political dominance can be avoided, since centralised political authority, by its very structures, aim to perpetuate. The central government, judiciary, army, security apparatus are all designed to maintain political dominance, even over workers who express their interests for direct democracy.

It has everything to do with it. I'm not asking you if you think the state will form a class antagonism with the proletariat, or that it would take desperate measures, I already know your fucking position. I'm asking you why you think they would take those measures and since you think that as long as the state exists and that those measures cannot be prevented, you are, openly implying that it would naturally corrupt.

What measures? I don't know what you mean by "measures"? Do you mean consolidate their political dominance? As I've answered and initially argued, it cannot be avoided. The structure of a state (i.e. centralised political authority) is designed to create and perpetuate political dominance. Its not a question of people suddenly getting into a positions of power and loving it, it's to do with the fact that once they're in those positions of power, their job is to maintain the structures that defend that power, which ultimately perpetuates their existence. This then comes into conflict with the interests of the workers.

It's really not hard. Just think about it, I won't hold your hand. Think about it long and hard.

That's not a response. If you make assertions, you have to back them up. You expect it from me, so why shouldn't you be expected to do it also?

All I am trying to say is that the model in which some Anarchists want to run the world is impractical to the massive population earth has.

What is that model and why is it impractical. Please explain yourself.

Actually Bakunin was a pretty authoritarian guy, if you read works from him. I don't think he suggested anything close to that, but you are.

:lol:

Sorry, can you provide a quote where I have suggested that small collectives manage the world?

Where have you not done this?

This is pathetic. This isn't a way to conduct a discussion. If you want to participate in this debate then you have to actually participate. You can't just say stupid things like this.

You made an assertion about my opinions which I reject. If you want to continue to make that assertion then provide a quote. Otherwise you're wrong.

You are, whether you think you are or not.

Where have I done this. Provide me with some quotes.

Not once have I stated that I think "power corrupts". I don't even understand how this platitude relates in any way to what I've said.

You're basically just calling me a liar.

Don't insult me you fucking asshole,

You have some ego and anger issues that you should resolve.

there is nothing you have posted which is too intellectually advanced for me to grasp.

Yet you consistently fail to understand it. It's OK to admit that you don't understand.

explain what exactly the state is then. "state" is a muddled word.

It's not muddled at all. The state is rhetorically a class organised to suppress another, but in practical terms it's the structures of centralised political authority.

And explain how delegates would not form a centralized political authority? What seperates a delegete and a representative of the proletariat?

Political authority would be organised from communities outwards, rather than from the centre downwards.

The State which is dominated by the proletariat, just like the Bourgeois state.

What does "dominated by the proletariat" mean in reality. I mean, you've already said "he delegetes who represent them and the worker's themselves", which seems to me an admission of their distinction.

How is the "state dominated by the prolertariat" practically organised? The prolertariat as a whole cannot operate the state (as you yourself point out), that's why they have representatives. So while rhetorically it might be "dominated by the workers", in actual reality, the state is managed by representatives of the workers.

The State controlled by the Bourgeoisie is an enemy of the working class, according to Lenin. Not a State itself.

Perhaps you should re-read?

I just r-read the Chapter ('Higher Phase of Communism') and Lenin is talking about all states, but actually in the context of the 'workers' state, when he says: "So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3

No, but I doubt Worker's states are going to attack each other, or work against the interests of each other.

So you accept that nation workers states would exist? In that case, my point still stands.

I don't know if a society can exist without the state, but the only, and I mean only way in which you can destroy the state is with the state.

Based on what?

I don't give three fucks what you think.

Then why are you participating in this discussion?

I am perfectly aware as to what you are putting forward. It's not something relatively new to me.

You think I'm making the argument that the state is bad because "power corrupts". That demonstrates very clearly that you are not aware of my argument.

I told you to read the Makhno Myth. Which seems a lot more credible then that.

You think a book written by Makhno's secretary, who was there by his side fighting during the revolution and was in exile with him afterwards is less credible than something written for the International Socialist Review? :confused:

You're even worse then me, the difference is that I don't try to pretty up my rudeness with trying to sound intelligent, what you said, about me not being able to grasp what you are saying, or not having the theoretical skill, is just as offensive as someone calling you a dumb fuck.

But you don't. I'm not being rude, I'm just stating a fact. You seem to have an ego problem. You don't understand this argument, which is precisely why you keep reducing it to "power corrupts" and then not explaining how that's my argument.

A centralized political authority would be necessary to mobilize and organize the worker's against the hoards.

Why wouldn't we workers be able to organise ourselves?

You would be naive to think the workers will organize their own lives in this sense. I support the worker's, but in no way do I hold them as some kind of Super-Human naturally good-hearted people. They will need to be organized by an external force, a force that the majority of them placed to represent them.

Well, I work every day side-by-side with other workers. I struggle with them against capital and I organise with them in political and economic organisations. My first hand experience with my fellow workers demonstrates to me, whether they are good-hearted or not, that they are willing and capable of organising their on lives.

I think this is the fundamental difference between my outlook and yours. My outlook takes into consideration the working class as real people and not as an abstract in a theoretical equation.

So morals, right?

...No...Unless staying alive and re-building society are morals? :confused:

I think worker's would be able to sustain their lives without drastically building a new society or producing something more efficient then capitalism. And what do you mean by efforts to re construct society? Where will that come from? What makes you think there will be any efforts without strong central organization? The good-spirit of the workers?

I thought you'd read Conquest of Bread.

:laugh: And how are they going to do that?

Through organisation. That's normally how things get done.

What does this statement even mean? The working class?

Huh? You don't know what the working class is? Erm...You know. The people in society that are forced to sell their labour...

You're telling me that in this new society, workers are going to just organize themselves without representatives?

It depends what you mean by representatives.

How will they communicate with each other from one side of the world to another? With phones? Who the hell is going to operate the phone towers? Satalites?

The creation of industry and trade plenums would be on a regional, national and international level, as I've already described.

"the working class".

Well, who else will operate them?

ridiculous. Also: The sky is blue.

It's very telling that someone who claims to be fighting on behalf of the workers thinks we're so ridiculous.

I'm saying the fashion in which you think they will do that is absurd.

This just goes to show your utter contempt for working class people. You talk about us in the abstract. You speak about us as if we're stupid and it would be ridiculous to consider that post-revolution we would be able to organise our own lives. I mean, what are you trying to fight for?

Do you even have any links to the working class? Do you participate in economic and political struggles? Do you say these views to workers?

Why would they want to form those?

Have we not just had a revolution?

I won't hold your hand. It's not hard at all to see why. Just like it's not hard to see that the proletariat will eventually mobilize against the bourgeoisie.

Think.

Provide evidence or retract your statement.

You don't even know what Idealism is. It's not rhetoric, and if it is, not more then the crap you have posted.

I wasn't talking about idealism. There is a difference between something being 'idealist' and 'idealistic'. You should know that, being as you're so smart.

And it's precisely the definition of rhetoric. You aren't talking in concrete terms when you say: "But Representatives of the workers = the interests of the workers" you're just relying on a rhetorical device. What does this mean in reality? I'm asking you a question...

Again, just because you use the word "Material" doesn't make you a materialist, because for you Material reality = the reality that is the symbolic representations that your ideology makes of it.

Firstly, I never claimed that using the word "material" makes me a "materialist". Secondly, I am asking you to explain your views in material terms. That's to say, practical, objective, real. I am asking you to explain how your theories will apply in the real world.

Answer the question. Do you think, deep down in your head, that pakistan will be relieved of it's problem in a decentralized manner? Uganda? Congo? Burma?

I have no reason to think otherwise.

You are not even answering my question, you are resorting to emotional arguments.

What's emotional about that statement. You asked whether I think the international working class can co-ordinate production and distribution. My answer is Yes. I do think that. I answered the question you asked me. I realise it's contrary to your own, but I don't know what more I can say.

Rafiq

23rd November 2011, 22:23

If it is a matter of ethics why not point to a piece of writing that confirms your assertion?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/bakuninimmorality.html

It's really not fucking hard. If you can't understand that Anarchism is a matter of ethics then I just feel bad for you.

I just explained why but you just ignored me and started talking out of your ass (as usual) so all the worst.

What ethics? Where does this basis come from? Where has it been written about?

These are genuine questions that I would like a response to.

See above. Stop talking out of your ass. Jesus fucking christ, I'll explain it to you one more fucking time.

Socialism: The movement that represents the interests of the proletariat as a class.

A new current of Socialism emerges: Anarchism.

What differenciates Anarchism from the rest? Anarchism is anti authoritarian and against hierarchy, while other currents of socialism see no problem with Authoritarianism.

Why do Anarchsits oppose authority?

1. Some Anarchists oppose it because they think that it leads to the removal of power from the proletariat.

2. Anarchists deem authoritarianism immoral and an infringement on the human being, against individualism, etc.

These are all fucking morals. K? Now do you want me to hold your hand? Widdle baby needs me to teach them how to walk too?

Yes, I understand it's your opinion, but you just keep stating it over and over, as if just saying the words make it true. You need to demonstrate this is the case.

It's not my opinion, it's a fucking fact. I don't care if you disagree with me because the fact is still there. I just fucking linked you a book by Bakunin called "immorality and the state" :laugh: Are you that stupid to not see?

The fact of the matter is, no social anarchist has ever discussed ethics as an actual starting point or foundation on which anarchism should be built.

they never openly said that, as (Bakunin declared himself against Moralists) but never the less they are still moralists, and the basis of their ideology in comparison to other currents of socialism is based around ethics. Just like Anarcho Capitalists claim themselves to be against authoritarianism, they are just as authoritarian as anyone else.

"No, link me an Anarcho Capitalist text where it admits to be authoritarian"

It's like that. Although the founders of Anarchism do not like to admit it, they are Moralists. Perhaps not Bourgeois Moralists, but moralists none the less. Anarchism's core is ethics, and it has always been that way. I care fuck all if you don't want to accept that, but it's a fact. Deal with it.

I don't even understand what you mean when you say "ethics", since there are many different kinds of ethics?

There are a lot of different kinds of ethics, and Anarchism formulated it's own ethical framework. But still ethics none the less. Just like how the proletariat created it's own political structure after the fall of feudalism, although political structures existed and there were different kinds, it was still a political movement.

Do you want to explain what kind of ethics anarchism founds itself in?

Morals: Anti Authoritarianism, etc.

If you want to go deeper, Anarchism can be founded upon types of Ethics such as Normative, Meta Ethics and the likes.

As they provide what aught to be done, and have estabilished by themselves what is deemed moral and what is immoral.

I won't discuss the matter with you again (ethical anarchism) because it's not hard to comprehend and your'e wasting my time. It's like me trying to explain to someone proof that I am typing on a computer. I don't care what your opinion is. It's a fact.

If you don't want to participate in this discussion, then stop participating in it. If you want to carry on, then why would it be a waste of time proving that you are right? If it's true what you are saying, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point to a text.

Already did. I don't need to waste my time linking others and quoting specific texts, because I've read them. You can look them up if you like with a quick, five second google search and you'll see it right away.

Perhaps you don't even know what Ethics or Moralism is. Maybe you should read on those.

Well, now you've met a real anarchist who has a firm grasp over the ideology, so I suggest you stop pissing about and start substantiating your claims.

Right, they are all wrong but only you are right.

I mean you probably do the same shit as well. Stop talking out of your ass. Stop parroting bull shit. I can easily see you are typing out of desperation now.

"Start sustaining your claims, provide text, proof?" when it is unnecessary and is quite obvious. This is a demonstration of your desperation and your inability to refute what I am typing. Please piss off if you are just going to keep saying the same shit.

I'm getting at the fact you haven't addressed my argument.

Actually, I fucking have. If you are that stupid and you cannot read then piss off. I mean what the fuck am I arguing with? It's like I'm arguing with a religious person. A brick wall. I've addressed your shit half assed argument, and I've provided you with historical examples and evidence. Go look and see. I am not going to keep re posting this shit, it's getting old.

Actually, this is what you said:

You fucking piece of shit, now I'm pissed off. YOU ONLY FUCKING TOOK ONE PART OF MY POST AND SAID THAT IS ALL I SAID.

All users reading this. Go up, scroll up and see my post. This fucking troll is talking out of his ass now, pulling up quotes from me that have NOTHING at all to do with the class antagonism that formed between the Bolsheviks and the Proletariat. NOTHING at all, I was addressing a DIFFERENT segment of his post. But this snake took that and said that is how I responded to him, when confronted with it.

This is you just re-stating your opinion.

Then you said:

Again, NOTHING to do with my post regarding the Bolsheviks and the Proletariat. Stop pulling shit out of your ass.

You make a claim that my statement is baseless and that I need proof and make assertions that my argument is based on psychology and social science, without substantiating that claim.

I did sustain the claim, and I'm not going to re post it. I mean you are the worst kind of piece of shit. At least I fucking read your posts when I reply to them, unlike you who blindly assumes bullshit about me without even reading everything.

Read before you reply, scumbag.

You then say:

Oh shove it up your ass.

Which doesn't at all address my argument, which is that the interests of the representatives, whose aim is to manage and protect the state and the workers "themselves" (you ironically make a distinction between representatives and workers, despite having previously argued that they were the same thing) whose aim is to create direct workers democracy and a stateless society.

The state that is controlled by the proletariat. You're just linguistically changing the bullshit you splattered out of your ass into something else. Like a religious person, really. Who does that remind me of? *Cough* Noam Chomsky *caugh*

So now apparently you agree with me, which is odd, since you've just spent three quotes to to tell me how "blah blah blah" and "naive" my argument is and how I'm "talking out of my ass". But you also disagree with me in the same paragraph saying my argument is based on the platitude "power corrupts", despite the fact nothing in my argument demonstrates that this is predicated on the platitude "power corrupts". What's worse, you never explain it.

I don't agree with you. I told you why a class antagonism between the bolsheviks and proletariat was formed, and you ignored it and pulled up quotes 2 posts back that had nothing to do with it.

I asked you why the hell you would think a class antagonism forms, and the only way for that to happen is if the revolution is isolated and they were forced to take desperate measures..

Please provide why else they should, other then "THE GOAL OF THE DELEGETES WOULD BE TO PROTECT THE STATE AND NOT THE WORKERS AND EVENTUALLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXTEND THEIR POWER TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT CONFLICT WITH THE WORKERS, (EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY THE WORKERS HUR DUR IM A JACKASS) BLAH BLAH BLAH.

You've said the exact same thing in a different way throughout this whole time.

Why would they extend their powers?

"Becuz they would protect the state"

So?

You keep dodging my fucking refution. The Bourgeoisie does not come into conflict with the State today. The state does not extend it's power and form a class antagonism with the bourgeoisie, do they? So why the fuck should that be different in the case of a proletariat state?

The only reason the state would take desperate measures against hte proletariat is if the revolution were to not spread to other countries, the very same countries working against them!

What happens when a country inflitrates you?

You become stricter.

What happens when you become stricter?

You have to erect laws that go against the itnerests of the proletariat.

Etc.

So basically your argument MUST be that power corrupts (just like Bakunin believed) other wise your are even a bigger dumbass who thinks the contradiction starts from day 1.

A static demand? You asked me what a communist society would be, and I gave you a response based on what a communist society would be...

yeah and conditions change and I'm sorry to break it to you but your demands cannot apply to our world or society any more.

Sorry.

Ideology must be adjusted to modern material conditions, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

In life? I don't understand your question. My goal is for me and my fellow workers to control society...

No, as an Anarchist. Your goal is to form a new society. I think deep down you know very well that the proletariat can still maintain power iwthout your bullshit, but your ideological dogma prevents you from accepting that. You're an opportunist, and no friend of the proletariat.

There's no evidence to support that.

Just like there is no evidence that communism will even fucking work.

Efficient at what?

Everything.

But your immediately previous questions weren't about ascertaining whether I want to bring the workers to power, they were trying to ask me whether I would consider changing my views if the state were more efficient and better at organising.

You claim your ideology promotes brining the workers to power in the most efficient manner, so I ask your sorry ass if you are willing ot change your ideology, should conditions change and a more efficient manner of bringing them to power is brought to light.

You don't want to bring the worker's to power, that is not your number 1 goal.

Your number 1 goal is to defend your ideology.

For us, Ideology is a tool. For you, you are a tool of ideology.

Can you demonstrate to me where that's the case, please? Please show me where my ideas are "held" on the notion of "power corrupts".

go back and read your bloody posts. For christs sake, tell me now:

Are you trolling me? Please tell me you are trolling me, you can't be that fucking stupid.

I mean, I only posted why your ideas hold on that notion like 40000000000 times, so I don't see why I should do it fucking again.

here is my conversation with you:

You: POST WHERE I SAID THAT AND EXPLAIN HOW IT IS LIKE THAT

Me: *Posts it*

you: Ignores post and sais the same thing in the a different way.

And you expect me to post it again, troll?

So you acknowledge that it worked. Now you just reject it because why? You don't like it?

I reject it because it isn't here anymore and obviously failed. If it failed in organizing itself in a manner that could hoard off the enemies of the revolution then fuck that.

And there is no proof it worked. The only proof you have are from Anarchists themselves, George Orwell too.

Cool bro.

It won't open.

:rolleyes:

It wasn't a question of organising better, it was a question of participation in the state and the forced De-armament of the workers militias

Why would the state do that? The worker's militia make up and control the state, just like the Bourgeoisie controls the state in modern times.

. Why would they not defend themselves from the socialist state? They were under prepared. They stupidly and naively didn't expect people who called themselves communists to attack them, smash up their communes and take away their arms. This is what you get for trusting Leninists.

Why would the bourgeoisie not defend itself from the Capitalist state?

The Bolsheviks did what they did out of desperation, not because they were power hungry assholes who were greedy.

Because of revolutions in Russia and Germany? I don't understand how you're making that argument...Perhaps you could explain.

The closets we ever got to world revolution was none other then 1917-1922.

1917: Russian Revolution, war begins and is under attack.

1918: No sign of help, Bolsheviks forced to take some power from the Soviets in order to do things quicker and mobilize the masses (no time for councils)

1919: German Revolution failed, American proletrait proves unsuccessful, Nothing in Britian, all European revolutions crushed.

1920: Bolsheviks forced to make new friends (and start class contradiciton) by giving arms to Turkish Kemalists, realize revolution is not going to spread and that they are going to have to do the best they can to hoard of the invaders while maintaining power to the soviets.

1921-1924: Class contradiction completely forms between Bolsheviks and the Proletariat.

Anarchist simplification:

1917: Bolsehvik revolution workers are in power

1922: Because the State is bad, bolsheviks corrupt and abuse their power against workers and becumz state capitalizzzt.

Lesson of da day: Statez r bad.

Again, I don't understand, if you've read that pamphlet, how you can make this assertion, since large parts of Spain were collectivised. Of course the anarchist revolution in Spain wasn't as big as the one in Russia, but it was the furthest along in terms of transition to a workers society. That's evidenced in that pamphlet you've allegedly read.

Why should I trust the legitimacy of that? Most f the writings on Makhno by Anarchists were horse shit, why should this be different?

You think the objective of creating direct workers democracy is absurd? Hmm. Well, that's not really a surprise.

Stop twisting my words you opportunistic scumbag, I said that basing your political and ideological views on democracy (Being a nucleas of your views) is ridiculous and reactionary, Bourgeois-Liberalist.

our goal is for the proletariat to achieve class power and crush it's class enemies, abolish capitalism in all forms. Without the state and transition that is not going to happen.

You cannot abolish the state without taking control of the state first. Otherwise you can predict yourself how chaotic things will be.

Because you show a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject of anarchism and consistently fail to substantiate your wild accusations and claims about the ideology, relying on prejudicial views and misconceptions. Your argument against anarchism is predicated on this platitude "power corrupts" and that we base our ideology on "ethics", despite never actually proving that this is the case by pointing to a document written by a social anarchist.

See all the way above.

Read Bakunin. It seems you don't even know what Anarchism is.

In my experience of people arguing against anarchism, that usually means they have no idea what they're talking about and base their knowledge on experience with some lifestyle anarchist they met somewhere and some point.

Never met a Lifestylist before. Cool story bro.

I probably know more about Anarchism than you, btw.

I'm the real deal, I'm afraid. I know what I'm talking about. Your "power corrupts" and "ethics" nonsense doesn't wash with me.

Well that is the basis for your opposition to the state, whether you will accept that or not I give fuck all about.

Yet you have no idea what anarchism is. You think Nechayev was an anarchist for crying out loud. That's just a text book error. Anyone who's read even a rudimentary history of the theory knows that Nevchayev wasn't an anarchist. Maybe you think you know what you're on about, but you don't.

Nachayev is asscosiated with Anarchism a lot. Nachayev was not an Anarchist, but he surrounded himself with several Anarchists and stood with bakunin in opposition to Marx.

Nechayev's works are held up high by many Anarchists, too.

I'm genuinely not trying to be rude, and I'm sorry if your what I'm saying offends your ego, but you know very little about anarchism and I think it would serve you better if you just accepted that.

I think it's you who isn't even familiar with your own ideology. You don't know jack shit about Anarchism if you deny it is based off of ethics.

It's spelled "N-e". They were friends briefly, until Nechayev fucked him over and he was never anarchist.

See above. Do you even know how to read?

I find that very, very hard to believe. Someone who has read these texts doesn't base their entire criticism of anarchism off of a platitude. There are far more standard and legitimate criticisms of anarchism that you could level if you'd actually read those works.

Far more standard and legitimate critcisms of anarchism to you = Criticisms that do not threaten my ideology as much as Rafiq's does.

Lets take Conquest of Bread. Please pin-point where, in that text, does Kropotkin claim or make the argument that anarchism is based on ethics or "power corrupts"?

Pin point where Anarcho Capitalists are in favor of Authoritarianism. And you MUST find the exact phrase, mentioning the word authoritarianism.

Again, of course they didn't just blatantly say "it's based off of ethics".

But let's take Bakunin for example:

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/bakuninpower.html

Lmfao! It's the title!

You are identifying the contradiction I have outlined. You accept that the proletariat cannot organise itself into central authority (I mean, that sentence doesn't even make sense), they have to "elect representative" to carry out "their interests".

They do have to elect representatives. They cannot do it by themselves, since there are billions of them. To deny the need of representatives/delegets is a fool.

I won't even argue with that because of something called real life experience.

We acknowledge that "central authority" means the creation of a government, judicial system, security apparatus etc. What then is the function of these representatives within these structures of centralised authority? First and foremost it is to maintain and operate these structures. Do you agree with that?

The structures are formed to maintained the rule of the proletariat. The rule of the proletariat will come before maintaining the structures, as maintaining the structures is only because they must maintain the rule of the proletariat. Should those structures get in the way of that, they will be tossed away, just like structures that get in the way of the Bourgeois rule are tossed away by the state.

In the course of maintaining and operating these structure it becomes their responsibility to protect them since that's really what these structures are designed to do

Only if they serve the interests of the proletariat and their dominance. I know what you are getting at, and that's not what fucking happened in Russia.

- the central army, the central security apparatus, the judiciary, the government, they all exist for the purpose of consolidating political authority.

The Political authority of the proletariat, go on.

They exist to defend the state as a whole. So how then do the workers, i.e. those who are not representatives, express their aspirations for direct democracy? How do they express their interests of control society?

The state controlled by the proletariat. And I am against Direct democracy. It is unrealistic and impractical to organize the seven billion people on Earth.

Instead of voting on everything, they have people do it for them on cases where voting is unnecessary, but should their actions conflict with the interests of the masses, they would be disposed, as the "Army" would be made up of a worker's armed local militia.

I am no fortune teller, though, unlike you.

:

I thought you'd read Mutual Aid and Conquest of Bread. It outlines pretty clearly in those books precisely what I think.

Mutual aid is not about a future society, it is a refution to social Darwinism.

Conquest of Bread outlines the authors views in a fancy, appealing manner but none the less a lot of it is still crap (Chomsky does it too).

No, I don't think the workers should vote on "every little fucking thing", that would be completely pointless and impractical.

so who will carry out the interests of the workers and decide things that they don't need to vote on? Representatives?

What I am suggesting is that communities are organised by those who live in them

Only to a certain extent. We are not going to let mormans or wahabis force little girls to marry old men.

We are not going to let an oil rich town hoard all the oil, as earth's recources would belong to everyone.

Universal Laws would be needed, too, and would vary by region with many exceptions.

But regarding working routine, organization in the factory, etc. sure, maybe that all could be decided locally.

; industry and trade should be organised by those who work in them and that there is federated, direct democratic structure by which to link them all.

that's not going to work. I won't explain why.

But why would you think that's how it would work? :blink:

I was over exaggerating.

I am just pointing out how impractical it would be.

This is just petty. For someone who claims to have read Mutual Aid and Conquest of Bread, you really fail to grasp the finer details. That's really surprising considering the detail of those books...

I don't hold those books as fact or indisputible doctrine so I don't see why I should have to agree with them. I've read them, that doesn't mean they are correct.

Well yes. The bourgeois state routinely comes into conflict with the capitalist class.

That never happens. All of the actions by the Bourgeois state are controlled by the Bourgeoisie. The only ones who complain are the Petite Bourgeoisie and the lower crust of the bourgeoisie, but in reality all actions taken by the state have the intention on preserving the class position of every member of the Bourgeoisie (with exceptions).

A state cannot be bourgeois if it comes into conflict with the bourgeoisie. Are you denying the bourgeoisie controls the state and could do whatever they wanted with the state, if they deemed it necessary?

Even Anarchists acknowledge this.

That doesn't make any sense in the context of what I said.

Read it again.

I don't contend that the state would "corrupt", I contend that the state is, by it's very nature, not capable of withering away

So if htat is true (which it is not) why do you think a state controlled by the proletariat will never exist? The state served the proletariat in Russia, at start.

Why do you think the state will turn against them, if the revolution was carrried out in the big countries succesfully? Because they will corrupt?

, since the modus operandi of its structures is specifically designed to perpetuate itself.

Not necessarily if they are controlled by a proletarian dictatorship. Should the proletariat control the state, then the structures would be designed to 'perpetuate' the rule of the proletariat.

in the case of Russia, you had two problem.s

1. It didn't spread.

2. More importantly you had a Proletarian minority. Russia wasn't industrialized and was living in the remains of Feudalism. By nature the state could not have been completely democratic. You can just see all of the problems unfold as a result of russia's terrible conditions. But if the revolution would have spread, Russia would have transitioned (With the peasant class vanishing (not by murder you fool, but just like they did at the end of feudalism)) into socialism much more easily, without the invaders. The situation was a disaster, I am surprise the Bolsheviks were even able to maintain any sort of power at all!

Are you making a statement or asking me a question?

What does it look like? A statement!

This containment vs non-containment is a false dichotomy. An international revolution would be made up of national revolutions, not one, co-ordinated international revolution.

I know what you are saying. But once these revolutions come into place, you will see a sort of solidarity internationally by all of the proletariat revolting, just like you see solidarity between the Bourgeois-Liberal revolutions in the middle east.

The proletariat states would not come into conflict with each other, so the problem of containment would vanish. The only reason it has to spread is because

1. The revolution cannot survive without the destruction of the world market

2. Cannot survive with several, or one country invading it.

But the point is, is that after those national revolutions I seen o reason why those countries would attack each other.

By their very nature, the revolutions would be "contained".

No, they would not, and they did not in 1917-1919. Even in an unindustrialized nation like russia, when the revolution broke out it shook the whole world.

Marxist-Leninists would still seek to form centralised political authority; would still seek to consolidate that state and form representatives to operate it. There would still likely be a civil war and the state would still have to contend with defence.

Because Marxism Leninism is not a proletarian ideology, rather it has become an opportunistic Bourgeois deveation from socialist politics and is simply left of capital.

Marxism Leninism was formulated out of desperation and the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution. Should a revolution occur, it won't be led by them (with third world exceptions).

I reject this containment/non-containment binary.

Because you don't understand it.

Why 17? Why not 1? Why not with internal civil war?

I was just referring to the Bolshevik situation. think with your head. If the country is being invaded by one industrialized country and a civil war, then we assume that the other 16 have had proletarian revolutions. Every capitalist country will try to contain a proletarian revolution. So we must assume these country's are no longer "capitalist".

So with that being said, it would be easy to repel this invasion, with friends internationally. Plus a counter revolution would be weak without international support, training and arms shipments.

So now you agree with me...? :huh:

You were right in that a class contradiction formed between the Bolsheviks and the Proletariat, And you got it right on the process on which it happened. But you are wrong as to why it happened.

I don't know what you mean by "measures". The state will always consolidate it's power, that's the purpose of the state.

if the state is controlled by the proletariat?

I know that.

Glad you do, now.

Are we talking about political conditions or economic ones? I think it's important not to conflate the two, although of course there is obvious cross-over, especially when the Soviet Union is concerned.

Politics are a result and a consequence of economics, so it is economic conditions, while political conditions are a reflection of the economic conditions.

You, and other Leninists, argue for the creation of centralised political authority, irrespective of whether the revolution is international.

If the revolution is contained and is not international then I recognized the centralized political authority would become Bourgeois.

In that case, I don't see how the conditions of political dominance can be avoided,

Political dominance by the proletariat will not be avoided.

since centralised political authority, by its very structures, aim to perpetuate. The central government, judiciary, army, security apparatus are all designed to maintain political dominance, even over workers who express their interests for direct democracy.

See above.

What measures? I don't know what you mean by "measures"? Do you mean consolidate their political dominance? As I've answered and initially argued, it cannot be avoided. The structure of a state (i.e. centralised political authority) is designed to create and perpetuate political dominance. Its not a question of people suddenly getting into a positions of power and loving it, it's to do with the fact that once they're in those positions of power, their job is to maintain the structures that defend that power, which ultimately perpetuates their existence. This then comes into conflict with the interests of the workers.

So you believe that the state, from day one will act as a seperate interest from the proletariat, right?

And why would you think that? The state is designed to do the bidding of the class that controls it.

The State is not an external force in class warfare. It must be controlled by a class. Should conditions change in the negative terms (Containment) the state becomes controlled by a new Bourgeoisie.

That's not a response. If you make assertions, you have to back them up. You expect it from me, so why shouldn't you be expected to do it also?

Whatever. The reason I am not responding so thoughourlly is because I know this for a fact. You can go along whatever intellectual path you like, I've seen enough.

What is that model and why is it impractical. Please explain yourself.

The model in which Workers manage Earth through direct democracy (And we are assuming that the world will be gone of Capitalism and the Bourgeois state).

The model in which Pakistan, for example, will be relieved of it's problems in a decentralized manner, in which things like education, industrialization, advancement in culture will not exist. Unless you think advacement in culture comes not as a result of material conditions, which is Idealist.

And you cannot except a country like Pakistan to be placed in conditions in which culture will advance in that respect.

The model which Anarchists provide for third world countries is laughable, at that.

:lol:

Sorry, can you provide a quote where I have suggested that small collectives manage the world?

You are against political centralization, and support decentralized control of the world, right? These posts are so damn big I'm not going on a scavanger hunt to look for it. You can do it if you want, since you care about finding the quote so bad (which I don't, since I already saw it).

This is pathetic. This isn't a way to conduct a discussion. If you want to participate in this debate then you have to actually participate. You can't just say stupid things like this.

I'm just doing what you are doing. It is pathetic, I tried to make a point. It was no more pathetic then the segment I replied to with that.

You made an assertion about my opinions which I reject. If you want to continue to make that assertion then provide a quote. Otherwise you're wrong.

Anarcho Capitalists reject that they are authoritarian, but they still are, in reality.

Where have I done this. Provide me with some quotes.

read your own damn posts and ask why I would come to such a conclusion. In the same way Anarcho Capitalists deny themselves to be authoritarian.

Not once have I stated that I think "power corrupts". I don't even understand how this platitude relates in any way to what I've said.

Not once have Stalinists admitted that they hold Stalin higher then the proletariat itself, but we all know this to be true.

You're basically just calling me a liar.

no, I think you're confused about your ideological views.

You have some ego and anger issues that you should resolve.

They're only natural when talking to shit heads like you.

Yet you consistently fail to understand it. It's OK to admit that you don't understand.

It may be OK but it's not appropriate, as I understand fully what you are spouting out.

FULLY. If I didn't I'd make Google searches and find them out before I reply, unlike you, who cannot even comprehend the role of the state in a proletarian revolution.

It's not muddled at all. The state is rhetorically a class organised to suppress another, but in practical terms it's the structures of centralised political authority.

No, it's muddled. For a long time Socialists have bickered and argued as to what exactly the state is, and no real concrete definition has been made by them in which they all agree on. You are right, it is designed for a class to suppress another. But it is also a lot of other things.

Political authority would be organised from communities outwards, rather than from the centre downwards.

I don't see how that would work. Please explain in full detail how communities would organize planet earth from "Downwords". Explain in vivid detail and provide proof as to how that would work, and linking quotes by Anarchists regarding Spain or Ukraine do not count, since that was not the whole world.

So let's hear it. how do you think that would work. And don't just say "The workers will decide everything in there own communities" because I want the fine details. I want to know how the worker's are going to all agree with each other, and how all of the communities will never get into disputes. And if they do, I want to know who is going to organize and resolve these disputes, since everything is controlled by each individual community in a decentralized matter. Come on. Let's hear it.

What does "dominated by the proletariat" mean in reality. I mean, you've already said "he delegetes who represent them and the worker's themselves", which seems to me an admission of their distinction.

It is. The delegetes today exist to carry out the interests of the bourgeoisie and assure their dominance. It will exist no different, in that respect.

How is the "state dominated by the prolertariat" practically organised? The prolertariat as a whole cannot operate the state (as you yourself point out), that's why they have representatives. So while rhetorically it might be "dominated by the workers", in actual reality, the state is managed by representatives of the workers.

So why do you think the Representatives, who were placed and elected by proletarian councils, would decide to turn on the proletariat and serve the interests of themselves, or, how you put it "Assure the state is maintained" as a priority that is before the rule of the masses?

... Unless you think they will corrupt their power :lol:

I just r-read the Chapter ('Higher Phase of Communism') and Lenin is talking about all states, but actually in the context of the 'workers' state, when he says: "So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3

But conditions change. I don't take Lenin's word as something sacred, by the way.

So you accept that nation workers states would exist? In that case, my point still stands.

But these nations would merge together with other nations, or at the least form some kind of none useless UN. Eventually, (unlike capitalist states, who naturally are bound to compete and fight against each other for things like the profit motive, capitalist mode of production etc.) they would see no reason to be separate states and would merge together. From there I couldn't tell you what would happen.

Based on what?

Because you cannot get rid of a weapon without first taking the weapon from your enemy and disposing of it yourself. Common sense.

Then why are you participating in this discussion?

Because it is a matter of facts, not opinion.

You think a book written by Makhno's secretary, who was there by his side fighting during the revolution and was in exile with him afterwards is less credible than something written for the International Socialist Review? :confused:

Yeah, because I assume Makhno's secretary would be just a little bit biased toward his old pal and the Black army. Of course, should he reveal the truth, then not only is his pal Makhno discredited, so is himself.

But you don't. I'm not being rude, I'm just stating a fact. You seem to have an ego problem. You don't understand this argument, which is precisely why you keep reducing it to "power corrupts" and then not explaining how that's my argument.

You are not aware that your argument is based off of Bourgeois thinking. That is my point. You assume the state is naturally a seperate interest from the class that controls it, that is a problem. And if you deny that, what do you have? that representatives will turn against the proletariat. No matter the reason you think they will do that, that is, still, by definition "corrupting" since they originally would be carrying out the interests of that class and then turning on them. And you think this will happen naturally. Lovely materialism you got there.

Why wouldn't we workers be able to organise ourselves?

They could not do it completely. An external force would be required to organize themselves on a massive scale, after that, perhaps they could "organize themselves" so long as the framework of organization was already built.

Well, I work every day side-by-side with other workers. I struggle with them against capital and I organise with them in political and economic organisations. My first hand experience with my fellow workers demonstrates to me, whether they are good-hearted or not, that they are willing and capable of organising their on lives.

And they are organizing there lives while already living in a framework that has been organized by an external force, i.e. the bourgeois state. Without which, where would they get the education to learn what they should and should not do?

I think this is the fundamental difference between my outlook and yours. My outlook takes into consideration the working class as real people and not as an abstract in a theoretical equation.

The proletariat are real people, and real people are not super humans who know the path to everything.

...No...Unless staying alive and re-building society are morals? :confused:

Staying alive is Selfish while Re Building society is not. Re building society means what? Why would they want to do that if they already have all of the glorious things produced already under capitalism? What do I mean by this?

A skyscraper. Why would they want to demolish that and re build something better when they could just live inside of it or loot it?

You see what I mean? Why not just take advantage of what was already built in capitalism but just re organize yourselfs in a different manner?

And what about the kids that come after? education? Should it be like some sort of fucking cult or some small town thing going on? Because that fucking sucks, from experience.

I thought you'd read Conquest of Bread.

I did, and I disagree with it. I am asking you., not kropotkin.

Through organisation. That's normally how things get done.

you can't just fucking say that without providing why they would want to organize themselves and why they would or how they would organize themselves in a manner that would do so. Organization will not exist with the model you provide.

Huh? You don't know what the working class is? Erm...You know. The people in society that are forced to sell their labour...

What do you mean when you answer my question with "The working class"? What do you mean by that? The working class will not be some abstract force of good spiritied people.

You know what you sound like? A free marketer whose solution to everything is "Free Market". What do you mean by Free Market, Mr. Misean? In what way?

It depends what you mean by representatives.

People who, you know, would be elected and would represent the interests of the proletariat?

The creation of industry and trade plenums would be on a regional, national and international level, as I've already described.

Who will organize people to join in? Are you saying that they are just going to "do it" by themselves? How long will that take? Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Well, who else will operate them?

I am just mocking your dumb solution to everything. replace Working class with free market and you get what I'm saying. There is no detail.

It's very telling that someone who claims to be fighting on behalf of the workers thinks we're so ridiculous.

Your model of organization is ridiculous. You work against the working class, had it your way, they would be eating bigger shit then they are now in capitalism.

This just goes to show your utter contempt for working class people. You talk about us in the abstract. You speak about us as if we're stupid and it would be ridiculous to consider that post-revolution we would be able to organise our own lives. I mean, what are you trying to fight for?

More emotional shit.

Listen, prick, stop jumping to those kinds of conclusions. I don't consider workers an exception in this regard to the whole human race, the only difference between the proletariat and everyone else is that they hold the key to the future and are the only solution in abolishing capitalism and replacing it with something more efficient. Other then that, they are just as human as anyone else and haven o moral authority over anyone.

Do you even have any links to the working class? Do you participate in economic and political struggles? Do you say these views to workers?

none of your buisness. YOu know an opponent is getting desperate when he resorts to personal arguments, lifestylist ones none the less :cool:

Have we not just had a revolution?

Assuming a revolution can even be carried out with the shit model your provide.

But even if it does, who cares? Revolutionary spirit only lasts so long...

Provide evidence or retract your statement.

I could say the same thing to every one of your segments of your post. But I won't.

Again, I already know for a fact. I won't hold your hand. Think for yourself and actually THINK. It's not hard.

think or piss off.

I wasn't talking about idealism. There is a difference between something being 'idealist' and 'idealistic'. You should know that, being as you're so smart.

There is no difference, unless you go to the petty Liberalist mainstream version of the word Idealistic. Idealistic is to be partly idealist. Idealist is to be fully idealist.

And it's precisely the definition of rhetoric. You aren't talking in concrete terms when you say: "But Representatives of the workers = the interests of the workers" you're just relying on a rhetorical device. What does this mean in reality? I'm asking you a question...

It means the representatives of the workers will not act as a separate interest in regards to the actual workers who put them into power.

Firstly, I never claimed that using the word "material" makes me a "materialist". Secondly, I am asking you to explain your views in material terms. That's to say, practical, objective, real. I am asking you to explain how your theories will apply in the real world.

And you have not shown how they will not apply in the real world.

This is really common sense. It is not complex at all.

I have no reason to think otherwise.

You're naive and dismissive of the "real, actually existing material world".

What's emotional about that statement. You asked whether I think the international working class can co-ordinate production and distribution. My answer is Yes. I do think that. I answered the question you asked me. I realise it's contrary to your own, but I don't know what more I can say.

Perhaps not emotional, but no different in regards to Libertarians saying the free market will fix us all of our problems.

What will so and so do?

Free market.

How will that happen?

Free Market.

Etc.

replace free market with working class

Patagonia

23rd November 2011, 23:07

Do you even have any links to the working class? Do you participate in economic and political struggles? Do you say these views to workers?

none of your buisness. YOu know an opponent is getting desperate when he resorts to personal arguments, lifestylist ones none the less

I think your keyboard smashing is making you miss the point. I would ask you the very same thing, since you seem to constantly assert that the working class is a herd of useless drones that can't do anything for themselves. Most people I met that shared your views were in reality really disconnected from the day to day of the toilers, and were not in touch with them. As a result, I think they (and you) form a mental image of the working class that is far from accurate.

Rafiq

24th November 2011, 02:03

I think your keyboard smashing is making you miss the point. I would ask you the very same thing, since you seem to constantly assert that the working class is a herd of useless drones that can't do anything for themselves. Most people I met that shared your views were in reality really disconnected from the day to day of the toilers, and were not in touch with them. As a result, I think they (and you) form a mental image of the working class that is far from accurate.

The world can't be managed or organized without representatives...

Workers or no workers they're still people. I would assume that thry would organize themselves for a couple years after the revolution, but after a while many problems would arise that they would not be able to fix in a decentralized manner.

Rafiq

24th November 2011, 02:04

http://i.imgur.com/ChOst.jpg

I wouldn't give this conversation the privilege of calling it a debate.

Patagonia

24th November 2011, 02:39

If "workers are people", and subject to making mistakes or not knowing everything, as you seem to be implying, what makes you think these "representatives" are going to make the right decisions all the time? I mean, they're people too, right? I doubt that these representatives know more about the work to be done than... well, the workers.

The Insurrection

24th November 2011, 13:49

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/bakuninimmorality.html

:)

Did you read it? I'm assuming you didn't. That text addresses the moral history of the state, it doesn't in any way talk about the core thinking of anarchism or make the argument that anarchism is based on ethics...

I suggest you read the links you provide otherwise you'll end up being embarrassed.

It's really not fucking hard. If you can't understand that Anarchism is a matter of ethics then I just feel bad for you.You seem to have forgotten what we are talking about. You said: "The core of Anarchist thinking is based off of ethics."

You have still failed to show that. The link you've provided, if you'd read it, isn't about the core thinking of anarchism, it's about the moral history of the state.

I just explained why but you just ignored me and started talking out of your ass (as usual) so all the worst. I can't work out whether you're really inexperienced at talking to people you disagree with, or whether you just have anger issues. Perhaps you could conduct yourself with a little bit of decorum, rather than continuously swearing. It's just a bit childish.

Why do Anarchsits oppose authority?

1. Some Anarchists oppose it because they think that it leads to the removal of power from the proletariat.

2. Anarchists deem authoritarianism immoral and an infringement on the human being, against individualism, etc.

These are all fucking morals. K? Now do you want me to hold your hand? Widdle baby needs me to teach them how to walk too? Do you honestly not realise how ridiculous you sound? You actually just used the word "widdle"...:lol:

Can you explain how opposition to a system of organisation that removes power from the working class is immoral? The objetive of anarchist communism is to create an anarchist communist society, We cannot practically achieve that if the working class are powerless in society. That's not a moral statement, it's just a fact.

On your second point, there are some misconceptions. What does "infringement" mean? What does "human being" mean? We want the working class to be liberated and free from external forces. We realise we cannot create communism without achieving that. In what way is that a moral view?

You see, I don't think those things are "immoral", I think they are antithetical to the creation of communism. You say that anarchists believe these things to be "immoral", so can you please explain how we think that? What is the argument we use to make the claim that it is immoral?

they never openly said that, as (Bakunin declared himself against Moralists) but never the less they are still moralists, and the basis of their ideology in comparison to other currents of socialism is based around ethics. Just like Anarcho Capitalists claim themselves to be against authoritarianism, they are just as authoritarian as anyone else.There is undoubtedly anarchist ethics. I don't deny that. What I reject is the notion that anarchism is "based" on ethics, since that's just not the case. Not for social anarchists anyway.

I'll provide some quotes:

Anarchism, the no-government system of socialism, has a double origin. It is an outgrowth of the two great movements of thought in the economic and the political fields which characterise the nineteenth century, and especially its second part. In common with all socialists, the anarchists hold that the private ownership of land, capital, and machinery has had its time; that it is condemned to disappear; and that all requisites for production must, and will, become the common property of society, and be managed in common by the producers of wealth.

The Scientific Bases of Anarchy (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/SBA.html)

Is it necessary to repeat here the irrefutable arguments of Socialism which no bourgeois economist has yet succeeded in disproving? What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor - that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both.

The Capitalist System (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/capstate.html)

For further reading about what social anarchism is based on I suggest you read What is Communist Anarchism by Alexander Berkman (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html). You can also read Introduction to Anarchist Communism by the Anarchist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/afed_introduction_anarchist_communism.pdf)

It's not my opinion, it's a fucking fact. I don't care if you disagree with me because the fact is still there. I just fucking linked you a book by Bakunin called "immorality and the state" :laugh: Are you that stupid to not see? You need to be more considerate about what you're saying. You never began this particular part of the discussion by saying that anarchist ethics exist, you started it by saying: "The core of Anarchist thinking is based off of ethics."

That's why I said: "The fact of the matter is, no social anarchist has ever discussed ethics as an actual starting point or foundation on which anarchism should be built."

So far you have only managed to demonstrate that there exists a kind of 'anarchist ethic', just as there is a 'Marxist ethic'. You have not demonstrated how "the core of anarchist thinking is based off of ethics", especially since most anarchists would say and have argued in history, that the 'core thinking' of anarchism is: class struggle

they never openly said that, as (Bakunin declared himself against Moralists) but never the less they are still moralistsEveryone is a moralist to some degree. You can't avoid morals or ethics, otherwise how would you function?

the basis of their ideology in comparison to other currents of socialism is based around ethics."At first this ideal naturally manifests itself in the passionate desire of the people to put an end to their poverty and misery and to satisfy all their material needs by collective labor, equally obligatory for all. Later it will come to include the abolition of all domination, and the free organization of the life of the country in accord with the needs of the people. This will mean the rejection of the State’s form of control from the top in favor of organization from the bottom up, created by the people themselves, without governments and parliaments. This would be organization achieved by the free participation of associations, of the agricultural and industrial workers, of the communes and the provinces. Ultimately, in the more distant future, it would erect on the ruins of all states the fraternity of peoples."
- Bakunin, Statism and Anarchy

Here are some extracts (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1873/statism-anarchy.htm) where the above quote is included.

It's like that. Although the founders of Anarchism do not like to admit it, they are Moralists.We are all moralists. You, me, Marx and Bakunin.

Anarchism's core is ethics, and it has always been that way.Except of course that's demonstrably not the case. As I've shown.

If you want to go deeper, Anarchism can be founded upon types of Ethics such as Normative, Meta Ethics and the likes. You seem to be confused. First of all, let's be clear. There is a difference between what anarchism is founded on and what anarchist ethics are founded on. You keep conflating the two, which is a bit clumsy.

Secondly, you seem to be confused. I don't see how anarchism can be based on normative ethics and meta-ethics at the same time. They're two distinct types of ethics. I mean, maybe they can, you'd have to explain. Can an ideology "be" a meta-ethic? I'm not sure it can since meta-ethics is about understanding what moral judgments are, rather than how to form them.

As they provide what aught to be done, and have established by themselves what is deemed moral and what is immoral. That's kind of stating the obvious. Of course morals attempt to provide answers about what is moral and immoral, that's pretty much the purpose of ethics. The problem here is that you've stated two different branches of ethics that actually include various different ideas.

You need to clarify which branch of ethics you're talking about and then pinpoint from that which kind of normative ethics, meta-ethical questions you think anarchist ethics is founded on or asking.

I won't discuss the matter with you again (ethical anarchism) because it's not hard to comprehendWhy are you failing to comprehend it then? It's a shame you don't want to discuss this further because you're making good progress in understanding the things you believe. If you can clarify the above problems that I've identified you might finally be able to know what you're talking about.

your'e wasting my timeYet you keep responding to me. If you don't have very much time, don't hit the reply button. It's not my fault you keep responding...:confused:

It's like me trying to explain to someone proof that I am typing on a computer. I don't care what your opinion is. It's a fact. Obviously you do care because you keep responding.

Actually, I fucking have. If you are that stupid and you cannot read then piss off. I mean what the fuck am I arguing with? It's like I'm arguing with a religious person. A brick wall. I've addressed your shit half assed argument, and I've provided you with historical examples and evidence. Go look and see. I am not going to keep re posting this shit, it's getting old. No where in your posts have you addressed this argument: The interests of the representatives of the workers, whose aim is to manage and protect the state cannot be the same as the workers "themselves" whose aim is to create direct workers democracy and a stateless society, which leads to a contradiction in the theory.

All users reading this. Go up, scroll up and see my post. This fucking troll is talking out of his ass now, pulling up quotes from me that have NOTHING at all to do with the class antagonism that formed between the Bolsheviks and the Proletariat. NOTHING at all, I was addressing a DIFFERENT segment of his post. But this snake took that and said that is how I responded to him, when confronted with it. I also invite readers to go back through the posts and see for themselves. If they are able to scrape away your name calling and profanities they will be able to see for themselves that you have no addressed the above argument.

--

I'm afraid I don't have time to finish responding to the whole post, but I have responded to a third of it for the time being.

Yazman

24th November 2011, 14:40

http://i.imgur.com/ChOst.jpg

You're not allowed to make image posts like this in Learning. Do it again and you'll be infracted.

Elysian

25th November 2011, 10:08

Rafiq, get a grip. Your arguments have no substance other than hate and anger, whereas 'The Insurrection' is providing mountains of evidence to substantiate his claims. Read, absorb everything, and then argue.:)

Anarchism is the way forward, this so-called Marxist workers state is a failure right from the beginning; history will attest to that.

Comrade Hill

26th November 2011, 02:09

As a Leninist, I don't see anything wrong with the "idea" of anarchism.

It's how people want to achieve it, is what I disagree with. From what I've gathered from this thread, it seems like people just want to rebel against the entire global system simultaneously.

The current system the Anarchists want to rebel against, is both the state AND the bourgeoisie. How can we possibly take down both the state and the bourgeoisie all at once? Sometimes, it's not possible to simply "get around the sham." Given the current conditions, humans have their scientific boundaries. Not all the workers around the work are going to learn class consciousness all at once.

I will have to read up on the works of Anarchists in order to form a more rational opinion. Maybe it's more complicated than what the anarchists in this thread are describing, but so far I am not convinced.

Durutii Column

26th November 2011, 02:37

The current system the Anarchists want to rebel against, is both the state AND the bourgeoisie. How can we possibly take down both the state and the bourgeoisie all at once? Sometimes, it's not possible to simply "get around the sham." Given the current conditions, humans have their scientific boundaries. Not all the workers around the work are going to learn class consciousness all at once.
It is called workers councils and we are not currently in revolutionary situation so that is why we do not have more class consciousness.

Durutii Column

26th November 2011, 02:45

It's really not fucking hard. If you can't understand that Anarchism is a matter of ethics then I just feel bad for you.
All systems of political philosophy require some sort of morals. Even Marxism requires the labor theory of value to say that capitalism is illegitimate.

Rafiq

26th November 2011, 03:05

I'll get back to you all very soon, sorry for the delay, I've been traveling

Comrade Hill

26th November 2011, 03:21

It is called workers councils and we are not currently in revolutionary situation so that is why we do not have more class consciousness.

So you are going to wait for the entire world to form workers councils?

When are we going to be in a "revolutionary situation?"

Art Vandelay

26th November 2011, 03:42

So you are going to wait for the entire world to form workers councils?

When are we going to be in a "revolutionary situation?"

Correct me if I am wrong, but is essentialy your question about the DOTP?

Comrade Hill

26th November 2011, 04:35

Correct me if I am wrong, but is essentialy your question about the DOTP?

Sort of, but not really :p

I'm asking when we are ever going to be in a GLOBAL state of "revolution." When do you think this will ever happen? Are you willing to wait more than 5 years? Because global climate change created by the capitalist system and it's social inertia, is predicted to be irreversible by then.

I am not going to sit around and wait for the entire global proletariat to have class consciousness. Something needs to be done quickly, in one country, and then after that the other.

Even though we may not achieve true socialism until the whole world is socialist, Marx taught us that we couldn't just stick to one idea forever, and we needed to adapt to our conditions. Our conditions are currently producing more and more limitations and obstacles for us. Class consciousness should be taught by Marxist organizations, whether they be from anarchists or leninists, AFTER THE REVOLUTION IN ONE COUNTRY, is when we should worry about tendencies and our disagreements....

MagÃ³n

26th November 2011, 05:17

I'm asking when we are ever going to be in a GLOBAL state of "revolution."

Tomorrow, around 12PST.

Seriously though, nobody can say until we're already there. No Marxist or Anarchist, can say.

When do you think this will ever happen? Are you willing to wait more than 5 years? Because global climate change created by the capitalist system and it's social inertia, is predicted to be irreversible by then.

Again, nobody can say, it's completely up in the air, especially in today's world. The Occupy Movement isn't, and might not ever be, in a stage where it can take a revolutionary step and some others after that.

I am not going to sit around and wait for the entire global proletariat to have class consciousness. Something needs to be done quickly, in one country, and then after that the other.

Yeah, usually that doesn't work. Revolution in one country, then spreading it.

Marx taught us that we couldn't just stick to one idea forever, and we needed to adapt to our conditions.

This is pretty funny coming from a Marxist-Leninist.

Our conditions are currently producing more and more limitations and obstacles for us. Class consciousness should be taught by Marxist organizations, whether they be from anarchists or leninists, AFTER THE REVOLUTION IN ONE COUNTRY, is when we should worry about tendencies and our disagreements....

That doesn't make sense. Why would a Marxist organization, teach Anarchist theory if they're Marxist, and trying to bring people to Socialism? Kind of naive thinking I'm afraid.

Comrade Hill

26th November 2011, 06:08

Tomorrow, around 12PST.

Seriously though, nobody can say until we're already there. No Marxist or Anarchist, can say.

I realize why this is.....but it seems like a "global revolution" would happen a lot later rather than sooner, compared to "Socialism in one country."

Again, nobody can say, it's completely up in the air, especially in today's world. The Occupy Movement isn't, and might not ever be, in a stage where it can take a revolutionary step and some others after that.

So then what will be considered a revolutionary step to you, since in order for a revolution to work, the entire world has to participate?

Yeah, usually that doesn't work. Revolution in one country, then spreading it.

The reason why it didn't work, is because the Soviet Union became reformist, and tried to change the political system without changing the economic system.....that is like taking 1 card away from a house of cards.

Us Marxist-Leninists have surely learned from our mistakes we made in the Soviet Union. We will never let anyone like Khrushchev, or Gorbachev, take power again.

This is pretty funny coming from a Marxist-Leninist.

Funny huh? You think what I said about materialism and adapting new strategies, is funny, just because M-L's are anti-revisionists and they do not want to stray away from science (Marx's theory), and become a bunch of utopians? Just because we won't abandon the Soviet Union and choose to dream instead? Are you sure sitting around and dreaming about a global revolution is a good "adaptive" strategy?

That doesn't make sense. Why would a Marxist organization, teach Anarchist theory if they're Marxist, and trying to bring people to Socialism? Kind of naive thinking I'm afraid.

Yes. Very naive thinking indeed. I'm glad I didn't say any of that.

What I did say, is that a Marxist organization, whether it has anarchists or leninists, should teach marx's law of value theory, and talk about why capitalism is bad, why the outlook of the future is grim, etc.

Or are you saying anarchists don't agree with the Law of Value?

Art Vandelay

26th November 2011, 19:02

I realize why this is.....but it seems like a "global revolution" would happen a lot later rather than sooner, compared to "Socialism in one country."

Socialism cannot happen in one country. Read some Engels: Principles of Communism. Point 19.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

So then what will be considered a revolutionary step to you, since in order for a revolution to work, the entire world has to participate?

World revolution will not happen in one stroke. Obviously some places will be the first to fall and it will spread. There was a reason Lenin said without a revolution in Germany we are doomed.

The reason why it didn't work, is because the Soviet Union became reformist, and tried to change the political system without changing the economic system.....that is like taking 1 card away from a house of cards.

There were many reasons why the USSR failed, the main one being that workers never had control over the means of production.....

Us Marxist-Leninists have surely learned from our mistakes we made in the Soviet Union. We will never let anyone like Khrushchev, or Gorbachev, take power again.

This is what it comes down to with me and stalinists. If the type of society that you truly want to build is what took place in the USSR, you are no comrade of mine. Come time for revolution we will be on opposite sides and just a hint you will not be with the people.

Funny huh? You think what I said about materialism and adapting new strategies, is funny, just because M-L's are anti-revisionists and they do not want to stray away from science (Marx's theory), and become a bunch of utopians? Just because we won't abandon the Soviet Union and choose to dream instead? Are you sure sitting around and dreaming about a global revolution is a good "adaptive" strategy?

It's funny huh? Well sorry sir but you are really showing your ignorance. If you think "dreaming about a global revolution" is a bad strategy, I guess I will be just labelled a dreamer along with Marx and oh I don't know every other revolutionary other than big ole uncle Joe. :rolleyes:

What I did say, is that a Marxist organization, whether it has anarchists or leninists, should teach marx's law of value theory, and talk about why capitalism is bad, why the outlook of the future is grim, etc.

Why would a Marxist organization have anarchists in it? And by the way there is more the revolutionary left than Leninists and anarchists.

Or are you saying anarchists don't agree with the Law of Value?

Depends on who you ask.

Comrade Hill

26th November 2011, 20:25

Socialism cannot happen in one country. Read some Engels: Principles of Communism. Point 19.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

What does Principles of Communism have to do with Socialism?

World revolution will not happen in one stroke. Obviously some places will be the first to fall and it will spread. There was a reason Lenin said without a revolution in Germany we are doomed.

I'm not sure what this is....you're quoting Lenin now? I think you are forgetting that Lenin is not on the side of anarchists. Everything that he says has no relevance to "simultaneous global revolution."

There were many reasons why the USSR failed, the main one being that workers never had control over the means of production.....

The USSR wouldve crumbled way before 1991 if that was the main reason it failed...

This is what it comes down to with me and stalinists. If the type of society that you truly want to build is what took place in the USSR, you are no comrade of mine. Come time for revolution we will be on opposite sides and just a hint you will not be with the people.

I don't think your understand what the Marxist-Leninists are supporting.

We won't want to try and attempt to "emulate the USSR" all around the world. A revolution in the USA, or Europe, is not going to look like the one that happened in the USSR. The conditions under the Soviet Union were brutal, and it was a completely different time.

The reason why we defend the Soviet Union, is because we believe that we believed they took the correct path for Marxism. That doesn't mean we are going to force the world to industrialize and put people in labour camps. Many parts of the world are already industrialized, so it would be much easier to jump into socialism.

It's funny huh? Well sorry sir but you are really showing your ignorance. If you think "dreaming about a global revolution" is a bad strategy, I guess I will be just labelled a dreamer along with Marx and oh I don't know every other revolutionary other than big ole uncle Joe. :rolleyes:

Marx was not a dreamer. He specifically pointed out the difference between Utopianism and science.

Why would a Marxist organization have anarchists in it? And by the way there is more the revolutionary left than Leninists and anarchists.

That was just an example.....I'm not going to sit here and list all of the tendencies.

I thought a Marxist organization would have anarchists in it because they would agree with some things that Marx said. Or perhaps they don't :bored:

Depends on who you ask.

What kind of communist doesn't agree with the Law of Value? :closedeyes:

MagÃ³n

26th November 2011, 20:31

I realize why this is.....but it seems like a "global revolution" would happen a lot later rather than sooner, compared to "Socialism in one country."

Well of course Global Revolution would happen later, if all you're doing is trying to set up Socialism in One Country, because all your time and energy goes into that one place, when it shouldn't. And from what history tells us, revolution can't even be spread properly when you're focusing with SiOC. What should be done, and this is just my own opinion, is if revolution breaks out in some country somewhere, with revolutionary forces battling the system's forces, energy and time cannot be solely put into that one country, but the next country that seems like the best place. Simply put, pick places where you know you can win, and build up from there, don't try and start spreading revolution in the US where it's probably a hotbed for reform and conservative agendas.

So then what will be considered a revolutionary step to you, since in order for a revolution to work, the entire world has to participate?

Well of course the entire world has to participate, Communism is an International ideology/system, and without the rest of the world it can't even come into being. I don't think revolution has to suddenly spring up in every single country right away, but you can't have it like the Soviet Union, because it fails, and has failed every time after that. When revolution breaks out into a country, you have to immediately start trying to create revolution elsewhere (look for where you know you can win). Think back to 1918, with Germany, but more organized and open to the actual situation of things, rather than just trying to copy and paste what was happening in Russia.

That's how I think revolution could work.

The reason why it didn't work, is because the Soviet Union became reformist, and tried to change the political system without changing the economic system.....that is like taking 1 card away from a house of cards.

Us Marxist-Leninists have surely learned from our mistakes we made in the Soviet Union. We will never let anyone like Khrushchev, or Gorbachev, take power again.

Yeah, you say that, but can you honestly say that for sure? No.

Funny huh? You think what I said about materialism and adapting new strategies, is funny, just because M-L's are anti-revisionists and they do not want to stray away from science (Marx's theory), and become a bunch of utopians? Just because we won't abandon the Soviet Union and choose to dream instead? Are you sure sitting around and dreaming about a global revolution is a good "adaptive" strategy?

So Anarchists are Utopians now because they choose to try something new rather than the same thing over and over again? I think it's rather Utopian to think that you can bring back a tried and failed system like the Soviet Union, and say it'll work this time, when in the first place it was a horribly setup system. That's dreaming, and every ML does it.

At least with Anarchists, we take to the streets in mass and march against the system that's in place, rather than block it off and protect it.

Yes. Very naive thinking indeed. I'm glad I didn't say any of that.

What I did say, is that a Marxist organization, whether it has anarchists or leninists, should teach marx's law of value theory, and talk about why capitalism is bad, why the outlook of the future is grim, etc.

Or are you saying anarchists don't agree with the Law of Value?

Why would Anarchists want to teach Marxist theory, when they're Anarchists, and as such consider Anarchist theory to be the way to go, not Marxist theory? I've never heard Anarchists going out and saying Marxism was the way to go, and I've never heard Marxists say Anarchism was the way to go.

Comrade Hill

26th November 2011, 20:36

MagÃ³n

26th November 2011, 20:48

Someone has already addressed the points that I made from that post.

I feel like I am wasting my time defending that post all over again. I'm going to wait for you to reply to my 2nd post, then I'll respond.

Rosario addressed them differently than I did, and didn't ask all of what I asked/responded with. So answer, and I'll answer your replies to my own, not Rosario's.

Comrade Hill

26th November 2011, 21:01

Well of course Global Revolution would happen later, if all you're doing is trying to set up Socialism in One Country, because all your time and energy goes into that one place, when it shouldn't. And from what history tells us, revolution can't even be spread properly when you're focusing with SiOC. What should be done, and this is just my own opinion, is if revolution breaks out in some country somewhere, with revolutionary forces battling the system's forces, energy and time cannot be solely put into that one country, but the next country that seems like the best place. Simply put, pick places where you know you can win, and build up from there, don't try and start spreading revolution in the US where it's probably a hotbed for reform and conservative agendas.

History doesn't tell us that SiOC is "wrong" and can't spread revolution.

What prevented revolution from spreading, was the cold war and western propaganda. Not the Soviet Union.

Well of course the entire world has to participate, Communism is an International ideology/system, and without the rest of the world it can't even come into being. I don't think revolution has to suddenly spring up in every single country right away, but you can't have it like the Soviet Union, because it fails, and has failed every time after that. When revolution breaks out into a country, you have to immediately start trying to create revolution elsewhere (look for where you know you can win). Think back to 1918, with Germany, but more organized and open to the actual situation of things, rather than just trying to copy and paste what was happening in Russia.

That's how I think revolution could work.

I guess I'm going to have to learn about Anarchist theory before I can truly understand this. Because I don't believe it's possible for the world to go straight from capitalism to communism.

Yeah, you say that, but can you honestly say that for sure? No.

Nothing is for certain, but you have to at least make an attempt to TRY.

So Anarchists are Utopians now because they choose to try something new rather than the same thing over and over again? I think it's rather Utopian to think that you can bring back a tried and failed system like the Soviet Union, and say it'll work this time, when in the first place it was a horribly setup system. That's dreaming, and every ML does it.

At least with Anarchists, we take to the streets in mass and march against the system that's in place, rather than block it off and protect it.

From what I've gathered, you simply just want to skip the whole "socialism phase" and go right into a stateless, classless society. It seems utopian to me, because it's not realistic, nor do you guys have any sort of plan of how youre going to carry this out. It's just supposed to "happen."

Why would Anarchists want to teach Marxist theory, when they're Anarchists, and as such consider Anarchist theory to be the way to go, not Marxist theory? I've never heard Anarchists going out and saying Marxism was the way to go, and I've never heard Marxists say Anarchism was the way to go.
[/quote]

Alright my fault for saying that.:rolleyes:

I guess the working class will remain unconscious about class, since the Marxists and the anarchists cannot work together to teach them about capitalism.

If you anarchists are truly communists like you say, then you are going to have to learn to work with your other comrades against capitalism. We cannot take down the bourgeoisie by ourselves.

MagÃ³n

26th November 2011, 21:17

History doesn't tell us that SiOC is "wrong" and can't spread revolution.

What prevented revolution from spreading, was the cold war and western propaganda. Not the Soviet Union.

There was plenty of blame on both sides. The Soviet Union failed to expand Socialism/Communism to other countries, because the government put more energy and time into their own country, than working to spread it elsewhere at a reasonable rate and place.

I guess I'm going to have to learn about Anarchist theory before I can truly understand this. Because I don't believe it's possible for the world to go straight from capitalism to communism.

Can't the revolution itself be the stage in between, rather than what's been tried and failed? Not every person in the revolution is up there on the frontline, fighting with rifle in hand, battling it out tooth and nail against the old system, there are plenty of people to be behind the lines, working to bring about the society we all want to see and live in. There is no need for a stage where there's fighting, victory, then no socialism/communism. But a system where the revolution itself is the transitional phase, should and can be tried.

Nothing is for certain, but you have to at least make an attempt to TRY.

I agree, but there's already been an attempt like you want, and it's failed. SiOC, has shown us that bureaucracy always takes control through one way or another, and socialism becomes corrupt and useless. The USSR, Nepal, China, Cuba, Angola, etc. are all examples of ML theory failing.

From what I've gathered, you simply just want to skip the whole "socialism phase" and go right into a stateless, classless society. It seems utopian to me, because it's not realistic, nor do you guys have any sort of plan of how youre going to carry this out. It's just supposed to "happen."

I gave you my idea of how it could be carried out. Maybe you should read some modern Anarchist lit., listen to some commentary on YouTube, etc., and actually realize that Anarchists have come up with ideas on how to go about going from now to then, without a bureaucratic bullshit phase.

Alright my fault for saying that.:rolleyes:

I guess the working class will remain unconscious about class, since the Marxists and the anarchists cannot work together to teach them about capitalism.

If you anarchists are truly communists like you say, then you are going to have to learn to work with your other comrades against capitalism. We cannot take down the bourgeois by ourselves.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you say that, but from history all I can see (and even in todays world) ML's have nothing but a backstabbing agenda when it comes to Anarchists. You say you want to work with us, but what happens? In history, ML's worked to oppress Anarchists when they didn't have the majority rule of the people (Spain), they shot them in streets and hunted them down (forever), and as for today ML's condemn Anarchist actions and defend the system we're trying to tear down (Greece).

So yeah, excuse me if I'm not too keen on working with ML's who've really shown their colors to Anarchists in the past and present.

Art Vandelay

26th November 2011, 21:31

What does Principles of Communism have to do with Socialism?

First off I think it is important to address that Marx described them as the lower and higher phase of communism, this whole socialism business came in with Lenin. The point that I was trying to make is that the whole idea of socialism in one country did not come along until it was convenient for Stalin. Once the revolution in Germany was crushed he conceived of this new theory to justify his continued bureaucratic rule, thus abandoning internationalism.

I'm not sure what this is....you're quoting Lenin now? I think you are forgetting that Lenin is not on the side of anarchists. Everything that he says has no relevance to "simultaneous global revolution."

I am quoting Lenin to show you that even he knew that socialism was not possible in one country. Obviously I know Lenin was not on the side of the anarchists, but he was also aware of the fact that they were doomed without a successful revolution in Germany.

The USSR wouldve crumbled way before 1991 if that was the main reason it failed...

The reasons why the USSR failed are many and various, not the point of the current discussion. I just find that there is no possible justification for apparent "socialists" controlling the means of production above the working class.

I don't think your understand what the Marxist-Leninists are supporting.

We won't want to try and attempt to "emulate the USSR" all around the world. A revolution in the USA, or Europe, is not going to look like the one that happened in the USSR. The conditions under the Soviet Union were brutal, and it was a completely different time.

The reason why we defend the Soviet Union, is because we believe that we believed they took the correct path for Marxism. That doesn't mean we are going to force the world to industrialize and put people in labour camps. Many parts of the world are already industrialized, so it would be much easier to jump into socialism.

I will admit that at times I can jump to conclusions when arguing with stalinists, but you seem to be more level headed and want to actually have a rational discussion and not a tendency war. But this is the fundamental difference. Your idea of a revolution the vanguard leading the way. I believe in the working class as a whole leading the revolution for themselves.

Marx was not a dreamer. He specifically pointed out the difference between Utopianism and science.

Indeed he did, Marx was also a materialist and would want to be seen as an 19th century thinker, confined by the same material conditions that all 19th century thinkers were. He is not infallible. My point was that you accuse us of being dreamers because we support world revolution instead of socialism in one country, if Marx were here today he would be on our side.

That was just an example.....I'm not going to sit here and list all of the tendencies.

I thought a Marxist organization would have anarchists in it because they would agree with some things that Marx said. Or perhaps they don't :bored:

I absolutely agree with what the vast vast majority of what Marx said and still view myself as somewhat of a Marxist. No anarchist however is going to agree to be in a democratic centralist organization. So as long as Leninists insist on their form of organization as the only way they will continue to alienate the vast majority of the left.

What kind of communist doesn't agree with the Law of Value?

Your question was do anarchists not agree with the law of value. I responded depends on who you ask, meaning some anarchists do some do not. I think you forgot your own question. I never mentioned communists once in my response.

Rafiq

27th November 2011, 17:09

So I replyed to the whole thing but before I could post it my power went out. Luckily I had chrome recovery but when I restored it all it did was show you're post and not my reply that I had typed in. No fucking way I'm typing it again and I am sure you'd do the same if you were in my situation.

I'll just give you time to think about it on your own, but I will say this much: The analysis that anarchism is structured for ethical reasons is an external analysis of anarchism, i.e. it is something that you can't link with "Proof" written by Anarchists themselves. I could link you a Marxist explanation, but I hardly think you'd want that.

I think somewhere you said we all do this for ethical reasons. No, we don't. Marxism is completely amoral in this sense, and the only reason Bourgeois Marxists would support the proletariat is for scientific reasons, not moral ones.

The core of Anarchist thinking has always been Morals. The concept of the worker's state was something Anarchsits rejected because it came into opposition with their moral framework and their ideological views, not because they saw a systematic flaw (that of which does not exist, considering the only argument was that the state was structured to protect itself and therefore will never wither away, which is complete crap, as the state is not a conscious being, rather it is a weapon that must be controlled by a class and can be abolished any time by the class that controls it).

The Insurrection

28th November 2011, 00:05

I'll just give you time to think about it on your own

Think about what?

The analysis that anarchism is structured for ethical reasons is an external analysis of anarchism, i.e. it is something that you can't link with "Proof" written by Anarchists themselves.So after posting two link to something you said proved you to be correct, you now claim that there is no proof written by anarchists. That seems a very huge and convenient leap backwards from your previous posts.

I could link you a Marxist explanation, but I hardly think you'd want that. Please link, I would very much like to read them.

I think somewhere you said we all do this for ethical reasons.No, I never said that. What I said was: "Everyone is a moralist to some degree. You can't avoid morals or ethics, otherwise how would you function?"

No, we don't. Marxism is completely amoral in this sense, and the only reason Bourgeois Marxists would support the proletariat is for scientific reasons, not moral ones.I think you're right in the sense that an orthodox reading of Marxism could be described as being "amoral", but the idea that there exists no sense of ethics in Marxism or indeed by Marxists themselves is an incredibly bizarre claim to make. The voluntarist aspects of Marxism implies there is a reason for being a communist. Karl Marx wanted communism to exist, as well as acknowledging it as historically determined. He called for workers organisations to fight for workers struggles; for them to gain concessions and improve their conditions. Why would he do that if there was no ethical motivation?

In any case, the person you quote in your signature would disagree with you: "Socialism should cease to be only the scientific prevision of the future. It should become the torch that kindles indomitable faith and energy in the hearts of people...."

Communist Morality by Felix Dzerzhinsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/dzerzhinsky/communist-morality/index.htm#s1)

Are you honestly telling us that you are not communist because you believe the workers should have better conditions and more control over society?

The core of Anarchist thinking has always been Morals.But I have demonstrated to you that this isn't the case.

The concept of the worker's state was something Anarchsits rejected because it came into opposition with their moral framework and their ideological views not because they saw a systematic flawBased on what evidence? I have provided you with links and quotes. Instead of just ignoring the evidence that I have provided, why not just read them? Because when all is said and done, you are unequivocally and emphatically wrong.

I suggest you read: The State and its Historic Role By Peter Kropotkin (http://libcom.org/library/state-its-historic-role-peter-kropotkin)

(that of which does not exist, considering the only argument was that the state was structured to protect itself and therefore will never wither awayLet me try this in a different way.

The state, as an organ of class suppression, also exists as a social function separate to society. Communism is about creating autonomy in order for workers to function freely: "...in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening,criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."

The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

With the existence of the state i.e. centralised political authority, hierarchy is naturalised or normalised as a social relationship. Hierarchy then functions in every aspect of society removing the ability for workers to achieve autonomy to exist freely in society. The state does nothing to abolish this social relationship and means it is antithetical to establishing communism.

which is complete crap, as the state is not a conscious being, rather it is a weapon that must be controlled by a class and can be abolished any time by the class that controls it).The successful transition from capitalism to communism isn't a military battle, it's a transferal of ownership over the means of production from capitalists to the workers. If the state is taking on the role as a capitalist class to manage the economy, then what are the economic conditions that will mean it just "withers away"? It's an anti-materialist argument to claim that the state can just be abolished at will.

Rafiq

28th November 2011, 03:14

Think about what?

Oh, nothing. It's bound to cross your mind eventually.

So after posting two link to something you said proved you to be correct, you now claim that there is no proof written by anarchists. That seems a very huge and convenient leap backwards from your previous posts.

I linked those to demonstrate the ethical nature of Anarchism. I thought it was obvious, but I started to catch on to your demands.

Please link, I would very much like to read them.

Splendid! I'll have to dig them up (As they are not 'common works', they are one of those things you come by and lose them). But I promise I'll get them.

No, I never said that. What I said was: "Everyone is a moralist to some degree. You can't avoid morals or ethics, otherwise how would you function?"

Of course you cannot avoid morals, but there is a difference between a moralist and a person who "has morals". Ethics as a basis for analysis and understanding of things is counter productive and Moralist, and ethics as a basis for a criticism of capitalism is garbage.

I think you're right in the sense that an orthodox reading of Marxism could be described as being "amoral", but the idea that there exists no sense of ethics in Marxism or indeed by Marxists themselves is an incredibly bizarre claim to make.

Well you have alienation theory and the likes, but the point is, is that the basis of Marxism is not based around ethics. You could be a Marxist and have absolutely no sense of morality at all, not have an understanding of "good" or "bad". I don't think you can say the same about Anarchism.

The core of anarchist thinking is Ethical, while the core of Marxist thinking is scientific and amoral. That doesn't mean Marxists don't have morals, though.

As an example, the works of Darwin(some, I guess), other scientists are amoral.

The voluntarist aspects of Marxism implies there is a reason for being a communist.

Not necessarily. Marxism is an analysis of communism as well, too. The reason a Marxist would want to be a communist would vary depending on the person, but if you are an academic and aren't a proletarian, you would probably be a Marxist out of scientific reasons, thus declaring yourself a communist only in the sense that you believe the proletariat is the only class capable of furthering the human constraint, and if the human constraint is pushed forward, things are better for everyone.

On the other hand, you could also understand that the inevitability of proletarian domination is existing, so you can side with the champions of history, rather then leaching on the crumbled forces of reaction and conservation.

Karl Marx wanted communism to exist, as well as acknowledging it as historically determined.

Marx wanted communism to exist because he knew it was going to exist regardless of his take on it. He also recognized it wasn't a state of affairs that is to be achieved, rather it is a process (like capitalism) and a movement that represents the interests of the proletariat. It was never a blueprint outlining how society should be run, for him (and engels) at least.

He called for workers organisations to fight for workers struggles; for them to gain concessions and improve their conditions. Why would he do that if there was no ethical motivation?

He may have had an ethical motivation, but even if he didn't it was because he recognized that their dominance was inevitable, therefore accepted it and saw no reason not to. He gave us a model in which we didn't have to rely on morals to understand capitalism, or history. So the ethics he had in this regards were irrelevant (and I doubt he would have them still today, considering conditions are far better then they were back in his time, he would probably hold an amoral, scientific reason for being anti capitalist(While still recognizing the exploitation of the proletariat, of course,)).

In any case, the person you quote in your signature would disagree with you: "Socialism should cease to be only the scientific prevision of the future. It should become the torch that kindles indomitable faith and energy in the hearts of people...."

But he was referring to socialism creating conditions in which people (and those who govern and decide how things are running) would act "Moral", not the other way around (Morals first, then conditions). The basis of his ideology was not a moral one, rather you could say the opposite.

Are you honestly telling us that you are not communist because you believe the workers should have better conditions and more control over society?

yes. I am telling you I am a communist because I recognize the worker's will have better conditions, and total control over society. And if that wasn't true, I would still oppose capitalism and declare myself a communist, as I understand the systematic contradictions within capital accumulation and the mode of production itself within the constraint of capitalism.

But I have demonstrated to you that this isn't the case.

No, you haven't. You just tried to apply the same thing to Marxism, which, doesn't hold up.

Based on what evidence? I have provided you with links and quotes. Instead of just ignoring the evidence that I have provided, why not just read them? Because when all is said and done, you are unequivocally and emphatically wrong.

I did read them. And it really is not something that's hard to understand. The worker's state never existed when the first anarchist thinkers arose, and their criticism of the state was not a systematic, scientific one.

It's not hard, :laugh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Origins

This is just a simple google search...

I suggest you read: The State and its Historic Role By Peter Kropotkin (http://libcom.org/library/state-its-historic-role-peter-kropotkin)

All he talks about are the orgins of the state, while quietly criticizing them. But he does not give us a complete reason as to why we should oppose the state, and if he does, please quote it (I didn't read the whole thing, so maybe he did) and I will doubt that it is not an ethical reason.

The state, as an organ of class suppression, also exists as a social function separate to society.

But not a social function separate from a class. In order for the state to exist, it must be dominated by a class. That class has the power to destroy it at any time, since it controls it completely. Their can be no class character inherit in a state that is independent from the classes in that current society, or a class established already by a society. The State is not an external force in class warfare. It is a weapon.

Communism is about creating autonomy in order for workers to function freely: "

Debatable.

...in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes
, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow,
to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening,criticize after dinner, just as I have in mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic."

And conditions change, this is something Marx acknowledged.

And Marx was just demonstrating the already existing model of communism, which he thought workers would do many things (without their being wage labor) without having to be established in those fields. he wasn't talking about absolute freedom or the likes.

With the existence of the state i.e. centralised political authority, hierarchy is naturalised or normalised as a social relationship.

You could say that to a certain extent, but hierarchy, as you put it, will exist regardless of the existence of the state. It will be normalized in an Anarchist society, where certain individuals will hold power over others. This is something you simply cannot remove from organization of society. And what do you intend to do, abolish delegates in the name of preventing hierarchy? And you dare ask why I call Anarchism moralist and opportunist?

Hierarchy then functions in every aspect of society removing the ability for workers to achieve autonomy to exist freely in society.

See, you then speak of the state as something of a third party within class politics. Again, I fail to see how "Hierarchy" will not function in every aspect of society in the same way you put it will without the state. .

Tell me why Hierarchy will function in every aspect of society? :laugh: You jumped from one thing to another without providing an explanation. I will tell you this much: Unlike the crap you are fed by your Anarchist teachers, Hierarchy is not some third party conscious being, nor is it some kind of disease that spreads. It can exist in some places and not in others. Unless you reject the dynamics of materialism and accept bourgeois idealism.

The state does nothing to abolish this social relationship and means it is antithetical to establishing communism.

But the state is just an instrument of a class. You blame the state for "Hierarchy" when in actuality the only thing that should be blamed are the conditions set forth by capitalism, and then the Bourgeoisie itself. The state is a useful way for the Bourgeoisie to retain it's class position, and without it the Hierarchy you speak of will still exist. The role of the state will be different under different material conditions, especially if that of which are dominated by the proletariat themselves as a class.

The successful transition from capitalism to communism isn't a military battle,
it's a transferal of ownership over the means of production from capitalists to the workers.

Which is only achieved through battle, war.

If the state is taking on the role as a capitalist class to manage the economy,

:confused: Who said it would? Capitalism is not defined as just one class owning production, it is also a lot of other things, the existence of capital, of markets, the profit motive, etc.

The state is taking the role of the weapon to crush the former capitalist class, while the mode of production would be dominated by the proletariat (or the delegetes they elected :rolleyes:).

The state would help in managing the economy, but would be dominated by the proletariat as a class none the less.

And if you want to say "No, it would be dominated by representatives" then I suggest you take a look at the history of Bourgeois revolutions, and I will tell you that society was dominated by the representatives put forth by the bourgeoisie, and not the whole bourgeoisie individually. Do you reject society being dominated by the Bourgeoisie and their rule during this transition from feudalism to capitalism? Or do you say it was "Just their representatives"?

... Or do you acknowledge that their representatives were not an external third party in this time of revolution, and could not be distinguished from the interests of the bourgeoisie who placed them there in the first place?

then what are the economic conditions that will mean it just "withers away"? It's an anti-materialist argument to claim that the state can just be abolished at will.

It's not an anti materialist argument, perhaps it is naive to think it can be abolished over night, but eventually the state as a whole, (If the conditions are necessary and set, again, I don't know if the state is something we should abolish) if it be shown that society is more efficient and productive without it, the role the state will play will gradually become smaller and smaller, eventually not being a state any more to begin with.

The Insurrection

28th November 2011, 11:06

Oh, nothing. It's bound to cross your mind eventually.

Since I have no idea what you're talking about, I wouldn't be so sure.

I linked those to demonstrate the ethical nature of Anarchism.I thought you linked them to show that the core basis of anarchism was ethics?

I thought it was obvious, but I started to catch on to your demands. Your argument is inconsistent so it's difficult to know what you mean or why you do something at any given moment in this discussion.

Of course you cannot avoid morals, but there is a difference between a moralist and a person who "has morals".It depends what you mean by moralist. I was using the term to mean "someone who follows morals". As I said, you cannot avoid this, which you agree with.

But yes, you are right when you say...

Ethics as a basis for analysis and understanding of things is counter productive and Moralist and ethics as a basis for a criticism of capitalism is garbage. ...This is why social anarchism basis it's foundation on class, as I've demonstrated.

Well you have alienation theory and the likes, but the point is, is that the basis of Marxism is not based around ethics. You could be a Marxist and have absolutely no sense of morality at all, not have an understanding of "good" or "bad".Perhaps you could, but why would you? Human interactions and dynamics aren't simply based off of a scientific interpretation of the world. We apply standards to regulate our behaviour. That's a justified and legitimate course of action to take.

It seems to me a totally redundant argument to make - that an orthodox reading of Marx is 'amoral'. Trying to distinguish Marxism and anarchism based on this point makes very little sense in the grand scheme of things, since as you admit you cannot avoid morals, so what is the point of this distinction?

I don't think you can say the same about Anarchism.No, thankfully you probably couldn't say the same.

The core of anarchist thinking is Ethical:lol:

Einstein said that insanity was defined as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This very much feels like that. If you just repeat your assertion over and over again then eventually I will just accept it.

It seems to me that no evidence, no argument that I give can ever persuade you that you are wrong. I suppose having to accept that social anarchism finds its basis in class would force you to reassess your whole attitude towards it and clearly that's no something you are prepared to do.

I am satisfied, however, that I have done everything possible to convince you of your flaw and that anyone reading this discussion will be able to see clearly, both from my argument and the rudimentary evidence I have provided, that you are in fact, wrong.

Not necessarily. Marxism is an analysis of communism as well, too. The reason a Marxist would want to be a communist would vary depending on the person, but if you are an academic and aren't a proletarian, you would probably be a Marxist out of scientific reasons, thus declaring yourself a communist only in the sense that you believe the proletariat is the only class capable of furthering the human constraint, and if the human constraint is pushed forward, things are better for everyone."Better for everyone" is a moral statement. In this long sentence, you have essentially proven my point. The volunterist nature of Marxism implies a reason to want to create a communist society: It makes society better for everyone. You moralist, you!

And for the record, I would argue that most academics are workers.

On the other hand, you could also understand that the inevitability of proletarian domination is existing, so you can side with the champions of history, rather then leaching on the crumbled forces of reaction and conservation.But what would motivate someone to make that choice? The creation of communism as a historically determined event probably won't happen in most peoples lifetimes. Earning money and enjoying the labour of others seems far more preferable and immediately beneficial than trying to create a different kind of society, so why bother?

Marx wanted communism to exist because he knew it was going to exist regardless of his take on it.That sentence doesn't make any sense. How can someone want something to exist because they know it will exist? I don't understand...

He may have had an ethical motivationOf course he did. He wasn't a communist just because he "knew" it was going to happen, he believed it was the right thing to happen as well.

but even if he didn't it was because he recognized that their dominance was inevitable, therefore accepted it and saw no reason not to.But equally then, there is no reason to accept either. If it's just an historical process, why care about it's establishment? Why not just enjoy capitalism until it happens?

But he was referring to socialism creating conditions in which people (and those who govern and decide how things are running) would act "Moral", not the other way around (Morals first, then conditions). The basis of his ideology was not a moral one, rather you could say the opposite. You said: "the only reason Bourgeois Marxists would support the proletariat is for scientific reasons, not moral ones."

My response had nothing to do with the "basis of his ideology". It was a demonstration that of course Marxists (I don't really think I know what a "bourgeois Marxist" is) would support the working class for moral reasons.

yes. I am telling you I am a communist because I recognize the worker's will have better conditions, and total control over society. And if that wasn't true, I would still oppose capitalism and declare myself a communist, as I understand the systematic contradictions within capital accumulation and the mode of production itself within the constraint of capitalism. I think this is what you'd like to believe, but it's clear that you have moral reasons for being a communist as well. Whether you want to admit or whether you can even see it, it's true.

No, you haven't Rafiq, I have provided you with three texts, all of which demonstrate that the core "thinking" of anarchism is class struggle. The texts speak for themselves. They reject your assertion that anarchism is based on "morals" and explains how anarchism is based firmly in materialism.

You just tried to apply the same thing to Marxism, which, doesn't hold up.You keep conflating the "core thinking" of ideology and the "ethical nature" of it. These two things are separate. I have not attempted to argue that Marxism is based on morals, I have argued that Marxism has an "ethical nature". In the same way I have demonstrated that anarchism is not "based" on ethics, but, like Marxism, has an "ethical nature".

You keep asserting that what you have shown is that ethics form the "core thinking". You haven't done that. What you have done is shown that anarchism has an "ethical nature", which I don't disagree with.

I did read them. And it really is not something that's hard to understand. The worker's state never existed when the first anarchist thinkers arose, and their criticism of the state was not a systematic, scientific one.So you are arguing that something cannot be "systematic" and "scientific" unless it has empirical evidence? You're arguing that anarchist thinkers could not analyse the nature of a workers state until they'd witnessed it? That's a perfectly reasonable argument to make. But how then do you account for The State and Revolution, which was published in August of 1917? How do you account for The Communist Manifesto or The German Ideology?

It should be pointed out that this is a fundamentally different argument to make than the one you were previously making. You claimed that the anarchist objection to the state was a "moral" one based on the idea that we believe "power corrupts", not that anarchist thinkers were unable to make a "scientific" analysis of the workers state.

In any case, understanding the nature of a workers state doesn't require experience of one, it requires an understanding of the historical role of a state. Once you understand that, it follows that a "workers" state, as well as being oxymoronic, cannot be used as a tool to create transition from capitalism to communism. Something eventually evidenced in history. So, you're point is redundant.

It's not hard, :laugh:So you keep telling me, yet you don't seem to have a very consistent grasp on what is being discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#OriginsSo I provide you with documentary evidence written by the founding thinkers of anarchism and you link me to Wikipedia? Seriously?

But OK, if this is all you're capable of, let's look at this three paragraphed section. You seemed to have missed this: "Godwin was, according to Peter Kropotkin "the first to formulate the political and economical conceptions of anarchism."

It should be noted though that I have been discussing social anarchism, or in other words class struggle anarchism.

All he talks about are the orgins of the state, while quietly criticizing them. But he does not give us a complete reason as to why we should oppose the state, and if he does, please quote it (I didn't read the whole thing, so maybe he did) and I will doubt that it is not an ethical reason.Yes he does! You have read it. :rolleyes:

"If one goes a little deeper into these different categories of phenomena which I have hardly touched upon in this short outline one will understand why - seeing the State as it has been in history, and as it is in essence today - and convinced that a social institution cannot lend itself to all the desired goals since as with every organ, it developed according to the function it performed, in a definite direction and not in all possible directions - one will understand, I say, why the conclusion we arrive at is for the abolition of the State."

This is the opening paragraph of the last section (http://libcom.org/library/state-its-historic-role-x-peter-kropotkin). But I suggest you read the whole thing before criticising what isn't in it...

But not a social function separate from a class.The state has the ability to function separately to the interests of a class.

In order for the state to exist, it must be dominated by a class.No. In order for the state to exist, it must have institutions created and managed by functionaries.

That class has the power to destroy it at any time, since it controls it completely.How does the whole of the working class control the state? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm asking you a serious practical question.

Also, how can the working class "destroy" the state at any time without coming into conflict with the institutions designed to protect the state?

Their can be no class character inherit in a state that is independent from the classes in that current society, or a class established already by a society. If the means of production are controlled by the state, then the state takes on similar class dynamics of the bourgeoisie.

The State is not an external force in class warfare. It is a weapon.Yes, it is a weapon designed to maintain the centralised political authority of a minority.

Debatable.Then what social relationships do you think communism will be characterised by?

And conditions change, this is something Marx acknowledged. I don't understand what point you're making...

And Marx was just demonstrating the already existing model of communism, which he thought workers would do many things (without their being wage labor) without having to be established in those fields. he wasn't talking about absolute freedom or the likes. No. I'm sorry, but you are the worst student of Marxism I have ever encountered and that's saying something. I mean, I don't mean to be rude but your superficial understanding of the ideology you vehemently defend seems shocking.

You could say that to a certain extent, but hierarchy, as you put it, will exist regardless of the existence of the state.Perhaps, but without institutions that perpetuate it that social relationship cannot become normalised.

It will be normalized in an Anarchist society, where certain individuals will hold power over others.If institutions do not exist where it is possible for individuals to "hold power over others", how will hierarchy be normalised.

This is something you simply cannot remove from organization of society.Not over night, no.

And what do you intend to do, abolish delegates in the name of preventing hierarchy? And you dare ask why I call Anarchism moralist and opportunist?I do dare, yes. It depends where the 'authority' of the delegate arises. If their function is to relay information and decisions made by collectives and communists into the national or international decision making process then that's fine. If they receive authority downwards from the state to make decisions on behalf of the working class then this is antithetical to the establishment of a truly democratic and free workers society i.e. it prevents that from occurring.

The working class have to have autonomy in order to control the means of production and we cannot achieve that within systems of hierarchy.

See, you then speak of the state as something of a third party within class politics.I am suggesting that the state has to take on the same class dynamics as the bourgeoisie.

Again, I fail to see how "Hierarchy" will not function in every aspect of society in the same way you put it will without the state. .Hierarchy is a social relationship created and maintained by systems of oppression. Without institutions to perpetuate that oppression that social relationship cannot thrive; it cannot be normalised as a relationship. Hierarchy isn't a "human trait" just as homophobia isn't. They are social relationships that can be eradicated through the process of societal transformation; but the institutions that perpetuate them have to be destroyed in order for that to occur.

Tell me why Hierarchy will function in every aspect of society? :laugh:Because the state will normalise it as a legitimate social relationship.

You jumped from one thing to another without providing an explanation.I can't seem to see how I've done that...

I will tell you this much: Unlike the crap you are fed by your Anarchist teachers, Hierarchy is not some third party conscious being, nor is it some kind of disease that spreads. It can exist in some places and not in others. Unless you reject the dynamics of materialism and accept bourgeois idealism.Yes, it can exist in some places and not in others, I've not said it can't. What I have said is that the state perpetuates and normalises hierarchy as a social relationship and that this social relationship is antithetical to the establishment of an autonomous society i.e. communism.

But the state is just an instrument of a class.

To claim that the state is "just" an instrument of a class is a very superficial analysis of both the history and role of the state. I have propositioned my argument and that of social anarchism so I can't really say anything new on this subject.

blame the state for "Hierarchy" when in actuality the only thing that should be blamed are the conditions set forth by capitalism, and then the Bourgeoisie itself.Why would we "blame" capitalism or the bourgeoisie for anything if if is just a determined historical epoch and the bourgeoisie a consequence of it? That seems to be a moral statement if ever seen one.

But if the development of the state is not the cause for the development of hierarchy as a social relationship, what is?

The state is a useful way for the Bourgeoisie to retain it's class position, and without it the Hierarchy you speak of will still exist.Yes, it will still exist if you maintain centralised political authority. It will continue to be a normalised social relationship. These social relationships will continue to exist residually even if the state didn't exist. The point, though, is that without the state that social relationship cannot be normalised and so it starts to break down as a legitimate human dynamic.

The role of the state will be different under different material conditions What will the material conditions be that will make the role of the state different?

Which is only achieved through battle, war. Perhaps, but there's an argument to be made that if you are having to fight the bourgeoisie militarily then you're not creating a transferral of economic ownership to the working class, since the working class will be engaged in fighting you.

The state is taking the role of the weapon to crush the former capitalist class, while the mode of production would be dominated by the proletariat (or the delegetes they elected :rolleyes:). If the economy is controlled by delegates that are elected how do the working class as a class achieve the autonomy to control the means of production communally? The state acts as owner, regulator etc of the economy, removing power from the working class. It establishes the same class dynamics as capitalism: Economic and political control for a minority and no control for those who make the economy work.

The state would help in managing the economy, but would be dominated by the proletariat as a class none the less. Unless every single member of the working class were a functionary in the state, how is it actually possible for the "proletariat as a class" to dominate the state?

And if you want to say "No, it would be dominated by representatives" then I suggest you take a look at the history of Bourgeois revolutions, and I will tell you that society was dominated by the representatives put forth by the bourgeoisie, and not the whole bourgeoisie individually. Do you reject society being dominated by the Bourgeoisie and their rule during this transition from feudalism to capitalism? Or do you say it was "Just their representatives"? The bourgeoisie weren't attempting to create a classless, stateless society...

... Or do you acknowledge that their representatives were not an external third party in this time of revolution, and could not be distinguished from the interests of the bourgeoisie who placed them there in the first place? But the establishment of bourgeoisie economic dominance was predicated on subjugating working class people to an unequal economic relationship and did not require a process to make the state no longer existed, since the state maintained it. The creation of the bourgeoisie didn't depend on a further need to establish an autonomous society that was classless and stateless.

It's not an anti materialist argument, perhaps it is naive to think it can be abolished over night, but eventually the state as a whole, (If the conditions are necessary and set, again, I don't know if the state is something we should abolish) if it be shown that society is more efficient and productive without it, the role the state will play will gradually become smaller and smaller, eventually not being a state any more to begin with.The material conditions for the withering away of the state cannot ever be achieved if the state controls the economy, since the social relationships that are normalised remove autonomy from the working class. You cannot create the necessary conditions to transition into communism if the conditions you are creating limit the autonomy of the working class over the means of production.

Rafiq

28th November 2011, 21:00

I thought you linked them to show that the core basis of anarchism was ethics?

No, just to demonstrate the nature in which they criticize things, i.e. ethically.

Your argument is inconsistent so it's difficult to know what you mean or why you do something at any given moment in this discussion.

I thought it was quite clear that you can't link proof that the basis of Anarchism is an ethical one using the works of anarchists, outlining where they "admit it", since it is an external analysis of the ideology.

It depends what you mean by moralist. I was using the term to mean "someone who follows morals". As I said, you cannot avoid this, which you agree with.

...This is why social anarchism basis it's foundation on class, as I've demonstrated.

Foundation on class + The ethical basis. I.e., the foundation on class is not exclusive in this sense, and what seperates anarchism from all other socialist currents is ethical.

The systematic criticisms that they hold are simply waves of their central, root ideological foundation.

Perhaps you could, but why would you? Human interactions and dynamics aren't simply based off of a scientific interpretation of the world.

What do you mean by this? The only way to understand human interaction and dynamics is only through scientific enterperation. I thought even anarchists knew this.

We apply standards to regulate our behaviour. That's a justified and legitimate course of action to take.

We (Marxists) understand that morals are not what changes things, rather they are a result of the changes already put in place by material conditions, therefore it is foolish to base your ideology on ethics.

It seems to me a totally redundant argument to make - that an orthodox reading of Marx is 'amoral'. Trying to distinguish Marxism and anarchism based on this point makes very little sense in the grand scheme of things, since as you admit you cannot avoid morals, so what is the point of this distinction?

Just as the works of Darwin on evolution are amoral, or the psychological studies conducted by Freud were amoral. I did not say Immoral, I said Amoral, notice the difference.

No, thankfully you probably couldn't say the same.

:confused:

:lol:

Einstein said that insanity was defined as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This very much feels like that. If you just repeat your assertion over and over again then eventually I will just accept it.

Because they still apply to your arguments. I suppose I'm insane, then. Yippie.

It seems to me that no evidence, no argument that I give can ever persuade you that you are wrong. I suppose having to accept that social anarchism finds its basis in class would force you to reassess your whole attitude towards it and clearly that's no something you are prepared to do.

I could say you keep spouting the same shit expecting different results, too. I told you why the basis of anarchism is ethical.

Now what distinguishes social anarchism from every other anarchsim (lifestylist, Ancap) is class, this is undeniable. But what distinguishes social anarchism from other currents of socialism is a matter of ethics.

I am satisfied, however, that I have done everything possible to convince you of your flaw and that anyone reading this discussion will be able to see clearly, both from my argument and the rudimentary evidence I have provided, that you are in fact, wrong.

You can think that, if it makes you feel better.

"Better for everyone" is a moral statement.

Not necessarily. Better for yourself and everyone else, meaning that you're living standards will increase and so will everyone elses, thus resulting in a society with high living standards, which is something most people want. So it's selfish.

In this long sentence, you have essentially proven my point. The volunterist nature of Marxism implies a reason to want to create a communist society: It makes society better for everyone. You moralist, you!

I absolutely LOVE how you ignored the rest of my sentence, that one can be a marxist solely because they understand proletarian domination is inevitable and join the champions of history. But no, you cling on to what makes your argument more pleasant.

And for the record, I would argue that most academics are workers.

I wouldn't. And this also applies to members of the bourgeoisie. One can be a member of the bourgeoisie and still be a marxist.

But what would motivate someone to make that choice? The creation of communism as a historically determined event probably won't happen in most peoples lifetimes. Earning money and enjoying the labour of others seems far more preferable and immediately beneficial than trying to create a different kind of society, so why bother?

By reading marxism and understanding class relations? No one can predict when communism will "come about" (absurd!).

And I was just demonstrating how Marxism is amoral, and is a science. earning money and exploiting workers is something a members of the bourgeoisie can do, but they can also be a Marxist at the same time, and a "communist", since those things are not a set of ethics you have to follow.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. How can someone want something to exist because they know it will exist? I don't understand...

They might not want it, but they recognize it's going to happen and there is nothing they can do about it. Communism is not a matter of "wanting something". It is a matter of action.

Of course he did. He wasn't a communist just because he "knew" it was going to happen, he believed it was the right thing to happen as well.

No, he didn't. And link me, if he did (And this must be one of his works later on his life, when he trashed humanism after he teamed up with engels, not one of his earlier humanist works).

But equally then, there is no reason to accept either. If it's just an historical process, why care about it's establishment? Why not just enjoy capitalism until it happens?

they will enjoy capitalism until it happens. That doesn't mean you can't be a Marxist or a Communist (they are not lifestyles), just like you could accept the theory of evolution and be a serial killer.

You said: "the only reason Bourgeois Marxists would support the proletariat is for scientific reasons, not moral ones."

My response had nothing to do with the "basis of his ideology". It was a demonstration that of course Marxists (I don't really think I know what a "bourgeois Marxist" is) would support the working class for moral reasons.

A bourgeois marxist is a marxist who is a member of the bourgeoisie. Therefore your "refution" is crap.

I think this is what you'd like to believe, but it's clear that you have moral reasons for being a communist as well. Whether you want to admit or whether you can even see it, it's true.

I don't have moral reasons for being a communist. I would love nothing more then to dump communism and live life normally. I can't, though, not until something triumphs Marxism. It seems that Marxism has been proven valid in almost every way, and it's simply something I cannot reject.

Rafiq, I have provided you with three texts, all of which demonstrate that the core "thinking" of anarchism is class struggle. The texts speak for themselves. They reject your assertion that anarchism is based on "morals" and explains how anarchism is based firmly in materialism.

But those were all ethical arguments against capitalism, i.e., about how the workers are treated badly and are exploited of their dignity and the likes, etc. (Which, I don't doubt, but they are still ethical arguments and still use these as a basis for their ideology).

You keep conflating the "core thinking" of ideology and the "ethical nature" of it. These two things are separate. I have not attempted to argue that Marxism is based on morals, I have argued that Marxism has an "ethical nature". In the same way I have demonstrated that anarchism is not "based" on ethics, but, like Marxism, has an "ethical nature".

Marxism has no ethical nature. It is a science. Communism has an ethical nature, though.

So why am I a communist? Because the basis of my thinking is Marxism. Communism is something Marxism hitches a ride on. Anarchists don't have something like Marxism. They just have.. .Anarchism.

So you are arguing that something cannot be "systematic" and "scientific" unless it has empirical evidence? You're arguing that anarchist thinkers could not analyse the nature of a workers state until they'd witnessed it?

Again, without using the "Power corrupts" dealio. And you know very well it's something they use.

That's a perfectly reasonable argument to make. But how then do you account for The State and Revolution, which was published in August of 1917? How do you account for The Communist Manifesto or The German Ideology?

Because they were asserting something would happen based off of scientific evidence, while the anarchists based it off of something entirely different.

I've got a big ass spanish test to study for, so I can't stick around any longer. I may or may not reply to the rest of your post, nah, actually I'll just give you your satisfaction here.

This was one of the longest thread convo's ive ever been in so I'm done.

Just please note that my silence does not dignify your position.