Are Marxism and anarchism mutually exclusive positions? [Archive]

Искра

3rd December 2011, 14:26

OP mentioned how Marxism is “analysis” and how anarchism is a “method”. I think that this is very wrong way to put things up to. Marxism is analysis historical conditions, but from that analysis our method comes from. In last text I’ve read on Marxism vs. Anarchism, Amadeo Bordiga claims that Marxists trough their analyses recognise the need of organising political body named Party, whose job is to gather proletariat and shape it into political class which will trough revolution be able to create class dictatorship of proletariat. Only party is capable for such task, because it doesn’t want to maintain any form of bourgeoisie society (unlike for example anarcho-syndicalists) but it just wants to destroy everything and create new society. I’m not sure if I interpreted that text good enough; I’ll have to read it few more times.

Marxists and anarchists can cooperate but for most of the time they are mutually exclusive positions. Some differences have been raised here and they can be put short to questions of Party, class dictatorship, State and “Utopia”.

For example Marxists want to create Party. Party is centralised body of working class. Marxists recognise the fact working class has one common interest and that they should work only trough that one goal. For that you need “ideological and tactical unity” and discipline. Anarchists are more in favour of autonomy of local organisation and federalism which are bourgeoisie concepts dating from late feudalism when bourgeoisie started to develop in small communes. These concepts rarely work in practice which you could see if you join bigger anarchist organisation.

Marxists are for dictatorship of proletariat. Anarchists like to say that they also support it but again they put their ideas of federalism and autonomy within framework of dictatorship of proletariat. In practice that would probably result in “individualist chaos” where every “commune” would act only in its self-interest which is why Marxists denounce this silly idea and see DoP as centralised body which would act in class and not particular interest.

OP mentioned how Marx never talked about future society. It’s true, but it’s not because he didn’t know what he wants, but it was because he was afraid and disgusted by utopianism. He believed that movement would be able to use his analysis to create, so he spend all of his life to develop what we now call “Marxist analysis”. If you read for example one of the key anarchists work Kropotkin’s “Conquering of bread” and after that Marxist critique of it you’ll realise why is utopianism dangerous.

Also, I’ll like to dismiss some claims in this discussion. Most of anarchism movement today is not consisted of anarcho-primitivists or anarcho-capitalists. Actually they are marginalised. Most of anarchist movement is gathered around IAF, IWA or anarkismo.net. There are also some small insurrectionist groups and post-anarchist collectives. So, majority of movement follows old/tradional class anarchist line. Still, there’s much to criticise in it, as there are a lot of flaws in anarchism in general.

Искра

3rd December 2011, 15:22

Anarchists aren't opposed to a "party" in the sense of a political organisation, of course.
They are opposed to a Party as concept of one and only organisation of proeltariat on international level. Anarchists federations and organisation do not do task of Party.

Not all anarchists are opposed to ideological and tactical unity within a political organisation. Only synthesis anarchists would object to that. Well you should then explain me why don’t IWA and IAF have a "the line". Their organizations do different things which makes them sometimes stupid (for example CNT-F's article on "Egyptian revolution"). Of course, some organizations do have, for example Russian KRAS's which I really admire. Also, I recognize the fact that in Platform Makhno, Mett & crew screamed for “unity of tactics and practice”, but their call was never materialized. Also, this problem can be seen in most of anarchist organizations on their national level where they are unable to communicate. I’m talking this from my personal experience within the movement, which is main reason why did I change my politics.

I think it's intellectually dishonest to argue that anarchism is "bourgeois" because it supposedly shares concepts with the bourgeoisie. And in fact, you seem to be affirming the consequent by saying that "federalism is bourgeois, anarchists propose federalism, therefore anarchists are bourgeois". Whether anarchist organisations operate well is another question though.
I believe that I haven’t said that anarchism is bourgeoisie. I was talking about federalism as concept and its historical appearance. Personally I believe that this concept is poison for every organization, because it put emphasize on individuals or small groups instead of common interest and goals.

That's where you're wrong. Every commune operating autonomous does not mean independent. It would be a network of communes, not independently operating communes--each commune's self-interest would coincide.

You can talk what you want, but in reality is quite different. Even today, in marginalised anarchist movement, national or local groups cause big problems because of their individualist tendencies. Imagine how many of such cases would be in conditions of revolution or post-revolutionary society? I learn from practice and experience, which is why I’m strongly against concepts of federalism and individualism. Of course, centralism doesn’t mean that workers should “shut the fuck up” and listen to glorious leader. No, quite contrary! They should participate in discussions and decision making, but they should respect discipline and obey decisions they collectively make. Also, they should plan their actions and destroy bourgeoisie institutions, which federalised communes and syndicates don’t do.

I don't see why Kropotkin's work is "dangerous", maybe you can explain.
His work is not “dangerous” (even I said that utopianism is dangerous), but quite naive. Trying to describe future society using framework of present society. I don’t like that. Even, to be honest, Kropotkin, along with Nestor Makhno and Ricardo Flores Magon, rare example of anarchist I’m fond of.

Искра

3rd December 2011, 15:23

Btw. Where did Goti's response disappered?! :confused:

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 15:28

It's called Conquest of Bread

Tim Cornelis

3rd December 2011, 15:31

Btw. Where did Goti's response disappered?! :confused:

Oh sorry, I deleted it because it was derailing the thread, I didn't want to provoke another sectarian conflict so I thought I delete before someone replied--too late.

They are opposed to a Party as concept of one and only organisation of proeltariat on international level. Anarchists federations and organisation do not do task of Party.

Well you should then explain me why don’t IWA and IAF have a "the line". Their organizations do different things which makes them sometimes stupid (for example CNT-F's article on "Egyptian revolution"). Of course, some organizations do have, for example Russian KRAS's which I really admire. Also, I recognize the fact that in Platform Makhno, Mett & crew screamed for “unity of tactics and practice”, but their call was never materialized. Also, this problem can be seen in most of anarchist organizations on their national level where they are unable to communicate. I’m talking this from my personal experience within the movement, which is main reason why did I change my politics.

I believe that I haven’t said that anarchism is bourgeoisie. I was talking about federalism as concept and its historical appearance. Personally I believe that this concept is poison for every organization, because it put emphasize on individuals or small groups instead of common interest and goals.

You can talk what you want, but in reality is quite different. Even today, in marginalised anarchist movement, national or local groups cause big problems because of their individualist tendencies. Imagine how many of such cases would be in conditions of revolution or post-revolutionary society? I learn from practice and experience, which is why I’m strongly against concepts of federalism and individualism. Of course, centralism doesn’t mean that workers should “shut the fuck up” and listen to glorious leader. No, quite contrary! They should participate in discussions and decision making, but they should respect discipline and obey decisions they collectively make. Also, they should plan their actions and destroy bourgeoisie institutions, which federalised communes and syndicates don’t do.

His work is not “dangerous” (even I said that utopianism is dangerous), but quite naive. Trying to describe future society using framework of present society. I don’t like that. Even, to be honest, Kropotkin, along with Nestor Makhno and Ricardo Flores Magon, rare example of anarchist I’m fond of.

I fail to see how federalism and common goals are not compatible. You need to have a means by which to determine your common goals, if this is not by means of organisation from the bottom-up, how then do you formulate your common goals. Personally I don't have any experience working with a Platformist organisation so I don't know whether its aims were never materialised. Lastly, describing a future society using a framework of the present society, it seems to me, is plain realistic. The future society is built in the present, that's exactly why it's not utopian.

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 15:33

His work is not “dangerous” (even I said that utopianism is dangerous), but quite naive. Trying to describe future society using framework of present society. I don’t like that. Even, to be honest, Kropotkin, along with Nestor Makhno and Ricardo Flores Magon, rare example of anarchist I’m fond of.

What is naive about it specifically? What do you mean when you say "trying to describe future society using a framework of present society"? How else would he imagine a future society if he doesn't use existing society as the premise, since it's capitalism we want to change, right?

Your criticism doesn't really make any sense.

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 15:37

Here's the problem of terminology again. If anarchists use the Marxist definition of the state they may very well not object to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I, for one, do not oppose the DOTP simply because I believe that the DOTP can be organised with no or limited hierarchy. Thus, in anarchist terminology this would not constitute a state, but in Marxist terminology it would.

And the construction of the DOTP and communisation are not mutually exclusive either. You can begin to construct communism immediately, while you use armed power to defend this construction from being violently destroyed.

This is a very reductive view of the differences. It has absolutely little to do with terminology. Marx advocated the centralisation of political authority. The rhetorical principle of a state is irrelevant, the structural differences of an anarchist and Marxist methods of transition are fundamentally different. One (Marxists) advocates the centralisation of political authority, the other (anarchists) don't.

A state is more than just a vague principle of class suppression, it exists structurally. That's how the state has developed historically. Marxists don't reject the notion of hierarchy or the centralisation of political authority (the structural premise of a state). This is the problem.

Искра

3rd December 2011, 16:03

Oh sorry, I deleted it because it was derailing the thread, I didn't want to provoke another sectarian conflict so I thought I delete before someone replied--too late.. Well, just because I disagree with you that doesn’t make me sectarian (or it does?). Can’t we discuss our differences? I don’t see problem with that if discussion is civil. I’ll try to be good boy hehe :)

I fail to see how federalism and common goals are not compatible. You need to have a means by which to determine your common goals, if this is not by means of organisation from the bottom-up, how then do you formulate your common goals.
Because federalism tends to put emphasise on local structure instead of bigger, united structure on international level. It tends to imply “right” of every local body to do what it feels like without reference to more general needs of Party. This is my experience from practice, from anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist) movement and I’m not alone in that. Also, It’s important to emphasises that by centralism I don’t mean on “top down” command chain, but only on a way of organisational unity. I’m against individual “dictatorial” power as much as you.

Personally I don't have any experience working with a Platformist organisation so I don't know whether its aims were never materialised. Neither do I. I was talking more about anarcho-syndicalist organisations. Still, I do have second hand experiences from platformist organisations and I’m really disgusted with their opportunist, reactionary and silly politics. I’m here talking about entryism, support of national liberation etc.

Lastly, describing a future society using a framework of the present society, it seems to me, is plain realistic. The future society is built in the present, that's exactly why it's not utopianIt’s idealist and utopian because you can’t predict what will happen nor you can’t build precise “to do list” when it comes to revolutionary movement and change of society. Also, problem with anarchist thought is that their future vision of society depends on institutions from present society which divide working class. Take trade unions/syndicates for example and their division of proletariat based on trade etc. In future society we should abolish all these divisions and it’s can be achieved only trough dictatorship of proletariat, run by Party with single line. Of course, that doesn’t deny fractions and disagreements within Party.

ZeroNowhere

3rd December 2011, 16:09

I don't think that the separation of 'analysis' and 'method' has much place in speaking of Marxism. Marxism is, in the first place, dialectical, and makes no absolute separation between the present condition and that of the future.

The entire movement of history, just as its [communism’s] actual act of genesis – the birth act of its empirical existence – is, therefore, for its thinking consciousness the comprehended and known process of its becoming. Whereas the still immature communism seeks an historical proof for itself – a proof in the realm of what already exists – among disconnected historical phenomena opposed to private property, tearing single phases from the historical process and focusing attention on them as proofs of its historical pedigree (a hobby-horse ridden hard especially by Cabet, Villegardelle, etc.). By so doing it simply makes clear that by far the greater part of this process contradicts its own claim, and that, if it has ever existed, precisely its being in the past refutes its pretension to reality.

It is easy to see that the entire revolutionary movement necessarily finds both its empirical and its theoretical basis in the movement of private property – more precisely, in that of the economy.

In the second place, Marxism is theoretically holistic, which is not disconnected from the previous point; it is not something that one can divide into several neat, disconnected categories of which some can be accepted and some not, but rather all are integrated to form a whole. One can't strictly divide the theory of history from the theory of surplus value and analysis of the capitalist mode of production as a historical form of production, nor can one divide either of these from Marx's view of communism. Indeed, most of Marx's description of what socialism would be is mediated through or already implicit in his analysis of capitalism. This also means that it is in fact quite concrete, unless by 'abstract' you mean that Marx doesn't write a constitution for the whole of human history. Indeed, from historical materialism itself, taken as a whole, follows the rejection of eternal moral principles which excludes anarchism as such from being Marxist, as well as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Therefore, the only major instance of Marx desribing post-revolutionary society beyond mere generalities is really attributable to the anarchists, not the Marxists. Um, Marx referred quite clearly in Capital to Robert Owen as having had a view of labour vouchers which did not presuppose commodity production or money. So no, I'm not sure that it is 'really attributable' to the Bakuninists.

Both these theories are accepted (at least to some degree) by many (most?) anarchists today. You don't accept these things in degrees.

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 16:23

It’s idealist and utopian because you can’t predict what will happen nor you can’t build precise “to do list” when it comes to revolutionary movement and change of society.

You're yet to actually demonstrate that this applies to anarchism.

Also, problem with anarchist thought is that their future vision of society depends on institutions from present society which divide working class. Take trade unions/syndicates for example and their division of proletariat based on trade etc.

The Anarchist Federation in the British Isles rejects trade unions...As do many anarchist communist organisations.

RaÃºl Duke

3rd December 2011, 16:41

Are Marxism and anarchism mutually exclusive positions?

No.

Just like there are Marxian historians, anthropologists, sociologists and the like...It's possible for anarchists to take up aspects of Marxist theory into their own ideology.

Those who say that they are mutually exclusive are dogmatic, orthodox, uncreative; I don't want to sound harsh but I'm of the opinion they want to keep the left in the "dinosaur age" stuck in the 20th century.

In fact, to some extent, this has already happened. Many anarchists, especially quite a numerous amount you meet on here at revleft, use a lot of Marxist terms and theoretical analysis. I personally use Marxist theoretical analysis, etc. In a way, anarchism has been quite "theory-poor yet praxis-rich" (in the inverse, one could argue that Marxism initially was quite practice/praxis-poor...that's why you have additions to Marxist theory like Leninism, Maoism, etc that deals a lot with practice and implementation) kind of ideology and the adaptation of elements of Marxist theory "fills the gap."

I recall that RedStar2000 once mention that "perhaps" in the 21st century there would be a synthesis between Marxism and Anarchism would arise; a kind of Marxist-Anarchist ideology. He wasn't clear which side would "bridge the gap" but clearly I see anarchism to be the one that is adopting Marxist theory (and also formulate new ideas, both in praxis and new interpretations of Marxism) while Marxist-Leninism seems not to be seeking to re-invent itself for this new century (I might be wrong, and I've seen a tiny amount of posters here who are re-interpreting and developing new perspectives on Marxist-Leninism).

I see this meshing of ideas to be a good trend, personally.

Tim Cornelis

3rd December 2011, 16:49

Well, just because I disagree with you that doesn’t make me sectarian (or it does?). Can’t we discuss our differences? I don’t see problem with that if discussion is civil. I’ll try to be good boy hehe :)

Because federalism tends to put emphasise on local structure instead of bigger, united structure on international level. It tends to imply “right” of every local body to do what it feels like without reference to more general needs of Party. This is my experience from practice, from anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist) movement and I’m not alone in that. Also, It’s important to emphasises that by centralism I don’t mean on “top down” command chain, but only on a way of organisational unity. I’m against individual “dictatorial” power as much as you.

Neither do I. I was talking more about anarcho-syndicalist organisations. Still, I do have second hand experiences from platformist organisations and I’m really disgusted with their opportunist, reactionary and silly politics. I’m here talking about entryism, support of national liberation etc.

It’s idealist and utopian because you can’t predict what will happen nor you can’t build precise “to do list” when it comes to revolutionary movement and change of society. Also, problem with anarchist thought is that their future vision of society depends on institutions from present society which divide working class. Take trade unions/syndicates for example and their division of proletariat based on trade etc. In future society we should abolish all these divisions and it’s can be achieved only trough dictatorship of proletariat, run by Party with single line. Of course, that doesn’t deny fractions and disagreements within Party.

I don't see how you can work towards a common goal using federalist principles. But then again my experience is limited to a small local faction.

The reactionary politics of those platformist organisations are not intrinsic to platformism, so it does not reflect its intrinsic failure either.

Of course you can't predict what will happen, nor does anarchism - as such - assume you can. In my view, all you can do is convince a dedicated group of 'intellectuals' that socialism/communism is viable and that these will instigate, agitate, and so forth. It is not a "to do list" but describing a hypothetical economic model to test its viability. Kropotkin's works, imo, were actually quite vague and merely says "we want X" (e.g. x = distribution according to needs, abolition of wages system), but not how (e.g. in order for distribution according to needs to work we need these social institutions and here is how these would exactly work). "making plans for the future" also isn't intrinsic to anarchism (Bakunin: "whoever makes plans for the future is a reactionary").

" Take trade unions/syndicates for example and their division of proletariat based on trade etc."

I don't see what you mean by that. How is uniting all working class members (or rather attempting to) perpetuation the division of the working class?

I am curious though, what is the difference between federalism and centralism then? And also, what is your view on democratic centralism?

Caj

3rd December 2011, 18:12

In modern lexicons anarchism is directly associated with with the worst forms of reaction: anarcho-primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) and anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism). These anarchist tendencies want to deter progress by replacing the state with more primitive organisational mechanisms, and they are directly opposed to the expansion of the state and the worker's takeover of it.

By anarchism, I meant traditional (social) anarchism, not the primitivist and capitalist distortions that developed later.

In practice that would probably result in “individualist chaos” where every “commune” would act only in its self-interest which is why Marxists denounce this silly idea

This actually sounds much more like the Rothbardian "analysis" of (social) anarchism. I don't think that this criticism really has any merit. It just shows a lack of understanding of anarchism.

OP mentioned how Marx never talked about future society. It’s true, but it’s not because he didn’t know what he wants, but it was because he was afraid and disgusted by utopianism.

There has to be some idea of how a future society will look beyond the abstract and ambiguous generalities of Marx. It seems like the word "utopian" has degenerated into a word with no real meaning. It is only used to make cop-outs convenient.

I don't think that the separation of 'analysis' and 'method' has much place in speaking of Marxism. Marxism is, in the first place, dialectical, and makes no absolute separation between the present condition and that of the future.

I really don't think that this statement has any meaning. How would you phrase this without referring to dialectics? There are plenty of Marxists who deny dialectical materialism as meaningless jargon.

it is not something that one can divide into several neat, disconnected categories of which some can be accepted and some not, but rather all are integrated to form a whole. One can't strictly divide the theory of history from the theory of surplus value and analysis of the capitalist mode of production as a historical form of production, nor can one divide either of these from Marx's view of communism.

Well, first of all, I don't think Marx really had much of a view on communism. As I said, the closest he came to a view on communism was a rip-off of the Bakuninists. By saying that all of Marx's theories must be either accepted or rejected as a whole, I think you are simply being dogmatic. Do you seriously accept everything that Marx said because it it is all "integrated to form a whole"? Of course not, Marx was wrong on some things. These things should be rejected. The things upon which he was right, should be accepted.

Marx referred quite clearly in Capital to Robert Owen as having had a view of labour vouchers which did not presuppose commodity production or money. So no, I'm not sure that it is 'really attributable' to the Bakuninists.

Robert Owen wasn't a Bakuninist, though.

You don't accept these things in degrees.

Once again, I think that you are just being dogmatic. There are people who simply accept historical materialism, not as a metaphysical law of history, but as a practical law that has a tendency to be accurate. There are others who adhere to historical materialism as an unquestionable doctrine of their faith (this is evident especially among Leninists). In what way are these different views of historical materialism not different degrees of belief in such?

Smyg

3rd December 2011, 19:19

I see this meshing of ideas to be a good trend, personally.
It is certainly better than rabid sectarianism, that's for sure.

Azraella

3rd December 2011, 20:11

I consider myself an anarchist first and foremost. I like aspects of Marxist theory and I think it is applicable to anarchist theory(in fact, I think libertarian forms of Marxism are especially compatible with anarchism).

He wasn't clear which side would "bridge the gap" but clearly I see anarchism to be the one that is adopting Marxist theory (and also formulate new ideas, both in praxis and new interpretations of Marxism)

Have you been reading that series at Anarkismo about Marx's economics? It starts here and there are nine chapters in it (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/20585), I found it very interesting.

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 20:13

I consider myself an anarchist first and foremost. I like aspects of Marxist theory and I think it is applicable to anarchist theory(in fact, I think libertarian forms of Marxism are especially compatible with anarchism).

Have you been reading that series at Anarkismo about Marx's economics? It starts here and there are nine chapters in it (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/20585), I found it very interesting.

You can't be an anarchist and pagan at the same time. Those two ideas are irreconcilable.

Azraella

3rd December 2011, 20:17

You can't be an anarchist and pagan at the same time. Those two ideas are irreconcilable.

Why not? Edit: seriously. There have been religious anarchists historically and currently. This is not a new thing. I extol the concepts like the Icelandic vinfengi (farmholder self-help cooperatives) and less on things like the mannerbunde(the individual). I'd probably find more of them if those who are any of the above were willing to be more vocal about the parts of the lore supporting a robust DUTY to community and social justice. In fact, I think there is plenty of lore supporting the idea of a communal duty. That said, the culture itself(or at least the conditions that it existed in) were not happy and peaceful, but they were a product of their time.

Caj

3rd December 2011, 20:18

You can't be an anarchist and pagan at the same time. Those two ideas are irreconcilable.

Topic for a new thread: "Are anarchism and Paganism mutually exclusive positions?"

Art Vandelay

3rd December 2011, 20:19

I really do not see why they have to be mutually exclusive. I personally consider myself both a marxist and an anarchist. Like Duke said, and I think I heard redstar2k was a proponent of a synthesis of non-leninist marxists and anarchists. I think if we want to keep up with the times this is the only way moving forward. People saw how authortarian marxism played out and years of anti-communist propaganda has been effective. Us anarchists and marxists do not have to accept all eachothers views, in fact I think it would be a hindrance if we did, we just need to accept to work together in a democratic non authoritarian organization. The days of trade unions are over in my opinion and I really think, as demonstrated this year, that mass demonstrations are going to be the way going forward in the future.

As far as DOTP goes I generally think that the difference between the anarchist and marxist views have been semantics. The main difference is a argument over the definition of the state. Anarchists are not opposed to violence to protect the gains of the revolution and I would argue that it does not have to come from a centralized authority.

ZeroNowhere

3rd December 2011, 20:22

Those who say that they are mutually exclusive are dogmatic, orthodox, uncreative; I don't want to sound harsh but I'm of the opinion they want to keep the left in the "dinosaur age" stuck in the 20th century.This is true, by the way, I am a dogmatic dinosaur Marxist.

There are plenty of Marxists who deny dialectical materialism as meaningless jargon.No, there aren't, any more than there are plenty of anarchist Rothbardists.

Robert Owen wasn't a Bakuninist, though....Which means that Marx didn't 'rip off the Bakuninists', yes.

In what way are these different views of historical materialism not different degrees of belief in such?The first isn't any degree of adherence to the materialist conception of history, and, as for the latter, I couldn't tell you much about that because I don't know any Leninists.

Do you seriously accept everything that Marx said because it it is all "integrated to form a whole"?No, I accept everything that Marx said insofar as it is integrated to form a whole.

Of course not, Marx was wrong on some things. These things should be rejected. The things upon which he was right, should be accepted.Again, Marxism is not a shopping list.

Desperado

3rd December 2011, 20:29

In practice that would probably result in “individualist chaos” where every “commune” would act only in its self-interest which is why Marxists denounce this silly idea and see DoP as centralised body which would act in class and not particular interest.

Except every commune's self-interest, just as every person's self-interest, coincides with the general interest! That belief's a basic prerequisite of believing in socialism. Everybody from Bakunin to Stalin state there's no contradiction between the individual and the collective under socialism. Anarchists believe people need to realise this for themselves, because otherwise it will not be realised at all. Anarchism isn't really against "centralism", it's against involuntary centralism. The argument for a DoP (in the sense you are using it - for me DoP just means workers' power) is that the working class will not realise this, at least not immediately. It is acting on their behalf, for their best interests (even though they do not realise it), as a parent would for a child.

Geiseric

3rd December 2011, 20:41

I don't label myself anything except for anti-capitalism, and the way I see it, any organisational method that has been proved to work in the past in ending the rule of the capitalist state is what i'll adhere to, so the lessons learned from the october revolution show us that a revolution is possible only when the majority of the working class supports the revolution and that a party's role isn't to do a revolution by itself, but to persuade the rest of the working class that a revolution is necessary. The Bolsheviks were accepted by, not forced on the working class (like many ML rebellions are, killing other communists in the name of "Vanguardism" like Shining Path and the older North Vietnamese state) the in the months before the october revolution, and everything that people see as what happened wrong after the october revolution is due entirely to the scale of the counter revolution and Russia's backward economy. It wasn't due to "People are greedy, Lenin just wanted power for himself and his clique of friends." If anything, Lenin was looking for cooperation, not suborination from anarchist and libertarian elements, who he said were important in outlining the dangers of the provisional government led by the SR's and Mensheviks.

I read somewhere that during Kronstadt, any portraits, articles, or anything having to do with Trotsky that was around the base was destroyed by the Sailors, but the ones having to do with Lenin were still posted up.

Anyways, having to do with the topic at hand, any kind of dogma is dangerous. The way I understand Leninism as opposed to anarchism is that Leninism and Marxism aren't even guidelines, they are just methods explaining the process of figuring out the roots and the most plausible solutions (Revolution) to society's problems. Plain anti-state, anti-party Anarchism, (not class struggle anarchism that rises from labor situations like Catalonia), and "Marxist Leninsm" are plain dogmas that are disconnected from reality. So are the brands of cultish, sectarian Trotskyist offshoots. The movement today needs to re-examine everything and has to be flexible and maneuverable in order to deal with the police state that's soon going to be formed in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Of course we can still use literature and ideas from a while ago, however being Anti Party out of dogma is utopian. A party isn't theoretically necessary, it's inevitable to rise out of poltical revolutions. In the way they functioned, CNT was a party. However the party can't be disconnected from the masses if it's truly trying to undergo a revolution.

Except every commune's self-interest, just as every person's self-interest, coincides with the general interest! That belief's a basic prerequisite of believing in socialism. Everybody from Bakunin to Stalin state there's no contradiction between the individual and the collective under socialism. Anarchists believe people need to realise this for themselves, because otherwise it will not be realised at all. Anarchism isn't really against "centralism", it's against involuntary centralism. The argument for a DoP (in the sense you are using it - for me DoP just means workers' power) is that the working class will not realise this, at least not immediately. It is acting on their behalf, for their best interests (even though they do not realise it), as a parent would for a child.

In the october revolution though the majority of the working class was won over to the Bolsheviks voulantarilly, it wasn't out of desperation. Leninists aren't Blanquists, at least if they adhere to Lenin. A minority can't wage a revolution, the party is just a way of organising the class conscious majority, whose beliefs are one and the same with the party. The purges were all mensheviks and SR's who wanted to be on the winning side, not any Left Coms or Anarchists who refused to join the bolsheviks.

Caj

3rd December 2011, 20:49

No, there aren't, any more than there are plenty of anarchist Rothbardists.

So Rosa Lichtenstein and Redstar2000, for example, weren't Marxists by your logic?

...Which means that Marx didn't 'rip off the Bakuninists', yes.

. . . You quoted Marx on Owen as an attempt to refute my contention that Marx took his dual-phase theory from the Bakuninists. Owen wasn't a Bakuninist. . . . I don't see what you are trying to argue.

The first isn't any degree of adherence to the materialist conception of history

In what way isn't it?

No, I accept everything that Marx said insofar as it is integrated to form a whole.

Well, you haven't demonstrated that it integrates "to form a whole" yet.

Again, Marxism is not a shopping list.

Yes, that's why we should take everything he said as the unquestionable dogmas of Marxism, dissent from which is blasphemy! Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Geiseric

3rd December 2011, 21:43

Well what are some things that shouldn't be taken from marx? I'm not on any side at this point, I would just like to hear the Anarchist arguement.

Искра

3rd December 2011, 21:44

I don't see how you can work towards a common goal using federalist principles. But then again my experience is limited to a small local faction.I believe that you made a mistake here. M I right? Just to know how to answer you.

The reactionary politics of those platformist organisations are not intrinsic to platformism, so it does not reflect its intrinsic failure either.Well, to be honest, today’s platformism has really a little to do with original idea. But, maybe we should leave that for some another topic.

I don't see what you mean by that. How is uniting all working class members (or rather attempting to) perpetuation the division of the working class?Because still there are some divisions taken from framework of bourgeoisie society (such as trade divisions) which are implemented in new society.

I am curious though, what is the difference between federalism and centralism then? And also, what is your view on democratic centralism?
I believe that I actually wrote good answer to that question. I’m for centralism as ideological unity and against federalism in any form as possibility of local and lower bodies to have right to act as they want. Also, I oppose idea that certain intellectual vanguard can make decisions for whole organisation. “The line” should be created by whole organisation.

This actually sounds much more like the Rothbardian "analysis" of (social) anarchism. I don't think that this criticism really has any merit. It just shows a lack of understanding of anarchism.
LOL :rolleyes: This thesis is actually based upon real life experience and 3 years of participation in international anarchist movement. Also, it’s based upon anarchist denounce of proletarian dictatorship as dictatorship of one class and one Party.

There has to be some idea of how a future society will look beyond the abstract and ambiguous generalities of Marx.And what would you do with that? Create your fairy tale? We could see what exactly did anarchists with such supreme theory do in 1936. They cooperated with bourgeoisie and betrayed revolution.

It is certainly better than rabid sectarianism, that's for sure. I really hate such liberal arguments. Marxism is no-compromise ideology. Fuck your open mildness liberal myths! I really don’t see anything that anarchists could do or write to make Marxism “better”.

Topic for a new thread: "Are anarchism and Paganism mutually exclusive positions?" I believe that people should drop the paganism thing when they reach 18 years.

authortarian marxism
What does autoritarian marxism mean?

As far as DOTP goes I generally think that the difference between the anarchist and marxist views have been semantics. The main difference is a argument over the definition of the state. Anarchists are not opposed to violence to protect the gains of the revolution and I would argue that it does not have to come from a centralized authority. You are wrong. Marxists want centralist body in order to protect revolution and establish class dictatorship, while anarchists want bunch of communes or trade unions managing everything. I would like to know how would direct-democratic Cheka work.

In the way they functioned, CNT was a party.No it wasn’t. It was chaotic organisation where anarchists fought against reactionaries. Still it is. Party should have “the line” and CNT wasn’t been able to make important decisions. Why do you think that FAI was established in the first place?

Again, Marxism is not a shopping list.
Amen!

ColonelCossack

3rd December 2011, 21:45

Didn't Marx, kind of, dislike anarchists...

I think this sort of thing might "tick him off", so to speak, just a little bit.

I do understand your position, though, of Marxism being an analysis and anarchism being a method. :p

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 21:47

It's funny that Kontrrazvedka is ignoring me.

Искра

3rd December 2011, 21:47

Well what are some things that shouldn't be taken from marx? I'm not on any side at this point, I would just like to hear the Anarchist arguement.
Marxism.

For example they have never realised this:

... And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/l.htm#class) in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dictatorship-proletariat),[1] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm#n1) (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society .

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm

Искра

3rd December 2011, 21:49

It's funny that Kontrrazvedka is ignoring me.Cause I answered to your questions in different posts. If you want special treatment call me... I'm home alone ;)

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 21:49

Why not?

Because it's logically inconsistent.

Edit: seriously. There have been religious anarchists historically and currently.

There are also people who call themselves Gnomes.

I extol the concepts like the Icelandic vinfengi (farmholder self-help cooperatives) and less on things like the mannerbunde(the individual). I'd probably find more of them if those who are any of the above were willing to be more vocal about the parts of the lore supporting a robust DUTY to community and social justice. In fact, I think there is plenty of lore supporting the idea of a communal duty. That said, the culture itself(or at least the conditions that it existed in) were not happy and peaceful, but they were a product of their time.

If you want to call yourself an anti-authoritarian pagan, that's fine. But anarchism is a specific ideology with a specific set of beliefs, predicated on a specific philosophical outlook that "paganism" is in conflict with.

These are the facts.

The Insurrection

3rd December 2011, 21:50

Cause I answered to your questions in different posts. If you want special treatment call me... I'm home alone ;)

Where...? I don't see...

Caj

3rd December 2011, 22:06

Well what are some things that shouldn't be taken from marx?

Well, I know that there are legitimate objections to some of the more specific aspects of capitalism about which Marx theorized. I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to talk about any of these. As far as Marx's theories go, though, I would say that Dialectical Materialism should be completely abandoned. It is useless and has been a hindrance to the revolutionary left.

LOL :rolleyes: This thesis is actually based upon real life experience and 3 years of participation in international anarchist movement.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was unaware that this experience gave you the ability to see the future. :rolleyes:

And what would you do with that? Create your fairy tale?

I don't think it is a "fairy tale" to suggest that we should at least have some idea of what our proposed future society is going to look like. Call me a "utopian" if you must, but I don't think that what I said is in any way unreasonable.

Marxism is no-compromise ideology. Fuck your open mildness liberal myths!

You're no Marxist if you aren't willing to question your own beliefs at all.

I believe that people should drop the paganism thing when they reach 18 years.

I think all religion should be dropped prior to the age of 18. He's not hurting anything, though, so who gives a fuck?

Amen!

You could have picked no better word to express your quasi-religious adherence to all of Marx's doctrines.

Didn't Marx, kind of, dislike anarchists...

I think this sort of thing might "tick him off", so to speak, just a little bit.

Probably, but who cares? It would probably tick Einstein off if he knew that modern physicists accepted quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean that we can't still use general relativity to understand the universe.

Geiseric

3rd December 2011, 22:14

Can't we all agree on that in advanced capitalist countries, there has to be a united front of everybody who wants the complete destruction of capitalism, wage labor, classes, and Capital's rule of society?

And can't we agree on that as soon as possible, through a revolution that completely and totally destroys Capital's rule of society, the working class has to be the ruling class in the world? If you're class collaborationist, that's fine I guess, you're wrong though, but you don't belong among the elite league of the revolutionary left. (jk about the elite league thing)

And can't we agree on that there has to be some kind of organisation that gathers all people who believe in the above and coordinates them effectively to seize power from the bourgeois so that it may not be used against the revolutionaries? "Bourgeois" includes National Bourgeois in Imperialised countries.

And can we also agree that despite our differences, nobody deserves to be oppressed for disagreeing? Unless they disagree violently, or organise counter revolutionary activities, in which case they still won't be killed?

Lastly, can't we all just agree on society being run direct democratically, with no clique of bureaucrats or politician running things? The organs of democracy will be workers councils, which will probably send a representative to an assembly in a large building at some points to decide how to fix things?

Blake's Baby

3rd December 2011, 22:21

Err, yes. I can agree to all of that.

I'd extend it from 'the advanced capitalist countries' to 'the world' though.

I'd also say that I'd settle for less than that in some cases. I don't actually believe all revolutionaries need to be united in a single organisation. Hell, it's difficult enough getting all Left Communists in a single organisation, and we're tiny. I don't know how we would manage with the Anarchists/Anarchist-Communists and the Anrcho-syndicalists as well, not to mention the Impossiblists in the SPGB/WSM and the De Leonists and what not, not to mention the Council Communists... but in principle, unity of revolutionary organisations I think is a positive thing.

Manic Impressive

3rd December 2011, 22:54

Ocean Seal

3rd December 2011, 22:56

No, they are not. IIRC Autonomism was more or less a mix between the two. Also anarcho-syndicalism is basically Council Communism but the two don't want to admit that. Marxism isn't so much an ideology as it is a form of analysis--a scientific form. So Marxism is open to change and changes itself in response to world conditions in its application (as would any other science). But yes, Marxism at the moment is for the most part incompatible with the anarchist worldview, which isn't to say that the two don't have much to learn from each other and that at some point, may grow more or less similar.

Caj

3rd December 2011, 23:19

No, they are not. . . . yes, Marxism at the moment is for the most part incompatible with the anarchist worldview

So . . . which is it? :confused:

Tim Finnegan

3rd December 2011, 23:44

In Post-Scarcity Anarchism, Bookchin argues that the historical distance between Marxism and anarchism has been the preoccupation of Marxists with the present, leading them to over-invest in centralised schemes of organisation with the intent of overcoming contemporary scarcity, and the preoccupation with the anarchists with the libertarian future, at the expense of effective political organisation in the present. Historical formulations which moved towards a synthesis of the two, like council communism and anarcho-syndicalism, found the distance between reality and potential still to great to properly bridge during "peace-time". The suggestion is that as technological levels reach those necessary for a post-scarcity society- he was of the opinion that we have long reached that point- and the only real barrier between scarcity and abundance becomes social, there emerges the opportunity for a successful synthesis of the two, the development of post-scarcity from a distant hypothesis to an immediate possibility meaning that we are no longer forced to "choose" between organisation and freedom, and thus between Marxism and anarchism. The combination of Marxist analysis and anarchist praxis- as mentioned by Rocky Rococo- becomes not merely feasible, but the only sensible way to proceed.

Or, at least, that's how I understood it. Any thoughts?

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 00:15

RaÃºl Duke

4th December 2011, 00:22

Didn't Marx, kind of, dislike anarchists...

I think this sort of thing might "tick him off", so to speak, just a little bit.Isn't Marx, kind of, sort of, dead? :p

His personal opinions on the matter is irrelevant (in fact, I might be willing to wager he would be appalled that we're even considering them; he didn't want a cult of personality around his theory); also the anarchists of Marx's time are not the same as the anarchists on here, or the one's running around in Greece at the moment. He might be intrigued on this idea of anarchist appropriation of Marxist ideas and perhaps even boast about it that now these days anarchists take more inspiration from him (or to be specific use more of his theory) than of his anarchist nemesis Bakunin!

As far as DOTP goes I generally think that the difference between the anarchist and marxist views have been semantics. The main difference is a argument over the definition of the state. Anarchists are not opposed to violence to protect the gains of the revolution and I would argue that it does not have to come from a centralized authority. :thumbup1:

Yes, that's why we should take everything he said as the unquestionable dogmas of Marxism, dissent from which is blasphemy! Give me a break.:D

Well what are some things that shouldn't be taken from marx? I'm not on any side at this point, I would just like to hear the Anarchist arguement. Now here's someone who's getting to the point. This is a good question.

I could argue that outside the things that are obviously out-dated there isn't much that is problematic with Marxism as formulated by Marx (in particular with the Communist Manifesto). Anarchists might have balked at the idea of this "transition stage" but in a way if you listen closely to some anarcho-communists you might notice on how some speak of a (short? long? idk) economic socialist stage that would later give way to a money-less, less communist stage. Also, Marx himself never posited this idea of a vanguard section leading the working class which has been practically used as an excuse to have a special political class rule over the rest of society (again, I would like to clarify here that while I'm arguing that Marxism isn't mutually exclusive from anarchism; to some extent Leninism and off-shoots are). Hell, I'm not sure if he even used the term "state" himself but rather a "dictatorship of the proletariat" and in so far as it means class-rule by the working class rather than the rule of capital many anarchists are in favor of such. Of course, this is my interpretation and opinion; I doubt other anarchists agree with me or not.
To an extent, I see myself as a Marxist first and an anarchist second; anarchism is the way, the methods which we can use to bring the Marxist communist ideal into being.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

4th December 2011, 00:33

One (Marxists) advocates the centralisation of political authority, the other (anarchists) don't.
That's an over-generalization.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

4th December 2011, 00:38

You can't be an anarchist and pagan at the same time. Those two ideas are irreconcilable.
Consider how many arguments I've seen from anarchists over what anarchism is or isn't, that's amusing.

The Insurrection

4th December 2011, 00:44

That's an over-generalization.

Not really. If there are Marxists that don't, they are an exception.

The Insurrection

4th December 2011, 00:49

Consider how many arguments I've seen from anarchists over what anarchism is or isn't, that's amusing.

Well, it's all written down and easily accessed. It's not difficult if you try.

Rafiq

4th December 2011, 00:54

I don't think you can call yourself both an Anarchist and a Marxist. You can agree with ideas of both, but you cannot adhere to both at the same time. They are 100% contradictory in that both exist, but in what sense?

In terms of basis of thinking as a whole, they are, without doubt some of the most similar modes of thinking you can get. But the very existence of them makes them contradictory, when I say they are 100% contradictory, I am speaking within the socialist currents. Hear me out. The only reason both of those terms exist is because they disagreed with each other, somewhere along the line. Otherwise they would be the same. (And this is in terms of the part of Marxism that is contradictory to Anarchism, I am fuly aware that Marxism would exist regardless, and so would anarchism.)

Danielle Ni Dhighe

4th December 2011, 00:55

Well, it's all written down and easily accessed. It's not difficult if you try.
So you're saying the One True Anarchism is written down somewhere, with an absolute list of what is and isn't anarchism? Really? :laugh:

Tim Finnegan

4th December 2011, 00:57

What are anarchist praxis? Posters on this board have illustrated instances of anarchist rejection of both party and trade union. Do they counterpose ad hoc general assemblies to more permanent organizations? Not trying to stir shit up, it's a serious question.
I meant it in a very general sense, referring to an emphasis on direct democracy in mass assemblies, councils, factory and neighbourhood committees, and so on, rather than to any given program. "Libertarian" praxis, really, juxtaposed to an "authoritarian" praxis of centralised party leadership. An over-simplification, granted.

Not really. If there are Marxists that don't, they are an exception.
Circular logic is circular.

The Insurrection

4th December 2011, 01:19

Circular logic is circular.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

The Insurrection

4th December 2011, 01:20

So you're saying the One True Anarchism is written down somewhere, with an absolute list of what is and isn't anarchism? Really? :laugh:

There are certainly core principles, yes.

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 01:25

I meant it in a very general sense, referring to an emphasis on direct democracy in mass assemblies, councils, factory and neighbourhood committees, and so on, rather than to any given program. "Libertarian" praxis, really, juxtaposed to an "authoritarian" praxis of centralised party leadership. An over-simplification, granted.

Circular logic is circular.

All that seems to me to be in the realm of theory though, not practice. Mass assemblies, councils, factory and neighborhood committees. Where are they? Mass assemblies in the OWS are a new development. Practically, the avenues of struggle I see available are primarily trade union and party. In the absence of a massive working class movement, I don't see councils, neighborhood committees, and so on. Though I do see unions getting support from communities.

As a marxist, I share the emphasis on direct democracy in the union, though I can say in my union the direct democracy is in large part enforced by so-called anarchists, or syndicalists, what have you.

Geiseric

4th December 2011, 06:13

Theoretically, isn't the role of unions, and the goal of union officials, compromising with owners instead of pushing for ownership? a union of workers functions for the workers salary, working hours, safety, however doesn't dictate much about the actual work, no? There has to be a different organisation than workers unions.

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 06:43

Theoretically, isn't the role of unions, and the goal of union officials, compromising with owners instead of pushing for ownership?

Hence the need for democracy in the unions, so they aren't hijacked by paid officials and actually serve the workers.

a union of workers functions for the workers salary, working hours, safety, however doesn't dictate much about the actual work, no? There has to be a different organisation than workers unions.

True, but it is practical organizing experience, benefits the workers directly, and invariably leads to political struggle, as the economic struggle brings workers into confrontation with capital and government.

You say there has to be a different organization than workers unions, but what? If one wants to struggle, I only see two options. Joining a union and/or a party. I suppose one could do nothing, just theorize, and join in uprisings and demonstrations when they occur. But that hardly seems effective or proactive to me, merely intellectual. If you'll allow me a Marx quote, Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.

So how to change it without being part of an organization? And if not union or party, then what kind of organization? What if OWS peters out? What kind of permanent organization aside from a union or party is available to workers to continue struggle? That's my question about anarchist praxis. A lot of people write, for example, or teach. But in terms of struggle, what else is there than the organizations we already have?

Speaking in terms of party, I think a lot of criticism here also belongs in the realm of theory. Criticisms of Kronstadt, for example, leveled at marxists in 2011 who aren't dogmatists and have their own ideas of democracy. Fear of party as if it some dictatorial behemoth, when in reality they tend to be small, more-or-less democratic parties of workers who agitate, organize, and engage in struggle, most often in supporting, rather than leading roles. Parties also form caucuses, which can struggle effectively over specific issues, such as women's rights, immigration and refugee rights, specific political issues, etc.

Maybe I just have a hard-on for concrete organizational structures. But I don't see how class-consciousness or revolution can be obtained without them. And that's what attracts me to unions and so called "vanguard" parties (though I personally despise that word).

Die Neue Zeit

4th December 2011, 06:58

^^^ You should consider refining your understanding of the word "party," comrade. "Small, more or less democratic parties" are not good. "Mass, extremely democratic party-movements," on the other hand, are very good.

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 07:03

Die Neue Zeit

4th December 2011, 08:44

Then check out my new blog on institutions: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6617

Искра

4th December 2011, 09:25

"Small, more or less democratic parties" are not good. "Mass, extremely democratic party-movements," on the other hand, are very good.
And how was Kautsky's SPD "extremly democratic", since it was run by PROLETOCRACY? :lol: Besides this funny thing, this has nothing to do with reality of 21st cenutry.

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 09:38

Then check out my new blog on institutions: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6617

If this "mass-party movement" implies subordinating the unions to a party, especially a parliamentary party, I would say I do not support the theory. I think the unions need freedom of action, and have to be accountable to their memberships, not to a party. If the rank-and-file are members of such a party, i.e; if the party influences the democratic decisions of the union through such membership, that is a different thing. But to make it a rigid, formal process seems to me excessively bureaucratic and would probably end up blocking union militancy in the end.

Or maybe I just misread your article. As usual, DNZ, the stuff that comes off of your pen is not the easiest to comprehend.

Искра

4th December 2011, 09:42

If this "mass-party movement" implies subordinating the unions to a party, especially a parliamentary party, I would say I do not support the theory. I think the unions need freedom of action, and have to be accountable to their memberships, not to a party. If the rank-and-file are members of such a party, i.e; if the party influences the democratic decisions of the union through such membership, that is a different thing. But to make it a rigid, formal process seems to me excessively bureaucratic and would probably end up blocking union militancy in the end.Well unions should be subordinated to party, because party sees broader picture and it's fighting for communism, while unions often fight only from one to another workplace struggle.

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 09:59

Well unions should be subordinated to party, because party sees broader picture and it's fighting for communism, while unions often fight only from one to another workplace struggle.

If they are subordinated formally and rigidly it is a recipe for disaster. You just criticized Kautsky's SPD - is that the type of party you want directing union action, rather than the union rank-and-file making decisions of their own?

How often in history have parties tried to hold people back? You don't want a conservative party leadership holding unions back.

Fighting workplace struggle eventually means fighting political struggle. In a revolutionary period, there would be many class-conscious union workers. There would be general strikes, and probably close cooperation with a party/parties. But why would you want to place the leadership of the entire union movement into the hands of party leadership?

Искра

4th December 2011, 10:17

bricolage

4th December 2011, 10:38

IIRC Autonomism was more or less a mix between the two.
Autonomism wasn't really a mix, it was a direct current out of Italian Marxism and the Communist Party, people like Tronti were always die hard Leninists and when the whole thing collapsed those that didn't descend into militarism ended up either dropping out or rejoining the CP.

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 10:40

Ok, but I wasn't talking of subordinating unions to "party lidership" but to party and all of its members. Also, I was talking about communist party not about conservatives, liberals, socialdemocrats etc.

In that case it is subordinating union members to party members. It would be nice if they were one in the same. I think if there is a militant labor movement its interests would be in line with those of a real communist party, so there would be no need for any formal subordination. If there was formal subordination, it would put the labor movement at risk if the party were to degenerate.

Искра

4th December 2011, 10:43

It would be nice if they were one in the same. I think if there is a militant labor movement its interests would be in line with those of a real communist party, so there would be no need for any formal subordination.
Of course, that was my point :)

If there was formal subordination, it would put the labor movement at risk if the party were to degenerate.
Still, there should be formal subordination, because as you are concerned that party doesn't degenerate I'm concern that opportunist policy of union doesn't degenerate whole struggle/movement.

citizen of industry

4th December 2011, 12:09

But I'm not proposing putting the party under the leadership of the unions. If the party is correct, the unions will follow, and vice-verca. No need to create more bureaucracy.

Искра

4th December 2011, 12:27

I don't think that my position will resoult in creating more bureaucracy. I'm just for that that unions follow revolutionary line, without collaborating with state and bosses (capital). Workplace actions are necessary in order to build a movement, but they should allways be "under an eye" of revolutionary party, because sometimes participating too much in day-to-day struggle can cause degeneration of unions thowards reformist positions (take a look at Spanish CGT, French CNT-R and CSR, Swedish SAC, Polish IP etc.).

bricolage

4th December 2011, 12:48

I don't think there is anything to say though that the mythical revolutionary party wouldn't degenerate in the same way, the Bordiga lot seem to say that simply by having a revolutionary program it will remain revolutionary but I don't buy that. Words are meaningless and every left group from here to there talks of revolution and communism in its theoretical writings, what it does in practice is remarkably different. If unions participating in day to day struggle are 'under an eye' of a revolutionary party then that party will be participating in the same way, either the unions are extensions of the party in which case the same will happen to both or it is separated in a way that the party will have no control over the unions seeing as it has distanced itself from the day to day. If it is in any way possible to follow a 'revolutionary line' in the here and now I don't think there is any difference between a workplace grouping (fraction, whatever, it's just union by another name) and a 'party' being able to do this. I also take the position that the 'party' as well know it won't exist in the here and now and will be part of the emergence of the class movement against itself, all that really passes for the party now are the various forms of 'unconscious' (to use a bad term) insurgency that exist in its various guises. I think we have to accept that what we as militants do is going to be reformist and there is no way around it, that doesn't mean petitioning the state but that we are going to making demands in our movements that seek gains out of capitalism not its destruction. Yet what is important is not so much whether the demands are reformist or not but where the structures and means we use maintain class autonomy.

I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist but I agree with this piece on organisation and the rest; http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century

Sorry I think this post is really jumbled but I hope you can get what I'm trying to say out of it.

Искра

4th December 2011, 12:58

Well, bricolage I could say that I agree with you. Theory is not enough and pracitce also must follow "the line". Still, if you agree with that article of Brighton SolFed you probably agree that there's really big threat of unions becoming "reactionary"/"opportunist"/"reformist". Also, if we look at history we can see that even anarchists (Platform!) accepted necessarity of one ideological organisation above union. What was FAI after all? Still, in 1936 it wasn't just CNT which degenerated into reformism, but also FAI whoes members participated in government.

Anyhow, I believe that today we need strong organisation/party which will create workers networks (just like SolFed is doing) instead of participating or creating unions, because today they don't make much sense, except reformist part.

ZeroNowhere

4th December 2011, 13:06

Still, if you agree with that article of Brighton SolFed you probably agree that there's really big threat of unions becoming "reactionary"/"opportunist"/"reformist".I'm not sure that parties have anything nearing an immaculate record in that regard either. In fact, I'm not sure that many forms of organization do.

Blake's Baby

4th December 2011, 15:07

Why do you feel we need a transitional state? I can understand the need in Marx's day, shit I can even understand the need at the time that the SPGB formed. But now in 2011 what possible need is there for a transitional stage that lasts longer than say a year or two?

I don't think you understand what the 'transitional state' is. I don't think we 'need' it any more than we 'need' earthquakes. I just don't think you can abolish it by saying you have.

The state is a result of historical and economic causes. Primarily, the state is the organisation one class uses to suppress another. And a class is a group in society that stands in a relationship to the means of production that is different to the relationship another group has to the means of production.

So the state depends on classes and classes depend on property. Until all property is collectivised worldwide, classes will still exist and therefore states will still exist. The 'transitional state' (I don't actually regard it as a state as such, because it is busy transforming itself into not-a-state, but it will resemble a state at least in the beginning) exists as long as the civil war is going on, as long capitalists and the supporters are capitalism are fighting against the proletarian power.

I can't really see how this can't be the case. Doesn't mean I support it. If we could abolish capitalism upon the instant and peacefully begin the transformation to socialism with no necessity of an intervening stage when the proletariat has political power but production is concentrated on winning the world civil war rather than improving people's material conditions, then I would be well happy. But the notion, sadly, is ridiculous.

So it's not whether one 'likes' or 'supports' the transitional state, it's whether one accepts that the transition from capitalism to communism can't be instantaneous, and the result of this is the inevitable, necessary step of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

citizen of industry

5th December 2011, 00:23

I don't think you understand what the 'transitional state' is. I don't think we 'need' it any more than we 'need' earthquakes. I just don't think you can abolish it by saying you have.

The state is a result of historical and economic causes. Primarily, the state is the organisation one class uses to suppress another. And a class is a group in society that stands in a relationship to the means of production that is different to the relationship another group has to the means of production.

So the state depends on classes and classes depend on property. Until all property is collectivised worldwide, classes will still exist and therefore states will still exist. The 'transitional state' (I don't actually regard it as a state as such, because it is busy transforming itself into not-a-state, but it will resemble a state at least in the beginning) exists as long as the civil war is going on, as long capitalists and the supporters are capitalism are fighting against the proletarian power.

I can't really see how this can't be the case. Doesn't mean I support it. If we could abolish capitalism upon the instant and peacefully begin the transformation to socialism with no necessity of an intervening stage when the proletariat has political power but production is concentrated on winning the world civil war rather than improving people's material conditions, then I would be well happy. But the notion, sadly, is ridiculous.

So it's not whether one 'likes' or 'supports' the transitional state, it's whether one accepts that the transition from capitalism to communism can't be instantaneous, and the result of this is the inevitable, necessary step of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Hypothetical situation. What if there was a successful revolution in the United States? There would be no threat to it militarily, and there would be no need to concentrate production on winning a war. You might say the same about the EU or an Asian block.

jpointon

5th December 2011, 02:40

Caj

5th December 2011, 04:22

Marxists understand that the state apparatus must be appropriated by the working class and used as a tool to overcome capitalism. Anarchists (anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-communists, etc.) believe the state must be abolished immediately through direct action. In that sense, one cannot be a Marxist and an anarchist at the same time.

Yes, but I think that many of the Marxist conceptions of the DotP (especially among council communists and Libertarian Marxists) is completely compatible with anarchism as it is democratic, non-hierarchical, and organized from the bottom-up.

(Also, on a relatively unimportant note, you make the distinction between anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists. This distinction is actually a myth. The collectivists were communists in the sense that they wanted a classless, stateless society in which production and distribution takes place according to the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs". They adopted the term "collectivists" to distinguish themselves from the Marxists who were often referred to as simply "communists".)

jpointon

5th December 2011, 04:59

Yes, but I think that many of the Marxist conceptions of the DotP (especially among council communists and Libertarian Marxists) is completely compatible with anarchism as it is democratic, non-hierarchical, and organized from the bottom-up.

I agree 100%. I think a lot of the problems between more Traditional/Orthodox Marxists and anarchists stems from a distorted image of what a 'Marxist state' would look like. Many retain an image of the state familiar to that of a capitalist state. I have the feeling that most anarchists I talk to think all communists are closet Leninists. The conception that communism is in reality a movement created an mantained from the bottom-up has largely been lost over time.

(Also, on a relatively unimportant note, you make the distinction between anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists. This distinction is actually a myth. The collectivists were communists in the sense that they wanted a classless, stateless society in which production and distribution takes place according to the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs". They adopted the term "collectivists" to distinguish themselves from the Marxists who were often referred to as simply "communists".)

Thanks for clearing that up! I always assumed for some reason that anarcho-collectivists were ideologically closer to some kind of communist-primitivism.

Art Vandelay

5th December 2011, 06:06

Yes, but I think that many of the Marxist conceptions of the DotP (especially among council communists and Libertarian Marxists) is completely compatible with anarchism as it is democratic, non-hierarchical, and organized from the bottom-up.

(Also, on a relatively unimportant note, you make the distinction between anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-communists. This distinction is actually a myth. The collectivists were communists in the sense that they wanted a classless, stateless society in which production and distribution takes place according to the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs". They adopted the term "collectivists" to distinguish themselves from the Marxists who were often referred to as simply "communists".)

This. If people could just realize that fundamentally they have been arguing over nothing for a hundred years then maybe this silly little argument could finally be put to rest and we could move on to more pressing matters, uniting the non-authoritarian left. I have said this before and I stand by it: we are entering into a revolutionary period of history and for the first time in a long time the left has a chance. If we are not to let this slip to the wayside, due to factional bickering, our hope lies in uniting anarchists, council coms, left coms, libertarian socialists and any leninists who agree to not participate in a democratic centralist organization.

CommunityBeliever

5th December 2011, 07:17

Anarchists ... believe the state must be abolished immediately

Speaking of that, can anyone Anarchists explain to me how on Earth they expect to directly abolish the state, despite the fact that it has organised societies continuously for over 6000 years? Most people alive today have never lived without a state, or have even imagined that it is possible to live without one. There is so many reasons I think we cannot immediately abolish it.

We must decisively crush our capitalist enemies and then let the state gradually wither away. This is the Marxist position and it is the only one that makes a lick of sense to me.

Art Vandelay

5th December 2011, 07:24

Speaking of that, can anyone Anarchists explain to me how on Earth they expect to directly abolish the state, despite the fact that it has organised societies continuously for over 6000 years? Most people alive today have never lived without a state, or have even imagined that it is possible to live without one. There is so many reasons I think we cannot immediately abolish it.

We must decisively crush our capitalist enemies and then let the state gradually wither away. This is the Marxist position and it is the only one that makes a lick of sense to me.

The argument is not over whether or not we should organize ourselves to destroy our class enemies its an argument over a definition; why can this not get through.

CommunityBeliever

5th December 2011, 07:30

The argument is not over whether or not we should organize ourselves to destroy our class enemies its an argument over a definition; why can this not get through.

I am referring to the actual differences specified by comrade jpointon, namely that anarchists want to immediately eliminate the state. I am not arguing about definitions.

Art Vandelay

5th December 2011, 07:34

I am referring to the actual differences specified by comrade jpointon, namely that anarchists want to immediately eliminate the state. I am not arguing about definitions.

YES YOU ARE! Anarchists only want to immediately abolish the state in the sense that we have different definitions of what constitutes a state.

CommunityBeliever

5th December 2011, 07:57

YES YOU ARE! Anarchists only want to immediately abolish the state in the sense that we have different definitions of what constitutes a state.

There is a very real split between Marxists and those anarchists who want to immediately abolish the source of ruling class power in technological civilizations (the state).

Art Vandelay

5th December 2011, 08:14

There is a very real split between Marxists and those anarchists who want to immediately abolish the source of ruling class power in technological civilizations (the state).

Dear god I can't do it anymore. Either I am just inept at getting my point across or you just will never listen to it but either way this conversation is pointless at this point. I just keep repeating the same thing which you do not seem to want to address.

Blake's Baby

5th December 2011, 10:42

Hypothetical situation. What if there was a successful revolution in the United States? There would be no threat to it militarily, and there would be no need to concentrate production on winning a war. You might say the same about the EU or an Asian block.

Hypothetically, if you actually believed this, I'd have to consider that you were clinically insane.

1 - IF there were a 'successful' revolution' in the United States... well, any 'revolution' that only affected the United States would not be 'successful' because the revolution is the world revolution, so the 'hypothetical' question hinges upon an impossibility right there - you may as well say 'well, what if Harry Potter and Gandalf were on our side, if the workers could do magic, we'd easily win'. Yes, you're right, if we re-defined reality to fit in with our desires, we could indeed do anything;

2 - IF (and indeed when) the territory of the USA goes over to the revolution, 'there would be no threat to it militarily'; well, unless you think that the entire US armed forces are going to say, one day, 'oh, OK, we'll change the stars and stripes for a red flag and we'll all fight for the international power of the workers' councils with all our Marine Corps and nuclear missiles and what not' then, there is bound to be a 'military threat' to any revolutionary territory, even if it is the USA or the EU or China. The proletariat's siezure of state power needs to happen in short order because the first area to declare itself 'red' will be nuked or invaded prety f***ing sharpish, unless the class struggle elsewhere has already made it extremely hard for the bourgeoisie to mobilise the necessary forces of oppression. Look what happened in Russia in 1917-1920; 15 occupying armies and at least 3 different white armies (might be more, can't really remember). Military technology has increased vastly since then; the ability of the working class to fight capitalism hasn't increased as fast. Any isolated revolution (note, 'isolated' includes one isolated to the USA which, though a country with high military spending - 40% of world military spending last time I looked - and a large economy, is actually a lot smaller territory-wise than Russia, Canada etc, and a lot smaller population-wise than India or China). So though you think there would be 'no threat' to a revolutionary USA, I think you're dead wrong.

So, if I accept 1-your impossibility, and 2-your massive error, then, yes, I'd agree with your 'hypothetical' situation.

Искра

5th December 2011, 12:48

Libertarian MarxistsWho are these blokes?

our hope lies in uniting anarchists, council coms, left coms, libertarian socialists and any leninists who agree to not participate in a democratic centralist organization. Oh... don't you see that mostly left coms don't agree with you in here?

ZeroNowhere

5th December 2011, 13:06

The argument is not over whether or not we should organize ourselves to destroy our class enemies its an argument over a definition; why can this not get through.
Not particularly, any more than our argument with pacifists is over the definition of 'violence'. It's a matter of moral principles; or, rather, of our lacking them.

Caj

5th December 2011, 13:33

Not particularly, any more than our argument with pacifists is over the definition of 'violence'. It's a matter of moral principles; or, rather, of our lacking them.

How do you envision the DotP?

citizen of industry

5th December 2011, 13:59

Hypothetically, if you actually believed this, I'd have to consider that you were clinically insane.

1 - IF there were a 'successful' revolution' in the United States... well, any 'revolution' that only affected the United States would not be 'successful' because the revolution is the world revolution, so the 'hypothetical' question hinges upon an impossibility right there - you may as well say 'well, what if Harry Potter and Gandalf were on our side, if the workers could do magic, we'd easily win'. Yes, you're right, if we re-defined reality to fit in with our desires, we could indeed do anything;

2 - IF (and indeed when) the territory of the USA goes over to the revolution, 'there would be no threat to it militarily'; well, unless you think that the entire US armed forces are going to say, one day, 'oh, OK, we'll change the stars and stripes for a red flag and we'll all fight for the international power of the workers' councils with all our Marine Corps and nuclear missiles and what not' then, there is bound to be a 'military threat' to any revolutionary territory, even if it is the USA or the EU or China. The proletariat's siezure of state power needs to happen in short order because the first area to declare itself 'red' will be nuked or invaded prety f***ing sharpish, unless the class struggle elsewhere has already made it extremely hard for the bourgeoisie to mobilise the necessary forces of oppression. Look what happened in Russia in 1917-1920; 15 occupying armies and at least 3 different white armies (might be more, can't really remember). Military technology has increased vastly since then; the ability of the working class to fight capitalism hasn't increased as fast. Any isolated revolution (note, 'isolated' includes one isolated to the USA which, though a country with high military spending - 40% of world military spending last time I looked - and a large economy, is actually a lot smaller territory-wise than Russia, Canada etc, and a lot smaller population-wise than India or China). So though you think there would be 'no threat' to a revolutionary USA, I think you're dead wrong.

So, if I accept 1-your impossibility, and 2-your massive error, then, yes, I'd agree with your 'hypothetical' situation.

I. Oh, really? And this whole time I was thinking that the world was divided up into things called nation states, and to achieve a global revolution the working class in each respective state would overthrow their bourgoiesie. And that these "events" did not happen simultaneously, and in common lexicon are termed "revolutions." Hence why in most languages the name of a respective nation state precedes the word revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc. So if US workers overthrew their government and capital in the US, it would be termed a "successful revolution." Not to be confused with a global socialist society. But you didn't really think I was advocating socialism in one country did you? Now that we've gotten definitions out of the way...

II. I used to be a part of the US military. If you think all of the soldiers in the US military would fire on families, on children, against their class interests, you might be right. Or you might be wrong. The Russian revolution is a great example of the latter. If you think the US army would be capable of defeating a mass uprising of millions and millions of people, I would disagree. If you think a European or Asian power would be capable of crossing an ocean and maintaining their armies with such a long supply line, all the while fighting a people in some of the best defensible territory in the entire world after having appropriated the most deadly and expansive military machine in the world, I'd say you would be clinically insane.

I'm not a huge reader of James Cannon, but one of his essays in particular, Theses on the American Revolution, is worth a read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1946/thesis.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1946/thesis.htm) Especially this part:

The role of America in the world is decisive. Should the European and colonial revolutions, now on the order of the day, precede in point of time the culmination of the struggle in the US, they would immediately be confronted with the necessity of defending their conquests against the economic and military assaults of the American imperialist monster. The ability of the victorious insurgent peoples everywhere to maintain themselves would depend to a high degree on the strength and fighting capacity of the revolutionary labour movement in America. The American workers would then be obliged to come to their aid, just as the Western European working class came to the aid of the Russian Revolution and saved it by blocking full-scale imperialist military assaults upon the young workers’ republic.

But even should the revolution in Europe and other parts of the world be once again retarded, it will by no means signify a prolonged stabilisation of the world capitalist system. The issue of socialism or capitalism will not be finally decided until it is decided in the US. Another retardation of the proletarian revolution in one country or another, or even one continent or another, will not save American imperialism from its proletarian nemesis at home. The decisive battles for the communist future of mankind will be fought in the US.

The revolutionary victory of the workers in the US will seal the doom of the senile bourgeois regimes in every part of our planet, and of the Stalinist bureaucracy, if it still exists at the time. The Russian Revolution raised the workers and colonial peoples to their feet. The American revolution with its hundredfold greater power will set in motion revolutionary forces that will change the face of our planet. The whole Western Hemisphere will quickly be consolidated into the Socialist United States of North, Central, and South America. This invincible power, merging with the revolutionary movements in all parts of the world, will put an end to the outlived capitalist system as a whole, and begin the grandiose task of world reconstruction under the banner of the Socialist United States of the World.

Tim Finnegan

5th December 2011, 14:06

I. Oh, really? And this whole time I was thinking that the world was divided up into things called nation states, and to achieve a global revolution the working class in each respective state would overthrow their bourgoiesie.
And that's why you shouldn't get all your ideas from a period in which "national bourgeoisie" was still a meaningful category.

citizen of industry

5th December 2011, 14:23

And that's why you shouldn't get all your ideas from a period in which "national bourgeoisie" was still a meaningful category.

Semantics again. Okay, the 1%? Ruling class? Gubmn't and them rich execs. Can I still use finance capitalist? I suppose industrial magnate is a bid dated...

Capitalists can move their assets around from place to place, but workers are pretty much stuck to one spot. International solidarity actions are useful and not so difficult to organize, but I'm pretty sure the workers in one country have to take on their own governments.

Искра

5th December 2011, 14:37

Capitalists can move their assets around from place to place, but workers are pretty much stuck to one spot. International solidarity actions are useful and not so difficult to organize, but I'm pretty sure the workers in one country have to take on their own governments.But why shouldn't proletariat of other "countries" helped them? Where's proletarian internationalism? We don't fight for socialism in one country, but for World revolution.

citizen of industry

5th December 2011, 15:05

But why shouldn't proletariat of other "countries" helped them? Where's proletarian internationalism? We don't fight for socialism in one country, but for World revolution.

They should help them in any way they can. But for example, in Croatia, it will be mostly Croation workers taking part in the revolution, not American workers coming to Croatia and doing it for them. American workers can help by striking, boycotting, and revolting in America. That is all I meant.

But the debate we were having was whether or not American workers could begin to build socialism immediately after overthrowing the government, without a lengthy transitional period. And I think yes, because they would not have a credible military threat against them. But in Croatia, for example, if the workers overthrew their government, the US military would probably intervene, they would apply sanctions, send the CIA in to subvert everything, fund right-wing military groups and parties, and so Croation workers would have to have a transitional period and fight their brains out while waiting for revolutions to occur in other countries. Same thing where I am in Japan. Whereas in the case of the US, I think the opposite is true. The workers could begin to build socialism immediately, and without US imperialism interfering, revolution would unfold a lot quicker and less painlessly in other countries. Read the Cannon article. It was written in 1946 I think, but it is still applicable to the present, IMO.

Art Vandelay

5th December 2011, 17:39

Oh... don't you see that mostly left coms don't agree with you in here?

That is fine. I was just expressing my opinion. I think that the left needs broader unity in this coming century, but if there are tendencies against that than I guess its just a silly pipe dream of mine.

Not particularly, any more than our argument with pacifists is over the definition of 'violence'. It's a matter of moral principles; or, rather, of our lacking them.

I do not think that that is a good example at all. Elaborate on what you mean cause I would argue that dotp is not incompatible with the anarchist vision of immediate post revolutionary society.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2011, 00:14

I. Oh, really? And this whole time I was thinking that the world was divided up into things called nation states, and to achieve a global revolution the working class in each respective state would overthrow their bourgoiesie...

Yes, but what you are proposing is the example of a 'successful revolution' in an advanced capitalist country eg the USA, the EU (not a nation state) or 'an Asian bloc' which, because I'm being charitable, I've pretended means China.

Any proletarian revolution which 'successfully overthrew' the bourgeoisie in its own country but did not spread would inevitably succumb to counter-revolution. Am I wrong, I thought you were a Trotskyist? Among Trotsky's insights into the revolutionary process and among his contributions to communism, there is the theory of world revolution. The revolution needs to spread; isolated in one country it cannot help but degenerate. A 'socialist America' would become a state-capitalist barracks within a month. For this reason, the 'Russian Revolution' was not successful. It wasn't successful because, despite what history teachers tell you about it and Council Communists label it, it wasn't a bourgeois-democratic revolution that succeeded, it was a proletarian, world, revolution that failed. If it hadn't, we would be conducting this argument in communism (and you'd still be wrong).

II. I used to be a part of the US military...

I'm glad you got better and stopped believing that being part of an organisation that exists to kill people for the sake of a piece of magic cloth was a good idea.

... If you think all of the soldiers in the US military would fire on families, on children, against their class interests, you might be right. Or you might be wrong...

Or you might be talking out of your ex-military hat. I never said that the entire US military would or wouldn't fire on civilians. Some will; some won't. Some will even go over to the revolution. Your 'hypothetical' relies on the entire military going over. Won't happen.

... The Russian revolution is a great example of the latter...

Oh really? Do you think that might have been why I mentioned the Civil War before, huh?

... If you think the US army would be capable of defeating a mass uprising of millions and millions of people, I would disagree. If you think a European or Asian power would be capable of crossing an ocean and maintaining their armies with such a long supply line, all the while fighting a people in some of the best defensible territory in the entire world after having appropriated the most deadly and expansive military machine in the world, I'd say you would be clinically insane...

If the revolution breaks out but doesn't spread, you'll be a Spanish-speaking golfcourse owned by Japan inside 9 months is my guess, if you haven't been nuked out of existence... Canada will invade you. Mexico will invade you. Hell even Panama will invade you. Places you've never even heard of will invade you. Expect Cubans in Miami, the new Mexican province of Nuevo Mexico, Nicaraguans in New Orleans, Trinidadians in Texas. The Japanese will take Hawaii at least, the Chinese will land the PLA in California, the Russians will take back Anchorage. Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands will all send troops to the East Coast ('to restore order'); Texas and Washington State, Ron Paul and the Michigan Militia will declare themselves independent and dozens of 'legitimist governments' will spring up, not to mention all the 'Red Dawn Wolverine' proto-fascist terrorists that are just itching for the opportunity to skin some reds.

Happily, the entire fucked up scenario that you envision is just so much hot air. A revolution that only encompasses America is a fantasy. The revolution in the US will be part of the world revolution. Mexico, Canada, Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan and all the rest will not be able to invade because we (that is, the proletariat that is unlucky enough not to live in the seemingly blessed corner of the globe that you inhabit) will be busy fucking up our own bourgeoisies. No, don't thank us, just continue to sail on with your insane ideas about manifest destiny and how totally awesome the USA is.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2011, 00:36

That is fine. I was just expressing my opinion. I think that the left needs broader unity in this coming century, but if there are tendencies against that than I guess its just a silly pipe dream of mine.

I do not think that that is a good example at all. Elaborate on what you mean cause I would argue that dotp is not incompatible with the anarchist vision of immediate post revolutionary society.

OK, I think that you're misreading what's being said; I don't think Left-Comms disagree with the idea of broader unity, including with Anarchists (though frankly we can't even get it together among Left-Comms, so what chance do we have)?

Part of the second problem is, I think, that communists have been very bad at explaining what the DotP is. In the early stages of the revolution 1917-27 (or thereabouts) Marxists and Anarchists managed to work together - particularly, before 1921, most of the time, and after 1921, most of the time not.

Please believe that Left-Comms do not believe that the 'Soviet State' was the DotP. I can't think of any group claiming the heritage of the Communist Left that supports the suppression of Kronstadt, for instance, though on the question of Makhno, you might get some answers you don't want to hear. Left Communism supports, utterly, the propositions 'the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class' - even the Bordigists, though they think the Party, being an expression of the working class, has a more direct role than other Left Communist groups - and that the new society will be built on the idea of 'all power to the workers' councils'.

But, we believe that the working class will for a while necessarily wield state power (that will decrease over time), we see it as inevitable. If, as an anarchist, you feel that you can see the necessity for that, I think that's great. Other Anarchists in the past have done so, such as Gregory Maximov, Berkman and Goldman, Guy Aldred, anyone that worked with the Bolsheviks basically, and who supported the October revolution. As I say, we see it as necessary, in that we can't jump over that development. Wish we could. It will be messy. But our understanding of how history works means we can't avoid that particular messiness. That doesn't mean we don't want, practically, greater co-operation between all internationalists, Marxist or Anarchist.

citizen of industry

6th December 2011, 01:15

Yes, but what you are proposing is the example of a 'successful revolution' in an advanced capitalist country eg the USA, the EU (not a nation state) or 'an Asian bloc' which, because I'm being charitable, I've pretended means China.

Any proletarian revolution which 'successfully overthrew' the bourgeoisie in its own country but did not spread would inevitably succumb to counter-revolution. Am I wrong, I thought you were a Trotskyist? Among Trotsky's insights into the revolutionary process and among his contributions to communism, there is the theory of world revolution. The revolution needs to spread; isolated in one country it cannot help but degenerate. A 'socialist America' would become a state-capitalist barracks within a month. For this reason, the 'Russian Revolution' was not successful. It wasn't successful because, despite what history teachers tell you about it and Council Communists label it, it wasn't a bourgeois-democratic revolution that succeeded, it was a proletarian, world, revolution that failed. If it hadn't, we would be conducting this argument in communism (and you'd still be wrong).

I'm glad you got better and stopped believing that being part of an organisation that exists to kill people for the sake of a piece of magic cloth was a good idea.

Or you might be talking out of your ex-military hat. I never said that the entire US military would or wouldn't fire on civilians. Some will; some won't. Some will even go over to the revolution. Your 'hypothetical' relies on the entire military going over. Won't happen.

Oh really? Do you think that might have been why I mentioned the Civil War before, huh?

If the revolution breaks out but doesn't spread, you'll be a Spanish-speaking golfcourse owned by Japan inside 9 months is my guess, if you haven't been nuked out of existence... Canada will invade you. Mexico will invade you. Hell even Panama will invade you. Places you've never even heard of will invade you. Expect Cubans in Miami, the new Mexican province of Nuevo Mexico, Nicaraguans in New Orleans, Trinidadians in Texas. The Japanese will take Hawaii at least, the Chinese will land the PLA in California, the Russians will take back Anchorage. Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands will all send troops to the East Coast ('to restore order'); Texas and Washington State, Ron Paul and the Michigan Militia will declare themselves independent and dozens of 'legitimist governments' will spring up, not to mention all the 'Red Dawn Wolverine' proto-fascist terrorists that are just itching for the opportunity to skin some reds.

Happily, the entire fucked up scenario that you envision is just so much hot air. A revolution that only encompasses America is a fantasy. The revolution in the US will be part of the world revolution. Mexico, Canada, Britain, China, France, Germany, Japan and all the rest will not be able to invade because we (that is, the proletariat that is unlucky enough not to live in the seemingly blessed corner of the globe that you inhabit) will be busy fucking up our own bourgeoisies. No, don't thank us, just continue to sail on with your insane ideas about manifest destiny and how totally awesome the USA is.

Enough with the fucking straw man. Nowhere did I advocate socialism in one country, or the revolution not spreading, or some patriotic manifest destiny program that only encompasses the US. I don't even live there, haven't for many years, and most likely never will again.

The US revolution is part of the global revolution. It so happens that the US is the strongest imperialist power, and hence the greatest obstacle to revolution around the world. If that obstacle is removed, the greatest obstacle to global revolution is removed, and it can proceed much faster and without the need for lengthy "transitional periods." That is one possibility.

What kind of pathetic fantasy politics are you envisioning with Japanese invasions of Hawaii and Chinese invasions of California. Where is your tin hat? After expropriating the capitalists and appropriating the military machine, who is going to nuke a proletariat with almost all of the the world's nuclear arsenal in its possession?

The US military is numerically quite small, it would crumble like a house of cards against a mass movement of millions of revolutionary workers, and that's even if many of them didn't go over, which I think they would.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2011, 01:24

So what you're saying is, your 'hypothetical' is meaningless, as I've been arguing all along?

Finally...

Durutii Column

6th December 2011, 01:32

Every anarchist revolution that has ever taken place has had some individual, party, or trade union associated with it so i do not get why people are saying that anarchists are against a party.

Red Rosa

6th December 2011, 01:35

It doesn't make sense that I fully elaborate why I think Marxism and Anarchism are mutually exclusive positions. Others said it better than me already. If anyone is interested in my opinion as such, I will kindly give it alhough I don't think that's the case and don't see why it should be :D
I would just like to point out one thing. However anarchists organize themselves during and after the revolution, whether it's one big organization like CNT or many organizations, one thing definitely separates them from Marxist idea of revolution organizing and that's politics. Many would fall into trap thinking that Marxists and Anarchists could get closer if anarchists organize themselves through one big organization because Marxists also advocate one big organization, party. And if that big anarchist organization magically sustains "the line", people would get even closer to the idea that Marxism and Anarchism, on this aspect, are close and aren't mutually exclusive. But this again isn't true, because anarchist organization doesn't view itself as a political organization while marxist party does. If we just consider the definition of politics even on a superficial level we would get a pretty clear idea how anarchist organization and marxist party differ from one another.
It's not that anarchists don't understand the definition of this transitional stage, which would mean one class dictating the other, although some of them don't, it's that they don't want it to be, again, political. Anarchists want to implement socialism without politics and marxist with it. Anarchists want workers to manage labour and that's it, marxists want (in transitional period, of course, in later period, communism, marxists and anarchist are mutually inclusive) not only for workers to manage their labour (funny how anarchists don't realize that the act of taking control of labour and changing economics from capitalist to socialist is a political act) but also to grab all the political power and take it away from the bourgeoise and other reactionaries. In that respect dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't apply to anarchism, since a class dictatorship, a word dictatorship as such, is a political term. And that is something where anarchists and marxists simpy can't make make a compromise. Seizing economic power as anarchist seems to want just isn't enough. The rest of reactionary society living under this transitional phase need to shut the fuck up and be subordinate to working class, otherwise it won't work. And how do you make them shut up? With political power. Society as a whole, not just economically, needs to be dictated by workers. Bakunin talked about dictatorship but one without any political power. Now matter how anarchist and marxist type of organization may look very much alike, this political thing is what separates them. And you can't make these two ends meet.

And another thing, that whole anarchist smashing the state thing, you're not special. ;) Marxists want to smash the state too. That is somehow always left unsaid, it is always emphasised that Marxists want to have their own state. Maybe people have this marxist "smashing the state" in mind, but I don't think it's been pointed out enough. Look at my first quote.

citizen of industry

6th December 2011, 01:48

So what you're saying is, your 'hypothetical' is meaningless, as I've been arguing all along?

Finally...

In response to a post about the necessity of a lengthy transitional period, I replied
Hypothetically, what if there was a successful revolution in the United States? There would be no threat to it militarily, and there would be no need to concentrate production on winning a war.

In my last post I said
The US revolution is part of the global revolution. It so happens that the US is the strongest imperialist power, and hence the greatest obstacle to revolution around the world. If that obstacle is removed, the greatest obstacle to global revolution is removed, and it can proceed much faster and without the need for lengthy "transitional periods." That is one possibility.

I don't see how my hypothetical has changed at all. But if it makes you sleep better at night...

Искра

6th December 2011, 01:49

Every anarchist revolution that has ever taken place has had some individual, party, or trade union associated with it so i do not get why people are saying that anarchists are against a party.
Firstly, what "anarchist revolution"? Are you talking about some rare Sex Pistols single or what?

Secondly, Party is not the same as union or collective... Party is organisation of proletariat which tends to turn proletariat into political class capable of seizing state power and creating proletarian dictatorship. CNT didn't want that, nor did Magon's Mexican Liberal Party.... So yes, anarchists are against party. They do not recognise proletarian dictatorship in its centralist and totalitarian form and they dispute it as all other liberals do.

Caj

6th December 2011, 01:52

anarchist organization doesn't view itself as a political organization while marxist party does. If we just consider the definition of politics even on a superficial level we would get a pretty clear idea how anarchist organization and marxist party differ from one another.

But as has been stated several times hitherto, there is a difference in the definitions of terms such as "political", "state", et cetera between anarchists and Marxists. Some (non-Leninist) Marxists view the DotP as non-hierarchical and organized from the bottom-up by the workers. This conception of the DotP doesn't constitute a "state" in the anarchists' definition but does in the Marxists'. The anarchists reject it, not because it is incompatible with their positions, but because of the Marxists' differing use of the word "state". I think that if Marxists and anarchists recognized these inconsistencies between them regarding definitions, they would see that there really is little or no disagreement between their positions.

to grab all the political power and take it away from the bourgeoise and other reactionaries. In that respect dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't apply to anarchism, since a class dictatorship, a word dictatorship as such, is a political term. And that is something where anarchists and marxists simpy can't make make a compromise.

So that is the function of the DotP? Okay, that's fine. Now tell me why this DotP has to be run hierarchically after the seizure of political power?

Caj

6th December 2011, 01:54

Firstly, what "anarchist revolution"? Are you talking about some rare Sex Pistols single or what?

Secondly, Party is not the same as union or collective... Party is organisation of proletariat which tends to turn proletariat into political class capable of seizing state power and creating proletarian dictatorship. CNT didn't want that, nor did Magon's Mexican Liberal Party.... So yes, anarchists are against party. They do not recognise proletarian dictatorship in its centralist and totalitarian form and they dispute it as all other liberals do.

Please tell me you're not referring to anarchists as liberals. . . .

Искра

6th December 2011, 01:57

Please tell me you're not referring to anarchists as liberals. . . .
When you dispute, as anarchists tend to (at least all those anarchists from IAF/IWA/anarkismo I encountered during the years), dictatorship of proletariat in Marxist sense trought Hannah Arendt's "Totalitarism", you don't deserver anything else :p

Red Rosa

6th December 2011, 02:48

But as has been stated several times hitherto, there is a difference in the definitions of terms such as "political", "state", et cetera between anarchists and Marxists.

Yes. Anarchist fear the word "political" because in their heads that means that the party will turn into this proletariat's blood sucking monsters. Marxists view it's necessity in organizing and leading the revolution.

Some (non-Leninist) Marxists view the DotP as non-hierarchical and organized from the bottom-up by the workers.

No they don't. They view it as party, which is the political body of the workers, seizes the power. You can't put ALL the workers into power; we aren't anarchists. The political party seizes political power, since the members of the party are "trained" to do so. Of course, that doesn't mean that the rest of the proletariat needs to be blindly obediant to the party, since that party grows out of the proletariat; that doesn't mean that that political party seizes its power to get priviliges, since the goal of the party is to start to establish socialism, which means - what goes for the proletariat in general goes for them too. But if you ask me if that party is hierachical to the rest of te proletariat then I must say yes, if by hierarchy we mean leadership in relations to those who are led. But this doesn't have to be anything bad as it probably seems in anarchist's heads (and quite frankly I am sick and tired of talking about this apologetically when i talk to anarchists); it simply means taking the initiative, constructing the political program and acting on it, leading, in other words. That is the difference between party members and the rest of the workers. The party always has to explain and inform the proletariat about their actions. This is silly to point out, since in my head this goes without saying, but obviously I have to, since anarchists always go crazy when someone mentions party and the rest of the proletariat like they saw a murder.

This conception of the DotP doesn't constitute a "state" in the anarchists' definition but does in the Marxists'. The anarchists reject it, not because it is incompatible with their positions, but because of the Marxists' differing use of the word "state". I think that if Marxists and anarchists recognized these inconsistencies between them regarding definitions, they would see that there really is little or no disagreement between their positions.

Yes, because state is a political term and anarchists, again, don't want a political character of the revolution and after it. This is not inconsistencies, these are real differences which will get us inevitably into a fight when the revolution begins. Forget the the terminology- We want to form a party, a political party with one political line. you want to form one big or few smaller organizations without one political line.

So that is the function of the DotP? Okay, that's fine. Now tell me why this DotP has to be run hierarchically after the seizure of political power?

Yes, what id you think it is? I have talked above about the nature of relations between party and the workers. And it has to maintain so until the time is right for the political power to fade away, to start to implement communism.

Caj

6th December 2011, 03:14

When you dispute, as anarchists tend to (at least all those anarchists from IAF/IWA/anarkismo I encountered during the years), dictatorship of proletariat in Marxist sense trought Hannah Arendt's "Totalitarism", you don't deserver anything else :p

I wasn't aware that I was disputing the DotP. In fact, concerning its non-hierarchical conceptions, I was actually defending it.

And referring to those with whom you disagree as liberals is in no way constructive but simply makes you look like a sectarian asshole incapable of rational discussion.

Agent Equality

6th December 2011, 03:28

Yes. Anarchist fear the word "political" because in their heads that means that the party will turn into this proletariat's blood sucking monsters. Marxists view it's necessity in organizing and leading the revolution.

No they don't. They view it as party, which is the political body of the workers, seizes the power. You can't put ALL the workers into power; we aren't anarchists. The political party seizes political power, since the members of the party are "trained" to do so. Of course, that doesn't mean that the rest of the proletariat needs to be blindly obediant to the party, since that party grows out of the proletariat; that doesn't mean that that political party seizes its power to get priviliges, since the goal of the party is to start to establish socialism, which means - what goes for the proletariat in general goes for them too. But if you ask me if that party is hierachical to the rest of te proletariat then I must say yes, if by hierarchy we mean leadership in relations to those who are led. But this doesn't have to be anything bad as it probably seems in anarchist's heads (and quite frankly I am sick and tired of talking about this apologetically when i talk to anarchists); it simply means taking the initiative, constructing the political program and acting on it, leading, in other words. That is the difference between party members and the rest of the workers. The party always has to explain and inform the proletariat about their actions. This is silly to point out, since in my head this goes without saying, but obviously I have to, since anarchists always go crazy when someone mentions party and the rest of the proletariat like they saw a murder.

Yes, because state is a political term and anarchists, again, don't want a political character of the revolution and after it. This is not inconsistencies, these are real differences which will get us inevitably into a fight when the revolution begins. Forget the the terminology- We want to form a party, a political party with one political line. you want to form one big or few smaller organizations without one political line.

Yes, what id you think it is? I have talked above about the nature of relations between party and the workers. And it has to maintain so until the time is right for the political power to fade away, to start to implement communism.

First off, it should not be the political party that seizes power, it should be the proletariat (but I assume you mean that in that the party essentially IS the proletariat?). Vanguard parties are so last century though. The whole idea of the vanguard party is one that it should be the vanguard that leads the proletariat into power, albeit with all sorts of different ranks and offices and what have you.

The thing is, in virtually every single instance a vanguard party has led the proletariat in a revolution, it has ended in either immediate failure or bureaucracy and state capitalism. A vanguard isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it is grown organically out of the proletariat in the form of more educated and motivated workers who have a knack for class consciousness and theory. They can help "lead" their fellows (in a different manner than what an institutionalized party would do) by participating in councils and assemblies and helping to educate their fellow workers on theory and the failures of capitalism, just as we do as socialists today.

The institutionalization of the vanguard however, along with the increase of importance in its role, leads to bad things that no matter what you try to do, will always happen. This is simply the nature of the party and its foundations to begin with. Intentions might be comendable in an attempt to do what a vanguard should, but the added premises of hierarchy and institutionalization corrupt this.

Let's have the Proletariat be their own vanguard yeah?

Caj

6th December 2011, 05:22

No they don't.

Well, perhaps you don't, but plenty of Marxists do. The conception of the DotP among council communists and libertarian Marxists is that of a non-hierarchical, worker-run "state" (as I said, this wouldn't constitute a state by the definition used by anarchists).

They view it as party, which is the political body of the workers, seizes the power.

Are you sure you aren't a Leninist? There is no room for the party to seize power. That is the task of the workers.

You can't put ALL the workers into power

In a hierarchical, top-down power structure? Of course not. That is why the dictatorship of the proletariat must be of the proletariat, i.e., non-hierarchical, democratic, and organized from the bottom-up by the proletariat as a whole. Your conception of the DotP, which excludes the vast majority of the working class, isn't a DotP at all -- it is a dictatorship over the proletariat.

The political party seizes political power, since the members of the party are "trained" to do so.

And in what way does this differ from the Leninist argument for a vanguard party of "professional revolutionaries"? Both your position and theirs begins from the false premise that the working class is incapable of managing their own affairs -- that they need "leaders", the "trained", or "professional revolutionaries" to guide them to their liberation. It is an anti-socialist position. The liberation of the proletariat must be the act of the proletariat -- that is the basic premise of revolutionary socialism -- unless of course you are a Blanquist.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the rest of the proletariat needs to be blindly obediant to the party, since that party grows out of the proletariat; that doesn't mean that that political party seizes its power to get priviliges

"[G]rows out of the proletariat"? What does that even mean? And yes, the proletariat is supposed to be blindly obedient with regards to your conception of the party. Obedience is the very nature of hierarchy, and you said yourself that the party would be hierarchical.

the goal of the party is to start to establish socialism, which means - what goes for the proletariat in general goes for them too.

That isn't necessarily true. It was also the goal of the Bolsheviks to establish socialism. That doesn't mean that what went for the Bolsheviks went for the workers too.

Parties can be corrupted, and if the 20th century should teach us anything about socialism, it is that they always will corrupted so long as they are hierarchical and exclude, isolate, and alientate the vast majority of the working class from the act of revolution itself and the post-revolutionary management of production that proceeds.

But if you ask me if that party is hierachical to the rest of te proletariat then I must say yes, if by hierarchy we mean leadership in relations to those who are led.

Well, first we must define precisely what we mean by the term "leadership". There is imposed leadership and voluntary leadership. I have no problem with the latter, in which the workers voluntarily subject themselves to the wisdom of certain revolutionaries (just so long as it is remembered that these revolutionaries are in no way infallible). Eugene Debs, for example, was a voluntary leader, i.e., workers subjected themselves to his wisdom voluntarily, without coercion to do so. With regards to imposed leadership, however, I have no respect. Imposed leaders, those who have sought to impose their own wills and ideologies upon the unwilling proletarians, have unanimously throughout history claimed to represent the proletariat, only to further oppress them after the revolution, establishing themselves as the new ruling class.

That is the difference between party members and the rest of the workers. The party always has to explain and inform the proletariat about their actions.

So like a parent, really? The workers are the mindless sheep who must be led by the shepherd (party). Once again, this is an anti-socialist attitude. The workers must carry out the revolution and manage their own affairs. If they leave it to the party, they subject themselves to new masters, new oppression, and a new ruling class despotism.

Yes, because state is a political term and anarchists, again, don't want a political character of the revolution and after it. This is not inconsistencies, these are real differences which will get us inevitably into a fight when the revolution begins. Forget the the terminology- We want to form a party, a political party with one political line. you want to form one big or few smaller organizations without one political line.

Perhaps there isn't any inconsistency regarding your definitions regarding words such as "state", "political", and "party" vis-a-vis the definitions used by the anarchists, but this is the case concerning some Marxists (especially councilists and libertarians).

it has to maintain so until the time is right for the political power to fade away, to start to implement communism.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that it was the task of the workers to implement communism. My bad! :laugh:

The fact is that a hierarchical state will place as its raison d'etre the perpetuation of its own existence. We see this all throughout history. Name me one instance when a state has voluntarily "withered itself away". The DotP doesn't have to be a top-down power structure that excludes the vast majority of the proletariat from the decision-making process, nor should it be. We don't need another century of failure because of those such as you who would have the workers subjected to the tyranny of a new ruling class.

Art Vandelay

6th December 2011, 08:28

OK, I think that you're misreading what's being said; I don't think Left-Comms disagree with the idea of broader unity, including with Anarchists (though frankly we can't even get it together among Left-Comms, so what chance do we have)?

I would certainly hope so and the matter of fact is that we have no choice but to get it together.

Part of the second problem is, I think, that communists have been very bad at explaining what the DotP is. In the early stages of the revolution 1917-27 (or thereabouts) Marxists and Anarchists managed to work together - particularly, before 1921, most of the time, and after 1921, most of the time not.

I think what the problem is, is that we have been using two different definitions for the same word for a long time.

Please believe that Left-Comms do not believe that the 'Soviet State' was the DotP. I can't think of any group claiming the heritage of the Communist Left that supports the suppression of Kronstadt, for instance, though on the question of Makhno, you might get some answers you don't want to hear. Left Communism supports, utterly, the propositions 'the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class' - even the Bordigists, though they think the Party, being an expression of the working class, has a more direct role than other Left Communist groups - and that the new society will be built on the idea of 'all power to the workers' councils'.

Perhaps I am extremely inept at explaining myself politically, not a far fetched scenario, but I am pretty sure that this is what I have been saying. Our conceptions of the immediate post revolutionary, or dictatorship of the proletariat, society are not all that different.

But, we believe that the working class will for a while necessarily wield state power (that will decrease over time), we see it as inevitable. If, as an anarchist, you feel that you can see the necessity for that, I think that's great. Other Anarchists in the past have done so, such as Gregory Maximov, Berkman and Goldman, Guy Aldred, anyone that worked with the Bolsheviks basically, and who supported the October revolution. As I say, we see it as necessary, in that we can't jump over that development. Wish we could. It will be messy. But our understanding of how history works means we can't avoid that particular messiness. That doesn't mean we don't want, practically, greater co-operation between all internationalists, Marxist or Anarchist.

But what I have been trying to get across here is that anarchists, at least social anarchists, do not have a fundamental difference with what your describing. The beef between us has not been one in tactics but in semantics. We only object to the proletariat "wielding state power" in the sense that we have a different definition of the word "state."

Art Vandelay

6th December 2011, 08:47

Yes. Anarchist fear the word "political" because in their heads that means that the party will turn into this proletariat's blood sucking monsters. Marxists view it's necessity in organizing and leading the revolution.

Ad hominem.

No they don't. They view it as party, which is the political body of the workers, seizes the power. You can't put ALL the workers into power; we aren't anarchists. The political party seizes political power, since the members of the party are "trained" to do so.

Reeks of Leninism. Again all you are displaying is your lack of a fundamental understanding of what anarchism is.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the rest of the proletariat needs to be blindly obediant to the party, since that party grows out of the proletariat; that doesn't mean that that political party seizes its power to get priviliges, since the goal of the party is to start to establish socialism, which means - what goes for the proletariat in general goes for them too.

Says alot about your politics. No one seizes power but the workers. their emancipation must be conducted by themselves.

But if you ask me if that party is hierachical to the rest of te proletariat then I must say yes, if by hierarchy we mean leadership in relations to those who are led. But this doesn't have to be anything bad as it probably seems in anarchist's heads (and quite frankly I am sick and tired of talking about this apologetically when i talk to anarchists); it simply means taking the initiative, constructing the political program and acting on it, leading, in other words.

The only way leaders should have any chance of leading the proletariat, as you put it, is if they are chosen by the workers themselves. It is like you honestly think that anarchists want every single worker involved in every single decision. No one said that certain "leaders" if we must call them that would not arise, but that they will be appointed by the proletariat. In the immediate post revolutionary society, or dotp, mass assemblies and meetings will be held, discussion and debate will be rampant, obviously more educated and well read comrades will articulate their arguments and gain the support of many less informed comrades. As Anarchy! stated Eugene Debs is a good example. These people may be leaders in the sense that more responsibility will be placed on their soldiers but their responsibility will be derived from the will of the proletariat, and will be instantly dismissed of it the second they disobey the will of the proletariat, not some party which seizes power.

That is the difference between party members and the rest of the workers. The party always has to explain and inform the proletariat about their actions. This is silly to point out, since in my head this goes without saying, but obviously I have to, since anarchists always go crazy when someone mentions party and the rest of the proletariat like they saw a murder.

Again your strawman claims about anarchists make you seem like nothing but a sectarian who does not want a serious discussion about an extremely important and pressing issue.

Yes, because state is a political term and anarchists, again, don't want a political character of the revolution and after it. This is not inconsistencies, these are real differences which will get us inevitably into a fight when the revolution begins. Forget the the terminology- We want to form a party, a political party with one political line. you want to form one big or few smaller organizations without one political line.

Why the fuck would you want one political line!? No room for debate and differing opinions? If you think come time for the next revolution the proletariat is going to let some party seize power over them and silence all opinions differing to the party line then your sadly mistaken. They saw how that played out.

Искра

6th December 2011, 09:03

Maybe I'm sectarian asshole, but none of you defined what are "libertarian marxists". I'm still waiting for that to see.

Art Vandelay

6th December 2011, 09:09

Maybe I'm sectarian asshole, but none of you defined what are "libertarian marxists". I'm still waiting for that to see.

Libertarian socialists then if that is a term more appropriate for you. However I would generally say that a libertarian marxist would be a non-leninist marxist. Someone who sees the emancipation of the working class to be the act of the working class itself, not of a group of professional revolutionaries.

I think a more important question to ask yourself would be why, during an attempt here by many of us to mend fences and find some common ground to build more unity, you nitpick over and find disagreements in something silly like this.

Paulappaul

6th December 2011, 09:11

Insofar as Marxism and Anarchism are two sides to the Workers' Movement historically I would say that there is some legitimacy in saying that there is a fair crossover between currents, after all, both desire the same end result: Communism.

Now a Marxist would recognize (and here is where some Left - Com comrades are way off in this thread) that the form of the party depends on the material conditions of the time, and that Marxism as an ideology which governs the actions of the working class is false consciousness, that Communism is a movement which unfolds itself as a result of necessity and of material conditions rather then the Party or the Marxists seizing power. The "Party" the actualization of Marxism, the realization of Marxism, is in the union of all Proletarians regardless of ideology but in consciousness of their class positions. For that reason, the wave of Occupations sweeping the World in connection with each other is more an example of the "Party" and Marxism, then any small Bordigaist Grouping, then any Marxist International or Syndicalist Union.

Art Vandelay

6th December 2011, 09:16

Искра

6th December 2011, 09:45

Libertarian socialists then if that is a term more appropriate for you. However I would generally say that a libertarian marxist would be a non-leninist marxist. Someone who sees the emancipation of the working class to be the act of the working class itself, not of a group of professional revolutionaries.
I know perfectly clear why did I asked you that question. The reason is because there’s no such thing as “libertarian Marxism”. “Libertarian socialism” is, on the other hand, another name for anarchism. I could now ask you “what exactly is Leninism”, but never mind. If I go on Wikipedia, for example, and google “libertarian Marxism” I could find a lot of so-called “Leninists” under banner of “libertarian Marxism”. Rosa Luxemburg for example was pretty much on “the line” concerning Lenin. Definition that “libertarian Marxism” includes all those Marxists who are for emancipation of working class trough act of working class includes all Marxists. So, this definition is invalid and with no point. Or do you think that just because we are advocating centralist Party which should take over the State and establish proletarian dictatorship, we believe that big bad Stalin should rule the World?

I think a more important question to ask yourself would be why, during an attempt here by many of us to mend fences and find some common ground to build more unity, you nitpick over and find disagreements in something silly like thisThere are three simple reasons. Firstly, this is theoretical discussion on Internet forum, so if you are willing to discuss “unity” you should know what do people of other tendency advocate. As, you could notice mostly Left Communists didn’t agree with you on your certain positions. If you want to “unify” with someone just because Wikipedia puts him into “libertarian” category that’s all fine by me, but you have to expect reaction from people who are against “libertarian vs. authoritarian” categorisation. The fact that there’s someone who’s against your position, that doesn’t make him/her “silly”. Secondly, I don’t see any purpose of “unity”, especially in cases when I should drop my certain positions because of “other side”. No-compromise in class struggle. I have no problem with working with anarchists, actually I do that quite often in practice, considering that I used to be a member of anarcho-syndicalist organisation, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t kick anarchists’ butts when they say or do something stupid, for example “demand more democracy”. Thirdly, there’s this myth that demanding “unity” is somehow progressive. Actually, history has showed us that “unity” of “similar” positions was nothing but bullshit. Therefore, the fact that some individual calls himself an anarchist or that some organisation calls itself an anarchist don’t mean shit to me. It’s the positions that matter and anarchists today tend to be short-sighted.

Also, I dislike emotional arguments in political discussion.

The "Party" the actualization of Marxism, the realization of Marxism, is in the union of all Proletarians regardless of ideology but in consciousness of their class positions. For that reason, the wave of Occupations sweeping the World in connection with each other is more an example of the "Party" and Marxism, then any small Bordigaist Grouping, then any Marxist International or Syndicalist Union. . OWS and similar movements before it are clearly important and I have no intention in denouncing them as such. I participated (and still do!) in student movement which was based on such democratic principles etc. But, that can not be the same as forming a Party or revolutionary group. Firstly, because OWS movement represents just popular anger, while Party is an organisation of proletariat, but not just proletariat as class of people which produce, but proletariat as social class which is aware of its position in capitalism and which wants to overthrow it and establish its dictatorship in order to create “better World”. Therefore, I believe that OWS and similar movements/struggles represent very good and interesting events which will help in radicalisation of proletariat which will eventually lead towards proletariat becoming aware of its position and goal.

Art Vandelay

6th December 2011, 10:39

I know perfectly clear why did I asked you that question. The reason is because there’s no such thing as “libertarian Marxism”. “Libertarian socialism” is, on the other hand, another name for anarchism. I could now ask you “what exactly is Leninism”, but never mind. If I go on Wikipedia, for example, and google “libertarian Marxism” I could find a lot of so-called “Leninists” under banner of “libertarian Marxism”. Rosa Luxemburg for example was pretty much on “the line” concerning Lenin. Definition that “libertarian Marxism” includes all those Marxists who are for emancipation of working class trough act of working class includes all Marxists. So, this definition is invalid and with no point. Or do you think that just because we are advocating centralist Party which should take over the State and establish proletarian dictatorship, we believe that big bad Stalin should rule the World?

Libertarian socialism is not another name for anarchism, it is a name which described a variety of tendencies more than simply anarchism. There are people on this site who consider themselves as libertarian marxists so why don't you go tell them that they do not exist. Secondly equating what I was stating with: " durr you want a party so you want big bad stalin to rule the world" is nothing short of slander of what I was saying.

There are three simple reasons.

Okay.

Firstly, this is theoretical discussion on Internet forum, so if you are willing to discuss “unity” you should know what do people of other tendency advocate. As, you could notice mostly Left Communists didn’t agree with you on your certain positions. If you want to “unify” with someone just because Wikipedia puts him into “libertarian” category that’s all fine by me, but you have to expect reaction from people who are against “libertarian vs. authoritarian” categorisation. The fact that there’s someone who’s against your position, that doesn’t make him/her “silly”.

First off I never called you silly I called nitpicking over the labels we choose to represent our politics silly. Where do you get this notion that I want to unify with someone because wikipedia puts them into the libertarian category, maybe you should stop with the strawmen and we can actually have a civil discussion about this. If you are against the libertarian vs authoritarian categorization what do you propose as its alternative? Regardless of your opinion on it these are still words which represent something in our world and can be used to distinguish between different organizational tactics.

Secondly, I don’t see any purpose of “unity”, especially in cases when I should drop my certain positions because of “other side”. No-compromise in class struggle. I have no problem with working with anarchists, actually I do that quite often in practice, considering that I used to be a member of anarcho-syndicalist organisation, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t kick anarchists’ butts when they say or do something stupid, for example “demand more democracy”.

I have never once stated that you should drop your positions because of the other side. What I have been proposing is quite the opposite of that. I envision a broad based organization comprising of a variety of tendencies where you do not simply have to hand in your personal opinions when you receive your party membership. Also please show me where I demanded more democracy, I said that the dotp should be organized along horizontal lines.

Thirdly, there’s this myth that demanding “unity” is somehow progressive. Actually, history has showed us that “unity” of “similar” positions was nothing but bullshit. Therefore, the fact that some individual calls himself an anarchist or that some organisation calls itself an anarchist don’t mean shit to me. It’s the positions that matter and anarchists today tend to be short-sighted.

Please explain why unity is counter productive? I guess you disagree with the fundamental premise that if we spend more time working collectively towards a common goal than we could reach said goal faster.

Also, I dislike emotional arguments in political discussion.

Show me my emotional arguments?

OWS and similar movements before it are clearly important and I have no intention in denouncing them as such. I participated (and still do!) in student movement which was based on such democratic principles etc. But, that can not be the same as forming a Party or revolutionary group. Firstly, because OWS movement represents just popular anger, while Party is an organisation of proletariat, but not just proletariat as class of people which produce, but proletariat as social class which is aware of its position in capitalism and which wants to overthrow it and establish its dictatorship in order to create “better World”. Therefore, I believe that OWS and similar movements/struggles represent very good and interesting events which will help in radicalisation of proletariat which will eventually lead towards proletariat becoming aware of its position and goal.

Agreed now why exactly would you be opposed to an organization, we can call it a party if you want, which was comprised of tendencies ranging from anarchists, libertarian socialists, council communists and left communists? The idea being that not only would it attract a larger following, having enveloped many tendencies (you know different strokes for different folks), and be more productive given the collective efforts of all involved. List your objections cause I really have yet to see you give any real answers as to why it would not work.

Искра

6th December 2011, 12:12

Libertarian socialism is not another name for anarchism, it is a name which described a variety of tendencies more than simply anarchism. There are people on this site who consider themselves as libertarian marxists so why don't you go tell them that they do not exist. Secondly equating what I was stating with: " durr you want a party so you want big bad stalin to rule the world" is nothing short of slander of what I was saying.
Hm, “libertarian Marxist” is a term invented by anarchists who discovered that Marx was not as bad as Bakunin thought. But I think that we should ask ourselves what makes a tendency tendency? My criterion is set of political views which make them different from other similar political tendencies. For example there’s obvious difference between anarchism and Marxism. Under “libertarian Marxism” anarchists put bunch of different Marxist tendencies which they rate under “libertarian” criteria, which is somehow against “authoritarian”. Now, funny thing is that Mr. Bakunin thought that Marx was an “authoritarian”. So, my first question is how “libertarian” tendency could be formed upon such “authoritarian” basis? Were they influenced by mighty anarchist theory? Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Bordiga etc. were all fierce critics of anarchism, so I guess that they didn’t consider anarchism as something important or inspirational. My second question is if term “libertarian” means absence of parliamentary struggle and usage of state in proletarian dictatorship, why do you put people who advocated such policies under “libertarian” umbrella? My point here is that “libertarian vs. authoritarian” concept is bunch of bollocks and that socialist tendencies should be valued if they follow main principles of Marxism or not. Using this criterion you wouldn’t come into situation that you label Stalinism as “authoritarian socialism”, but you would label it revisionism, because of its revisionist ultra-liberal idea of “socialism in one state”.

Okay.Oh, thank you.

First off I never called you silly I called nitpicking over the labels we choose to represent our politics silly. Where do you get this notion that I want to unify with someone because wikipedia puts them into the libertarian category, maybe you should stop with the strawmen and we can actually have a civil discussion about this. If you are against the libertarian vs authoritarian categorization what do you propose as its alternative? Regardless of your opinion on it these are still words which represent something in our world and can be used to distinguish between different organizational tactics.As I stated in my previous paragraph, tendencies are not “silly”. They represent political statements. Therefore, my argumentation is not “strawman”, because I’m trying to reach point where you can realise that there are big differences between so called “libertarian” tendencies, which are important to put out. I don’t care about “still words”, because there’s also “still word” that communism is equal to what we call state capitalism. Therefore, I’m against concept of “libertarian Marxism”, because I each tendency under this umbrella has its own organisational tactics.

I have never once stated that you should drop your positions because of the other side. What I have been proposing is quite the opposite of that. I envision a broad based organization comprising of a variety of tendencies where you do not simply have to hand in your personal opinions when you receive your party membership. Also please show me where I demanded more democracy, I said that the dotp should be organized along horizontal lines. I know that you never stated that, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t express my opinion. Or should I just answer to your posts? As I said, tendencies which you put under “libertarian Marxist” umbrella have different organisational tactics. For example, Left Communists want a centralist organisation which means that they can not be in the same organisation as anarchists who tend to support federalism and autonomy, disastrous concepts of organisation. Why do you think that there are for example platformists in anarcho-communist movement? Because, anarchists can’t even work together! How to you expect than that Marxists work with such people? Anarchists generally tend to demand more democracy or direct democracy (I could post you article by anarchist organisation from Croatia on which I was referring, and again not to you, cause you are not the only anarchist in this World).

Please explain why unity is counter productive? I guess you disagree with the fundamental premise that if we spend more time working collectively towards a common goal than we could reach said goal faster.
Unity of different tendencies inside of one organisation destroys ideological and practical unity of organisation. Organisation becomes infected with various opinions, discussions and verbal fights become its main preoccupation. Also, organisational approach of different tendencies is not something you can just merge. I have nothing against working with anarchists with decent class struggle and internationalist politics, but I don’t want to be with them in the same organisation, because of individualist anti-organisational ideas of federalism and autonomy. Also, it’s huge myth that bigger numbers mean faster development. Bigger numbers mean nothing if your cadre/members are not educated regarding ideology and practice and if they do not participate in everyday work of organisation. Actually, quite contrary, bigger numbers mean bigger number of reformists, opportunists and left-liberals who’ll fuck up things in the end. (Oh, experience, experience.. why don’t they listen?)

Show me my emotional arguments?Chill out. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf1rHo8vGWw)

Agreed now why exactly would you be opposed to an organization, we can call it a party if you want, which was comprised of tendencies ranging from anarchists, libertarian socialists, council communists and left communists? The idea being that not only would it attract a larger following, having enveloped many tendencies (you know different strokes for different folks), and be more productive given the collective efforts of all involved. List your objections cause I really have yet to see you give any real answers as to why it would not work.I believe that I answered to all of this in this post. But if you have questions I'll answer them..... as I'm such a nice person :blushing:

Azraella

6th December 2011, 14:10

Because it's logically inconsistent.

How? All I see at this point is you constructing a No True Scotsman argument.

These are the facts.

Anarchism is merely a form of libertarian socialism that is more heavy in practice than theory. It is anti-state, anti-capitalist, and anti-oppression / anti-authoritarian, it's philosophical basis is merely based on a rejection of hierarchy. To religious anarchists in general, this merely means a rejection of earthly hierarchy because to them there is no authority except the Implicate Order(in whatever form it takes).

Anarchism is an incredibly diverse ideology(kind of like Marxism), and yes, there are forms of anarchism I absolutely abhor and wish they were not considered anarchists(egoists and individualists come to mind) but I grudgingly accept that they are anarchists. Stop denying that religious anarchists exist.

Искра

6th December 2011, 14:15

And what makes religious anarchist different from anarcho-communist? Aha, nothing but personal beliefs of individual. Therefore, religious anarchism doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that anarchist, as individual, can not be religious. Anyhow, I pretty much don't care if you worship Jesus, Allah, Budha or Gnomes, but that's your personal thing and not political ideology.

Azraella

6th December 2011, 14:32

And what makes religious anarchist different from anarcho-communist? Aha, nothing but personal beliefs of individual. .

Wrong. Religious anarchism is a theological tendency in a religion that gives support for an anarchist society. (the biggest example would be Christian anarchism, which has biblical arguments for an anarchist/communist society organized under Christian principles of non-violence and equality.)

Искра

6th December 2011, 14:58

As I said: it's not political ideology. So, keep your religion out of politics. When you stop listening to folk metal you won't be pagan anymore.

Tim Finnegan

6th December 2011, 15:01

As I said: it's not political ideology. So, keep your religion out of politics. When you stop listening to folk metal you won't be pagan anymore.
You're aware that attempt to delineate an exclusive "political sphere" apart from civil society is a bourgeois tendency, aren't you? :p

Azraella

6th December 2011, 15:10

As I said: it's not political ideology. So, keep your religion out of politics. When you stop listening to folk metal you won't be pagan anymore.

Most folk metal blows. I'd rather listen to melodic death metal or thrash. I'm a pagan regardless of my musical tastes.

Искра

6th December 2011, 15:29

You're aware that attempt to delineate an exclusive "political sphere" apart from civil society is a bourgeois tendency, aren't you? :p
Yes, but we live in capitalism. :D During the revolution we will kill all folk metal bands and people would only listen to black metal :D

Awz4XE7S49E

ZeroNowhere

6th December 2011, 16:57

Yes, but we live in capitalism. :D During the revolution we will kill all folk metal bands and people would only listen to black metal :D
The real reason for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Blake's Baby

6th December 2011, 17:19

In response to a post about the necessity of a lengthy transitional period, I replied

In my last post I said

I don't see how my hypothetical has changed at all. But if it makes you sleep better at night...

Your hypothetical is meaningless. You may as well say 'if Gandalf Harry Potter and the Thundercats were socialists, we might be able to get Great Cthulhu on board.' It makes as much sense.

There can be no 'successful revolution in the US (or the EU or 'some Asian bloc')' that is not accompanied by revolutions elsewhere. So your vision of a 'successful socialist America that is somehow not also socialism in one country but is surrounded by capitalist countries not having their own revolutions' is meaningless. Just pointless words. Anything you extrapolate from that about what the American military might do is heaping pointlessness on meaninglessness, it makes as much sense as trying to heap gravy on a unicorn.

Zanthorus

6th December 2011, 17:53

black metal

If I can't slam dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

Red Rosa

6th December 2011, 20:05

First off, it should not be the political party that seizes power, it should be the proletariat (but I assume you mean that in that the party essentially IS the proletariat?).

Don't assume. When I say party, i mean party, when I say proletariat I mean proletariat.

Vanguard parties are so last century though.
Success of revolution will be so last century if we organize it with anarchist means.

The whole idea of the vanguard party is one that it should be the vanguard that leads the proletariat into power, albeit with all sorts of different ranks and offices and what have you.

As I can see, at least in conversation with me, we are not doing a great job of proving that marxism and anarchism aren't mutually exclusive. if the opposite was the case, we would agree by now, wouldn't we?

Tell me what "rank" and "office" means to you and then I'll answer.

The thing is, in virtually every single instance a vanguard party has led the proletariat in a revolution, it has ended in either immediate failure or bureaucracy and state capitalism.
Wanna talk history? Send me a message and we'll talk. Cause I can't give you a full answer to this if I don't examine Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc., and if we do it here it will just occupy too much space. The thing I will say though is that the solution for deburecratization isn't in anarchist apolitical assemblies or whatever, because that, as i said countlessly, only weakens the political power of the proletariat. Actually it's not given to them at all.

A vanguard isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if it is grown organically out of the proletariat in the form of more educated and motivated workers who have a knack for class consciousness and theory.
Why yes, of course. Of course it's grown out of the proletariat, what else? Out of trees?

by participating in councils and assemblies
I am not an anarchist.

The institutionalization of the vanguard however, along with the increase of importance in its role, leads to bad things that no matter what you try to do, will always happen. This is simply the nature of the party and its foundations to begin with.

What is institutionalization of the vanguard?

Let's have the Proletariat be their own vanguard yeah?
Yes, I am advocating this all along.

Well, perhaps you don't, but plenty of Marxists do. The conception of the DotP among council communists and libertarian Marxists is that of a non-hierarchical, worker-run "state" (as I said, this wouldn't constitute a state by the definition used by anarchists).

Council communism grew out of socialdemocracy and when it "profiliated" itself, it mostly rejected the concept of party. In other words, one revisionism for the other. I'm not talking about revisionism here, I'm talking about Marxism. So, I don't give a crap libertatian Marxism, council communism, leninism and other crap. I'm talking Marxism. Let me repeat - MARXISM. Now that we've cleared this up, let's talk hierarchy. Firstly, describe to me please what does that mean in relations party - proletariat, party members with each other, etc.

Are you sure you aren't a Leninist? There is no room for the party to seize power. That is the task of the workers.

O shit, I am a Leninist! Glad you told me to check, or else I would still be living iner conviction that I'm not a Leninist.
Party consists of professional revolutionaries (in that respect I agree wil Lenin but in terms of relationship of the party towards the proletariat I am much closer to Rosa Luxemburg) who have put in the centre of their lives the "call" for fulfilling their duties as party members. They know the best and to them the political power should be given. Not everyone from bourgeois class is currently in the state, in political structure. But still bourgeois state defends and protects the interests of their class bourgeois class. There is no need for all of the bourgeois class to be in power, that's number one, and number two, not all the people from one class know how to do tasks that will succesfully opress the other class.That's how it should be with our revolution. Party won't alienate from proletariat, it has to protect their interests. And there is no need for all of the proletariat to excercise political power. Not only it's not nessesary, it's dangerous, for only the centralized political power with one firm and clear political program can be successful enough to smother contrarevolution.

In a hierarchical, top-down power structure? Of course not. That is why the dictatorship of the proletariat must be of the proletariat, i.e., non-hierarchical, democratic, and organized from the bottom-up by the proletariat as a whole. Your conception of the DotP, which excludes the vast majority of the working class, isn't a DotP at all -- it is a dictatorship over the proletariat.

And it will be the dictatorship of the proletariat! It's not like it's gonna be like in bourgeois state, where party pretends like it's on the side of proletariat and then protects the interests of capitalists.
So, according to you, vas majority needs to be in the party or else it's the dictatorship over proletariat? no no no. I don't think you understand the function of the party. It deals with theoretical questions, practical ones, it educates proletariat, it constructs political program, it plans actions, in other words, it leads the proletariat. Since we are talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. one class towards another, I don't see why on earth would the party dictate the proletariat. What is achieved with this? Dictate it's own class? To do what? If the party members wanted to subordinate proletariat, they should have joined parliament and not taking upon themselves such a difficult task such as revolution.
Party members should be professional revolutionaries, as I already said. The proletariat is not able to construct sensible goals, as we can see all around us. It is able to recognise it's anguish caused by capitalism, it is able to point they fingers at some institutions (banks for example) who are doing wrong to them, but it's not able to do all the things that need to be done in order to lead a successful revolution (and after it); that's the party's job. I don't view party as an entity outside of proletariat, I view it as a right hand of proletariat. Dictatorship of the party would mean exercising the will of the party regardless of proletarians interests, needs or whatever. it means what Lenin did after the October revolution, when he didn't have the majority's support and then he called the army to attack the assembly. He did not respect the wishes of peasants and workers then and that is something I absolutely do not support. I mean, Lenin started the revolution in a poor half feudal society that had 3 % of workers! When you do a revolution in such crazy conditions, of course you need to be authoritarian. Now, I'm not saying that to defend Lenin, I think he made a terrible mistake right from the start, I'm jut saying as it is - if a society has big precentage of workers, then of course there won't be any need for any repressivness. and it shouldn't be. I think Lenin was little bit fanatic with his own personal reasons for revolution in mind. I certainly don't have Lenin as a role model. You should really look a little bit beyond anarchist vs. leninist view on vanguard. There's more, you know.

And in what way does this differ from the Leninist argument for a vanguard party of "professional revolutionaries"? Both your position and theirs begins from the false premise that the working class is incapable of managing their own affairs -- that they need "leaders", the "trained", or "professional revolutionaries" to guide them to their liberation. It is an anti-socialist position. The liberation of the proletariat must be the act of the proletariat -- that is the basic premise of revolutionary socialism -- unless of course you are a Blanquist.

And it will be the act of the proletariat. I really don't want to repeat myself anymore, everything has already been said above.

"[G]rows out of the proletariat"? What does that even mean? And yes, the proletariat is supposed to be blindly obedient with regards to your conception of the party. Obedience is the very nature of hierarchy, and you said yourself that the party would be hierarchical.

Where did I say that?

Well, first we must define precisely what we mean by the term "leadership". There is imposed leadership and voluntary leadership.

You anarchists, obssessed with leaderships and stuff. Why the fuck would proletariat object to a leadership that is protecting and working for their interests?
And why would this leadership impose itself on the proletariat, since the proletariat and that leadership are of one class and have the same interests?

So like a parent, really? The workers are the mindless sheep who must be led by the shepherd (party). Once again, this is an anti-socialist attitude. The workers must carry out the revolution and manage their own affairs. If they leave it to the party, they subject themselves to new masters, new oppression, and a new ruling class despotism.
Your anarchist cries will wet my computer and then I won't be able to indulge in conversation with anarchists about basic things.
Of course, the autocratic ambitions within the party could occur. The party is needed just to guide them, because it has more knowledge and capability than the rest of the proletariat. And how would you organize this revolution? With proletariat as one amorphic mass? Without one political program? This revolution will turn into dust.
And I said it already - proletariat must realize that the party belongs to them, they shouldn't let to be shut down by party and they should always put pressure on it to be democratic and to always be intrenched with proletairat. The duty of the party is to lead, to use their inteligence, knowledge, abilty etc. to carry on revolution ad proletariat's job is to never let the party get off track.

Perhaps there isn't any inconsistency regarding your definitions regarding words such as "state", "political", and "party" vis-a-vis the definitions used by the anarchists, but this is the case concerning some Marxists (especially councilists and libertarians).

I don't do revisionists.

Ad hominem.

This is actually not a contraargument.

Reeks of Leninism.
Reeks of Marxism.

Says alot about your politics. No one seizes power but the workers. their emancipation must be conducted by themselves.
And it will be. Party is the proletariat, its the political body of proletariat.

Why the fuck would you want one political line!? No room for debate and differing opinions? If you think come time for the next revolution the proletariat is going to let some party seize power over them and silence all opinions differing to the party line then your sadly mistaken. They saw how that played out.

Because political line means a set of ideas which explain reality and offer ideas how to contruct it in a better way, in simple language. And if we have 35 of those lines (which will inevitably be mutually contradictory) we won't get anywhere. We have to decide which line is the best, and we decide this with discussion, so of course there is and has to be room for it.

Искра

6th December 2011, 20:33

Just one little thing. This is not true.
Council communism grew out of socialdemocracy and when it "profiliated" itself, it mostly rejected the concept of party. In other words, one revisionism for the other.
Council communism grew out from split within KAPD and KAPD wasn't socialdemocratic party but a revolutionary communist party.

The rest :thumbup1:

Red Rosa

6th December 2011, 20:41

Just one little thing. This is not true.
Council communism grew out from split within KAPD and KAPD wasn't socialdemocratic party but a revolutionary communist party.

The rest :thumbup1:

You are right. I confused it with SPD and USPD. :blushing: Probably because the KAPD had USPD members in 1920.

Azraella

6th December 2011, 20:53

Why the fuck would proletariat object to a leadership that is protecting and working for their interests?

Why should I support a party, when historically parties of that nature were not for the proles and became self-seving parodies of anything resembling working class emancipation? It's arguable how much this is provable or isn't filtered by propaganda(and I have spoken favorably of places like the USSR before because of rapid industrialization and progressive attitudes), sure, but I am not convinced a party will retain any interest in protecting working class interests if they are successful.

back pedaling a bit:

I don't think you understand the function of the party. It deals with theoretica questions, practical ones, it educates proletariat, it constructs political program, it plans actions, in other words, it leads the proletariat

This sounds just like what anarchists propose with a federation/organization. Anarchists are not against organizing(and in fact there are several anarchist organizations) and these organizations can fufill those functions to enact revolutionary change. Agitating, educating, and promoting progressive attitudes are essential.

Party won't alienate from proletariat, it has to protect their interests.

You certainly have a positive view of a select few. This is a naive attitude. A party can proclaim to care for the little guy, so to speak, but that doesn't mean anything in practice. The Democrats proclaim to be for workers' rights, the Bolsheviks have claimed to be for workers' rights, I wonder how Cuba is doing in regards to it's proletariat?

__________________________________________________

To explain my earlier comment:

Religious anarchism is a theological tendency in a religion that gives support for an anarchist society. (the biggest example would be Christian anarchism, which has biblical arguments for an anarchist/communist society organized under Christian principles of non-violence and equality.)

What I meant was that religious anarchists draw anarchist conclusions from their theologies and weren't stand alone ideologies. Most are communists or something else for example in addition to being a [whatever] anarchist and will actively identify as their preferred ecnomic tendency before their faith.

(I've come to anarchist conclusions due to several passages in the Havamal, some Skaldic poetry, and a general understanding of my ancestors worldview. I back that up with an understanding of Marxist economics, and anarchist theory EDITED: all as an example of course.)

MagÃ³n

6th December 2011, 21:02

(I've come to anarchist conclusions due to several passages in the Havamal, some Skaldic poetry, and a general understanding of my ancestors worldview. I back that up with an understanding of Marxist economics, and anarchist theory)

Not to tear down your ideas, or what you're all about, but just from a general observation; you're sort of all over the place aren't you, when it comes to grabbing things and turning them to your liking?

Искра

6th December 2011, 21:12

Each time I read about paganism thing I hear this song:

Nh8CfWEnSJ8

Azraella

6th December 2011, 21:32

Not to tear down your ideas, or what you're all about, but just from a general observation; you're sort of all over the place aren't you, when it comes to grabbing things and turning them to your liking?

I'm influenced by all sorts of shit. From failures to successes. I have a pretty good grasp on right-libertarianism(and the various branches of it) and I have gutted the ideas I like from it. I am also influenced by certain apsects of my religion, and the culture of my ancestors. Not all of it is applicable or desirable, but it works when I consider my own personal opinions on things. That's just the basis I use to get to proto-socialist/anarchist conclusions. When I examine things like Marx or , and I consider the different forms of anarchism, I have to think in terms of what I think will work. I think communism will work(in fact, I am pretty sure there is enough evidence that it will work), so I support a communist organization of society as I think communism maximizes freedom.

In short, I am not ideologically an anarchist(ideology is a toolbox, adopt useful ideas and discard the rest) but I am politically an anarchist. Meaning that while I am ideologically influenced by the likes of Locke or even my religion* this doesn't mean I am not supportive of anarchist organizations or something that would decidedly not be anarchist.

*Also, if you are religious and don't act like it or it doesn't influence you beyond Sunday or whatever, you are a hypocrite in my eyes. Nothing pisses me off more than hypocrites choosing to do something that isn't in-line with their beliefs.

Paulappaul

6th December 2011, 21:45

. OWS and similar movements before it are clearly important and I have no intention in denouncing them as such. I participated (and still do!) in student movement which was based on such democratic principles etc. But, that can not be the same as forming a Party or revolutionary group. Firstly, because OWS movement represents just popular anger, while Party is an organisation of proletariat, but not just proletariat as class of people which produce, but proletariat as social class which is aware of its position in capitalism and which wants to overthrow it and establish its dictatorship in order to create “better World”. Therefore, I believe that OWS and similar movements/struggles represent very good and interesting events which will help in radicalisation of proletariat which will eventually lead towards proletariat becoming aware of its position and goal.

Marx considered the Chartists and the activities of 1848 to be the Proletarian Party. No OWS is more then popular anger. Considering "Popular Anger" usually has something to do with the Kardasians or Penn State. No the Occupy Movement serves to solve key issues economic, social and political and is aware of its position within Capitalism (ala we are the 99%).

Искра

6th December 2011, 21:51

Marx considered the Chartists and the activities of 1848 to be the Proletarian Party. No OWS is more then popular anger. Considering "Popular Anger" usually has something to do with the Kardasians or Penn State. No the Occupy Movement serves to solve key issues economic, social and political and is aware of its position within Capitalism (ala we are the 99%).
Still it has no ideology, no common tactics and not even common goal. It's not organised and it's temporary movement without any permanent organisaitonal structure which would be able to continue struggle on every day basis.

MagÃ³n

6th December 2011, 22:19

I have a pretty good grasp on right-libertarianism(and the various branches of it) and I have gutted the ideas I like from it.

Examples?

*Also, if you are religious and don't act like it or it doesn't influence you beyond Sunday or whatever, you are a hypocrite in my eyes. Nothing pisses me off more than hypocrites choosing to do something that isn't in-line with their beliefs.

LOL No, you won't ever find me in a holy place unless against my will. I'm a rather anti-theistic person since I see all religions I come across as hypocritical and oppressive. Christianity and all it's forms, being a good example of hypocritical thinking/say.

ed miliband

6th December 2011, 23:44

Harry Cleaver's 'Reading Capital Politically' literally covers every issue in this thread. Like... from page one or something. Should have been recommended sooner.

Caj

6th December 2011, 23:46

Council communism grew out of socialdemocracy and when it "profiliated" itself, it mostly rejected the concept of party. In other words, one revisionism for the other. I'm not talking about revisionism here, I'm talking about Marxism. So, I don't give a crap libertatian Marxism, council communism, leninism and other crap. I'm talking Marxism. Let me repeat - MARXISM.

Oh, I see. Only your version of Marxism is the accurate one, while everybody else's is "revisionism". Revisionism, of course, just being a convenient term for silencing those who don't adhere to what you believe is Marxist orthodoxy without actually having to raise a valid argument against their positions. Your quasi-religious, dogmatic, and irrational sectarianism is nothing more than pathetic.

Revisionism is a good thing. Marxism is, or at least is supposed to be, a science. Science is predicated upon questioning, testing, and the rejection of old and the acceptance of new, more accurate hypotheses. Science is in a constant state of revision and improvement. It is because of those like you, who have turned your versions of Marxism into a religion, divergence from which is blasphemy, that have cast away the scientific cloak of Marxism and degenerated it into pure anti-materialist, anti-scientific dogma.

Now that we've cleared this up, let's talk hierarchy. Firstly, describe to me please what does that mean in relations party - proletariat, party members with each other, etc.

The hierarchical relationship between the workers and the party has hitherto manifested itself as the workers' forced subordinate of their class interests to the interests of the party, i.e., the party's leaders -- the "trained", "professional revolutionaries", et cetera.

I am a Leninist!

I'm glad that you have come out of the closet and admitted it. Of course, it was quite obvious to begin with.

Party consists of professional revolutionaries (in that respect I agree wil Lenin but in terms of relationship of the party towards the proletariat I am much closer to Rosa Luxemburg) who have put in the centre of their lives the "call" for fulfilling their duties as party members. They know the best and to them the political power should be given.

Oh, of course! That's why socialism was so god-damned successful throughout the 20th century!

No, you are wrong. The workers know best. They should not give power to any leaders, but should rather take the power for themselves and manage their own affairs. The workers don't need "mommy and daddy" to show them what is best. They have suffered for far too long as a result of this paternalistic mentality.

Party won't alienate from proletariat, it has to protect their interests. And there is no need for all of the proletariat to excercise political power. Not only it's not nessesary, it's dangerous, for only the centralized political power with one firm and clear political program can be successful enough to smother contrarevolution.

And how has that been working out for the last 100 years or so?

The party doesn't have to protect the interests of the proletariat. You just want them to. Did the Leninist parties of the 20th century protect the interests of the proletariat? No, they were composed of corrupt individuals who pursued their own interests, regardless of whether it was in the interests of the proletariat. This is why the workers should act for themselves and no longer put their faith in "professional" demigods who will only further oppress them.

This position is dangerous? It's dangerous to believe that the proletariat should liberate itself? It can't be any more dangerous than repeatedly subjecting the proletariat to the rule and oppression of corrupt parties as you seem to desire. The only people for whom my position is dangerous is the bourgeoisie.

It's not like it's gonna be like in bourgeois state, where party pretends like it's on the side of proletariat and then protects the interests of capitalists.

Well, that seems to have been the case in every instance hitherto.

It deals with theoretical questions, practical ones, it educates proletariat, it constructs political program, it plans actions, in other words, it leads the proletariat.

All of this can be done without hierarchical, top-down organizational power structures. If this is the role of the party, the party can and should be democratic, non-hierarchical, and organized from the bottom-up in which all of the class conscious proletarians are not excluded but are welcomed to participate.

why on earth would the party dictate the proletariat. What is achieved with this? Dictate it's own class? To do what? If the party members wanted to subordinate proletariat, they should have joined parliament and not taking upon themselves such a difficult task such as revolution.

Why don't you ask any "successful" socialist revolutionary leader from the 20th century? The party is not a part of the proletariat. It is an elite group of individuals who are deemed "trained", "intelligent", "professional" enough to lead the mindless workers to communism. They have no problem harming the proletariat because they are not a part of the proletariat. They have, in all instances hitherto, constituted the new ruling class after their respective "successful" revolutions. If you doubt this, look at every socialist revolution of the 20th century that was led by a party -- there was no liberation for the workers, only further oppression by a new ruling class of "professionals", "intellectuals", et cetera.

Party members should be professional revolutionaries, as I already said.

If there is to be a party, it should be composed of proletarians, for they know their own class interests better than any "professionals".

The proletariat is not able to construct sensible goals, as we can see all around us. It is able to recognise it's anguish caused by capitalism, it is able to point they fingers at some institutions (banks for example) who are doing wrong to them, but it's not able to do all the things that need to be done in order to lead a successful revolution (and after it); that's the party's job.

You have very little faith in the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. If your assertions are indeed correct, then communism will never come about. Nobody, not even a party of "professional revolutionaries", can give freedom to the workers. They have to take it themselves. At this point, this fact should appear blatantly obvious.

I don't view party as an entity outside of proletariat, I view it as a right hand of proletariat.

No, you really don't. If the party was the "right hand of [the] proletariat", it would be a tool for the proletariat. You view, not the party as a tool, but the workers, who are to be used for the overthrow of the status quo and its replacement with the rule of the party, not the rule, the dictatorship, of the proletarians. You view the proletariat as the “right hand”, a mere tool, of the party, not vice versa.

Dictatorship of the party would mean exercising the will of the party regardless of proletarians interests, needs or whatever. it means what Lenin did after the October revolution, when he didn't have the majority's support and then he called the army to attack the assembly. He did not respect the wishes of peasants and workers then and that is something I absolutely do not support.

All socialist parties that have "successfully" waged out a revolution have acted contrarily to the interests of the workers in this way. Why do you think this tendency will change this century?

When you do a revolution in such crazy conditions, of course you need to be authoritarian.

Then how did the Free Territory survive as long as it did? It was socialist for about as long as Russia was. Soviet Russia was formed around the same time as the Free Territory, and they were both crushed in 1921. The destruction of socialism in these two regions was attributale to the Bolsheviks in both instances. In the Free Territory, it was from the direct attack by the Bolsheviks. In Soviet Russia, it was because of party corruption, the replacement of the Soviets with the bureaucracy, and the implementation of the NEP and the establishment of state capitalism.

if a society has big precentage of workers, then of course there won't be any need for any repressivness.

Repressiveness directed against the proletariat is never necessary. And why should this be any different depending on the density of the working class vis-a-vis the total population?

You should really look a little bit beyond anarchist vs. leninist view on vanguard. There's more, you know.

You should really look a little bit beyond the "my-definition-of-Marxism-is-the-only-correct-one-and-everybody-else-is-a-revisionist mentality". There's more, you know.

And it will be the act of the proletariat.

Well, then why is the party necessary during the revolution? By the time a revolution occurs, the proletariat will be educated, militant, class conscious, and determined. At this point, there should be no need for the party, whose role you said earlier is to educate the masses.

If the party's existence persists, however, it will only be a hindrance. It will hijack the revolution from the workers and become their new oppressors. This isn't theoretical: It has happened in every instance hitherto.

Where did I say that?

Here:

if you ask me if that party is hierachical to the rest of te proletariat then I must say yes

Also, apart from this explicit statement, this entire conversation is predicated on the basis that you believe the party, DotP, whatever should be run hierarchically. If you don't believe this, then why are we arguing?

Why the fuck would proletariat object to a leadership that is protecting and working for their interests?
And why would this leadership impose itself on the proletariat, since the proletariat and that leadership are of one class and have the same interests?

As I said, ask any "successful" socialist revolutionary leader from the 20th century. Why did they impose their wills on the proletariat with no regard to their interests? Why did they not protect the proletariat from oppression, but rather were directly responsible with its continuation? The answer is obvious: The party and the proletariat, even if they were to begin with, ceased to be the same class. The party, after assuming power, constitutes a new ruling class. Do you deny this? Do you seriously believe that the "socialist" states of the 20th century were acting in the legitimate interests of the proletariat?

Of course, the autocratic ambitions within the party could occur. The party is needed just to guide them, because it has more knowledge and capability than the rest of the proletariat.

So really what you are saying is that the workers are mindless sheep that need to be led by their shepherd (the party).

The party does not have "more knowledge and capability" than the proletariat. The proletariat knows its own interests better than anyone. That is why they must rule. That is why it is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And how would you organize this revolution? With proletariat as one amorphic mass? Without one political program? This revolution will turn into dust.

Why is a hierarchical, top-down power structure necessary for the proletariat to have consistent demands and a revolutionary strategy? And I'd rather have a revolution "turn into dust" than degenerate into state capitalism as they have without exception in every instance that the interests of the workers has been subordinated to the interests of the party, i.e., when the party has "led" the proletariat.

And I said it already - proletariat must realize that the party belongs to them, they shouldn't let to be shut down by party and they should always put pressure on it to be democratic and to always be intrenched with proletairat.

How are they going to "realize that the party belongs to them" when it clearly doesn't? It is something alien to them because it excludes them. It is composed of "trained professionals" who claim to know the interests of the workers better than the workers themselves. How could the workers ever believe something as absurd as that the party "belongs to them"?

And put pressure on it to be democratic? If it is truly democratic and subject to the free participation of all class conscious proletarians, then it really ceases to be hierarchical, at which point I have no problem with such a party.

The duty of the party is to lead, to use their inteligence, knowledge, abilty etc. to carry on revolution

None are more intelligent, more knowledgeable of their class interests, and have more revolutionary capabilities than the workers. The workers must lead themselves if they ever want to free themselves.

proletariat's job is to never let the party get off track.

I see. Blame the proletariat for the failure of the party.

I don't do revisionists.

That is to say, you are content with ignoring all of those with whom you disagree by branding them with the word "revisionist" -- as if I take offense at being called one! Seriously, drop the quasi-religious terminology that you direct towards "Marxian heretics" and actually construct rational arguments.

Red Rosa

7th December 2011, 01:02

This sounds just like what anarchists propose with a federation/organization. Anarchists are not against organizing(and in fact there are several anarchist organizations) and these organizations can fufill those functions to enact revolutionary change. Agitating, educating, and promoting progressive attitudes are essential.

The difference is that anarchist organization doesn't have a firm political line needed during and after revolution. Anarchist organization will educate proletariat about how
capitalism exploits them, how it should be eliminated through revolution and then it won't stand as a leader tending to take political power in order to opress the bourgeoise. Marxist party will do this, and this is where the political line plays the important role.

anarchists want to use their organization for agitation and education and then let the proletariat lead itself. And after the revolution, workers will manage their labour and everything will be over. if counterrevolution begins, proletariat will gather and try to fight them. It doesn't work that way. the proletariat revolution needs to have a marxist character to it, and that is - proletariat having it's central body with political power who will take the political power and use it to opress the bourgeoise and the rest of the reactionaries.

They will have to behave like proletariat dictates and that means they will have no political right whatseoever. Like Lenin said (not atribute me to Lenin just because i agree with him at some points), its either borugeois political ideology or proletarian political ideology. Through constant political pressure and dictatorship reactionary classes need to be supressed up to that period when they will become passivized, like proletariat is passivized now, with capitalist economy AND political bourgeois ideology imposed on them. Our transitional period needs to be organized like this bourgeois society - their state protects its class ours will too. their state organizes their economy to benefit their class and so will we do it with our class.

They have the political program and ideology that opressed, weakens, stupifies and passivizes proletariat, and we will have it also to opress bourgeoise (only i think and hope our means of manifesting that ideology won't be as perverse as capitalist are :D). This transitional stage is the most sensibile one. Proletariat is fighting and trying to sustain its order. Bourgeoise is still the same and has the same goals for the future. This has to be a class war period, this is not reserved just for the revolution period. Firm, noncompromising, dictatorial political power with democracy between the class on power i something that is impossible to do without political party.

The problem is anarchists don't focus their energy on politics after the revolution, they just wanna focus their attention to managing labour. And you can't do only that after the revolution because the counterrevolution will eat us alive. You can't fight counterrevolution organized in few organizations or assemblies or in one big organization who does not want to have one political line and be the political representative of the proletariat. And you can't fight it especially if the proletariat is no longer concerned with the political part of their postrevolutionary society. With no one focusing on that, counterrevolution will feel no pressure and proletariat will flung the doors open for the counterrevolution to come and tear it apart.

Caj

7th December 2011, 01:09

anarchists want to use their organization for agitation and education and then let the proletariat lead itself.

Precisely!

if counterrevolution begins, proletariat will gather and try to fight them. It doesn't work that way.

Why not?

the proletariat revolution needs to have a marxist character to it, and that is - proletariat having it's central body with political power who will take the political power and use it to opress the bourgeoise and the rest of the reactionaries.

Why must the vast majority of the workers be subordinate to this "central body"? Why can't it be democratic, non-hierarchical, and organized from the bottom-up? Why can't it be a dictatorship of the proletariat?

Искра

7th December 2011, 01:16

Precisely!
Oh no, what a crushing argument! :rolleyes:

Why not? Because proletariat doesn’t have same goal without communist Party which unifies it and acts in common and not just individual interest.

Why must the vast majority of the workers be subordinate to this "central body"? Why can't it be democratic, non-hierarchical, and organized from the bottom-up? Why can't it be a dictatorship of the proletariat?Because without discipline you have chaos. Who said that centralist organisation is not bottom up? It is just an organisation which rejects federalist fantasies and acts as one body. It is dictatorship of proletariat. Who do you think that Party is consisted of? Cows?

Red Rosa

7th December 2011, 01:19

I think we can conclude that anarchism and marxism are mutually exclusive.

Danielle Ni Dhighe

7th December 2011, 01:23

anarchists want to use their organization for agitation and education and then let the proletariat lead itself.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 01:27

Because proletariat doesn’t have same goal without communist Party which unifies it and acts in common and not just individual interest.

If there ever was revisionism this is it. Pretty sure Marx described something called class consciousness which must be present for a revolution to take place. Meaning that the proletariat must be conscious of its own social ranking in society as well as its relation to the means of production. Having gained class consciousness the proletariat will not only be able to act in its own rational self interest, ie: not simply standing back and letting the bourgeoisie slaughter them through counter revolution, but also understand the historic tasks inherent to it.

Because without discipline you have chaos. Who said that centralist organisation is not bottom up? It is just an organisation which rejects federalist fantasies and acts as one body. It is dictatorship of proletariat. Who do you think that Party is consisted of? Cows?

The party, of the character that you propose, consists of "professional revolutionaries" who will constitute the new ruling class after their "successful revolution."

Caj

7th December 2011, 01:29

Oh no, what a crushing argument! :rolleyes:

It wasn't an argument. I was expressing the fact that RedRosa's assertion was indeed correct and not a strawman.

Because proletariat doesn’t have same goal without communist Party which unifies it and acts in common and not just individual interest.

Well that has worked great in the past, hasn't it?

Because without discipline you have chaos.

Uh . . . are you sure you're a communist? In case you didn't know, communists support statelessness.

Who said that centralist organisation is not bottom up?

You and RedRosa! And if it was bottom-up, it would be anarchist.

It is dictatorship of proletariat. Who do you think that Party is consisted of? Cows?

No, it doesn't consist of cows (:rolleyes:), but nor does it consist of proletarians. It consists, as RedRosa stated, of the "trained", the "professional revolutionaries". Thus, it is a dictatorship over the proletariat.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 01:31

I think we can conclude that anarchism and marxism are mutually exclusive.

I think we can conclude that come time for revolution you and your democratic centralist parties will be irrelevant and those marxists who see the necessity of horizontal organization as well as a unification among anti-capitalists regardless of difference in tactics will be leading the struggle. You are caught in the last century. As far as your accusations of revisionism go I hope you realize that as a materialist, Marx would want to be seen as a man confined by the same material conditions which confined all thinkers of his day, not revered as some sort of god. He was not infallible.

Caj

7th December 2011, 01:34

I think we can conclude that anarchism and marxism are mutually exclusive.

Of course you can when you define Marxism as whatever you agree with and brand everything with which you disagree as "revisionism".

Искра

7th December 2011, 01:48

Well that has worked great in the past, hasn't it? Oh, another crushing argument from anarchist... Btw. wasn’t CNT cooperating with nationalist bourgeoisie and betrayed revolution? Oh, yeah - history.

Uh . . . are you sure you're a communist? In case you didn't know, communists support statelessness. I fail to see what organisational discipline has to do with being against state.

You and RedRosa! And if it was bottom-up, it would be anarchist.
Lol. I never said that. Quote me.

Also, I really don’t think that anarchists came up with bottom up organising. Actually, “authoritarian” Marx was in favour of bottom up organising, while anarchist apostle Bakunin proposed peti-beourgeouise freemason organisational forms. But yeah, it's cool to be hysterical historical revisionist.

No, it doesn't consist of cows (:rolleyes:), but nor does it consist of proletarians. It consists, as RedRosa stated, of the "trained", the "professional revolutionaries". Thus, it is a dictatorship over the proletariat.
Again, I fail to see how does proletariat dictates over proletariat. Professional revolutionaries are necessarily. Even your precious CNT has full time beurocrats. Why? Because big organisations need such things. Also, I don’t see what wrong with education of party members.

Искра

7th December 2011, 01:56

If there ever was revisionism this is it. Pretty sure Marx described something called class consciousness which must be present for a revolution to take place. Meaning that the proletariat must be conscious of its own social ranking in society as well as its relation to the means of production. Having gained class consciousness the proletariat will not only be able to act in its own rational self interest, ie: not simply standing back and letting the bourgeoisie slaughter them through counter revolution, but also understand the historic tasks inherent to it.
Yeah, so you believe that every worker wants communism and is willing to work with other workers to achieve it without organisation? Sorry to inform you, but you are hopeless hippie. Point of my statement is that party unites workers under the same goal. Without party workers would try to achieve their own personal interests, which are quite reformists and short sighted. They would want better work conditions, bigger pays, less work hours etc. and when systems gives them that – they’ll stop the struggle. That is historically proven by every unionist action – when workers won struggle they stop being active in movement. That why we want to create party which will promote greater goal – communism, and which will gather all workers under its wing. Only then workers will be political class –proletariat, capable of fighting against capitalism and achieving proletarian dictatorship. Of course, to you that is Stalinism (and to quote Bordiga on that: Oh, horror of horrors!), but I don’t fucking care. I don’t live in Alice’s Wonderland.

The party, of the character that you propose, consists of "professional revolutionaries" who will constitute the new ruling class after their "successful revolution."Of course, and that ruling class would be proletariat which will annihilate all leftovers of bourgeoisie system and ideology (I’m talking about institutions, not people as I don’t advocate genocide) and create classless society.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 02:04

Oh, another crushing argument from anarchist... Btw. wasn’t CNT cooperating with nationalist bourgeoisie and betrayed revolution? Oh, yeah - history.

Ha you want to call that history? Maybe try doing some research on what you described above, you bet the revolution was betrayed but I will give you a hint, it was not by the anarchists;)

Also, I really don’t think that anarchists came up with bottom up organising. Actually, “authoritarian” Marx was in favour of bottom up organising, while anarchist apostle Bakunin proposed peti-beourgeouise freemason organisational forms. But yeah, it's cool to be hysterical historical revisionist.

Pretty sure what me and anarchy have been trying to say this whole time is that what Marx originally proposed, as far as organizational tactics, is that it is not incompatible with anarchism. As evidenced by the fact that Marx was willing to work with Bakunin until he went crazy with factionalism and organizing a secret organization.

The whole point is that the accusations by anarchists back then were actually extremely superficial and not based on reality. The point being that it was not authoritarian Marx ousting anti-authoritarian Bakunin, but that both were equally authoritarian. The only difference arose when the disagreed on what defined a "state." The anarchists viewed the "state" socialists as authoritarian simply due to the fact that there definition of the state, which was opposite of the marxist one, viewed any state as a coercive institution contrary to their aims. Not because the implementation of the dotp advocated by the "state" socialists would have looked any different from the implementation of the immediate post revolutionary society advocated by the anarchists; ie: one class subjecting its dominance over another class to ensure its class interests.

You also have failed to address the fact that you and redrosa have ignored Marx's ideas on class consciousness, or the fact that Marx himself would have supported revisionism.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 02:11

Yeah, so you believe that every worker wants communism and is willing to work with other workers to achieve it without organisation?

Dear god, cause anarchists want no organization:rolleyes:

Sorry to inform you, but you are hopeless hippie.

Good to know you are stooping to personal attacks, first sign of a man without answers.

Point of my statement is that party unites workers under the same goal.

Exactly what I have been proposing with the left.

Without party workers would try to achieve their own personal interests, which are quite reformists and short sighted. They would want better work conditions, bigger pays, less work hours etc. and when systems gives them that – they’ll stop the struggle. That is historically proven by every unionist action – when workers won struggle they stop being active in movement. That why we want to create party which will promote greater goal – communism, and which will gather all workers under its wing. Only then workers will be political class –proletariat, capable of fighting against capitalism and achieving proletarian dictatorship.

Again you seem to ignore Marx's thoughts on class consciousness.

Of course, to you that is Stalinism (and to quote Bordiga on that: Oh, horror of horrors!), but I don’t fucking care. I don’t live in Alice’s Wonderland.

Grow up, I have not mentioned stalinism once in this thread or referred to you as a stalinist once. All that comes across in your post is the generic prejudice you seem to have against all anarchists as you paint them with one brush.

Caj

7th December 2011, 02:16

Oh, another crushing argument from anarchist...

You sure are full of yourself. And actually, that was a legitimate argument. One that you didn't yet refute, I might add. Instead you brought up the CNT, a topic that has no relation to the discussion, as a pathetic attempt at a red herring.

I fail to see what organisational discipline has to do with being against state.

Do you believe that there is going to be imposed authority in communist society? I had always thought that the consensus was that there wouldn't be. . . .

Lol. I never said that. Quote me.

Well if you don't hold the position that the DotP is organized from the top-down (as Red Rosa claimed), then what the fuck are we arguing about? If the DotP is organized from the bottom-up, it is non-hierarchical. If it is non-hierarchical it is compatible with anarchism.

I really don’t think that anarchists came up with bottom up organising.

The truth or falsehood of this is irrelevant. What matters is what anarchists and Marxists advocate today. Today, anarchists propose the formation of non-hierarchical, bottom-up organizations.

Actually, “authoritarian” Marx was in favour of bottom up organising, while anarchist apostle Bakunin proposed peti-beourgeouise freemason organisational forms. But yeah, it's cool to be hysterical historical revisionist.

Once again, this is an irrelevant red herring. Not that it is true to begin with.

Oh, and there's that term "revisionist" again. "If you don't agree with what I believe happened historically, you are a revisionist!" Grow up. :rolleyes:

Again, I fail to see how does proletariat dictates over proletariat. Professional revolutionaries are necessarily.

No, they aren't. In fact, many of the most prominent socialist revolutionaries were originally of the ruling classes.

Even your precious CNT has full time beurocrats.

When the fuck have I ever described the CNT as "precious"? Quit with the fucking red herrings and actually respond to my arguments!

Because big organisations need such things.

Why?

I don’t see what wrong with education of party members.

. . . Neither do I. Did I ever say I was opposed to education? I don't recall. . . .

Искра

7th December 2011, 02:20

Ha you want to call that history? Maybe try doing some research on what you described above, you bet the revolution was betrayed but I will give you a hint, it was not by the anarchists;)
Anarchist myths just prove how this theory is quite silly. Of course, Stalinists betrayed revolution when they annihilated workers councils and collectives etc. But guess what?! They were in the same government as anarchists, along with bunch of nationalist bourgeoisie elites. So, of course that I criticise and condemn Stalinism as bourgeoisie ideology, but I don’t spare anarchist leadership which did the same. Anarchists also didn’t expropriate foreign capitalists, they participated in government, their leaders made all decisions etc. When Bolsheviks took the power they didin’t work with bourgeoisie. They eliminated it! Of course, they later fucked all up.

Pretty sure what me and anarchy have been trying to say this whole time is that what Marx originally proposed, as far as organizational tactics, is that it is not incompatible with anarchism. As evidenced by the fact that Marx was willing to work with Bakunin until he went crazy with factionalism and organizing a secret organization. And after that moment movement split over tactics. I hope that you are capable to read instead of just crying, because you could then read my post that I don’t have anything against working with non-reactionary anarchists (and by that I mean with anarchists who are internationalists and who support class struggle) and that I actually do that every single day. BUT – I’m against being in organisation with anarchists, because I’m against FEDERALISM. Been there, done that...

The whole point is that the accusations by anarchists back then were actually extremely superficial and not based on reality. The point being that it was not authoritarian Marx ousting anti-authoritarian Bakunin, but that both were equally authoritarian. The only difference arose when the disagreed on what defined a "state." The anarchists viewed the "state" socialists as authoritarian simply due to the fact that there definition of the state, which was opposite of the marxist one, viewed any state as a coercive institution contrary to their aims. Not because the implementation of the dotp advocated by the "state" socialists would have looked any different from the implementation of the immediate post revolutionary society advocated by the anarchists; ie: one class subjecting its dominance over another class to ensure its class interests. The point is that Marxist rejects “authoritarian vs. libertarian” concept. I elaborated that few posts ago. Again, Marxists do not want to create class society, but to destroy it. Still, State is necessary tool. Yeah, people tried in history and fucked up, but so did anarchists who didn’t destroy state power but use it. Therefore all I can say is that in order so succeed we should stop making compromises.

You also have failed to address the fact that you and redrosa have ignored Marx's ideas on class consciousness, or the fact that Marx himself would have supported revisionism.We don’t ignore anything, but you are unable to understand what we are talking about and you come here with your moralist emotions for which I don’t care. Read my (or her) post again slowly or just fuck off, because you are boring.

Caj

7th December 2011, 02:28

We don’t ignore anything, but you are unable to understand what we are talking about and you come here with your moralist emotions for which I don’t care. Read my (or her) post again slowly or just fuck off, because you are boring.

Actually, both of who have ignored several points that have been brought up. Several of the ones that you two have actually addressed weren't even challenged with legitimate arguments but with red herrings, ad hominems, tu quoques, and cries of "revisionism".

I like your pseudo-intellectual condescension: "you are unable to understand what we are talking about and you come here with your moralist emotions for which I don’t care." It kind of has the tone of a "professional revolutionary" addressing an uppity proletarian.

Искра

7th December 2011, 02:37

You sure are full of yourself. And actually, that was a legitimate argument. One that you didn't yet refute, I might add. Instead you brought up the CNT, a topic that has no relation to the discussion, as a pathetic attempt at a red herring.
I’m because I’m so beautiful, smart and I fuck a lot. :rolleyes:

I actually tried to show you that if you want to dig from the past you have to (i) clean your own backyard, (ii) understand material conditions in which certain revisionism happened. Red Rosa and I do not support Soviet Union and we see it as state capitalist. Also, we recognise that Marxists made a lot of mistakes in history, but we see that way out of that mess is keeping to original Marxist thought without compromise. So, actually I have answered you on your question for second time.

Do you believe that there is going to be imposed authority in communist society? I had always thought that the consensus was that there wouldn't be. . . .Of course. Authority is not something you can just “destroy”. There will be charismatic individuals, educated individuals etc. It’s up to people from communist society to regulate such behaviour as they decide that they should do it. There would be no political authority in sense of certain class group or elite if you think of that.

Well if you don't hold the position that the DotP is organized from the top-down (as Red Rosa claimed), then what the fuck are we arguing about? If the DotP is organized from the bottom-up, it is non-hierarchical. If it is non-hierarchical it is compatible with anarchism.
It’s not because proletariat Party holds power. Party established proletariat as ruling class and it’s creating necessary moves for transition. There’s of course hierarchy, not within Party, but within society as reactionaries and enemies of working class pretty much don’t have nice time (especially if they try to work against DoP).

The truth or falsehood of this is irrelevant. What matters is what anarchists and Marxists advocate today. Today, anarchists propose the formation of non-hierarchical, bottom-up organizations.
So, what? I just said that they didn't came up with that.

Once again, this is an irrelevant red herring. Not that it is true to begin with.Lol. Read some documentation on split in 1. International.

Oh, and there's that term "revisionist" again. "If you don't agree with what I believe happened historically, you are a revisionist!" Grow up. :rolleyes:
Lol, emotional butterfly. If you invent history your are historical revisionist.

No, they aren't. In fact, many of the most prominent socialist revolutionaries were originally of the ruling classes.
Because they were educated and they had ability to read Marx, while railway workers didn’t. Today things kind of changed, because more and more working class people go to University. And you need people to do certain beurocratic work every day, which people wouldn’t be capable of doing as full time workers. Organisation sets them average pay and it’s all ok. Are they privileged in voting and decision making? No, and that’s only what’s important.

When the fuck have I ever described the CNT as "precious"? Quit with the fucking red herrings and actually respond to my arguments!
Again, why do you think that my job here is just to respond to your questions? I have right to put what ever I want in this discussion. Therefore I put CNT as rarely serious anarchist organisation and used it as example for describing that even anarchists use paid beurocrats. I’m answering to your “arguments”, so stop with your drama. Actually, you are in better position than me, because I’m the one who’s making arguments and statements while you just make hysterical accusations and questions.

Why?
Because there’s a lot of paperwork and coordination. Use your head.

. . . Neither do I. Did I ever say I was opposed to education? I don't recall. . . .Again, crying like a baby. I just answered you what does “trained” member mean.

Искра

7th December 2011, 02:40

Actually, both of who have ignored several points that have been brought up. Several of the ones that you two have actually addressed weren't even challenged with legitimate arguments but with red herrings, ad hominems, tu quoques, and cries of "revisionism".

I like your pseudo-intellectual condescension: "you are unable to understand what we are talking about and you come here with your moralist emotions for which I don’t care." It kind of has the tone of a "professional revolutionary" addressing an uppity proletarian.
Hm, I answer to you and you are not satisfied? What shall I do... (Oh, little drama!) I answered to all your “points”. You can continue crying or you can ask them again if you think that they are not answered.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 02:51

Anarchist myths just prove how this theory is quite silly. Of course, Stalinists betrayed revolution when they annihilated workers councils and collectives etc. But guess what?! They were in the same government as anarchists, along with bunch of nationalist bourgeoisie elites. So, of course that I criticise and condemn Stalinism as bourgeoisie ideology, but I don’t spare anarchist leadership which did the same. Anarchists also didn’t expropriate foreign capitalists, they participated in government, their leaders made all decisions etc. When Bolsheviks took the power they didin’t work with bourgeoisie. They eliminated it! Of course, they later fucked all up.

All you demonstrated is your lack of a fundamental understanding of the situation in Spain during the revolution and the civil war. But it is neither here nor there.

And after that moment movement split over tactics. I hope that you are capable to read instead of just crying, because you could then read my post that I don’t have anything against working with non-reactionary anarchists (and by that I mean with anarchists who are internationalists and who support class struggle) and that I actually do that every single day. BUT – I’m against being in organisation with anarchists, because I’m against FEDERALISM. Been there, done that...

I made a distinction earlier between social anarchists vs other anarchists. I would not work with any anarchist who do not support internationalism and class struggle either.

Also as far as me "crying" I am kind of getting sick of your ad hominems. Maybe you should take your own advice of "relax" and "chill out" as the only one getting aggressive here is you. If my posts have come across as emotional or aggressive then I can assure you it wan not my intention but it must lie in your misrepresentation of my posts.

The point is that Marxist rejects “authoritarian vs. libertarian” concept. I elaborated that few posts ago. Again, Marxists do not want to create class society, but to destroy it. Still, State is necessary tool. Yeah, people tried in history and fucked up, but so did anarchists who didn’t destroy state power but use it. Therefore all I can say is that in order so succeed we should stop making compromises.

I used to the terms to display the fact that the two terms were actual useless in the context that I described. Go back and read it again...slowly.

We don’t ignore anything, but you are unable to understand what we are talking about and you come here with your moralist emotions for which I don’t care. Read my (or her) post again slowly or just fuck off, because you are boring.

Thanks bud. Maybe you should stop being so damn sectarian and frankly just downright rude. As far as I am concerned the only thing that you have displayed is that no one in their right mind would ever want to work with you as the first time they disagree with you they get condescended and swore at.

Caj

7th December 2011, 03:16

Hm, I answer to you and you are not satisfied? What shall I do... (Oh, little drama!) I answered to all your “points”. You can continue crying or you can ask them again if you think that they are not answered.

:laugh: There's no fucking way you are being serious at this point. How stupid are you that you actually believe that you have legitimately responded to all of my points? You've hardly responded to any of them non-fallaciously.

And where do you keep getting this impression that I'm crying? I'm not the one behaving in such a rude fashion that seems to reflect some sort of emotional distress.

Here's just one point to which you didn't respond: If the DotP is organized from the bottom-up, as you said it could be, then it is compatible with anarchism. Are you going to respond to this, or just continue to ignore it like the numerous other points rosario and I have raised?

ZeroNowhere

7th December 2011, 03:42

You sure are full of yourself.

It kind of has the tone of a "professional revolutionary" addressing an uppity proletarian.
I think you just undermined yourself.

In any case, I'm not sure that this discussion has taught us much about the relative merits of anarchism or Marxism, but it has taught us a lot about the relatively lacking merit of Revleft debate.

Caj

7th December 2011, 03:50

I think you just undermined yourself.

I don't really see how those quotes "undermined" myself considering that they were both in response to extraordinarily rude remarks. . . .

Paulappaul

7th December 2011, 05:15

Still it has no ideology, no common tactics and not even common goal. It's not organised and it's temporary movement without any permanent organisaitonal structure which would be able to continue struggle on every day basis.

Ideology is false consciousness and dogma. Common Tactics? hmm how about Occupation? Common Goal? The readdressing of proletarian grievances. Seriously dude is this the first time you have heard about the Occupy Movement? Alot of this is super common sense. Fact of the matter is that this movement is the most coordinated thing seen in America in a very, very, long time. N. 17 and the West Coast Shutdown of the Ports, as well has the nation wide solidarity actions that occurred the day of the Oakland General Strike. Frankly these are some of the most coordinated acts in the simple name of solidarity I have ever seen. So yes, very Organized. Permanent Organizational Structure? Uhh.. the whole fucking point of Occupations and General Assemblies is the fact that is keeps the struggle going on a daily basis.

Seriously, roll yourself down to any occupy website and read up on this.

Die Neue Zeit

7th December 2011, 05:32

And how was Kautsky's SPD "extremly democratic", since it was run by PROLETOCRACY? :lol: Besides this funny thing, this has nothing to do with reality of 21st cenutry.

I never said that the SPD was "extremely democratic." It had its organizational deficiencies. As you noted later on, having too much of a mere-labour-disputes perspective causes degeneration, and in fact it did with the SPD from its affiliated unions and those who weren't SPD members.

Au contraire, what I'm saying has exactly everything to do with the reality of 21st-century mass worker-class organization. It is an assessment of councilist and other ad hoc shortcuts-turned-failures. It is, moreover, a challenge presented to the working class for the sake of maturing politically.

There are no workable shortcuts.

If this "mass-party movement" implies subordinating the unions to a party, especially a parliamentary party, I would say I do not support the theory. I think the unions need freedom of action, and have to be accountable to their memberships, not to a party. If the rank-and-file are members of such a party, i.e; if the party influences the democratic decisions of the union through such membership, that is a different thing. But to make it a rigid, formal process seems to me excessively bureaucratic and would probably end up blocking union militancy in the end.

Perhaps I agree with your assessment. I'm not a big fan of "frontist" work.

As per my challenge, though, what I'm saying is that the worker-class mass party-movement should have its own Unions requiring prospective rank-and-filers to sign up for the party first, and should have its own Workers Councils and Bureaus requiring prospective participants to sign up for the party first. Any "parliamentary party" and even broad electoral structures (electoral constituency associations and such) should be packable and sackable at the whims of the non-electoral party organs.

[Nobody here signs up for the union and then "takes orders" from the rather unaccountable party. I think this here is your concern, which is mine as well.]

Ok, but I wasn't talking of subordinating unions to "party lidership" but to party and all of its members. Also, I was talking about communist party not about conservatives, liberals, socialdemocrats etc.In that case it is subordinating union members to party members. It would be nice if they were one in the same. I think if there is a militant labor movement its interests would be in line with those of a real communist party, so there would be no need for any formal subordination. If there was formal subordination, it would put the labor movement at risk if the party were to degenerate.

Reading further down to your post here, "they were one and the same" is what I'm getting at. The honest route is what I proposed above, joining the party first in order to join its subordinate organizations.

My challenge, comrade, is that the internal party structures themselves should be participatory-democratic (and preferrably even demarchic) in order to prevent the rise of a conservative party leadership. That also means acknowledging that the achievement of such goal would make all non-party political activity (I'm looking at "you, councils") unnecessarily redundant.

Die Neue Zeit

7th December 2011, 05:55

I also take the position that the 'party' as well know it won't exist in the here and now and will be part of the emergence of the class movement against itself, all that really passes for the party now are the various forms of 'unconscious' (to use a bad term) insurgency that exist in its various guises. I think we have to accept that what we as militants do is going to be reformist and there is no way around it, that doesn't mean petitioning the state but that we are going to making demands in our movements that seek gains out of capitalism not its destruction. Yet what is important is not so much whether the demands are reformist or not but where the structures and means we use maintain class autonomy.

I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist but I agree with this piece on organisation and the rest; http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century

Since you labelled yourself a "mere labour strugglist" awhile back, what you've said is somewhat problematic.

Yes, demands that seek gains out of capitalism "here and now" are necessary. The problem with anarcho-syndicalism is how it goes about it. It tends to go about it on a sectional basis, while partyists (real types, not parliamentary-cretin types) go about it, from the start, on a political basis.

Your first sentence implies to me a challenge to overcome now, not pessimistic rejection and leaving everything to a spontaneist take on "revolutionary periods."

For that reason, the wave of Occupations sweeping the World in connection with each other is more an example of the "Party" and Marxism, then any small Bordigaist Grouping, then any Marxist International or Syndicalist Union.

If by "Marxist International" you're referring to everything from the Russian-cheerleading Comintern and afterwards, I agree with you. However, the International Workingmen's Association and the original Socialist International (and perhaps even the International Working Union of Socialist Parties) were on another level of Partei.

Red Rosa

7th December 2011, 07:42

I think we can conclude that come time for revolution you and your democratic centralist parties will be irrelevant and those marxists who see the necessity of horizontal organization as well as a unification among anti-capitalists regardless of difference in tactics will be leading the struggle.
Who's against horizontal organization?
Anti-capitalists? What does that mean? There are liberals who are anti neoliberal private no state intervention corporate whatever you wanna call it capitalism, but are for capitalist economy in general. I know people who are anti capitalist but don't know what are they PRO. And that is fine because you see, you can't have, in leading the struggle, to use your words, just any worker because he/she's a worker like CNT was doing. (and the use of the term anti capitalist is exactly the apolitical part of your ideology I was talking about) The term professional revolutionary maybe goes on your nervs because of Lenin, I personally don't care, as long as we understand each other.
Difference in tacticts? Of course there will be, but you gotta understand that you can't use them all in a struggle, one will have to be chosen. I know that screams hierarchy in your minds but that's how things are done.

As far as your accusations of revisionism go I hope you realize that as a materialist, Marx would want to be seen as a man confined by the same material conditions which confined all thinkers of his day, not revered as some sort of god. He was not infallible.

There is a difference between approaching Marx in a materialist way and being a revisionist. I don't keep an altar of him at home, but I do recognise the meaning of it all because Marxism is a mutually related totality that cannot be chosen from because all the other things will loose their meanings standing alone.

The Insurrection

7th December 2011, 07:53

There is a difference between approaching Marx in a materialist way and being a revisionist. I don't keep an altar of him at home, but I do recognise the meaning of it all because Marxism is a mutually related totality that cannot be chosen from because all the other things will loose their meanings standing alone.
I'm sorry, but thats nonsense. That kind of assumes that everything Marx said was right, when clearly there are many aspects of his ideas that are wrong. Do you honestly think Marx would believe everything he said in the 19th century if he were alive now? Of course not, analyses changes; conditions change and so with it do ideas. There are many elements of Marx's thought that we can use, adapt and reject. The idea that his whole ideas are some kind of monolith that can't be broken down is just pointedly absurd, not least of all since it's been done countless times over the last 150 years by many Marxist theorists...

Red Rosa

7th December 2011, 07:55

Well if you don't hold the position that the DotP is organized from the top-down (as Red Rosa claimed)

And where exactly did I claim that?

Red Rosa

7th December 2011, 08:00

That kind of assumes that everything Marx said was right, when clearly there are many aspects of his ideas that are wrong. Do you honestly think Marx would believe everything he said in the 19th century if he were alive now? Of course not, analyses changes; conditions change and so with it do ideas. There are many elements of Marx's thought that we can use, adapt and reject. The idea that his whole ideas are some kind of monolith that can't be broken down is just pointedly absurd, not least of all since it's been done countless times over the last 150 years by many Marxist theorists...

It's one thing to recognise that for ex children do not work for capitalists today as they did when Marx was alive and not take under consideration fundamentals of Marxism.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 08:07

Who's against horizontal organization?
Anti-capitalists? What does that mean? There are liberals who are anti neoliberal private no state intervention corporate whatever you wanna call it capitalism, but are for capitalist economy in general. I know people who are anti capitalist but don't know what are they PRO.

Perhaps anti-capitalist was not the correct word to use, I should have said revolutionary left, meaning all those who wish to abolish capitalism in favor of a stateless classless society. I also believe you dismissed horizontal organization earlier in the discussion but I would be glad to find out I misunderstood.

And that is fine because you see, you can't have, in leading the struggle, to use your words, just any worker because he/she's a worker like CNT was doing. (and the use of the term anti capitalist is exactly the apolitical part of your ideology I was talking about) The term professional revolutionary maybe goes on your nervs because of Lenin, I personally don't care, as long as we understand each other.

Nothing erks me specifically because of Lenin, I am not that sectarian. I can look at Lenin's contributions to communism and see them for what they are. He got some stuff right, especially in theory, but come time for implementation he did not practice what he preached.

Difference in tacticts? Of course there will be, but you gotta understand that you can't use them all in a struggle, one will have to be chosen. I know that screams hierarchy in your minds but that's how things are done.

This is what I do not understand. Lets say that the leftcoms or bordigists or whatever have their democratic centralist party and the social anarchists and libertarian socialists their organizations. Why cannot these "parties" come together, uniting under the banner of revolutionary left unity, in a form of shell or umbrella organization? No one has to change their preferred organizational form, open debate and discussion will be encouraged and whoever appeals the most to the working class will naturally and democratically pull in more supporters. The parties would not always have to agree with one another as long as they accepted that they would work together for a common goal regardless of a difference in tactics.

citizen of industry

7th December 2011, 08:27

Perhaps I agree with your assessment. I'm not a big fan of "frontist" work.

As per my challenge, though, what I'm saying is that the worker-class mass party-movement should have its own Unions requiring prospective rank-and-filers to sign up for the party first, and should have its own Workers Councils and Bureaus requiring prospective participants to sign up for the party first. Any "parliamentary party" and even broad electoral structures (electoral constituency associations and such) should be packable and sackable at the whims of the non-electoral party organs.

[Nobody here signs up for the union and then "takes orders" from the rather unaccountable party. I think this here is your concern, which is mine as well.]

Reading further down to your post here, "they were one and the same" is what I'm getting at. The honest route is what I proposed above, joining the party first in order to join its subordinate organizations.

My challenge, comrade, is that the internal party structures themselves should be participatory-democratic (and preferrably even demarchic) in order to prevent the rise of a conservative party leadership. That also means acknowledging that the achievement of such goal would make all non-party political activity (I'm looking at "you, councils") unnecessarily redundant.

That is nothing new. Here there are union federations affiliated with parties, and many members of the unions are also party members. Of course, when the party turned conservative, the unions did as well (and I'm thinking of JCP and zenroren). In practice, the unions are remarkably the same as most other unions. In your hypothetical situation, with a mass-democratic party, many workers would join their unions, and would also join or support the party. Hence the union decision making process would be influenced by the party, since members would be also be party members. All this would happen naturally. Even if there was a formal process subordinating the union to the party, when people decide to split, they split.

The idea that people would have to join the party first, then be "assigned" to a union is divorced from the reality of the workplace. If someone works in companyX, and companyX has a union, most people will join that union out of necessity, regardless of party affiliation. If someone supports your party, but works in companyX, they will join that union, not the party union. But you can say they will influence the other union because of their political views, without it having any formal relation whatsoever to your party. I'm quite confident that if your mass-democratic party was making correct decisions, the unions would follow it, formal relations or no.

But we don't have a mass revolutionary party, so the whole question is rather irrelevant right now, don't you think?

As for the original theme of the thread, are anarchism and marxism mutually exclusive? Much of the debate here has actually been whether Leninists and non-Leninists are mutually exclusive, and it has been a resounding yes.

If you accept dialectical materialism, accept the labor theory of value, and your analysis of economics and society is thus scientific, and not based on idealism or some abstract moralism, then you would be a Marxist, not an anarchist. That's my two cents. Maybe anarchism opened the door for you and you came to these conclusions later, but don't want to drop the label "anarchist" because it has become a part of you and the word conjures up happy images. Then once you've come to the conclusion that you are thus a Marxist, and not an anarchist, we can passionately disagree and rip each others eyes out over organizing methods, degree of democracy, and how we want to organize the DotP once we've expropriated the capitalists.

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 08:30

If you accept dialectical materialism, accept the labor theory of value, and your analysis of economics and society is thus scientific, and not based on idealism or some abstract moralism, then you would be a Marxist, not an anarchist. That's my two cents.

But what if on top of accepting what you mentioned above you also oppose hierarchy?

The Insurrection

7th December 2011, 08:43

It's one thing to recognise that for ex children do not work for capitalists today as they did when Marx was alive and not take under consideration fundamentals of Marxism.

I don't understand what you're saying, sorry. :unsure:

Art Vandelay

7th December 2011, 08:52

I don't understand what you're saying, sorry. :unsure:

I believe that english is not her first language, but I think what she is trying to say is that there is a difference between accepting the fact that the material conditions have changed since Marx's time, ie: conditions are better, shorter hours, higher wage, less child labour and revising the fundamentals of marxism.

I could be wrong and if I am not, I am not saying that I agree with her.

citizen of industry

7th December 2011, 11:13

But what if on top of accepting what you mentioned above you also oppose hierarchy?

An abstraction. In any society there will always be some amount of "hierarchy." The question is how much or how little and by whom. Take for example the production and distribution of goods. To achieve synthesis there would have to be some form of oversight. Does it have to justify itself? Yes. Does it have to be undemocratic? Not at all. We advocate a classless society. A so-called hierarchy where some have privileges and power over others is not classless. Ask yourself how one can have wealth, power and privilege in a socialist world where there is no scarcity, no rivaling nation states, no armies. Does not the material basis for hierarchy not exist in such a society? What do you define by "hierarchy" exactly? Nobody likes this word. Find me someone who says "I like hierarchy." The word is just a common slander used by anarchists against Marxists. So we are back to semantics again.

Which brings us to practical organizing. How much or how little democracy you advocate in organization is no new debate between Marxists. Anarchists don't have a monopoly on calls for democracy. Advocating direct democracy in organizational activities might mean you could not participate in a democratic-centralist organization like a Leninist party. But not all Marxists belong to such.

EDIT: I personally think there are some advantages to a more centralized organization. Example; the State and it's organs, the police, military, etc. are highly centralized. Therefore they can make decisions immediately, change tactics in a heartbeat and can rely on strict obedience. How to combat this without any centralism, with a loose organization where consensus must be reached on every tactical decision, or with no organization? However, there are also advantages to a looser organization - greater participation, less risk of degenerating into a bureaucracy, etc.

The Insurrection

7th December 2011, 11:22

I believe that english is not her first language, but I think what she is trying to say is that there is a difference between accepting the fact that the material conditions have changed since Marx's time, ie: conditions are better, shorter hours, higher wage, less child labour and revising the fundamentals of marxism.

I could be wrong and if I am not, I am not saying that I agree with her.

Well, if that's what she's saying, I would say that this is not really addressing my point. If I understood her original post, she was saying that you cannot take parts of Marxism and accept their premise without accepting all of the premises that Marx arrived at based on his analyses. So for example, she is saying that you cannot accept his philosophical outlook without accepting his political views, which to me is just a ridiculous thing to assert.

Sure, the fundamentals of Marx's analysis remain the same, despite changing conditions, but that doesn't mean that everything he said should be taken into consideration when understanding the whole body of his idea.

The Insurrection

7th December 2011, 11:24

An abstraction. In any society there will always be some amount of "hierarchy." The question is how much or how little and by whom. Take for example the production and distribution of goods. To achieve synthesis there would have to be some form of oversight. Does it have to justify itself? Yes. Does it have to be undemocratic? Not at all.

How is that a definition of hierarchy?

The Insurrection

7th December 2011, 11:37

EDIT: I personally think there are some advantages to a more centralized organization. Example; the State and it's organs, the police, military, etc. are highly centralized. Therefore they can make decisions immediately, change tactics in a heartbeat and can rely on strict obedience. How to combat this without any centralism, with a loose organization where consensus must be reached on every tactical decision, or with no organization? However, there are also advantages to a looser organization - greater participation, less risk of degenerating into a bureaucracy, etc.

I reject the premise of this, which is based mostly on assumption as far as I can see. You're setting up a false dichotomy where by a centralised form of organisation means "efficiency, obedience and strength" and decentralised forms of organisation means "loose, ineffective and weak".

The assumption that this is true is based on what exactly? Co-ordination, appeals to knowledge and experience and coherence can exist using decentralised forms of organisation. I've seen it in practice. The only question is whether that model can be applied on a national level and I see no reason why not, especially since conflict is never really understood on a national geographical basis, but on region to region, area to area.

And let's also ask ourselves what you are asking us as workers to do. You are asking us to reinforce a social relationship that disempowers us and defend that social relationship as "good" and "beneficial", when neither of those things are true. It's logically inconsistent to claim that you can establish a society based ultimately on direct democracy; decentralised political authority i.e. direct workers self-management and a dismantling of privilege, political or otherwise, by using centralised, authoritarian and representative methods of political and economic organisation. There has to be a level of prefiguration (if I can use that word) in our transition from capitalism to communism that primarily focuses on dismantling centralised political authority and that includes institutions of the state, as well as the economic control of capital.

And what's more. As a worker. I am not prepared to hand over authority to determine my actions to a representative, irrespective of the platitudes they might offer. I and my community and my work place and my class are all perfectly capable of organising and defending ourselves

citizen of industry

7th December 2011, 14:24

How is that a definition of hierarchy?

That proves the point I was trying to make rather perfectly.

Azraella

7th December 2011, 14:27

Examples?

I find most right-libertarian arguments/ critiques of the state to be applicable to anarchist critiques of state; I'm also influenced by Lockean ideas of a "state of nature", Lockean exchanges/Lockean Proviso, and... despite the flaws of the non-aggression principle(and the lack of attempts from libertarians to apply their ideas at their logical conclusions), I largely agree with that as an ethical principle.

LOL No, you won't ever find me in a holy place unless against my will. I'm a rather anti-theistic person since I see all religions I come across as hypocritical and oppressive. Christianity and all it's forms, being a good example of hypocritical thinking/say.

Which is fine, we probably agree more on this subject than what it appears on the surface. I am obviously a proponent of religious freedom, but I am at least self critical, and even critical of the bigots involved in other religions(and my own), most of which would do well to actually read what their texts have to say about hypocrisy and degrading others.

I think we can conclude that anarchism and marxism are mutually exclusive.

There is definitely a meshing of ideas between Marxists and anarchists and I haven't seen any compelling arguments in this thread that says this is a bad thing. I've always considered Marxism itself to be an analysis of capitalism, and that it's an incredibly good thing for anarchists to have in their pockets.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

But of course it is! Those rascals that organize, agitate, and otherwise work for an anarchist society are indeed counter-revolutionary scum and don't practically worship the Communist Manifesto!

I don't know what I find more disappointing: The people who can't pool their insights and ideas together, the people who claim that to be X must adopt every single idea and reject the rest, or those who think that hey, others don't have interesting takes on these ideas.

citizen of industry

7th December 2011, 14:50

I reject the premise of this, which is based mostly on assumption as far as I can see. You're setting up a false dichotomy where by a centralised form of organisation means "efficiency, obedience and strength" and decentralised forms of organisation means "loose, ineffective and weak".

The assumption that this is true is based on what exactly? Co-ordination, appeals to knowledge and experience and coherence can exist using decentralised forms of organisation. I've seen it in practice. The only question is whether that model can be applied on a national level and I see no reason why not, especially since conflict is never really understood on a national geographical basis, but on region to region, area to area.

And let's also ask ourselves what you are asking us as workers to do. You are asking us to reinforce a social relationship that disempowers us and defend that social relationship as "good" and "beneficial", when neither of those things are true. It's logically inconsistent to claim that you can establish a society based ultimately on direct democracy; decentralised political authority i.e. direct workers self-management and a dismantling of privilege, political or otherwise, by using centralised, authoritarian and representative methods of political and economic organisation. There has to be a level of prefiguration (if I can use that word) in our transition from capitalism to communism that primarily focuses on dismantling centralised political authority and that includes institutions of the state, as well as the economic control of capital.

And what's more. As a worker. I am not prepared to hand over authority to determine my actions to a representative, irrespective of the platitudes they might offer. I and my community and my work place and my class are all perfectly capable of organising and defending ourselves

I didn't mean to imply loose and weak. On the contrary, the nature of class struggle means we are overwhelmingly superior in both quantity, and, due
to Marx's discovery of the labor theory of value, qualitatively.

I was implying that centralism results in expediancy, in speed. I wasn't basing it on assumption. I've been in unions with representative democracy, and one with direct democracy. The latter is by far superior. But the decision making process is longer, something a union can afford because it is legal. What if an organization is forced underground? How do you get a quorum with no leadership, reduced communication and no time? I've also witnessed first hand what happens when a Trotskyist partydecides on a "go for the top" strategy in a labor union and succeeds. The result is the most militant, effective, international and political union I've ever seen. It dwarfs the party that led to it.

Smyg

7th December 2011, 14:52

I've also witnessed first hand what happens when a Trotskyist partydecides on a "go for the top" strategy in a labor union and succeeds.

Wonderful.

Die Neue Zeit

7th December 2011, 15:24

In your hypothetical situation, with a mass-democratic party, many workers would join their unions, and would also join or support the party. Hence the union decision making process would be influenced by the party, since members would be also be party members. All this would happen naturally. Even if there was a formal process subordinating the union to the party, when people decide to split, they split.

They wouldn't be able to split the union from the party or vice versa. They just leave individually.

The idea that people would have to join the party first, then be "assigned" to a union is divorced from the reality of the workplace.

I'm not writing about being "assigned" to a union. Prospective union militants may wish to join a particular union, but they have to join the party first in order to join that union. No assignments here.

If someone works in companyX, and companyX has a union, most people will join that union out of necessity, regardless of party affiliation. If someone supports your party, but works in companyX, they will join that union, not the party union. But you can say they will influence the other union because of their political views, without it having any formal relation whatsoever to your party. I'm quite confident that if your mass-democratic party was making correct decisions, the unions would follow it, formal relations or no.

The SPD-affiliated union didn't follow despite the party making correct decisions. Appeasement was made to equalize the party and the union, and degeneration resulted from there.

Have you considered the difference between closed shops, union shops, and agency shops? Although the third form is the norm in countries where closed shops are illegal, its ability to contribute towards union militancy is underrated:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/immigration-t164992/index.html?p=2315300

But we don't have a mass revolutionary party, so the whole question is rather irrelevant right now, don't you think?

Hence the challenge. As others said here, ultra-leftists refuse the challenge and stick to spontaneism.

Then once you've come to the conclusion that you are thus a Marxist, and not an anarchist, we can passionately disagree and rip each others eyes out over organizing methods, degree of democracy, and how we want to organize the DotP once we've expropriated the capitalists.

Anarchists tend to be against worker-class, mass, participatory-democratic, revolutionary party-movements.

citizen of industry

7th December 2011, 15:33

Wonderful.

Indeed. Mobilizing thousands of workers, constantly striking, constantly demonstrating. Building international networks of militant unions and organizations outside of organized labor like refugee groups. Holding labor schools with Marx as the curriculum and assembling thousands of workers at rallies while conservative union federations numberung in the millions can field only a handful. We demonstrated today, and will again on Saturday, then on Monday, and on and on. The centralized leadership doesnt bother me in the least. They fight.

Smyg

7th December 2011, 16:19

I rather meant that I'm not too keen on Trotskyist entryism (I've been one, for the record), but that actually sounds awesome despite that.

Red Rosa

7th December 2011, 16:20

Paulappaul

7th December 2011, 16:38

However, the International Workingmen's Association and the original Socialist International (and perhaps even the International Working Union of Socialist Parties) were on another level of Partei.

Yes I would agree with this.

Red Rosa

7th December 2011, 17:03

Perhaps anti-capitalist was not the correct word to use, I should have said revolutionary left, meaning all those who wish to abolish capitalism in favor of a stateless classless society. I also believe you dismissed horizontal organization earlier in the discussion but I would be glad to find out I misunderstood.

That's nice, but this romance between revolutionary leftists can't and won't last forever, since out views on how the revolution (and the period after it) should look like (some basic convictions, of course, we can't write a recipe for revolution, I hope that goes without saying) mutually differ. As much as it would be great if all the revolutionary leftist would be able to gather and stick together all through revolution, that can't happen, that's why we have names for different ideologies, fractions or what have you, because the content behind one name differs from the content behind other. Of course I support anarchists opposition to capitalism and favour of revolution. But I don't support multi -line or no- line organizations that will refuse to play the role as a proletariat's political outline. How can we agree on this? We can't, we want opposite things. And if we deal with such incredibly serious matter (we can't even really fully conceive how serious) such as changing whole society and reconstructing another order onto it, we have to look way beyond, we can't afford myopia. And if we just focus on gathering all the revolutionary leftists without paying too much attention to our political beliefs, i.e. how we want this whole period of crushing the current system and constructing another to look like, we are being short sided which will be fatally counterproductive. If the party wants to fulfill its task as proletariat's political carrier and leader, for purposes of leading the revolution and the period after it, one line is extremly important. We can't have a mishmash. Dictatorship of the proletariat is needed, revolution itself is not sufficient to start building a new socialist order so that means we have to have a political dictatorship, and you can't dictate someone to do something by dictating them to do one thing in two ways, now can't you?
As for hierarchical organization, that's the misconception that Anarchy! has been spreading around without answering my question (two times) where did I actually say that I advocate hierarchical party.
I don't see a point in hierarchy within the party. If other organizations (for some reason I can't currently think of) would exist, than these would be in hierachical position in relation to party, since party should be the main and central political body of the working class, but within a party, between its members I don't see a need for hierarchy.

Nothing erks me specifically because of Lenin, I am not that sectarian. I can look at Lenin's contributions to communism and see them for what they are. He got some stuff right, especially in theory, but come time for implementation he did not practice what he preached.

I agree.

This is what I do not understand. Lets say that the leftcoms or bordigists or whatever have their democratic centralist party and the social anarchists and libertarian socialists their organizations. Why cannot these "parties" come together, uniting under the banner of revolutionary left unity, in a form of shell or umbrella organization? No one has to change their preferred organizational form, open debate and discussion will be encouraged and whoever appeals the most to the working class will naturally and democratically pull in more supporters. The parties would not always have to agree with one another as long as they accepted that they would work together for a common goal regardless of a difference in tactics.

I pretty much answered this above.