Attempt at Finding Common Ground to make the Forum a More Pruductive Organ

[Geiseric]

I posted this in a different thread, one about Anarchism vs. Marxism, and in the process of finding a good answer to the topic, I found myself sick of answering the same thing over and over again and posted this instead.

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?

[DaringMehring]

You are right in general but that sort of thing will only happen through struggle --- like is sort of happening with OWS right now. If you look at the OWS forum, you already find much more productive, collaborative work than the BSing in the history forum, learning or politics.

We do need organization and discipline, like the old CP before the popular front, but that organization came about not via theory or Jehovah witness prosthelytizing, but through people coming together in the class struggle.

We should not look for ways to merge our bureaucracies... for Shawki to fight with Avakian to fight with Roberts to fight with Webb to fight with every other ossified Party dictatorship-leader. That is pointless and to the opposite of what those cliques are interested in anyway. We should look for ways that fighters can come together around struggles -- like forming a "Socialist Occupy Caucus" or similar.

[Chambered Word]

you're simplifying things way too much, and RevLeft does not represent the Left in real life.

[The Idler]

Even if revleft did represent the left, there are users who might say they want "the complete destruction of capitalism, wage labor, classes, and Capital's rule of society?" but would follow models where some or all of these things did not happen.

[Nox]

How about we all agree on total working class control? Also known as Anarchism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

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?

No I don't agree.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2262082&postcount=34

A "more productive organ"? RL is a discussion board for people who identify as leftists. It seems to be doing it's job fine.

[thefinalmarch]

you're simplifying things way too much, and RevLeft does not represent the Left in real life.
when I wake up each morning I perform a ritual human sacrifice to the sun god so that no-one on revleft will ever hold any sort of meaningful position in the immanent, revolutionary self-movement of the working class.

thus far, my prayers have remained answered.

[CommunityBeliever]

How about we all agree on total working class control? Also known as Anarchism.

It is known as that by who? Personally, when I think of anarchism the first thing that comes to mind is anarcho-primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism). Many other people (however ignorantly) associate it with chaos. The term that unambigiously defines working class control is socialism.

Also, notably, nobody has scientifically proven that non-primitivist anarchism can ever exist. The effect of technological development throughout history has been to increase state centralization. It seems some kind of central authority is necessary to control large scale technologies and to offset the disruption of the balance of nature. Here are some particular examples:


Lighting technology disturbed the natural protection that the night offered to people, and thereby resulted in an increase in night crimes. This was offset by state protection.
Agriculture disturbed the natural population controls, allowing human population to dangerously explode to seven billion people. A central authority needs policies to offset this, like the 1 child policy in the PRC.

[Nox]

It is known as that by who? Personally, when I think of anarchism the first thing that comes to mind is anarcho-primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) and market anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism). Many other people (however ignorantly) associate it with chaos. The term that unambigiously defines working class control is socialism.

I meant Anarchism as in the method used to reach Communism.

[thefinalmarch]

The term that unambigiously defines working class control is socialism.
No. You have the historic utopian, religious and bourgeois "socialisms", as well as the "socialisms" of the USSR, et al., and then there's also "democratic socialism".

If by "working class control" you mean the abolition of all value relationships, and with them classes and the state, then the only applicable term is 'communism'.

[CommunityBeliever]

If by "working class control" you mean the abolition of all value relationships

I mean working class control over the state, or a worker's state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state), e.g the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Cuba, etc.

[Nox]

I mean working class control over the state, or a worker's state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state), e.g the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Cuba, etc.

None of those states you listed were anywhere close to being a "worker's state"

[CommunityBeliever]

None of those states you listed were anywhere close to being a "worker's state"


I clearly don't agree.


I meant Anarchism as in the method used to reach Communism.

What kind of a method is that? How are you not going to have a central authority in a technological society, especially when you have to worry about imperialist invasion? It makes no sense to me, the only sort of anarchism that particularily makes sense is anarcho-primitivism because there was actually once a time where primitives lived w/o a state.

[Mr. Natural]

Workers' states can be organized from the bottom up as in anarchism, socialism, and communism, or from the top down as in Stalinism, the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Cuba, or capitalism.

I hate placing Cuba in such poor company, especially as the US has forced it into a form of "war socialism," but Cuba is a dictatorial regime. Cuba and Viet Nam are examples of Western imperialism perverting the revolutions it could not prevent.

As for bottom-up versus top-down social formations, life is a bottom-up process. Even Community Believer began life as a single cell--a zygote

[Revolutionair]

I clearly don't agree.

We don't give a shit if you don't agree, if you agree with the DPRK that selling out workers to Chinese imperialism is a good thing.

I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT RESEMBLES THE DPRK, PLEASE DO NOT SHOOT ME WHEN I DEMONSTRATE/STRIKE/EMIGRATE.

[Geiseric]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a shame that we have so much technology these days, and instead of using that technology to spread ideas this forum has degenerated into a shit storm? I dunno. Obviously some ideas shouldn't be spread, but this forum has a chance for people to communicate internationally basically whenever they want about their own experiances, struggles, or new situations and we're still caught up on the anarchism vs. socialism, the "top down" revolution (which is utopian) vs. the "bottom up" revolution (which is inevitable, even with vanguardism which is also inevitable)? I mean these things have been proven since the late 1800s and throughout today. there is a material reality to things, and since we all want to inevitably destroy "the top" in whatever shape it forms, after it's point is gone, doesn't that all give us something in common? i mean, is it possible to have a "socialist" general strike or an "anarchist" general strike? It isn't, so we should all be building for whats common.

[Geiseric]

Why are we worried about anarchism vs. socialism when there's no workers movement though? The only differences between class struggle anarchism and socialism are in definitions of things like "state" and that I guess ortho anarchists are "anti authoritarian" but in reality that's just a dogma, and alot of socialists are cool with class collaboration, which is also horseshit. i mean isn't the point of anarchism, socialism, marxism, anarcho syndicalism, to establish some kind of workers power? but even in real life this arguement spreads, and at least in the U.S. there are tons of petit bourgeois "anarchists" who tend to go to a protest and just antagonise cops. I mean how would you deal with those kinds of people without some kind of organisational discipline?

[Q]

Am I the only one who thinks it's a shame that we have so much technology these days, and instead of using that technology to spread ideas this forum has degenerated into a shit storm? I dunno. Obviously some ideas shouldn't be spread, but this forum has a chance for people to communicate internationally basically whenever they want about their own experiances, struggles, or new situations and we're still caught up on the anarchism vs. socialism, the "top down" revolution (which is utopian) vs. the "bottom up" revolution (which is inevitable, even with vanguardism which is also inevitable)? I mean these things have been proven since the late 1800s and throughout today. there is a material reality to things, and since we all want to inevitably destroy "the top" in whatever shape it forms, after it's point is gone, doesn't that all give us something in common? i mean, is it possible to have a "socialist" general strike or an "anarchist" general strike? It isn't, so we should all be building for whats common.

This forum is another example that technology in itself does not solve things. It merely accentuates existing problems or transforms then to re-emerge at another level.

If we are to be serious about the project of left unity and therefore begin to form a social weight in society, we need to rethink our forms of organisation. On the one hand, the Leninist "new type of party", involving a highly militaristic command structure, that the Trotskyists and Stalinists have inherited is hopelessly sectarian and leads to minoritarian politics of steering the class struggle. On the other hand, the anarchist alternatives are hardly any alternatives.

If we are to unite our class, the left needs to embrace the idea of "unity in diversity": Democratic decision making at all levels, with full rights of minorities to openly organise and propagate their vision. We also need to embrace the idea of programmatic unity as opposed to theoretical unity. Said otherwise: We can have many discussion about the exact character of the Soviet Union, but it is irrelevant to the immediate tasks that are posed to us today and therefore shouldn't hinder unity. Instead, we need to unite on a clear programmatic document that is aimed for working class power.

[Ocean Seal]

No I don't agree.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2262082&postcount=34

A "more productive organ"? RL is a discussion board for people who identify as leftists. It seems to be doing it's job fine.
I'm not asking for this Kumbaya come together shit, instead what I want people to start doing is to collaborate on common ground because right-now our difference in ideology doesn't have any material implications in many senses. We aren't ready to implement socialism so its fine to discuss and fight about the theory but when agitating against capital we should make sure to defend each other even to a bare minimum. I'm not an anarchist, if anything I'm pretty close to Leninism, but if someone said that anarchy was pure chaos and that anarchists were just dumb kids dressed in black who lit things on fire; I would defend the anarchists. Why? Because I would rather have people know the facts about anarchism than what the bourgeois media tells them about it. I would explain the material causes behind why the people burn buildings and that buildings aren't people. I would also try to get them to grasp the theory behind why they are doing these things. So yes, I do want a certain level of unity. Such that the left doesn't get sucked into vulgar bourgeois propaganda about each other's sects and doesn't promote it to others for political reasons.

[Caj]

There are two things in that with which I disagree:



can't we agree on that as soon as possible . . . the working class has to be the ruling class in the world?


Fuck no. I want classlessness.


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?

The fact that people, both workers and counterrevolutionaries, are going to be killed during the revolution is an inevitability that needs to be accepted. The workers must defend themselves against reaction if the revolution is to succeed. That task will almost certainly require some degree of violence, as the state and bourgeoisie are not going to voluntarily surrender their power.

[Geiseric]

I don't think the bourgeois will go to such barbaric measures as a civil war in this day and age. I'm just being optimistic, but if we caught a reactionary terrorist/soldier whatever in a hypothetical civil war, he is just as oppressed as any other worker in the end, regardless of what flag he flies. besides killing people doesn't solve anything, it only causes more pain and makes that person's kid, familly and friends, potential revolutionaries, hate anything having to do with progressivism. Obviously there will be classless society in the end, but for now, in this day, shouldn't we be aiming for complete and total working class dictatorship over the state and means of production? We can tell people that in the end a classless society is inevitable, however the goals of today, and of prior history aren't the elimination of classes, it's supremacy of one class over the other, right?

[OhYesIdid]

yup, SB, you're being optimistic.
I'll admit, after my first reading of the Communist Manifesto I envisioned the Revolution as a sort of mass worldwide uprising where not event the police nor the soldiers would obey the bourgeoise. Bosses would be escorted to menial farm work or something and all would be good in the world.
I'm afraid, however, that's probably not how it will go down.
The longer capitalism lasts, the more overt, brutal and merciless its Reaction against socialism must, necessarily, be. A Revolution nowadays would not be "easier", a clearly communist uprising, especially in the developer world, would face brutality and oppression on a scale unseen in history.
I've had the luck of not living during a civil war, unless you count this "war on drugs", but I've read about the reconciliation process and the long lasting feuds that have to be lived off in order for neighbors to even talk to each other again. I think this is more likely to be the case with the sons and daughters of former slaves and former slave-owners (wage slavery I'm so clever)

[Caj]

I don't think the bourgeois will go to such barbaric measures as a civil war in this day and age.

Why wouldn't they? What possible reason could the bourgeoisie and the state have for surrending their power voluntarily? Hitherto the ruling classes of each age have always went to extremely violent measures as a (futile) attempt to remain in power. Why should that historical trend change now?


if we caught a reactionary terrorist/soldier whatever in a hypothetical civil war, he is just as oppressed as any other worker in the end, regardless of what flag he flies.

Yes, but he or she is a reactionary and is a detriment to the success of the revolution.


killing people doesn't solve anything, it only causes more pain and makes that person's kid, familly and friends, potential revolutionaries, hate anything having to do with progressivism.

If a reactionary is engaging in violence against his or her fellow workers and thus harming the development of the revolution, I think that the workers should be allowed to defend themselves as a class. Because the forces of reaction will undoubtedly use violence, the workers will have to also use violence for their defense and the defense of the revolution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should carry out a large-scale massacre of all reactionaries. I'm just saying that the proletariat will have to defend itself against violent attacks that could impair the success of the revolution.


Obviously there will be classless society in the end, but for now, in this day, shouldn't we be aiming for complete and total working class dictatorship over the state and means of production?

There are so many differing conceptions of the DotP that I really don't know to what you are referring. I will only agree to a workers' "state" that is non-hierarchical, democratic, and organized from the bottom-up (at which point it really ceases to be a state). This is the only "state" that can actually include all of the workers in the decision-making process and deter the possibility of their continued oppression under a new ruling class of government officials. History, I think, attests to this fact in all instances.

As for classlessness, classes will cease to exist once the workers contol the means of production. The idea of a "transitional" phase between capitalism and classlessness is a false concept derived from Lenin.


the goals of today, and of prior history aren't the elimination of classes, it's supremacy of one class over the other, right?

The goals of today should be classlessness. The idea of the proletariat being a ruling class in the traditional sense is an absurd false concept. The ruling class position of the proletariat is synonymous with classlessness.

[thefinalmarch]

can't we agree on that as soon as possible . . . the working class has to be the ruling class in the world?Fuck no. I want classlessness.
I think you (and all anarchists) could do well by reading this:

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.
(emphasis mine)

[OhYesIdid]

world civil war lolwut, you need a world state for that.

[Caj]

I think you (and all anarchists) could do well by reading this:


Yes, I saw that. It was actually posted in a thread that I started.

I really don't think it can be raised as a valid objection towards anarchism, though. It seems that that comment likens the DotP to an apparatus for forcibly seizing the means of production from the bourgeoisie during the revolution. Once all property is seized and collectivized, classes will cease to exist and the DotP will "wither away" (as it is rendered unnecessary). This is the classical Marxist conception of the DotP. The reason I don't think that this conception of the DotP is incompatible with anarchism is that there is no reason for this DotP to be a hierarchical, top-down power structure. It's completely conceivable (and I think desirable) that it would be non-hierarchical and organized from the bottom-up by the workers; thus, it wouldn't necessarily have to constitute a "state" (using the anarchists' definition of the term).

[Geiseric]

Anarchists seem to imply that without any sort of organisational structure with elected leadership the proletariat are capible of knowing almost through hivemind where to go during an insurrection in order to complete the strip of power from the bourgeois, but that's impossible since in order to use up every revolutionary worker's potential a sense of not guidance but coordination is necessary. That's all the state's role is, to coordinate things. If there wasn't a counter revolution, i'm a hundred percent positive that power would have been given to the soviets as soon as things were sorted out in the political arena, as in the struggle to decide which class is going to have dominance. i'd like to see any examples of abuse of power by the bolsheviks before the counter revolution started ravaging the country.

[Q]

The reason I don't think that this conception of the DotP is incompatible with anarchism is that there is no reason for this DotP to be a hierarchical, top-down power structure. It's completely conceivable (and I think desirable) that it would be non-hierarchical and organized from the bottom-up by the workers; thus, it wouldn't necessarily have to constitute a "state" (using the anarchists' definition of the term).

There is exactly the problem. Marxists define a state apparatus to directly correlate with a class society. I.e. a state is, in the last analysis, an "armed body of people" that is being used to defend material interests, such as private property (which is at the core of the capitalist state).

If an armed working class would take power therefore, and smash the old state and replace it by purely horizontal structures which would be intended to transfer power as much as possible to this working class, this would exactly be another "armed body of people" defending material, collectivist, interest and therefore a state.

The need for this flows from the fact that direct collectivisation of the economy is an illusion and will require some time. Especially the petit-bourgeoisie and the middle layers (holding certain monopolies on knowledge and skills) will take some time to get absorbed into the working class proper. The class struggle therefore does not end with the working class taking power, but transforms to another level.

[Art Vandelay]

There is exactly the problem. Marxists define a state apparatus to directly correlate with a class society. I.e. a state is, in the last analysis, an "armed body of people" that is being used to defend material interests, such as private property (which is at the core of the capitalist state).

If an armed working class would take power therefore, and smash the old state and replace it by purely horizontal structures which would be intended to transfer power as much as possible to this working class, this would exactly be another "armed body of people" defending material, collectivist, interest and therefore a state.

The need for this flows from the fact that direct collectivisation of the economy is an illusion and will require some time. Especially the petit-bourgeoisie and the middle layers (holding certain monopolies on knowledge and skills) will take some time to get absorbed into the working class proper. The class struggle therefore does not end with the working class taking power, but transforms to another level.

And there lies the rub. I do not know why this debate needs to be rehashed oh so so so many times. Lets put this in the most laymen terms possible. This century old silly little argument between anarchists and marxists is an argument based off of a difference in the definition of the state.

There really is no fundamental difference between the non-leninist conception of the dotp and the anarchist vision of the immediate post revolution society. Both currents have simply been bickering, for over a century, about semantics. Who really cares if we have different "definitions" of the state as long as we agree on the implementation. Its as if some of you honestly buy into the anti-anarchy propaganda that it means disorder and no organization. Anarchism, just like marxism, wants a highly organized society just in a horizontal not vertical form and the implementation of the two is identical.

[CommunityBeliever]

top down as in Stalinism, the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK

The earliest sort of bottom up organisation happened in the Paris commune where people organised from the bottom up to the communal council and the USSR, the PRC, and the DPRK later followed with their own sort of bottom up organisation:

USSR: people elect local soviets, local soviets elect district soviets, all the way up.
Albania: people exercise state power through the people's assemblies and the people's councils as well as directly. Women took up over 40 percent of the population in the people's councils, a considerable achievement considering Albania's previously patriarchy.
China: people exercise state power through local's people's congresses and the national people's congress.
DPRK: people organize the supreme people's council

In the case of USSR, China, Albania, and the DPRK, I am mainly referring to them as they existed around ~1950 before the great wave of revisionism that shattered the communist movement into pieces.


Workers' states can be organized from the bottom up as in anarchism

Actually, I am quite certain anarchists don't want their to be any state at all, or any hierarchy, which is precisely why they don't support the USSR, the PRC, Albania, the DPRK, etc in the form they existed around ~1950.

Anarchists aspire to a sort of civilization that has never occurred throughout history. The only time there has been statelessness has been in primitive uncivilised societies. And now the anarchists expect to build a practical method based upon something that has never occured? This makes no sense to me. There have been several Marxist-Leninist states that have a good history of progressive achievements such as granting gender equality, providing health care, education, employment, increasing technological development, etc.


As for bottom-up versus top-down social formations, life is a bottom-up process. Even Community Believer began life as a single cell--a zygote


I am not a social formation. There is a considerable difference between the hierarchical social formations and the process of growth.


We don't give a shit if you don't agree, if you agree with the DPRK that selling out workers to Chinese imperialism is a good thing.

"Chinese imperialism"? I am referring to the 1950s when China was a terrible victim of Western and Japanese imperialism. It was far from being imperialist itself at that point. Any sort of "selling out workers to Chinese imperialism" came decades later after the wave of revisionism.

[Art Vandelay]

The earliest sort of bottom up organisation happened in the Paris commune where people organised from the bottom up to the communal council and the USSR, the PRC, and the DPRK later followed with their own sort of bottom up organisation:

USSR: people elect local soviets, local soviets elect district soviets, all the way up.
Albania: people exercise state power through the people's assemblies and the people's councils as well as directly.
China: people exercise state power through local's people's congresses and the national people's congress.
DPRK: people exercise state power through the supreme people's council

In the case of USSR, China, Albania, and the DPRK, I am mainly referring to them as they existed around ~1950 before the great wave of revisionism that shattered the communist movement into pieces.



Actually, I am quite certain anarchists don't want their to be any state at all, or any hierarchy, which is precisely why they don't support the USSR, the PRC, Albania, the DPRK, etc in the form they existed in during the 1950s.

Anarchists aspire to a sort of society that hasn't ever occurred in the history of civilization. The only time there has been statelessness has been in primitive societies, and they expect to build a practical method based upon something that has never occured? This makes no sense to me. There have been several Marxist-Leninist states that have a good history of socialist practice.



I am not a social formation. There is a considerable difference between the hierarchical social formations and the process of growth.



"Chinese imperialism"? I am referring to the 1950s when China was a terrible victim of Western and Japanese imperialism. It was far from being imperialist itself at that point. Any sort of "selling out workers to Chinese imperialism" came decades later after the wave of revisionism.

Dear god this conversation makes me want to smash my head into a wall. By your own logic communists want to create a society which has never existed before in the history of the world so their ideas are flawed. Is that not the whole damn point!? To create a new society which has never existed.

[CommunityBeliever]

By your own logic communists want to create a society which has never existed before in the history of the world so their ideas are flawed.

The USSR, the PRC, and Albania existed and they successfully resisted invasion from the Nazis, the Japanese and the Western imperialists, granted women human rights and political power for the first time, provided universal health care, education, and employment, allowed workers to organise democratically, increased the rate of technological development, etc.

All of this actually happened, and these enormous successes were based upon Marxist-Leninist principles not anarchism which is a method which cannot work and has which never achieved anything, because technology necessitates a centralized and planned economy. The only time there wasn't a state was during primitive times.

[Art Vandelay]

The USSR, the PRC, and Albania existed and they successfully resisted invasion from the Nazis, the Japanese and the Western imperialists, granted women human rights and political power for the first time, provided universal health care, education, and employment, allowed workers to organise democratically, increased the rate of technological development, etc.

All of this actually happened, and these enormous successes were based upon Marxist-Leninist principles not anarchism which is a method which cannot work and has which never achieved anything, because technology necessitates a centralized and planned economy. The only time there wasn't a state was during primitive times.

Yeah that's all fine and dandy but they didn't reach a stateless classless society, which is the end goal is it not? It kind of sounds like you are saying there will never be a time without the state in which case I will gladly tell you that you do not know what the hell your talking about. Also anarchist societies have existed, open a history book.

[CommunityBeliever]

Yeah that's all fine and dandy but they didn't reach a stateless classless society, which is the end goal is it not?

Yes, that is an end goal, which will probably occur after the entire world is technologically and socially mature. But anarchists fail to emphasize that that is an end goal, which can only come about through a gradual process.


Also anarchist societies have existed, open a history book.

I know they existed, see anarcho-primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism). On the other hand, I doubt you can show me even one case of anarchism in a technological civilisation.

[Q]

And there lies the rub. I do not know why this debate needs to be rehashed oh so so so many times. Lets put this in the most laymen terms possible. This century old silly little argument between anarchists and marxists is an argument based off of a difference in the definition of the state.

There really is no fundamental difference between the non-leninist conception of the dotp and the anarchist vision of the immediate post revolution society. Both currents have simply been bickering, for over a century, about semantics. Who really cares if we have different "definitions" of the state as long as we agree on the implementation. Its as if some of you honestly buy into the anti-anarchy propaganda that it means disorder and no organization. Anarchism, just like marxism, wants a highly organized society just in a horizontal not vertical form and the implementation of the two is identical.

Well, yes and no. Yes, you're right that the whole debate regarding the workers state is mostly a non-issue between anarchists and Marxists. On the other hand however, and this was shown in earlier posts here too, anarchists overall want to jump towards a classless society immediately and, as I explained in my previous post, this is an illusion. A state, a workers state where the working class is the ruling class is a necessity as only through the dictatorship of the proletariat can we transform society towards a classless society of free producers.

I agree with you again that I don't understand why this needs to be repeated ad nauseam.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, that is an end goal, which will probably occur after the entire world is technologically and socially mature. But that is not an immediate goal like the anarchists seem to claim.



I know they existed, see anarcho-primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism). On the other hand, feel free to show me even one case of anarchism in a technological civilisation.

Anarchist Catalonia

[Art Vandelay]

Well, yes and no. Yes, you're right that the whole debate regarding the workers state is mostly a non-issue between anarchists and Marxists. On the other hand however, and this was shown in earlier posts here too, anarchists overall want to jump towards a classless society immediately and, as I explained in my previous post, this is an illusion. A state, a workers state where the working class is the ruling class is a necessity as only through the dictatorship of the proletariat can we transform society towards a classless society of free producers.

I agree with you again that I don't understand why this needs to be repeated ad nauseam.

But again I am thinking that this is simply semantics. You say the proles need to be the ruling class of the workers state. Anarchists wish to organize to suppress class enemies and re-organize society. I do not see a fundamental difference. I guess it comes down to how long you wish to have this "workers state" around for. Obviously I know M-Ls envision this as taking years if not centuries. But I think the the spanish civil war as well as the paris commune could be considered and implementation of anarchism or marxism, as I said earlier the implementation of the two are identical. The "workers state" should not be around any longer than needed to protect the gains of the revolution.

[CommunityBeliever]

Anarchist Catalonia

"Anarchist" Catalonia was never really anarchist as there were revolutionary tribunals that exerted authority in their localities, nor was it a civilization as it was just a temporary war time federation, nor was it technologically developed, even in comparison to other regions at the time. It is considered to be the closest thing to anarchism within a civilization, but I would still say it doesn't even come close.


the paris commune

The Paris commune wasn't that that unlike the USSR, except that people elected delegates to a commune rather then to a soviet. It was not anarchist.

[Art Vandelay]

"Anarchist" Catalonia was never really anarchist as there were revolutionary tribunals that exerted authority in their localities, nor was it a civilization as it was just a war time federation, and they were also relatively less technologically backwards, even in comparison to other regions at the time.



The Paris commune wasn't that that unlike the USSR, except that people elected delegates to a commune rather then to a soviet. It was not anarchist.

The early days of the Russian Revolution is something that I, as well as other anarchists, support. If you think any anarchist would have a problem with all power to the soviets than your wrong. The free territory is another example. No anarchist "civilization" has ever existed because they have generally been crushed by counter-revolution.

[Red Noob]

Attempt at Finding Common Ground to make the Forum a More Pruductive Organ

Who says this forum is an organ, and the users are the tissues that make it up? Who's to say it's not the tissue that makes up an organ, and we're merely the cells? Or better yet, who's to say we're not the organs that make up an organism? :rolleyes:


edit:
Sorry I have nothing to positive to contribute, but I think if you're wanting to make the forum an overall activist site, or something actually productive that gets things done, you shouldn't worry yourself about getting people to completely agree. That will absolutely never, ever, happen. Think outside the box, think of something new. What can everyone agree on, not what could or should everyone agree on.

edit2:
Maybe spice up the Action section?

[CommunityBeliever]

No anarchist "civilization" has ever existed because they have generally been crushed by counter-revolution.

Yet the fact still remains that an anarchist civilization has never occurred. The only time anarchism has ever been implemented has been by the anarcho-primitivists, who existed before civilization.

[Art Vandelay]

The fact also remains that a communist society has never occurred. What is your point? You can talk about all the good things that happened under in what your opinion were "socialist" countries but it did not lead anywhere.

[Chambered Word]

I just think we should have our differences and encourage good spirited, frequent and constructive debates and discussions on RevLeft. yes, for the millionth time, we all want communism. but there are many different ideas across the left about how to get there and how to relate to various different institutions, concepts, ideas and what have you. instead of trying to paper over these very distinct differences it would be a better idea to encourage everyone to debate more productively, rather than debate less. revleft isn't a focus for action and/or intervention in the worker's movements in the real world, it's a discussion board, and free discussion and clarification of ideas is vitally necessary in any kind of political environment. so the mind boggles as to why anyone would want to try and pretend we'd somehow be achieving something by ignoring the diversity of viewpoints on the board. I think this comes out of a misunderstanding of leftist politics and RL would be a better place if people just stopped making these threads and tried to make more constructive and interesting posts regardless of the subject matter.

[Os Cangaceiros]

CommunityBeliever:

1) What consitutes a "state" has been the subject of many stale, pointless conversations between Marxists and anarchists, and I'm not about to get into that discussion again. The bottom line is that if any form of organization with a designated role over a group, whether that body is a council or militia or any other organizational form, is a "state", well then anarchism certainly has never existed, nor will it ever exist.

2) Capitalist nations have expanded civil rights, endorsed democracy, help beat fascism, and spearheaded technological/medical advances. If I want to live in a social democracy, I'd rather live in one where the risk of me getting shot in the back of the head is minimal.

3) Primitivism isn't really about "endorsing" the lives of primitive people as the ideal society, it's about analyzing/critiquing civilization and technology as an unsustainable trend which will bring about it's own collapse.

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalist nations have expanded civil rights, endorsed democracy, help beat fascism, and spearheaded technological/medical advances.

Those were state capitalist nations. In those nations it was the state that spearheaded technological/medical advances, that created computers, artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, spacecraft, etc. It was states that expanded human rights and civil rights and defeated fascism.

I think it is relatively clear what the state is, and I don't despise it like the anarchists do, it has been a critical part of all technological societies and the main force in further progressing technology.

If you are focused on our elimination our common class enemy, the bourgeoisie, and not undoing the vast progressive achievements of states (including Marxist-Leninist ones) then we are in agreement.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Those were state capitalist nations. In those nations it was the state that spearheaded technological/medical advances, that created computers, artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, spacecraft, etc. It was states that expanded human rights and civil rights and defeated fascism.

I think it is relatively clear what the state is, and I don't despise it like the anarchists do, it has been a critical part of all technological societies and the main force in further progressing technology.

If you are focused on our elimination our common class enemy, the bourgeoisie, and not undoing the vast progressive achievements of states (including Marxist-Leninist ones) then we are in agreement.

Literally every capitalist nation is a "state capitalist nation", in that every capitalist class has been integrated into it's enforcement mechanism (the state) to various degrees. Even the supposedly laissez-faire USA at the turn of the 20th century saw heavy state involvement in areas like the steel and railroad industries. So saying that the state was responsible for all developments simply because those developments happened under the auspices of the state seems like a pointless distinction.

The pressing question is what kind of organizational forms will be productive to the communist project in the future. Looking around the world, it certainly seems like the classic model of ostensibly socialist organization has shot it's bolt: there is no more USSR, the PRC is thoroughly capitalist, DPRK is busy pimping out it's workers to Chinese and Russian bosses, and it's only a matter of time before gringos start condo developments in Cuba. But maybe it's just a matter of killing more revisionists this time around?

[CommunityBeliever]

But maybe it's just a matter of killing more revisionists this time around?

Yes, that would be help.

However, the main key to moving forward is to scientifically analyze social conditions based upon the enlightening principles outlined by comrades Marx and Engels.

[Tim Finnegan]

...the anarcho-primitivists, who existed before civilization.
...Come again? :confused:

[khad]

You want to make revleft a more productive organ?

How about getting it to produce something for a change? Art, music, literature, whatever. You look at our creative forums, and they're pretty much a desert.

Find something for people to work on; that's the easiest way to build common ground.