Anarchism [Archive]

Tim Cornelis

30th January 2012, 15:38

1. Anarchism and communism are not synonymous. While most anarchists are also communists (anarcho-communists), not all are.

2. There are several tactics, these include insurrectionary anarchism; syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism); mass anarchism, and dual power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_power) is a key concept. You create alternative non-hierarchical infrastructure in the here and now, and at one point the insurrection destroys the old while the 'new' alternative non-hierarchical social institutions replace it.

Or you compete with capitalism and hope to win, which is individualist anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism) and stoopid.

3. Platformism, syndicalism, informal insurrectionists, affinity groups, synthesis, class struggle groups

Read more about them by clicking here (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJcon.html)

4. Anarchism are, of course, socialists. Marxists want a transient state, a dictatorship of the proletariat, revolutionary dictatorship, workers' state, workers' democracy, etc. while anarchists reject the need for such a state.

5. Spain 1936 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution); Manchurian 1929-1931; Ukraine 1917-1921 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory); Zapatistas 1994-present (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation), but they are not really anarchists.

6. Anarchism negatively put is the opposition to social hierarchy; positively put it's the advocacy of an equal distribution of decision-making power.

More: Anarchist FAQ (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html)

Искра

30th January 2012, 15:48

What's sucessful about Spain? It was full blown counter-revolution lead by anarchists. They traded revolution for anti-fascism, sinding with one fraction of bourgeuisie.

Tim Cornelis

30th January 2012, 15:54

What's sucessful about Spain? It was full blown counter-revolution lead by anarchists. They traded revolution for anti-fascism, sinding with one fraction of bourgeuisie.

Whaever bruvva.

Ravachol

30th January 2012, 15:58

What's sucessful about Spain? It was full blown counter-revolution lead by anarchists. They traded revolution for anti-fascism, sinding with one fraction of bourgeuisie.

Oh not this again. The ones on the receiving end of counter-revolutionary violence were CNT and FAI rank-and-file members (Barcelona may days anyone?). There's a difference between the collaboration of CNT representatives (which is one of the shortcomings of syndicalism which is too formalist) and the popular front governement on the one hand and the rank-and-file on the other.

If you claim the entire base of the CNT/FAI was involved in this, this would go for all factions which ended up siding with the popular front and then there's really not much of a proletariat left to be 'betrayed'.

I agree joining the popular front was bollocks and counter-revolutionary but there's a difference between that move and the rest of the anarchist project in Spain.

Sasha

30th January 2012, 16:01

Don't bother kontraetc is like a stopped smoker or a born again Christian...

hatzel

30th January 2012, 16:13

What's successful about anything that ever happened anywhere ever? I think we can all agree that as we're all still basking in capitalism nothing can be said to have been an unmitigated 'success,' rather (at best) a relatively beneficial compromise (oh...wonderful...) so of course I don't see why everybody's always so up on this 'aaaaargh, where's your success at?! Y'all ain't got not success, y'all didn't end capitalism like a hundred years ago you n00bs'-tip. As if anybody did. Therefore stop it.

...on the other hand, even a 'failure' needn't necessarily imply a total lack of 'success.' Furthermore, 'success' is a word with a far broader meaning than merely 'achieving all of your goals in their entirety'...'successes' of anarchists therefore include but are not limited to the following cartoon:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Gran_calavera_el%C3%A9ctrica2.jpg/640px-Gran_calavera_el%C3%A9ctrica2.jpg

Thirsty Crow

30th January 2012, 16:17

Don't bother kontraetc is like a stopped smoker or a born again Christian...
Yeah, because actually bothering to research the history itself is too much of a problem.
But hey, it's obvious, anyone arguing for an intepretation of CNT's role in the Civil War as counter-revolutionary must be a stalinist goon or something like a religious fundamentalist (insert a "boo dogmatic" line of your choosing), right?

For all you who are sick of such rubbish and don't reduce your politics to infantile tendency fanboyism, try researching (if the Civil War is too much of a mess) the Asturias uprising of the 1934 with special attention paid to the issue of proletarian organizations' activity in helping to generalize the struggle. (if I catch the time, I'll ry to find a link to a text I have in mind, but didn't read it online, could take some time)

Искра

30th January 2012, 16:35

Don't bother kontraetc is like a stopped smoker or a born again Christian...
"Only a donkey doesn't change his mind" B. Mussollini.

Now, "born again Crhistian" argument is little bit funny. First of all, there's like a reason(s) why I've stoped being an anarchist (actually there are like a lot of reasons: opportunism, federalism, shit-politics, activism, theoretical flaws, dogmatism, nationalism, sexism, reformism, liberalism etc.). I've actually gave my critique of anarchism in one topic and I'm writing an bigger article on that subject. If you expect that people stick whole life to politics which they chosed when they were 10, because of Sex Pistols, thant you are a joke. After all my critique here is a critique it's not one sentece full of shit, like yourse. If I wrote such shit your would probably gave me a verbal warning, but hay you are a dickhead with red letters so you can.

When it comes to Spain in 1936 people talk all the time about how Stalinists betrayed revolution. Stalinist opportunism is a fact and I agree with anarchists on this one. But what I don't agree is that CNT/FAI were "right all the time" and that they were "revolutionary". They were opportunists long before working class made an insurrection against Franco's coup. After all in the end, CNT and FAI participated in government, they didn't caried out political takover of power from capitalists but they co-op with them! They didin't expropriate them as class etc.

Anarchists like to talk how rank-and-file members were betrayed by their leadership etc. But isn't the nature of those organisation what's made that happened? Also, this is a shit argumet to defend CNT, especially coming from those people (anarchists) who attack Bolsheviks so sharp (and they should), but faild to see that Bolsheviks did all what CNT didn't - a revolutionary expropriation of bourgeuisie...

I'm highly critical of both of them (Bolsheviks and CNT) and I don't like this revolutionary mithology.

TheRedAnarchist23

30th January 2012, 17:17

Sasha

30th January 2012, 18:54

"Only a donkey doesn't change his mind" B. Mussollini.

Now, "born again Crhistian" argument is little bit funny. First of all, there's like a reason(s) why I've stoped being an anarchist (actually there are like a lot of reasons: opportunism, federalism, shit-politics, activism, theoretical flaws, dogmatism, nationalism, sexism, reformism, liberalism etc.). I've actually gave my critique of anarchism in one topic and I'm writing an bigger article on that subject. If you expect that people stick whole life to politics which they chosed when they were 10, because of Sex Pistols, thant you are a joke. After all my critique here is a critique it's not one sentece full of shit, like yourse. If I wrote such shit your would probably gave me a verbal warning, but hay you are a dickhead with red letters so you can.

When it comes to Spain in 1936 people talk all the time about how Stalinists betrayed revolution. Stalinist opportunism is a fact and I agree with anarchists on this one. But what I don't agree is that CNT/FAI were "right all the time" and that they were "revolutionary". They were opportunists long before working class made an insurrection against Franco's coup. After all in the end, CNT and FAI participated in government, they didn't caried out political takover of power from capitalists but they co-op with them! They didin't expropriate them as class etc.

Anarchists like to talk how rank-and-file members were betrayed by their leadership etc. But isn't the nature of those organisation what's made that happened? Also, this is a shit argumet to defend CNT, especially coming from those people (anarchists) who attack Bolsheviks so sharp (and they should), but faild to see that Bolsheviks did all what CNT didn't - a revolutionary expropriation of bourgeuisie...

I'm highly critical of both of them (Bolsheviks and CNT) and I don't like this revolutionary mithology.

Fair enough, I'm not a syndicalist or platformist for much of the same reasons, autonomist-insurectionairy-situationism-withsomerealpolitikreformism for me

Искра

30th January 2012, 18:56

No wonder you got banned saying things like that
I got banned because I'm walking sex.

"theoretical flaws, dogmatism, nationalism, sexism"
I have never seen these in the anarchist movement To quote Chumbawamba: open your eyes, time to wake up...

"theoretical flaws"- you need to learn more before you say that.

If you studied this you would eventualy figure out that those "theoretical flaws" are fake.I'm a fucking nerd. I've read all important books on anarchism and still there is a bunch of theoretical flaws which showed in practice. For example, federalism, self-managment, anti-politics, rejection of proletarian dictatorship etc.

artanis17

30th January 2012, 19:02

4. Anarchism are, of course, socialists. Marxists want a transient state, a dictatorship of the proletariat, revolutionary dictatorship, workers' state, workers' democracy, etc. while anarchists reject the need for such a state.

So anarchists support direct transition to communism/anarchism from capitalism (or pre-communism) ?

feral bro

30th January 2012, 19:04

4) Obvious differences between transition to communism between socialists and anarchists.

Between left-coms and platformists not that much, neither between insurrectionists and RAF type MLs. So it depends on the tendency again but with a very broad brush its state vs no state
facepalm.
and i read that you'd picked up at daggers drawn recently?

'But we feel just as far removed from those who would like to desert daily normality and put their faith in the mythology of clandestinity and combat organisations, locking themselves up in other cages. No role, no matter how much it puts one at risk in terms of the law, can take the place of the real changing of relations. There is no short-cut, no immediate leap into the elsewhere. The revolution is not a war.'

(can't post links yet but the text is on theanarchistlibrary)

insurrectionist thought has always pitted itself as against armed strugglist groups.

Tim Cornelis

30th January 2012, 19:05

To quote Chumbawamba: open your eyes, time to wake up...

The same can be said about any movement ever (regarding alleged nationalism, sexism, etc.). It makes absolutely no sense to plaster it on anarchism.

I'm a fucking nerd. I've read all important books on anarchism and still there is a bunch of theoretical flaws which showed in practice. For example, federalism, self-managment, anti-politics, rejection of proletarian dictatorship etc.

Those are not theoretical flaws an sich, but theoretical disagreements.

If one's aim is the highest degree of autonomy then self-management and federalism are the logical outcome of this. It says nothing about its flaws in achieving socialism, it is simply theoretical disagreement.

Also I don't think anarchists qualify as "anti-political" either.

And rejection of proletarian dictatorship has been beaten to death. Unless you mean the rejection centralism in favour of federalism (which is the negation of DOTP) in which case you mentioned the same thing twice.

Искра

30th January 2012, 19:18

The same can be said about any movement ever (regarding alleged nationalism, sexism, etc.). It makes absolutely no sense to plaster it on anarchism.
I've participated in anarchist "movement" for more that 4 years. I know what m I talking about, and I'm talking from my personal experience. Nationalism here is not used in a sense of chauvinism but in sense of lame politics which promote certain fractions of Capital. For example when anarchists tell people to vote against EU or when anarchists support national liberation or nationalist populist movements. Of course, there are a lot of anarchists whit decent politics on these matters, still I got pissed by those who don't.

Those are not theoretical flaws an sich, but theoretical disagreements.Maybe you can put it like this. I won't disgree much with this formulation. Still, those theoretical disagreemants have a lot of flaws when it comes to puting them in practice.

If one's aim is the highest degree of autonomy then self-management and federalism are the logical outcome of this. It says nothing about its flaws in achieving socialism, it is simply theoretical disagreement.But if they lead to reformism and syndicalism they are problematic.

Also I don't think anarchists qualify as "anti-political" either.
Problem is that they don't realise that the most important thing is conquest of political power by proletariat and after that you can talk about economical questions (when you eleminate bourgueuisie and get them rid of their economical and political power). Anarchists refuse first and start with second in the middle of capitalism which leads them to reformism.

And rejection of proletarian dictatorship has been beaten to death. Unless you mean the rejection centralism in favour of federalism (which is the negation of DOTP) in which case you mentioned the same thing twice.Of course. Class struggle is about uniting as much as possible of different expetations and interests under one wing of proletarian struggle for communism. Federalism tends to lead to reformism with its advocating of individualism, individual shop, individual commune, individual factory - individual interest...

Tim Cornelis

30th January 2012, 19:50

I've participated in anarchist "movement" for more that 4 years. I know what m I talking about, and I'm talking from my personal experience. Nationalism here is not used in a sense of chauvinism but in sense of lame politics which promote certain fractions of Capital. For example when anarchists tell people to vote against EU or when anarchists support national liberation or nationalist populist movements.

Again, which goes for every leftist tendency. Voting against the EU may not have anything to do with transnational integration versus national preservation but with the fear of concentration of power in the hands of an even smaller elite.

But if they lead to reformism and syndicalism they are problematic.

I don't see why this would be the case.

Problem is that they don't realise that the most important thing is conquest of political power by proletariat and after that you can talk about economical questions (when you eliminate bourgeoisie and get them rid of their economical and political power).

The most important is both. The bourgeoisie's class hegemony is expressed in capitalism, an economic system. The state is the means by which they enforce this class hegemony.

It is equally important to demolish private property, wage labour, and the state that protects it.

I don't see why it cannot be demolish simultaneously.

Anarchists refuse first and start with second in the middle of capitalism which leads them to reformism.

I don't see how this leads to reformism.

Of course. Class struggle is about uniting as much as possible of different expetations and interests under one wing of proletarian struggle for communism. Federalism tends to lead to reformism with its advocating of individualism, individual shop, individual commune, individual factory - individual interest...

Federalism is not about the individual commune or the individual factory, if that were the case it would not be federalism.

Federalism is born out of the need for multiple communes factories to coordinate and accommodate their activities. It is therefore, by its very foundations, opposed to some 'individualism' of the single commune and factory.

I do, however, believe that the members and collectives within the federation (speaking about organisation prior to the revolution) within a common theoretical and tactical framework to ensure an efficient operation.

Sasha

30th January 2012, 20:08

facepalm.
and i read that you'd picked up at daggers drawn recently?

'But we feel just as far removed from those who would like to desert daily normality and put their faith in the mythology of clandestinity and combat organisations, locking themselves up in other cages. No role, no matter how much it puts one at risk in terms of the law, can take the place of the real changing of relations. There is no short-cut, no immediate leap into the elsewhere. The revolution is not a war.'

(can't post links yet but the text is on theanarchistlibrary)

insurrectionist thought has always pitted itself as against armed strugglist groups.

of course, I only said this in relation to their views on transition. Like insurrectionists the RAF, altough nominally ML seemed to reject the party and while more vanguardistic still seemed to be on a informal, spontaneous path.
And insurrectionism of course has undeniable roots in illegalism.
But my point was more that anarchism is at least as broad as even Marxists can be

Rafiq

30th January 2012, 20:19

1) I know that as a final goal anarchism also aims for communism and communism is actually anarchism due to not having any state and no boundaries for humans. Is this actually so ?

You have a false conception of Anarchism, but of communism as well. Communism in itself is not a final stage, or a "Goal", it's a process that involves the overthrowing of the Bourgeois classes, and it's control over the state, and the process in which the proletariat will dominate all aspects of current withstanding society. This is communism.

Anarchists are also communists, whether they prefer to Identify with it or not (However, Communists do not have to be Anarchists). Now, the three main currents of socialism, the Marxian current, the Anarchist current, and the Utopian socialist current are divided. THe Utopian socialist current have basically been completely discredited and are not taken seriously (although, Utopian ism does make it's way into our "Marxist/Anarchist Comrades" here on this site as well (Although, Marxism cannot be Utopian, whilst Anarchism has the potential to be).

What separates the Anarchists from every other socialist, however, is that Anarchists are Socialists of the same current, + Ethical absolutism against Hierarchy, against different types of Authority, and complete opposition toward the state. So, essentially, there is no difference between the Communist movement and the Anarchist movement, other than the fact that Anarchists are socialists + the ethical absolutism, while qualifications for being a communist haven nothing to do with morality or ethics.

2) How do anarchists plan to have a revolution ? Do they aim for it at all ?

Anarchists do aim for a revolution, no doubt. The way they plan it varies. Some syndicalists support the concept of the Vanguard party, while most anarchists will oppose such a concept of Authoritarian and Statist. Anarchists are not so different from Council communists, in that they believe the proletariat will form workplace, and community councils, in which they will directly manage the way the system works, and, in the midst of revolution, these same councils will act as decentralized vanguards, so when capitalism is gone, the councils remain, administrating and running society via direct democracy.

There is a lot of debate going into this (I personally oppose council fetishism, I deem it as unrealistic, and I don't think they can account, or mobilize mass regions and mass populations), with many different currents of the socialist movement holding very different views.

3) How do anarchists get organized ?

Anarchism, like Communism, was just a reflection of an existing organization (The organized working class). It is not as if these movements came before a conscious working class, and seeks to win their hearts or minds (bullshit). So, originally, Anarchists were already organized, in syndicates, councils and unions.

4) Obvious differences between transition to communism between socialists and anarchists.

Anarchists, naturally, oppose the concept of a transitional state, and seek to automatically abolish the state. However, again, don't look at Communism as some sort of end goal, it's not. It's a process.

5) Any successes of anarchists ?

There has never been. The only successful revolution to ever exist was the Bolshevik Revolution (Which later was destroyed, thanks to material conditions). Anarchists, however, have been in history successful in organizing a working class movement.

6) What is anarchism in couple of sentences, briefly for a beginner, ok I can actually read this anywhere but fresh opinions are more valuable in my book ?

Socialism was the reflection of the interests of the proletariat. Socialism was the movement that represented the interests of the proletariat.

This movement split into two, the followers of Bakunin and the Followers of Marx.

Marxism retained the Socialist movement almost completely, however, purged it's Utopian elements.

Anarchism retained the Socialist movements, and did purge some Utopian elements, however, added it's own ethical twist to it.

The Marxian current of socialism is not bound by the ethical shackles of Anti Authoritarianism.

Rafiq

30th January 2012, 20:22

No wonder you got banned saying things like that

"theoretical flaws, dogmatism, nationalism, sexism"
I have never seen these in the anarchist movement

"theoretical flaws"- you need to learn more before you say that.

If you studied this you would eventualy figure out that those "theoretical flaws" are fake.

Very mature, "I let a bigger ideology do the thinking for me, so just go dig deeper in that and eventually you'll discover I was right the whole time".

Caj

30th January 2012, 21:50

1) I know that as a final goal anarchism also aims for communism and communism is actually anarchism due to not having any state and no boundaries for humans. Is this actually so ?

I don't think that it's particularly helpful to recognize anarchism as envisioning a future society distinct from that of any other revolutionary leftists. All revolutionary leftists, including tendencies as diverse as anarchism and Marxism-Leninism, advocate an identical, or at least very similar, future society. Where anarchism differs with other tendencies is concerning the method by which this society is to be realized. Anarchists repudiate the State (understood as a hierarchical power structure that oppresses the majority in favor of a ruling minority class) as a means of revolutionary struggle, realizing that the State, by its very nature, presupposes the existence of classes and cannot, therefore, bring about classlessness. So, anarchism is really more of a method for revolutionary struggle than an actual vision of a future society.

2) How do anarchists plan to have a revolution ? Do they aim for it at all ?

Anarchists accept the necessity of a revolution. However, anarchists reject the use of the State as a means for the revolution.

3) How do anarchists get organized ?

. . . Same as everybody else.

4) Obvious differences between transition to communism between socialists and anarchists.

Anarchists are not necessarily opposed to transitional phases to "the higher phase of communism", what they are opposed to is a transitional State. (It must be stressed that the anarchist conception of a state, a hierarchical power structure of minority-class supremacy, differs substantially from the conceptions of many left, libertarian, and council Marxists who advocate a non-hierarchical "dictatorship of the proletariat".)

5) Any successes of anarchists ?

Most of the successes, if they can even be called so, were short-lived and often small-scale. Some examples of anarchist or anarchistic experiments were/are the Paris Commune of 1871, the Ukrainian Free Territory of the early 1920s, the Italian workers' councils of the early 1920s, the Bavarian Soviet Republic of 1919, the anarchist communes and collectives of Spain in the mid-1930s, the Zapatista councils in Chiapas, Mexico, the Kibbutzim collective farming communities in Israel, the rule of the Soviet workers councils from the fall of 1917 to the spring of 1918, and various other small-scale communes and collectives scattered throughout the world and history.

6) What is anarchism in couple of sentences, briefly for a beginner, ok I can actually read this anywhere but fresh opinions are more valuable in my book ?

Anarchism is a method of revolutionary struggle rejecting the State as a means of realizing a classless, stateless society (communism).

artanis17

30th January 2012, 21:59

You have a false conception of Anarchism, but of communism as well. Communism in itself is not a final stage, or a "Goal", it's a process that involves the overthrowing of the Bourgeois classes, and it's control over the state, and the process in which the proletariat will dominate all aspects of current withstanding society. This is communism.

Thanks for the reply. I have one question on this. Isn't bourgeois class overthrown in socialist period through proletarian dictatorship ? And I would be glad if you can give me a brief source about your argument about communism not being the final stage and extend the argument of yours. Of course communism does not have a static status. I didn't think people of communism would still mess with bourgeois class which would be eliminated completely for the way to communism anyway.

hatzel

30th January 2012, 22:11

I don't think that it's particularly helpful to recognize anarchism as envisioning a future society distinct from that of any other revolutionary leftists. All revolutionary leftists, including tendencies as diverse as anarchism and Marxism-Leninism, advocate an identical, or at least very similar, future society.

Unless they don't envision or advocate a future society at all, of course...

Caj

30th January 2012, 22:20

Unless they don't envision or advocate a future society at all, of course...

What do you mean?

Polyphonic Foxes

31st January 2012, 01:47

1) I know that as a final goal anarchism also aims for communism and communism is actually anarchism due to not having any state and no boundaries for humans. Is this actually so ?

Simply put, yes, the end result of all revolutionary socialist ideas look quite alike:L they're all stateless, marketless, classless societies managed by workers.

2) How do anarchists plan to have a revolution ? Do they aim for it at all ?Yes and yes.

3) How do anarchists get organized ?Depending on the group, it might be radical trade unions (popular with anarcho-syndicalists), purely anarchist organizations and affinity groups, broader more moderate left wing groups or sometimes left wing parties that they believe will pragmatically further their aiims.

4) Obvious differences between transition to communism between socialists and anarchists.Let's get this straight: anarchists are socialists, we are all socialists, socialism is about workers democracy and control and creating goods based on utility - not profit, in this sense everyone here is a socialist.

But I assume you mean what's the difference between the transition between Leninism and Anarcho-communism, in which case I can't really say without missrepresenting someones ideas, since Leninists regularly state that they desire a bottom up revolution.

5) Any successes of anarchists ?In Spain, Mexico, Italy, Ukraine, Shinmin China, ireland breifly, Madagascar, I'm sure there's more but I can't think of it, the last two involves 10s of thousands, the first ones involved millions.

6) What is anarchism in couple of sentences, briefly for a beginner, ok I can actually read this anywhere but fresh opinions are more valuable in my book ?Anarchism is the belief that capitalism and statism should be replaced by a bottom up decentralised society whereby the economy is managed democratically by producers/workers and the means of production are owned collectively by the community, and that descisions should be made through direct democracy and consensus at the local level. On a more broad level it is simply opposition to hierarchy in all forms: partriarchy, bosses, politicians, racism; it all has to go.

phonic

Polyphonic Foxes

31st January 2012, 01:57

Marxism retained the Socialist movement almost completely, however, purged it's Utopian elements.

Anarchism retained the Socialist movements, and did purge some Utopian elements, however, added it's own ethical twist to it.

The Marxian current of socialism is not bound by the ethical shackles of Anti Authoritarianism.

Why does Anti Authoritarianism limit us?

Why do you see an ethical aspect in anarchism as a bad thing? And if I'm not mistaken, Marx was not so different when he talked about labour alienation: he believed our labour was our only way to change the world, and saw having to sell it to another for profit as being a spiritually damaging loss - i think it was Lenin who attempted to purge these ethical ideas from marxism.

hatzel

31st January 2012, 16:28

What do you mean?

Just that 'envisioning' and 'advocating' future societies appears to imply the ideological construction of wholly imaginary (we could say utopian) structural forms which are then to be laid onto reality and expected to function. "This is how we will handle the economy, this is how we will arrange education, this is how we will distribute the necessities of life" etc. I have a quote in my mind that I can't quite remember, something about giving permanent answers to that which is temporary. Ah. Pretty much that. Those who don't make plans for the future, only the present.

Tim Cornelis

31st January 2012, 16:36

Just that 'envisioning' and 'advocating' future societies appears to imply the ideological construction of wholly imaginary (we could say utopian) structural forms which are then to be laid onto reality and expected to function. "This is how we will handle the economy, this is how we will arrange education, this is how we will distribute the necessities of life" etc. I have a quote in my mind that I can't quite remember, something about giving permanent answers to that which is temporary. Ah. Pretty much that. Those who don't make plans for the future, only the present.

By extension of your logic Marx was a utopian when he envisioned labour notes replacing money. After all, this was a wholly imaginary construction.

Caj

31st January 2012, 21:33

Just that 'envisioning' and 'advocating' future societies appears to imply the ideological construction of wholly imaginary (we could say utopian) structural forms which are then to be laid onto reality and expected to function. "This is how we will handle the economy, this is how we will arrange education, this is how we will distribute the necessities of life" etc. I have a quote in my mind that I can't quite remember, something about giving permanent answers to that which is temporary. Ah. Pretty much that. Those who don't make plans for the future, only the present.

Are you not a communist then? Do you not advocate a classless, stateless society?

Paulappaul

31st January 2012, 22:33

When it comes to Spain in 1936 people talk all the time about how Stalinists betrayed revolution. Stalinist opportunism is a fact and I agree with anarchists on this one. But what I don't agree is that CNT/FAI were "right all the time" and that they were "revolutionary". They were opportunists long before working class made an insurrection against Franco's coup. After all in the end, CNT and FAI participated in government, they didn't caried out political takover of power from capitalists but they co-op with them! They didin't expropriate them as class etc.

Anarchists like to talk how rank-and-file members were betrayed by their leadership etc. But isn't the nature of those organisation what's made that happened? Also, this is a shit argumet to defend CNT, especially coming from those people (anarchists) who attack Bolsheviks so sharp (and they should), but faild to see that Bolsheviks did all what CNT didn't - a revolutionary expropriation of bourgeuisie...

I don't think any Anarchist sees the Spanish Revolution was a utopian, full blown, worldwide revolutionary success. The whole trading the Revolution for Anti - Fascism blah blah Giles Dauve crap is annoying. And I'm a Left Communist saying that. It's a very weak historical anaylsis, as if the CNT/FAI had the magical ability to know that they everything that would unfold and they were in fact destroying the revolution by destroying fascism in the name of the revolution. It's theortical mumbo jumbo. Fact of that matter is, Spain 36 was an amazing event, with many amazing socialistic advancements.

Rafiq

1st February 2012, 01:43

Thanks for the reply. I have one question on this. Isn't bourgeois class overthrown in socialist period through proletarian dictatorship ?

Socialism and Communism are mere movements, they are processes. They are not blue prints for the future, or how we should run society, as material conditions are always changing, and it's up to us to morph things like Socialism and Communism to those material conditions. In the end, our goal is the overthrow of Bourgeois society, and the domination of the proletarian class. However, we must not resort to opportunism and oppose things merely because they aren't "Communism enough". However, if we identify communism as a mere process, than we are able to adjust it to all material conditions, criticizing things for not being communist enough. But, my problem, is that people tend to see communism as a set, straight end goal ("We must go through a lot of shit to achieve our final stage, where we can be lazy and relax, a stateless, classless society"). History is not moving in a positive direction. We really don't know what communism, or socialism, is going to look like, and we don't know if they will be better than capitalism, either. However, a solution to capitalism is of absolute necessity.

And I would be glad if you can give me a brief source about your argument about communism not being the final stage and extend the argument of yours.

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things” -Karl Marx.

So, communism isn't a society, or a system, it's a movement which represents the interests of the proletariat, the only class capable of abolishing capitalism.

A true non opportunist sais: Abolishing capitalism is more important than for-filling my ideological fantasy. Abolishing capitalism, and, as a worker for-filling my class interest is more important than establishing "communism".

What I mean by this, is that several changes to what people think "Communism" is going to look like are going to have to be made. "Should the state really be abolished?" "What is a state?" "To what extent do councils provide themselves useful, and what are their limitations?", "Can direct democracy really administrate the seven billion people on earth we have now?"

These are all questions the (we) communists should be asking.

Of course communism does not have a static status. I didn't think people of communism would still mess with bourgeois class which would be eliminated completely for the way to communism anyway.

Again, we do not seek to abolish the bourgeois classes simply to "Pave the way for communism". Remember, communism isn't an end goal. We are selfish, we want to for fill our own class interest. We seek to abolish the bourgeois classes after a revolution because they pose a threat to the class interest of the proletariat, and their domination. This is how classes work. It is all about force.

Rafiq

1st February 2012, 01:47

Why does Anti Authoritarianism limit us?

Using "Authoritarianism" to crush the counter revolution and mobilize mass populations and regions, and administrating them, is much more efficient and useful than simply opposing such actions because of ethics.

Why do you see an ethical aspect in anarchism as a bad thing?

I prefer a scientific basis as a core of analyzing human history and the material world, than an ethical basis. Universal morality does not exist. It's foolish to base all of your beliefs on morality.

And if I'm not mistaken, Marx was not so different when he talked about labour alienation: he believed our labour was our only way to change the world, and saw having to sell it to another for profit as being a spiritually damaging loss - i think it was Lenin who attempted to purge these ethical ideas from marxism.

That's because that was young Marx who said such humanist jargon, only afterwords did he purge such Idealist and Romanticist concepts in the midst of a new, scientific understanding of the material world. I don't know if Lenin tried to purge "these ethical ideas", however, he was righteous in doing so, and at least concistant.

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 15:12

@Kontrrazvedka

Federalism is an anarcho-syndicalist thing, i'm anarcho-communist.

I agree with Goti123 anarchists aren't anti-political, we believe in direct democracy

The dictatorship of the proletariat went wrong in the USSR, I'm not going to risk living in such a state.
(read Alexander Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth to understand why we don't suport it)

Why do you think self-management is a bad thing?

Also, you must be aware that it says "banned" below your username
did you just do that to fool people?
If so, shame on you!

Искра

1st February 2012, 15:20

@Kontrrazvedka

Federalism is an anarcho-syndicalist thing, i'm anarcho-communist.Federalism is an anarchist concept. It was created by Proudhon and Bakunin and Kropotkin took it from him.

I agree with Goti123 anarchists aren't anti-political, we believe in direct democracyDirect democracy doesn't mean anything. Left-liberals are also for direct democracy and jet they have quite different picture of it. Also, I've explained that I used term "anti-political" to describe anarchist opossition to conquest of power.

The dictatorship of the proletariat went wrong in the USSR, I'm not going to risk living in such a state.By which you want to imply that capitalism is better, or what?

(read Alexander Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth to understand why we don't suport it)I've, I know why anarchists don't support dictatorship of proletariat, I just don't agree with "arguments".

btw. Why do you anarchists allways think that when somebody doesn't agree with you that he's not aware of your "truth"?

Why do you think self-management is a bad thing?Because it referes to management of Capital by workers, instead of abolition of Capital.

Also, you must be aware that it says "banned" below your username
did you just do that to fool people?
If so, shame on you!
I was banned, but now I'm un-banned. I wear it to piss off admins, cause I'm bigger anarchist then you.

The Douche

1st February 2012, 15:31

Kontra,

The failings of the leadership of the CNT do not invalidate the success of worker self organization that occurred in the early days of the civil war. There is no denying that the early months of the civil war demonstrate the ability of the working class to organize production and distribution along communist principles.

What the Spanish civil war did demonstrate is the utter failure of anarcho-syndicalism as a revolutionary tactic/method of organization, and confirms Malatesta's critique of syndicalism/radical unionism.

You're right in stating that the CNT (as an organization, so that is to say, the leadership) was counter-revolutionary. But its base, its membership, and those workers who adopted the principles of anarchism are not counter-revolutionary.

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 15:46

@Rafiq

We are all human beings, we all think alike. There is an animal part in us that makes us selfish, the human part in us sees this as a bad thing, because humans are the most social animals that I know.

Human beings are inheretly good to each other, that is because its is inprinted in our DNA.

We see selflessness as a good thing and sefishness as a bad thing because we evolved to be social.

Human beings are prone to help each other, even if one doesn't like the other, that is how we survive, it is by working together and sharing knowledge.

That being said, universal morality does exist, but there can be those who ignore it, but still the majority cannot. I think we can all agree that the will of the majority is the one that counts.

I have analysed history and human behavior to prove this.

Have you not read about the USSR, authoritarianism corrupts people.
You might think that this a contradiction to my previous argument, but it is not.
When someone has power (whether he uses it to help people or not) he will eventually see himself as superior. In a natural human community all are equal, (all human communities start out with a communist system), if not, the person that is superior will do everything he can to stay superior, this is because of the survival instinct, or, like I wrote before, the animal part. The person whille seeing his survival garanteed by his superior position will never let go of it, because it decreases his chances of prolonging his existance.

That said, authoritarianism allways ends bad for the people. (as proven by USSR)

In an anarchist society you possessions aren't confiscated by government, in an anarchist society this is put in to practice "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", the only person that can define your need is you.
I know what you are thinking: "but then wouldn't one just take everything for himself and leave others to starve?", I have explained basic human behavior, to justify why this wouldn't happen, and if this man would take everything, wouldn't people just take it back and cast him out of the community.

This is why people at school dont discuss politics with me, it usualy ends with someone becoming an anarchist, or someone telling me to shut up (the ignorants are the ones who do this)

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 16:03

@Kontrazzvedka
"Why do you anarchists allways think that when somebody doesn't agree with you that he's not aware of your "truth"?"

Maybe because we think we are enlightened by understanding anarchism and all who dont understand it have to be enlightened.

"Because it referes to management of Capital by workers, instead of abolition of Capital. "

In an anarchist society there would be abolishment of capital, i dont know why you thought of management of capital, are we talking about the same theory of anarchism, because i'm talking about anarcho-communsim.

"Federalism is an anarchist concept. It was created by Proudhon and Bakunin and Kropotkin took it from him."

They also believed that federalism comes after communism. By having several communities working together in a federation they hope to achieve a better living standard.

"Direct democracy doesn't mean anything. Left-liberals are also for direct democracy and jet they have quite different picture of it. Also, I've explained that I used term "anti-political" to describe anarchist opossition to conquest of power."

Then you should have said anti-statistism, do you not know that when a human sees himself in a superior position to others he will do everything to maintain it because it increases his survivability(read my previous post).
Do you believe that a state is necessary for a community to function?
By "direct democracy" i mean all people in a community voting directly to decide something.

no i dont agree with capitalism, but i dont agree with the USSR either.

And why are you a better anarchist than I if you disagree with anarchist theory.

Thirsty Crow

1st February 2012, 16:03

Kontra,

The failings of the leadership of the CNT do not invalidate the success of worker self organization that occurred in the early days of the civil war. There is no denying that the early months of the civil war demonstrate the ability of the working class to organize production and distribution along communist principles.

You must be joking.
From what I know, and feel free to correct me on that, the early days saw expropriations of enterprises whose bosses actively sided with the conservative reaction and that's where the offensive of the class movement halted. This, you want to tell me, this is a demonstration of an organization of production and distribution along communist lines?

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 16:04

I love making these long posts...

do you love reading them?
You probably dont even read them because they are too long.

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 16:05

Now that i think about it they are not that big, they just look big because of all the paragraphs.

The Douche

1st February 2012, 16:10

You must be joking.
From what I know, and feel free to correct me on that, the early days saw expropriations of enterprises whose bosses actively sided with the conservative reaction. This, you want to tell me, this is a demonstration of an organization of production and distribution along communist lines?

What? You don't think the seizure of the means of production directly by the working class, without the mediating agency of the state is communist?

Thirsty Crow

1st February 2012, 16:16

What? You don't think the seizure of the means of production directly by the working class, without the mediating agency of the state is communist?
You didn't get it.
Only those enterprises were expropriated. The good antifasicts bosses remained in possession of their productive facilities. From what I've read, that's what happened. Again, correct me if I'm mistaken.

And another point: if such a policy of expropriation was pursued, I don't think it's true that any kind of expropriations "without the mediating agency of the state" actually happened becuase of the obvious role of the popular front in subduing the class movement (which, again, follows from the expropriation practice, only fascists etc.).

The Douche

1st February 2012, 16:21

When the fascist revolt first began, workers (some independent, many alligned with the CNT) seized the means of production and armed themselves, this was explicitly against the orders of the popular front government, who took actions that you described.

The rank and file of the CNT was quite split on whether they ought to be engaging in an anti-fascist struggle or a social revolution. The leadership though, was quite decidedly on the side of the state.

Tim Cornelis

1st February 2012, 16:25

Federalism is an anarchist concept. It was created by Proudhon and Bakunin and Kropotkin took it from him.

True dat.

I used term "anti-political" to describe anarchist opossition to conquest of power.

I am not against the conquest of power at all.

Because it refers to management of Capital by workers, instead of abolition of Capital.

No it does not. It refers to management of productive activities by those engaged in productive activities. It says nothing about the relation of this productive activity to 'Capital', whatever that is supposed to mean.

Thirsty Crow

1st February 2012, 16:30

The rank and file of the CNT was quite split on whether they ought to be engaging in an anti-fascist struggle or a social revolution. The leadership though, was quite decidedly on the side of the state.
Which just begs the question: what was the reason why such an anti-authoritarian political doctrine in its concrete organizational "incarnations" went over to the side of opportunism and counter-revolution? What happened?
And just to be clear, I don't think your answer, referring to Malatesta and the failure of the organizational method of anarchist syndicalism, is particularly persuasive. But it's been some time since I've dealed with Malatesta, so you might just expand this and elaborate.

The Douche

1st February 2012, 16:36

Which just begs the question: what was the reason why such an anti-authoritarian political doctrine in its concrete organizational "incarnations" went over to the side of opportunism and counter-revolution? What happened?
And just to be clear, I don't think your answer, referring to Malatesta and the failure of the organizational method of anarchist syndicalism, is particularly persuasive. But it's been some time since I've dealed with Malatesta, so you might just expand this and elaborate.

I think that anarchist-syndicalism, and revolutionary unionism in general is not actually anti-authoritarian. I think it is an ideology which seeks to manage work, and not abolish it.

Unions, if they have revolutionary rhetoric (or aims, if you like) or not, are organizations for mediation of class struggle. Their day-to-day function is to negotiate with the bosses in the interest of the worker. They are inherently limited by this function. An institution which exists only because of capitalism is going to sustain capitalist property relations, otherwise it would negate itself, just like the state.

I'm not interested in reorganizing capitalism, work, or the economy, I want all of these things to be abolished, unions can't do that. Even if they claim:

Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."

Искра

1st February 2012, 16:45

For a person accusing me of not knowing something, you really know shit about communism or Marx's ideas.

Maybe because we think we are enlightened by understanding anarchism and all who dont understand it have to be enlightened.
Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha. You sound like some dumb priest, but I stick to Durruti: "The only church that illuminates is a burning church."

In an anarchist society there would be abolishment of capital, i dont know why you thought of management of capital, are we talking about the same theory of anarchism, because i'm talking about anarcho-communsim.

No it does not. It refers to management of productive activities by those engaged in productive activities. It says nothing about the relation of this productive activity to 'Capital', whatever that is supposed to mean. Self-management has nothing to do with communist society as it is based on commodity production. It is also based on market run economy where workers commities and communes exchange their products and compete. There's also a bank system etc. This is what Proudhon stood for, this is what has been implemented in Spain 1936 or Italy 1919 and this is what Yugoslav communistst took and created "market socialism".

They also believed that federalism comes after communism. By having several communities working together in a federation they hope to achieve a better living standard.
Federalism is bourgeuisie concept. Bourgeuisie was organised in communes at the end of feudalism and trought them they developed economicaly and then politicaly and took power.

Then you should have said anti-statistism, do you not know that when a human sees himself in a superior position to others he will do everything to maintain it because it increases his survivability(read my previous post).
Do you believe that a state is necessary for a community to function?
By "direct democracy" i mean all people in a community voting directly to decide something.
I believe that state is necessary only in period of proletariat dictatorship. Communism itslef is anti-statist.

no i dont agree with capitalism, but i dont agree with the USSR either.Nobody is promoting Soviet Union here.

And why are you a better anarchist than I if you disagree with anarchist theory.Cause I wanna destroy passerby.

Thirsty Crow

1st February 2012, 16:49

Cause I wanna destroy passerby.
The so called make-total-destroyism. The ultimate anarchist tendency. Goti, you can't beat that, he's right.

Искра

1st February 2012, 16:50

The rank and file of the CNT...
This doesn't go to you cmoney, but to rest of anarchists.

I fucking love this rank and file of the CNT argument. When somebody says "anarchists were counter-revolutionary for this, this and this" anarchists respond "that was leadership and Stalinists". But why don't you then scream, cry and moan about Bolsheviks in Russia? Wasn't there also just "leadership"?

CNT in 1936 didn't give a rats ass about its rank and file. They were just struggeling with other leftists to take leadership of Popular Front.

Искра

1st February 2012, 16:51

The so called make-total-destroyism. The ultimate anarchist tendency. Goti, you can't beat that, he's right.
That went to TheRedAnarchist23 not Goti :D

daft punk

1st February 2012, 18:21

Hi I am new to this forum, I come from Turkey and I'm a communist (marxist-leninist) and I am kind of away from the idea of anarchism. I want to learn more about it, I have some questions.

1) I know that as a final goal anarchism also aims for communism and communism is actually anarchism due to not having any state and no boundaries for humans. Is this actually so ?

More or less, yeah. Marxist-Leninist by the way is Stalinist which is anti-communist. Sorry 'bout that!

2) How do anarchists plan to have a revolution ? Do they aim for it at all ?

Good question. Their best chance was in Spain. Their leader said he could have taken power but refused on principle. The fascists got in. Nice one.

3) How do anarchists get organized ?
Not sure, they dont believe in parties. However they did join the Stalinist-capitalist government in Spain before the fascists took over.

4) Obvious differences between transition to communism between socialists and anarchists.
The anarchists say the workers state is too risky, and the Stalin dictatorship proves them right. But in Russia Makhno set up his own mini-gangster state.

5) Any successes of anarchists ?
No

6) What is anarchism in couple of sentences, briefly for a beginner, ok I can actually read this anywhere but fresh opinions are more valuable in my book ?

Communism achieved by the organisation of the workers in the factories, with no hierarchy, party, or workers state.

Catalonia, Paris Commune, some say the Zapatistas.
I'm not gonna get in to the last two. Catalonia was a success thrown away. The fascists took power because the anarchists didnt.

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5201

"
The Communist Party did not bear sole responsibility. In Barcelona, for example, Garcia Oliver, the anarchist leader (the anarchists were the strongest force in Barcelona), explained how the anarchists could easily have taken power in July 1936 ’because all the forces were on our side’ but did not do so because, they did not ’believe in doing so’. This did not prevent the anarchist leaders, including Oliver, later joining the Popular Front government together with capitalist parties. In this way the role of the leaders of the workers’ parties allowed the capitalist class, initially no more than a shadow, gradually to regain substance before physically repressing the socialist revolution in May 1937.
Far from strengthening the fight against fascism, the policy of the workers’ leaders resulted in the defeat of that fight. Desperate to re-establish the rule of big capital, and to avoid upsetting the world imperialist powers, the heads of the workers’ organisations refused to adopt the policies that were necessary to win over ordinary soldiers fighting on the side of Franco."

ed miliband

1st February 2012, 18:39

Good question. Their best chance was in Spain. Their leader said he could have taken power but refused on principle. The fascists got in. Nice one.

You're a smart cookie

Tim Cornelis

1st February 2012, 18:42

Self-management has nothing to do with communist society as it is based on commodity production. It is also based on market run economy where workers commities and communes exchange their products and compete. There's also a bank system etc. This is what Proudhon stood for, this is what has been implemented in Spain 1936 or Italy 1919 and this is what Yugoslav communistst took and created "market socialism".

Bwaaha, LOL. I think you are equating the Yugoslav model of "workers' self-management" with workers' self-management in general.

Just because Yugoslavia had workers' self-management does not mean it's the blueprint for workers' self-management.

I mean... You have been an active anarchist who believed in workers' self-management as well as the abolition of the market (I assume). Shouldn't you have figured out that workers' self-management does not presuppose markets at all?

I hope you realise that the market economy that persisted in Anarchist Catalonia was not part of the programme or workers' self-management for that matter. The anarchists, as well as POUM and UGT, wanted to abolished the market but were unable to restructure the economy to such a degree that this was made possible in urban areas.

Workers' self-management does not presuppose commodity production, markets, the existence of money, etc. I mean, anarcho-communists who are opposed to all of that also want workers' self-management--how is it you couldn't have figured out this basic truism?

Communism is based on workers' councils. Workers' councils are a form of workers' self-management.

Communism necessitates workers' self-management. Workers' self-management is simply when workers collectively manage production, in whatever system.

Federalism is bourgeuisie concept. Bourgeuisie was organised in communes at the end of feudalism and trought them they developed economicaly and then politicaly and took power.

No it's not. You keep spouting that idiotic fallacy. By extension of your logic, communes are bourgeois (as well as feudal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_commune)), and therefore communism is bourgeois, and therefore you are bourgeois.

Stop this hideous attack on reason.

EDIT: Just to be clear, what you just said is that

1. Anarchists believe in workers' self-management
2. Workers' self-management exclusively exists in the context of a market economy
3. Therefore all anarchists believe in markets

... I can understand why some non-anarchists would jump to that logic, but someone who has been an anarchist should know better because that is ridiculous.

Искра

1st February 2012, 20:14

What I'm saying is that self-management is reformist and syndicalism tendency and that it is based on commodity production, in its essence. What I’m saying is that self-management is management of capital and therefore it represents leftist wet dream and obstacle in creation of communist society. Now, as I’m used to deal with dogmatic anarchists and their bullshit I’ll write longer post on this subject.

Self-management is Proudhon’s idea (or at least anarchists have accepted it in that form). From his writings till today only rhetoric’s has changed but not essence. His self-management is peti-bourgeoisie Disneyland in which there’s market, there’s commune or workshop on market, there’s competition, but at the same time there’s cooperation, “equality” etc. So, what he advocated was society without monopoly, because monopoly of bourgeoisie industries was what troubled peti-bourgeoisie man, such Proudhon was. Now I really don’t have to mention that he also believed into community banks etc. which at the end of a day make his little fantasy system capitalist. Marx ripped Proudhon and his utopian socialism apart in few occasions. I don’t want to turn this is into discussion on Proudhon, which is why I won’t discuss his “methods”, especially because anarchist movement trough history rejected them.

Now when it comes to commune and federalism, there’s nothing better than to quote Bordiga:

During this phase, the libertarians would propose an ill-defined local, revolutionary "commune", sometimes described as a force which struggles against the constituted power and asserts its autonomy by breaking all links with the central State, and sometimes as a form which manages a new economy. This idea wasn't new but harked back to the first capitalist forms which appeared at the end of the Middle-Ages: the autonomous communes, which existed in Italy and in German Flanders where a young bourgeoisie was fighting against the Empire. As always in such cases, events which were then revolutionary, in terms of economic development, have today become an empty repetition disguised as false extremism. (Source: http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-part-2-amadeo-bordiga-1957 ) Now, when it comes to self-management from anarchist practice, as we are going to assume that it is what anarchists advocate, we have two bodies which stand each against other: Soviet and factory council. There’s interesting discussion between Bordiga and Gramsci on nature of Italian factory councils. Anarchists supported factory councils, as Gramsci and his group, and they have considered them as “new bodies” of revolution. Now Bordiga in his brilliant text (which you can find here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/workers-councils.htm) attacks Gramsci and makes certain points. There’s big difference between Soviet and factory council. Soviet is political body of proletariat aimed to take political power and establish proletarian dictatorship. It’s organized on local level and represents proletariat as whole. On the other we have factory council which is based on certain shop or factory and which represents only workers of that factory or workshop. Now while in Soviet proletariat is only proletariat, united under one goal, or to express myself little bit poetic, under one red banner, factory councils divide workers by trade. Now, factory councils are important, but as Bordiga states, their true importance comes only after proletariat has taken political power, because only after proletariat took power from bourgeoisie (and their main power doesn’t lay just in the state but in capital itself) proletariat can start to create different economical system. While power is still in the hands of bourgeoisie self-management and factory councils can easily turn to reformism and syndicalism. In the fact trough history that is what they did (Bordiga is talking about councils in Austria and Germany, but in the end we can add Italian and Spanish examples). Workers under hard pressure from bourgeoisie do not think about next step, they do not think about proletarian class struggle and they don’t think about revolution as internationalist concept. They only think about their little shop or factory and how can they protect their councils and their “self-management” of production. Step by step they tend to ignore class struggle and in the end side up with bourgeoisie and in the end louse “fruits of their struggle”.

So, if you have read this so far you could get my critique of self-management. But, again I’m talking with silly anarchist who only want to cry how “his tendency is always right” etc., so I’ll draw it for you. I’m not saying that anarchists and especially what we think of anarchist movement from historical perspective was advocating market, at least on purpose. What they were advocating were economist strategies which would, along with federalism, result in reformism and syndicalism. Practice has showed us that self-management result with reformism and counter-revolutionary actions. Now, one of the most important things when it comes to Marx is that he gave analysis but he never wrote how future society should look like. He did that because he believed that bourgeoisie ideology is so deeply rooted in all of us that we can’t even imagine future society without certain elements of present society, capitalist, bourgeoisie society. Anarchists on the other hand tired to imagine future society and they’ve failed from the same reason Marx didn’t want to imagine future society – dominance of bourgeoisie ideology.

You mentioned POUM, UGT and CNT in 1936 and how they wanted abolish market. This is not the fact. They wanted to win in anti-fascist struggle. If they’ve really intended to abolish market, i.e. expropriate bourgeoisie and establish dictatorship of proletariat/or abolish power in anarchist case, they would do that from the first day of revolution. We shouldn’t forget that uprising of masses in Barcelona and other cities was not organized – it was spontaneous. It was an act of class struggle of proletariat. Instead of continuing with revolution those three “revolutionary” organizations calmed down situation and entered government. Workers who were members of these 3 organizations were still exploited by capitalists, but now these capitalists were not boogie mans – they were anti-fascists. These 3 organizations stood in defense of one fraction of bourgeoisie!

Also, when it comes back to federalism 1936’s CNT can show us why there’s a need of organic centralism in revolutionary organization. No matter how hard certain fractions of CNT tried to get back CNT onto revolutionary road, federalist essence of CNT made it possible for certain fractions to push their reformist politics under the wings of autonomy and anti-authoritarian politics. If CNT was centralist, as we leftcom argue that proletarian party should be, then there is no force which could change organization from its basics principles, there’s no autonomy of anyone to force his individualist politics on organization as whole… but of course, that doesn’t mean that we have boogie man with goat beard to order all members … No, quite contrary, members of organization take part in collective decisions, respect them etc.

Now, I find really hardly to take you seriously when only purpose of your post is to insult me or attack me on personal level. But you see I don’t pretty much care for that, and it’s funny how your only arguments is “but you were an anarchist”. Yes, I was and I’m not ashamed that I was and that I’m not anymore. I have my reasons why I disagree with anarchism and I express them without any fear. After all it is purely my decision to say that I used to be an anarchist.

And Yugoslav self-management example is here just because it was proudhonism put in praxis for 50 years. We can see how did that ended up…

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 20:23

@Kontrrazvedka

Now that i think you are just answering because you feel you must, your arguments are no longer about what you think are flaws of the anarchist theory ,they are now just words you are using to avoid admiting that you cannot win this argumment.

"Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha. You sound like some dumb priest, but I stick to Durruti: "The only church that illuminates is a burning church." "

Yes i did sound like a priest there, but it is true i felt enlightened when i understood anarchist theory. I mean enlightened as in finding the answer to a question that allows you to answer many others.

I don't need to answer your "self-management" and "federalism" arguments because comrade Goti anticipated me. Good job!

"I believe that state is necessary only in period of proletariat dictatorship. Communism itslef is anti-statist."

I know that communists and anarchists struggle for the same end result, but by giving a state absolute power over everything ,even if the state promissed ,to help the people, is dangerous and it might turn against the people.
The revolution should be made by the people and for the people, if after the revolution a state is put in charge, then the whole point of the revolution was to change the way the workers are exploited. As long as there is a state or a coin there will be people exploited.

A state isn't necessary, it never was and never will be.
The only thing that is necessary is the inexistance of one, so people can then live their lives in the natural system of humans that is communism, or as we call it anarchy.

If a dictatorship of the proletariat is in place then people won't be able to live their lives as they want, without it every community would have its own, unique, system until all of these would disolve into communism.

Anarcho-communism is communism without the step that involves an authoritarian state.

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 20:26

I wrote this thing before i saw your enornous post.
But still you are no longer defending why you gave up on anarchism

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 20:27

I just noticed the awfull gramar and phrase constrution of my last post

TheRedAnarchist23

1st February 2012, 20:28

By the way I am getting sick of this argumment, so I leave it to comrade Goti to defend my honour.

Go get them Goti!

Искра

1st February 2012, 20:36

Now that i think you are just answering because you feel you must, your arguments are no longer about what you think are flaws of the anarchist theory ,they are now just words you are using to avoid admiting that you cannot win this argumment.Whatever.

Yes i did sound like a priest there, but it is true i felt enlightened when i understood anarchist theory. I mean enlightened as in finding the answer to a question that allows you to answer many others.
When you read Marx you'll have like double orgasm then.

I don't need to answer your "self-management" and "federalism" arguments because comrade Goti anticipated me. Good job!
Blowjob?

I know that communists and anarchists struggle for the same end result, but by giving a state absolute power over everything ,even if the state promissed ,to help the people, is dangerous and it might turn against the people.
It's not about "giving a state absolute power over everything". This is liberal argument against Marxism. It's about giving a class power over everything. And working class uses state apparatus along its new bodies and istututions which amerged from class struggle. Anarchists, or at least you, view state as some kind of Belezbub, but in fact what you are missing is that Marxists want that working class take "strings of power" to expropriate bourgeuisie, both from capital and political power, and then to abolish classes and walk on road to communism.

The revolution should be made by the people and for the people, if after the revolution a state is put in charge, then the whole point of the revolution was to change the way the workers are exploited. As long as there is a state or a coin there will be people exploited. People? I don't give a fuck about people. People can be my boss, me and your boss. I care only about working class. Working class must take political power to end exploatation.

A state isn't necessary, it never was and never will be.
You just won a Nobel prize for best argument ever.

The only thing that is necessary is the inexistance of one, so people can then live their lives in the natural system of humans that is communism, or as we call it anarchy.
When I read this I think of Smurfs.

If a dictatorship of the proletariat is in place then people won't be able to live their lives as they want, without it every community would have its own, unique, system until all of these would disolve into communism.Point of dictatorship of proletariat is to be upon people. And those people are called bourgeuisie.

Anarcho-communism is communism without the step that involves an authoritarian state.
No shit, Sherlock. That's one of its problems.

Rafiq

1st February 2012, 20:42

@Rafiq

We are all human beings, we all think alike. There is an animal part in us that makes us selfish, the human part in us sees this as a bad thing, because humans are the most social animals that I know.

Human's are definetely social animals, however, it is not as if we have some kind of inner "evil" that makes us "Selfish". That is pure Idealism. Selfishness is not so much of a nature as it is a genuine fact. Sometimes self interest includes the interest of a collective entity of people, yes, however, all humans are motivated by their own self interest, and achieving their own ends.

Human beings are inheretly good to each other, that is because its is inprinted in our DNA.

But this is just as Idealist as the whole "Human nature" fallacy. It isn't imprinted in our fucking DNA, and I'd dare you to prove otherwise.

We see selflessness as a good thing and sefishness as a bad thing because we evolved to be social.

"seeing selflessness as a good thing" is a social construction, a direct reflection of the material conditions created by the capitalist mode of production. It's seen as a positive trait, because, within capitalism, it is hard enough getting by supporting yourself. To go beyond this, is seen almost as skilled.

Human beings are prone to help each other, even if one doesn't like the other, that is how we survive, it is by working together and sharing knowledge.

So apparently capitalists are not human, and that capitalism itself is a bastardization of human nature, that just so happened to happen because "SATAN CORRUPTED US" or some horse shit? Perhaps it would be nice for you to explain, that, if humans are naturally altruistic or good, why do we live ina society, constructed by human beings, that requires greed, selfishness, (all things opposed to your horse shit human nature) etc. to operate?

That being said, universal morality does exist, but there can be those who ignore it, but still the majority cannot. I think we can all agree that the will of the majority is the one that counts.

:crying: I don't want to live anymore, I really can't stand that people have their head this far up their ass exist. I'm getting dumbed down as we speak, thanks to your incomprehensible romanticist rubbish. Please stop posting.

Rafiq

1st February 2012, 20:44

TheRedAnarchist is a grade-A troll. I ask the board administration to keep a close eye, lest many threads of decent quality degrade into what this thread has turned into: A pile of shit.

Polyphonic Foxes

2nd February 2012, 00:42

Using "Authoritarianism" to crush the counter revolution and mobilize mass populations and regions, and administrating them, is much more efficient and useful than simply opposing such actions because of ethics.

This is the basis of it all isn't it? The justification of political repression, of censorship in media and art, of mass inprisonments and gulags, the mass killings and executions, the consciptions - it's all parto f the plan, all justified - anyone who disagrees is counter revolutionary, petit bourgeoisie, dangerous, wrong, an idealist.

It's extremely dangerous thinking and the reason why an authoritarian state lead by a small minority "in the interests of workers" can never lead to a more free society, as they never do.

Polyphonic Foxes

2nd February 2012, 00:49

I can't spell the name of whoever said it

Federalism is bourgeuisie concept. Every post state/DotP communist system invisioned in history - including that by Marx, Lenin, proudhon, bakunin and co - has been a federal system, or confederal if you wanna see it that way.

Also, having a community bank does not make a system capitalist, the existence of profit/usary and a worker/capital relationship is what defines capitalism, a relationship and model that doesn't exist in Proudhon's Mutualism, which has no usary/profit/rent or a worker/managment/boss relationship.

edit: I don't get this, but why is that group; the one that says the USSR was socialist during Stalins time; the one that despises any hint of belief or idealism or morality; the one that believes in all the justifications for authoritarianism and the one who is obsessed with sniffing out hints at "idealism" or "ultra leftism"..well why isn't their a single nice guy in it? I've been on this site for years under various names and I've never met a nice authoritarian socialist.

it goes with my theory that authoritarian politics matchs up with personality: nicer people tend to be less authoritarian, right or left wing. I mean just check out Rafiq or kontrra something, classic examples: and they're both really aggressive/hostile and disparaging.

NoMasters

2nd February 2012, 01:00

Anarchists work in the same way as most true Marxists, however for us anarchists there is no dictatorship of the proletariat. Once the oppressive power is removed, we keep it that way no matter what.

Also there are many different forms of anarchism, ranging from anarcho-capitalists, to anarcho-environmentalists, to anarcho-syndicalists.

As a follower of anarcho-syndicalists, we believe as Marxists do that the means of production being owned privately is a major source of conflict and oppression. We want to publicize the means of production. However, the publicizing of the means of production does not go to the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is controlled by the workers in the factories. Very similar to council-communism.

Искра

2nd February 2012, 01:04

When I'm talking about federalism I'm not talking about future society. I'm talking about federalism as method of struggle in capitalism.

Also, maybe your are lobotomized but I'm not saying anything pro-Soviet union. I'm a Left Communist. It's not my fault that you are such a gentle soul that you can't bare with someone who's giving you a critique of anarchism. I really hate people who have no arguments and then they start to spin same old moralist bollocks about evil soviet union. I hope that you realise how stupid is that when you are discussing with Left Communist.

Bakunin was a dick and Marx rules. Get over it.

Polyphonic Foxes

2nd February 2012, 01:11

Why does it say "banned" under your name?

Искра

2nd February 2012, 01:21

Why does it say "banned" under your name?
Because I'm Sid Vicious - anarchist superstar.

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 01:37

NoMasters

2nd February 2012, 02:07

Tim Cornelis

2nd February 2012, 08:39

What I'm saying is that self-management is reformist and syndicalism tendency and that it is based on commodity production, in its essence.

No it's not you dumb ass.

Workers' self-management is when workers manage their workplace! IT DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE COMMODITY PRODUCTION!

I advocate the abolition of commodity production, money, private property, markets and I believe that workers should control their workplace, i.e. workers' self-management.

I am getting so tired of your bullshit.

You were not a social anarchist (i.e. anarcho-communism; anarcho-collectivism), you were an individualist anarchist (i.e. Proudhonism) since believed in markets and commodity production.

You have absolutely no idea what social anarchists (i.e. the vast majority of anarchists) actually believe.

daft punk

2nd February 2012, 09:07

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 13:31

The interpretation of the dictatorship of the proletariat through the Manifesto, requires a temporary state to abolish class structure. Lenin interpreted the dictatorship of the proletariat quite perfectly in my opinion.

Now I can see how you can make the argument that the DoP is compatible with anarchism, but then you are no longer talking about the classical idea of the DoP.

Although I am not an anarcho-capitalist, it is definitely a real ideology that has some very strong arguments. Adam Smith utopianism is pure anarcho-capitalism in his Wealth of Nations in which he states that "perfect liberty will lead to perfect equality". And in that quote, he later infers that at that point of perfect liberty and equality, there is no need for government, quite similar to final ends of communism in many aspects.

Marx defined the state only as a tool for class rule, he did not make any statements about what form this class rule would take. He did however, endorse the Paris commune as the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the commune was a libertarian institution, its organization was perfectly compatible with anarchism. I find your anarchist anti-marxism to be boring and typically uninformed.

Capitalism is not compatible with anarchism, anarchism rejects illegitmate hierarchy, capitalism creates them. It does not exist, are there anti-state capitalists, yes, but they are not anarchist.

You're in this thread attacking marxists, and defending capitalists. Maybe you should reconsider a few things...

No it's not you dumb ass.

Chill.

You have absolutely no idea what social anarchists (i.e. the vast majority of anarchists) actually believe.

I believe that "social anarchists" (i.e. anybody who would use that pretentious term) are just Trotskyists wrapped up in black. I worked with some of the main "social anarchist" groups on the east coast for years. (NEFAC and the IWW) I do fully believe that syndicalism, especially, is a tendency which seeks to organize production. I mean, jesus, its fucking unionism, the purpose of a union is the facilitate production!

Syndicalism is a failure, because it is a mediating philosophy, there is no difference between the CNT of 1936 and the CPF of 1968, they're both institutions which were at one point expressions of the power of the working class, who played a mediating role in deflecting class struggle into other, bourgeois, struggles.

TheRedAnarchist23

2nd February 2012, 13:36

I have been forced to continue writing due to the fact that Rafiq and kontrrazvedka did not understand the phrase:

"I am getting tired of this discussion"

@kontrazvedka

"It's not about "giving a state absolute power over everything". This is liberal argument against Marxism. It's about giving a class power over everything. And working class uses state apparatus along its new bodies and istututions which amerged from class struggle. Anarchists, or at least you, view state as some kind of Belezbub, but in fact what you are missing is that Marxists want that working class take "strings of power" to expropriate bourgeuisie, both from capital and political power, and then to abolish classes and walk on road to communism."

How can an entire class be i power? They must have people that represent them in the state, people that are supposed to decide what is best for the working class.
Ever heard of indirect democracy?
This system of management is similar to the one we have today, that does not manage the country in benefit of the people, how am I supposed to belive that any other state (even one choosen by the people) wouldn't do the same.

I will not dignify your other arguments with a response, i mean , how do answer to:

"When I read this I think of Smurfs."

@rafiq

""seeing selflessness as a good thing" is a social construction"

How can it be a social construction if people are born with it. Humans evolve with it.
Human beings have been working together to achieve common goals long since there was even the slightest notion of state and economy, those did not exist, all that existed was the need to cooperate. We "need" to cooperate because without cooperation humans would be extinct. Many animals found out, long ago, that through cooperation they could achieve a better chance of survival, humans are no different.
We have a need to be together with others of our kind, this is because we evolved this way, therefore it IS imprinted in our DNA.

Dont you just love my logic?

"So apparently capitalists are not human, and that capitalism itself is a bastardization of human nature, that just so happened to happen because "SATAN CORRUPTED US" or some horse shit? Perhaps it would be nice for you to explain, that, if humans are naturally altruistic or good, why do we live ina society, constructed by human beings, that requires greed, selfishness, (all things opposed to your horse shit human nature) etc. to operate? "

Thank you for giving me the chance to explain.
Like i have said before ,when a human being sees himslef in a superior position to others he will do anything to stay like that, because it improves their chances of survival, thus explaining why capitalism exists and why the dictatorship of the proletariat went worng in the USSR.

The capitalists stay in power because they teach people that humans are selfish and therfore any system envolving absence of government or money would go wrong.
The existance of private property is actually what drives you to be selfish, you think that by giving up that property (money) it will decrease your chances of survival.
By this same logic it can be proven why anarcho-capitalism would go wrong, people would't cooperate with each other without recieving a salary.
In a communist society they have nothing to lose by helping their comrades, they have only to gain ,because then those comrades will help him when he is in need. (friendship: a basic co-relation of humans)

"TheRedAnarchist is a grade-A troll"

I do not understand your defenition of trolling.
I am defending what i believe in, if that makes me a troll, then so be it!

TheRedAnarchist23

2nd February 2012, 13:38

Mr. Rafiq

By my last post you will or will not conclude that it is selfishness that is a social construct.

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 13:44

TheRedAnarchist23,

Please use the quote function to quote other posters, it makes your posts much easier to read. Also, please stop double-posting. If you need to add something, please use the edit function. Thanks.

TheRedAnarchist23

2nd February 2012, 13:53

@cmoney
I didn't even know those functions existed.
Thanks

Искра

2nd February 2012, 14:06

Workers' self-management is when workers manage their workplace! IT DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE COMMODITY PRODUCTION!
Oh, what an argument.... fuck yeah.

I advocate the abolition of commodity production, money, private property, markets and I believe that workers should control their workplace, i.e. workers' self-management.
I wrote two word pages. At least you could read it. If you did you could see that I wrote that, of course, all anarchists advocate that but that in practice self-managmemant turns into supporting capialism, managing capital instead of destroying it.

Also, what you stant for is of no importance to me. You don't represent anything but yourself and I care about ideas and actions of anarchist movement from historical perspective.

You were not a social anarchist (i.e. anarcho-communism; anarcho-collectivism), you were an individualist anarchist (i.e. Proudhonism) since believed in markets and commodity production.

You have absolutely no idea what social anarchists (i.e. the vast majority of anarchists) actually believe.
And yet again you go with "you don't understand", "you were not like us", "you were not real anarchists" arguments which just show how phatetic life form you really are. I was an anarcho-syndicalist and I believed that self-managmemant was actually anti-capitalist, but then after some time, I've read how did it worked in practice and I was like WTF... I'm out of here ;)

"I am getting tired of this discussion"
Then don't participate. :rolleyes:

How can an entire class be i power? They must have people that represent them in the state, people that are supposed to decide what is best for the working class.
Well, if you are going to attack Marxism in future my advice to you is that you actually read something Marxists wrote. Lenin's State and Revolution would be good place to start. Then you could see that Marxists aim that proeltariat as class take over state as organ, but not to rule it in bourgeuisie way, but trought it's new organs such as Soviets trought which working class can exercise it's dictatorship.

Ever heard of indirect democracy?
Ever heard of blueberry pie?

This system of management is similar to the one we have today, that does not manage the country in benefit of the people, how am I supposed to belive that any other state (even one choosen by the people) wouldn't do the same.
For example by making a difference between proletariat dictatorship and capitalist state?

I will not dignify your other arguments with a response
Well, idiotic posts do get an idiotic replay.

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 14:55

Well, if you are going to attack Marxism in future my advice to you is that you actually read something Marxists wrote. Lenin's State and Revolution would be good place to start. Then you could see that Marxists aim that proeltariat as class take over state as organ, but not to rule it in bourgeuisie way, but trought it's new organs such as Soviets trought which working class can exercise it's dictatorship.

This is a problem I have with the more traditional leftcoms, like yourself. How can you tell somebody to read S&R or Lenin at all? You know they're not gonna read it, they're gonna turn around and be all like "hurr durr, Lenin sucks, fuck Lenin, Leninism failed/is authoritarian/anti-working class" etc.

I know the S&R has little to nothing to do with what the Bolsheviks carried out in the USSR, but you all need to figure out a better way to present it. I can remember all the way back to when I was like 16, there was a dude in NEFAC who was a Dutch/German leftcom and he would always be like "dude, you have to read Lenin, you have to, the dialectic is beautiful, agreeing with Lenin has nothing to do with being a Leninist". I haven't seen the guy in quite a few years, but if I saw him today I'd say the same thing I said to him then. I'm not interested in Lenin, and if his ideas are useable then you need to figure out a way to reformat them so that they can be distanced from the experiment of the USSR.

Искра

2nd February 2012, 15:00

Cmoney, I don't care about Lenin much, but in that article he explained difference between proletariat dictatorship and bourgeuisie state. That was my only point. If I could remember any modern article which did that I would probably post it instead of posting Lenin, because there would probably be decent critique of SU. I quess that I have to write it :)

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 15:20

I've read S&R, but not cover to cover. I can appreciate what it is, and what Lenin is saying, but its laughable in my mind to hold up Lenin as being the example of the man who can formulate the difference between a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and a dictatorship of the proletariat, when he ended up running a bourgeois state, and laying the foundation for a capitalist world super-power.

Искра

2nd February 2012, 15:29

Well there's difference between theory and practice. For example Trotsky wrote a good book called 1905. Should I say that it's crap just because of Kronstadt?

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 15:30

Well there's difference between theory and practice. For example Trotsky wrote a good book called 1905. Should I say that it's crap just because of Kronstadt?

If your theory can't be put into practice then its not a good theory...

Искра

2nd February 2012, 15:38

If your theory can't be put into practice then its not a good theory...Or it's not a good "practice", because theory and practice are connected. Also, the fact that one person or movement didn't stick to their theory, that doesn't mean that that theory is bad or that it can't inspire class struggle. It just mean that that movement come onto certain obsicles and tried to defeat them using wrong strategy. For example would you say that Kropotkin's writings suck just because he ended up as nationalist supporting Russia, England and France in WW1? I doubt.

TheRedAnarchist23

2nd February 2012, 15:41

I am now waiting for rafiq's response.

After that i quit this discussion for good.

Rafiq

2nd February 2012, 15:43

Alright, wait, I'm typing from a mobile phone roght now

Desperado

2nd February 2012, 16:58

When it comes to Spain in 1936 people talk all the time about how Stalinists betrayed revolution. Stalinist opportunism is a fact and I agree with anarchists on this one. But what I don't agree is that CNT/FAI were "right all the time" and that they were "revolutionary". They were opportunists long before working class made an insurrection against Franco's coup. After all in the end, CNT and FAI participated in government, they didn't caried out political takover of power from capitalists but they co-op with them! They didin't expropriate them as class etc.

Anarchists like to talk how rank-and-file members were betrayed by their leadership etc. But isn't the nature of those organisation what's made that happened? Also, this is a shit argumet to defend CNT, especially coming from those people (anarchists) who attack Bolsheviks so sharp (and they should), but faild to see that Bolsheviks did all what CNT didn't - a revolutionary expropriation of bourgeuisie...

I'm highly critical of both of them (Bolsheviks and CNT) and I don't like this revolutionary mithology.

I'd pretty much agree, however casually referring to the CNT/FAI as the anarchists, or the anarchist organisational method is a bit of an unfair generalisation.

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 17:39

Or it's not a good "practice", because theory and practice are connected. Also, the fact that one person or movement didn't stick to their theory, that doesn't mean that that theory is bad or that it can't inspire class struggle. It just mean that that movement come onto certain obsicles and tried to defeat them using wrong strategy. For example would you say that Kropotkin's writings suck just because he ended up as nationalist supporting Russia, England and France in WW1? I doubt.

I don't really care much about Kropotkin, or Bakunin, or Proudhon. I never really thought of any of them as very inspirational figures in my political positions.

daft punk

2nd February 2012, 17:48

I'm not interested in Lenin, and if his ideas are useable then you need to figure out a way to reformat them so that they can be distanced from the experiment of the USSR.

What did Lenin supposedly do wrong in Russia?

I've read S&R, but not cover to cover. I can appreciate what it is, and what Lenin is saying, but its laughable in my mind to hold up Lenin as being the example of the man who can formulate the difference between a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and a dictatorship of the proletariat, when he ended up running a bourgeois state, and laying the foundation for a capitalist world super-power.

No, you are wrong. Lenin established a dictatorship of the proletariat. He did not end up running a bourgeois state, that is ludicrous. He did not lay the foundations for a capitalist superpower.

Shit, I don't know where to start with this. Why do you think Russia was a bourgeois state from 1917 to 1924, when the Bolsheviks were fighting the bourgeois side?

Why do you think the USSR was capitalist, when there was no capitalist class left (especially after Stalin killed them).

The USSR was a degenerated workers state. It degenerated precisely in accordance with Marxist theory.

Well there's difference between theory and practice. For example Trotsky wrote a good book called 1905. Should I say that it's crap just because of Kronstadt?

Dont blame Trotsky for Kronstadt.

Or it's not a good "practice", because theory and practice are connected. Also, the fact that one person or movement didn't stick to their theory, that doesn't mean that that theory is bad or that it can't inspire class struggle. It just mean that that movement come onto certain obsicles and tried to defeat them using wrong strategy. For example would you say that Kropotkin's writings suck just because he ended up as nationalist supporting Russia, England and France in WW1? I doubt.

Nothing wrong with Lenin's theory or practice. Things went bad in Russia because the revolution was isolated in a backward country.

When it comes to Spain in 1936 people talk all the time about how Stalinists betrayed revolution. Stalinist opportunism is a fact and I agree with anarchists on this one. But what I don't agree is that CNT/FAI were "right all the time" and that they were "revolutionary". They were opportunists long before working class made an insurrection against Franco's coup. After all in the end, CNT and FAI participated in government, they didn't caried out political takover of power from capitalists but they co-op with them! They didin't expropriate them as class etc.

Anarchists like to talk how rank-and-file members were betrayed by their leadership etc. But isn't the nature of those organisation what's made that happened? Also, this is a shit argumet to defend CNT, especially coming from those people (anarchists) who attack Bolsheviks so sharp (and they should), but faild to see that Bolsheviks did all what CNT didn't - a revolutionary expropriation of bourgeuisie...

I'm highly critical of both of them (Bolsheviks and CNT) and I don't like this revolutionary mithology.
Yes the anarchist leader said he didnt take power when he could have on principle! And if that wasnt bad enough then joined a Stalinist-capitalist coalition.

why should anyone attack the Bolsheviks, who actually did the only successful revolution (up to 1924 when it degenerated due to being isolated in a backward country) ever?

Искра

2nd February 2012, 17:54

I don't really care much about Kropotkin, or Bakunin, or Proudhon. I never really thought of any of them as very inspirational figures in my political positions.
Come on cmoney, you are a clever guy... you could get my point easily. It not about Kropotkin, Proudhon or Bakunin, or fucking Lenin, it's about the fact that some people can write a piece of theory which is good, which promotes class struggle and inspires it and then fuck up all that with their personal political actions. Still, that doesn't mean that work lost its purpoese.

Lenin established a dictatorship of the proletariat. One man can't establish a dictatorship of class.

Why do you think the USSR was capitalist, when there was no capitalist class left (especially after Stalin killed them). Capitalism is society in which there's commodity production, wenge labour, where worker is allieneted from product of his own work etc. If you take that and add sending workers to labour camps if they don't fulfil idiotic dreams of tehnocracy you get Soviet Union - capitalist society.

The USSR was a degenerated workers state. It degenerated precisely in accordance with Marxist theory. Marx wrote Capital where he describet capitalism. If you take that theory and use it on Soviet Union you get capitalism. But then again, like "Trotsky's fan club" have anything to do with Marx.

Искра

2nd February 2012, 17:56

Nothing wrong with Lenin's theory or practice. Things went bad in Russia because the revolution was isolated in a backward country.Russia wasn't backward country. It was Worlds 4th force and strong economy.

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 17:58

What did Lenin supposedly do wrong in Russia?

Lead a bourgeois revolution.

Why do you think Russia was a bourgeois state from 1917 to 1924, when the Bolsheviks were fighting the bourgeois side?

The Bolsheviks were consolidating power, from the landlords/bosses/monarchy, and also from the working class and peasants.

Why do you think the USSR was capitalist, when there was no capitalist class left (especially after Stalin killed them).

Because capitalist property relations existed? If there were no capitalists, then are you suggesting that under Stalin the USSR was communist (as in a classless society)?

The USSR was a degenerated workers state. It degenerated precisely in accordance with Marxist theory.

But you just said it was a classless society?

The Douche

2nd February 2012, 18:01

Come on cmoney, you are a clever guy... you could get my point easily. It not about Kropotkin, Proudhon or Bakunin, or fucking Lenin, it's about the fact that some people can write a piece of theory which is good, which promotes class struggle and inspires it and then fuck up all that with their personal political actions. Still, that doesn't mean that work lost its purpoese.

Well I wouldn't know if those bros wrote good theory, cause I've never really read it, at least, not in any serious manner that I can remember.

Also, I don't think that theory inspires "class consciousness", or that theory will make communism happen.

Rafiq

2nd February 2012, 21:05

This is the basis of it all isn't it? The justification of political repression, of censorship in media and art, of mass inprisonments and gulags, the mass killings and executions, the consciptions - it's all parto f the plan, all justified - anyone who disagrees is counter revolutionary, petit bourgeoisie, dangerous, wrong, an idealist.

So, apparently, the Bolsheviks were power hungry monsters from start, huh? Why did they even waste time with allowing things like, oh I don't know, worker's management at the work place?

Or... Are you going to say they corrupted their power because they felt like it? Ah, the bastion of bourgeois thought.

Political repression, censorship of media and art, and executions did exist during the period of red terror, in defense of the revolution. By the time gulags started to sprout up, (I ignore the "Mass killings" part, as it's bullshit) the Soviet Union had already degenerated into a bourgeois state, anyway.

It's extremely dangerous thinking and the reason why an authoritarian state lead by a small minority "in the interests of workers" can never lead to a more free society, as they never do.

And your evidence? One, single attempt (followed by other third world attempts in almost exactly the same conditions) in an economically backwards country that wasn't industrialized. The problem wasn't that there "was too much power". History is my proof. Problems started to arise in regards to production, organization, etc. This gave rise to beurocracy and so on. However, the former would not have occurred if the revolution would have spread to the industrialized nations.

Rafiq

2nd February 2012, 21:15

@rafiq

[QUOTE]How can it be a social construction if people are born with it. Humans evolve with it.

If people are born with it, are capitalists not considered people? Was Adolf Hitler a person?

Human beings have been working together to achieve common goals long since there was even the slightest notion of state and economy, those did not exist, all that existed was the need to cooperate.

And now they do exist, because they;'re much more efficient than running around in the woods naked. And the bullshit they had was still "an economy" (fucking idealist).

The only reason humans "cooperated" together like that, was because agriculture was not developed, and there is historical evidence to show that when agriculture was discovered, humans ceased to "Cooperate".

We "need" to cooperate because without cooperation humans would be extinct. Many animals found out, long ago, that through cooperation they could achieve a better chance of survival, humans are no different.

It's true, but by this definition, Fascism is also extremely cooperative. As is capitalism (I dare you to prove otherwise).

We have a need to be together with others of our kind, this is because we evolved this way, therefore it IS imprinted in our DNA.

Only if the presupposition is "BECUASE WE EVOLVED THIS WAY".

We didn't fucking evolve that way, and it's not in our DNA.

Dont you just love my logic?

:crying:

Thank you for giving me the chance to explain.
Like i have said before ,when a human being sees himslef in a superior position to others he will do anything to stay like that, because it improves their chances of survival, thus explaining why capitalism exists and why the dictatorship of the proletariat went worng in the USSR.

So according to you, human beings who held "power" were just "There" and didn't seize it themselves? How did a person "See himself in a superior position"? Did he just end up there out of someone's ass?

The capitalists stay in power because they teach people that humans are selfish and therfore any system envolving absence of government or money would go wrong.

Capitalists are humans and they are people as well. So for them to be doing that, kind of makes the whole notion that humans are inherently good problematic, don't you think?

The existance of private property is actually what drives you to be selfish, you think that by giving up that property (money) it will decrease your chances of survival.

And how did private property come to be, if humans were such good little fuckers to begin with? ISN'T IT IMPRINTED IN OUR DNA? :laugh:

By this same logic it can be proven why anarcho-capitalism would go wrong, people would't cooperate with each other without recieving a salary.

That's not why anarcho capitalism is impossible.

In a communist society they have nothing to lose by helping their comrades, they have only to gain ,because then those comrades will help him when he is in need. (friendship: a basic co-relation of humans)

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/19192000/ngbbs4a14701377d90.jpg

NoMasters

2nd February 2012, 22:56

I am definitely anti-Marxist in many ways, the same as Marx was to the "Marxists" of his day. My interpretation of Marx is anarchistic, or authoritarian. Like I said, if you an anarchist, you cannot possibly ever agree with any form of temporary "rule" no matter what the end objective is for.

And as for capitalism causing hierarchical structure, you once again are most definitely ignorant on anarcho-capitalism in all ways. In fact, anarcho-capitalism for some theorists in that ideology, is pure utopian just as end communism is.

And as for Spain, the answer for the destruction of that commune would be the world attacking the region for control, by neoliberals, fascists, and communists both from Russia and within Spain.

Thirsty Crow

2nd February 2012, 23:07

And as for Spain, the answer for the destruction of that commune would be the world attacking the region for control, by neoliberals, fascists, and communists both from Russia and within Spain.
It's so obvious that you know what you're talking about. Priceless :laugh::laugh:

NoMasters

2nd February 2012, 23:17

TheRedAnarchist23

3rd February 2012, 01:25

mr.rafiq (sorry , but I dont know how to use the quote thingy mr.cmoney)

"agriculture was discovered, humans ceased to "Cooperate". "

aren't you forgetting about farming communities.(community=cooperation)

"It's true, but by this definition, Fascism is also extremely cooperative. As is capitalism (I dare you to prove otherwise). "

This argument of yours only strengthens mine.

"Capitalists are humans and they are people as well. So for them to be doing that, kind of makes the whole notion that humans are inherently good problematic, don't you think?
And how did private property come to be, if humans were such good little fuckers to begin with? ISN'T IT IMPRINTED IN OUR DNA? :laugh:v
If people are born with it, are capitalists not considered people? Was Adolf Hitler a person? "

Laeders started out as just guides in times of hardship (such as war, natural disasters,famine,...), then when people started trusting his (the leader's) guidence as the best way to increase their chances of survival they started following his orders almost without question, surely this leader only started taking advantage over the people when he saw himself above them(corruption by power) and he no longer saw them as fellow humans , he saw them as his mindless servants.
Private property came to be when goods were so scarce that one could not afford to share anything with another , so this other finds something to trade with him, both gain with this. And so the burgeoisie was born, people who trade so they can survive.
Eventually the burgoisie would ally itself with the "leader" so that both would increase their survivability.
With the apearance of agriculture private property and trading were made obsolete, but the burgoiesie, now alied with the state, would cease to exist without this, (both the leader and the trader would lose some of their high chances of survival from this, that is something that our survival instinct, or as I called it before "the animal part" (I call it this because it is present in all animals) will not allow to happen) therefore both would do whatever they could so that everything would stay well for them.

That is it.

Wether you finnaly understood or not I am officially quiting this argument.

Have a nice day.

The Douche

3rd February 2012, 03:46

TheRedAnarchist23:

There is a quote icon in the bottom right corner of every post if you wish to quote the whole post. You can also copy/paste elements of a post into a quote box through the use of the icon (it looks like a speech bubble) in the top of the reply screen. And, please, don't call me "Mr." it makes me sound 1) old and 2) like a boss.;)

Thirsty Crow

3rd February 2012, 10:22

Well of course I could be wrong. However, the subject on Spain has interested me for years. I have spoke with Noam Chomsky on the subject a couple of years ago and he informed me in depth about the destruction of the Spanish commune. And I have summarized what he has told me in the statement earlier. This of course is with confirmation on my own research and not just that of Professor Chomsky.
Then Noam has no clue whatsoever, if it's he who told you that neoliberals had their hands on Spain and participated in the destruction of the workers' movement. Although I doubt you did really consult Chomsky, but hey, if it makes you happy...

Revolution starts with U

3rd February 2012, 12:13

What I'm saying is that self-management is reformist and syndicalism tendency and that it is based on commodity production, in its essence. What I’m saying is that self-management is management of capital and therefore it represents leftist wet dream and obstacle in creation of communist society. Now, as I’m used to deal with dogmatic anarchists and their bullshit I’ll write longer post on this subject.

And what I'm saying is purple is purple because it's purple... and this is a real argument, full of logical proofs and empirical evidence :lol:

Self-management is Proudhon’s idea (or at least anarchists have accepted it in that form). From his writings till today only rhetoric’s has changed but not essence. His self-management is peti-bourgeoisie Disneyland in which there’s market, there’s commune or workshop on market, there’s competition, but at the same time there’s cooperation, “equality” etc. So, what he advocated was society without monopoly, because monopoly of bourgeoisie industries was what troubled peti-bourgeoisie man, such Proudhon was. Now I really don’t have to mention that he also believed into community banks etc. which at the end of a day make his little fantasy system capitalist. Marx ripped Proudhon and his utopian socialism apart in few occasions. I don’t want to turn this is into discussion on Proudhon, which is why I won’t discuss his “methods”, especially because anarchist movement trough history rejected them.

What does Proudhoun's ideas of self-management have to do with the essence of worker's self management? Again, purple because purple. Nice argument.
For not wanting to, this is quite a useless paragraph then... innit?

Now when it comes to commune and federalism, there’s nothing better than to quote Bordiga:
Now, when it comes to self-management from anarchist practice, as we are going to assume that it is what anarchists advocate, we have two bodies which stand each against other: Soviet and factory council. There’s interesting discussion between Bordiga and Gramsci on nature of Italian factory councils. Anarchists supported factory councils, as Gramsci and his group, and they have considered them as “new bodies” of revolution. Now Bordiga in his brilliant text (which you can find here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1920/workers-councils.htm) attacks Gramsci and makes certain points. There’s big difference between Soviet and factory council. Soviet is political body of proletariat aimed to take political power and establish proletarian dictatorship. It’s organized on local level and represents proletariat as whole. On the other we have factory council which is based on certain shop or factory and which represents only workers of that factory or workshop. Now while in Soviet proletariat is only proletariat, united under one goal, or to express myself little bit poetic, under one red banner, factory councils divide workers by trade. Now, factory councils are important, but as Bordiga states, their true importance comes only after proletariat has taken political power, because only after proletariat took power from bourgeoisie (and their main power doesn’t lay just in the state but in capital itself) proletariat can start to create different economical system. While power is still in the hands of bourgeoisie self-management and factory councils can easily turn to reformism and syndicalism. In the fact trough history that is what they did (Bordiga is talking about councils in Austria and Germany, but in the end we can add Italian and Spanish examples). Workers under hard pressure from bourgeoisie do not think about next step, they do not think about proletarian class struggle and they don’t think about revolution as internationalist concept. They only think about their little shop or factory and how can they protect their councils and their “self-management” of production. Step by step they tend to ignore class struggle and in the end side up with bourgeoisie and in the end louse “fruits of their struggle”.

Paragraphs are a scholars best friend :D
But anyway... this is a refutation of factory councils. I see nothing in here that refutes the notion that workers should manage themselves.

But you're apparently a Leninist (?) so you really don't trust the working class to manage itself, do you?

so I’ll draw it for you. I’m not saying that anarchists and especially what we think of anarchist movement from historical perspective was advocating market, at least on purpose. What they were advocating were economist strategies which would, along with federalism, result in reformism and syndicalism. Practice has showed us that self-management result with reformism and counter-revolutionary actions

By this hypothesis one could easily say SOCIALISM results in reformism and counter-revolution...

Now, one of the most important things when it comes to Marx is that he gave analysis but he never wrote how future society should look like. He did that because he believed that bourgeoisie ideology is so deeply rooted in all of us that we can’t even imagine future society without certain elements of present society, capitalist, bourgeoisie society. Anarchists on the other hand tired to imagine future society and they’ve failed from the same reason Marx didn’t want to imagine future society – dominance of bourgeoisie ideology.

Self-management...?

You mentioned POUM, UGT and CNT in 1936 and how they wanted abolish market. This is not the fact. They wanted to win in anti-fascist struggle. If they’ve really intended to abolish market, i.e. expropriate bourgeoisie and establish dictatorship of proletariat/or abolish power in anarchist case, they would do that from the first day of revolution. We shouldn’t forget that uprising of masses in Barcelona and other cities was not organized – it was spontaneous. It was an act of class struggle of proletariat. Instead of continuing with revolution those three “revolutionary” organizations calmed down situation and entered government. Workers who were members of these 3 organizations were still exploited by capitalists, but now these capitalists were not boogie mans – they were anti-fascists. These 3 organizations stood in defense of one fraction of bourgeoisie!

Self-management...?

Also, when it comes back to federalism 1936’s CNT can show us why there’s a need of organic centralism in revolutionary organization. No matter how hard certain fractions of CNT tried to get back CNT onto revolutionary road, federalist essence of CNT made it possible for certain fractions to push their reformist politics under the wings of autonomy and anti-authoritarian politics. If CNT was centralist, as we leftcom argue that proletarian party should be, then there is no force which could change organization from its basics principles,

You're right, it would be harder... especially if the central party has become oppressive and counter-revolutionary

there’s no autonomy of anyone to force his individualist politics on organization as whole…

Except the Party Leader... but again; self-managment...?

next...

Or it's not a good "practice", because theory and practice are connected. Also, the fact that one person or movement didn't stick to their theory, that doesn't mean that that theory is bad or that it can't inspire class struggle. It just mean that that movement come onto certain obsicles and tried to defeat them using wrong strategy. For example would you say that Kropotkin's writings suck just because he ended up as nationalist supporting Russia, England and France in WW1? I doubt.

Why doesn't this argument hold for anarchist theory? Just because it didn't work out in practice, according to you, should have no bearing on the merits of the theory.

(Please note that I am a non-denominational socialist. I'm not an anarchist, tho I do tend to be far more libertarian than many. I just think your arguments so far have been severely lacking.)

Искра

3rd February 2012, 13:14

Learn to quote...

And what I'm saying is purple is purple because it's purple... and this is a real argument, full of logical proofs and empirical evidence :lol:
That was introduction in which I've just repeated my positions.

What does Proudhoun's ideas of self-management have to do with the essence of worker's self management? Again, purple because purple. Nice argument.
For not wanting to, this is quite a useless paragraph then... innit? If you want to write a critique of something you must go to the core. Proudhon is the core when it comes to workers self-management.

Paragraphs are a scholars best friend :D
But anyway... this is a refutation of factory councils. I see nothing in here that refutes the notion that workers should manage themselves.And one liners are idiots best friend ;)

Yes, this is indeed a refutation of factory councils which were bodies which promoted workers self-managemant. Trought that example I described why self-managemant is dangerous for workers movement... etc.

Workers can manage themselves in capitalism as long as they want it (or as long as market let them tbh), but that won't change anything about this system. Now, you believe that by saying that I'm against "workers self-managemant" I believe that Party, great Lenin or whatever should tell workers what to do. No. I'm just against concept of self-managemant as it's proudhonist crap. Free Association which Marx proposed have nothing to do with this.

But you're apparently a Leninist (?) so you really don't trust the working class to manage itself, do you?
What is Leninism?

Trust? LOL :lol: You should really make difference between self-managemant and communism. I support every spontaious action of working class against capitalism more than I'll ever support any shit organisation. But, this is a question of ideology and self-managemant is left-liberal idea of managing capital in federalist organised market economy.

By this hypothesis one could easily say SOCIALISM results in reformism and counter-revolution...Self managemant is not socialism (when we are talking about socialism/communism as future society). Socialism (as historical movement) was indeed reformist the moment it cased away it's basic principles. Let's go back to Marxism-fundamentalism... which excludes self-managemant as Marx kicked Proudhon's ass.

Listen to the God and be happy that he granted us with his wisdom.

Self-management...? (as first one liner)
I've just described how self-amagemant is full of bourgeuisie concepts which is why Marx rejected it (among other things). His idea of future society had nothing to do with such organisation of production etc.

Self-management...? (as second one liner)
I've responed on his myths of CNT, POUM etc. He was talking how they really wanted to abolish capitalism and I showed how that's not actually true. All these organisations were opportunists and they worked for one fraction of capital. CNT workers were still wenge slaves to their "anti-fascists" bosses and they were ordered to obey by their leadership. That wasn't revolution but a swindle.

You're right, it would be harder... especially if the central party has become oppressive and counter-revolutionary
And now we have a moralism. In 1917 Soviets, which were sponationus bodies of working class, were based on centralism and they used to send delegates to St. Petersburg, not because evil Bolsheviks told them so, but because they wanted to make their struggle as one. Workers recognised need for centralism. But then again you don't even understand what centralism is. As every anarchist-moralist when somebody mentiones centralism you think of evil Lenin boogie man, but in fact centralism is just a need for uniting struggle under one banner. I doesn't end self intiative of workers and masses it's just ends up opportunism amongs individualistic federalists who think only about their own particular interests. If you were ever a member of anarchist organisation (with more than 5 members and with sections) you would actually see what federalism does in practice.

Except the Party Leader... but again; self-managment...?
Party leader... wow... what a boggie man. But then again we did have this federalist, libertarian, anti-authoritarian organisation called CNT... oh... no... their leaders were in government cause they were bad people and didn't listen to their rank and file :crying:

next...
:crying:

Why doesn't this argument hold for anarchist theory? Just because it didn't work out in practice, according to you, should have no bearing on the merits of the theory.
Because both theory and practice were shit. When theory and practice are shit you try to change something, don't you? Hence all these left communist and council communist works on Soviet Union and Russian revolution... we want to find the cause and try to think of idea how to make that not happen next time. But anarchists repeate same shit for centuries.

Please note that I am a non-denominational socialist.
Please not that I don't care what you are. I care about positions.

I'm not an anarchist, tho I do tend to be far more libertarian than many. I just think your arguments so far have been severely lacking.
And yet, you didn't understand half of it nor did you responded with counter-argumentation ;)

The Douche

3rd February 2012, 13:55

Kontra, I really wish that you would point your criticisms at anarcho-syndicalism, and not anarchism in general. Your critique through this thread has been accurate and pointed, but it is a critique of revolutionary unionism and not of anarchism (which simply stands for the self organization of the working class into forms which end alienation).

Revolution starts with U

3rd February 2012, 13:59

Learn to quote...

I had a lot of people in que. I wanted it to be made clear who I was talking to.
But more importantly, to you; learn to make an argument.

That was introduction in which I've just repeated my positions.

And yet nowhere in the entire post, or thread really, have you even attempted to refute the position of self-management qua self-management.

If you want to write a critique of something you must go to the core. Proudhon is the core when it comes to workers self-management.

People are not the cores of ideas. If you were to attack modern evolutionary theory by attacking Darwin's view of evolution, you would make no difference to the academic community at large. Those criticisms were already made, the ideas were adjusted, and evolutionary theory moved on.
Ideas are important, not people. Who cares about Proudhoun's theory of self-management, unless you are debating Proudhoun or a Proudhounist.

And one liners are idiots best friend ;)

Awww, did that offend you :crying:

Yes, this is indeed a refutation of factory councils which were bodies which promoted workers self-managemant. Trought that example I described why self-managemant is dangerous for workers movement... etc.

No, you described why factory councils are dangerous. Nowhere in this thread have you made an adequate refutation of the position that "workers should manage themselves."

Workers can manage themselves in capitalism as long as they want it (or as long as market let them tbh), but that won't change anything about this system.
It will change the foundation of top-down management. But that's irrelevant...
What does this have to do with self-management qua self-management.

Now, you believe that by saying that I'm against "workers self-managemant" I believe that Party, great Lenin or whatever should tell workers what to do. No. I'm just against concept of self-managemant as it's proudhonist crap. Free Association which Marx proposed have nothing to do with this.

It doesn't really matter what your position is. I'm asking you to critique self-management. So far you have failed to do so.

What is Leninism?

A leninist is a person who thinks they know better than anyone else, and is not only willing, but wanting, to use authoritarian violence to prove it. :rolleyes:

Trust? LOL :lol: You should really make difference between self-managemant and communism. I support every spontaious action of working class against capitalism more than I'll ever support any shit organisation.
I want you to tell me what communism is if it doesn't, apprently, involve a class of managers telling workers what to do? You are saying self-management is a bad idea... ok... so then who should manage the workers?
I didn't ask you if you support revolution (spontaneous action of the working class against capitalism). I asked if you think workers should manage themselves, and questioned whether you actually trust them enough to do so.

But, this is a question of ideology and self-managemant is left-liberal idea of managing capital in federalist organised market economy.

You keep saying that. I want you to prove how. So far you have failed to do so.
(Another tendency of the Leninist; label everything you disagree with as "liberal.")

Self managemant is not socialism (when we are talking about socialism/communism as future society). Socialism (as historical movement) was indeed reformist the moment it cased away it's basic principles. Let's go back to Marxism-fundamentalism... which excludes self-managemant as Marx kicked Proudhon's ass.

The emancipation of the working class is not the emancipation of the working class because 2 dicks with beards kicked each others asses 150 years ago? I want you to explain to me how self-managment is not a synonym for "there should be no class that rules over the working class."
Are you trolling?

Listen to the God and be happy that he granted us with his wisdom.

Oh... I guess you are :rolleyes:

I've just described how self-amagemant is full of bourgeuisie concepts which is why Marx rejected it (among other things). His idea of future society had nothing to do with such organisation of production etc.

You've done no such thing.
(Another tactic of the Leninist; be a tattletale. I found it far easier to say "self-management...?" then to say "ok, when are you going to start talking about self-managment and how it is anti-socialism?"

I've responed on his myths of CNT, POUM etc. He was talking how they really wanted to abolish capitalism and I showed how that's not actually true. All these organisations were opportunists and they worked for one fraction of capital. CNT workers were still wenge slaves to their "anti-fascists" bosses and they were ordered to obey by their leadership. That wasn't revolution but a swindle.

So what you're saying is, they didn't have enough self-management... and that's why self-management fails?

And now we have a moralism.
You really have nothing to offer here, do you?

In 1917 Soviets, which were sponationus bodies of working class, were based on centralism and they used to send delegates to St. Petersburg, not because evil Bolsheviks told them so, but because they wanted to make their struggle as one. Workers recognised need for centralism. But then again you don't even understand what centralism is. As every anarchist-moralist when somebody mentiones centralism you think of evil Lenin boogie man, but in fact centralism is just a need for uniting struggle under one banner.
I understand what it is well enough. If you think centralism didn't directly lead to Stalin, you're naive.

I doesn't end self intiative of workers and masses it's just ends up opportunism amongs individualistic federalists who think only about their own particular interests. If you were ever a member of anarchist organisation (with more than 5 members and with sections) you would actually see what federalism does in practice.

I'm not talking about federalism. Let's stay on topic here. I'm not an anarchist either, so...

Party leader... wow... what a boggie man. But then again we did have this federalist, libertarian, anti-authoritarian organisation called CNT... oh... no... their leaders were in government cause they were bad people and didn't listen to their rank and file :crying:

Not an anarchist. Not arguing for Anarchist Spain. Learn what a fallacy is, becuase you're in the middle of one right now.

:crying:

Because both theory and practice were shit. When theory and practice are shit you try to change something, don't you? Hence all these left communist and council communist works on Soviet Union and Russian revolution... we want to find the cause and try to think of idea how to make that not happen next time. But anarchists repeate same shit for centuries.

Do they? I think you're just making that up.

Please not that I don't care what you are. I care about positions.

Then stop trying to put positions on me I don't support. I'm not a CNT supporter, I'm not an anarchist, so trying to charge me as such is nothing more than shifting the goal posts.

And yet, you didn't understand half of it nor did you responded with counter-argumentation ;)
I don't have to counter-point, to point out your argument is terrible. Do you want a counterpoint?

The emancipation of the working class cannot come from a class of managers, politicians, or bureacrats. It can only come from the working class itself. How you propose to do that, other than to let the working class manage its own affairs is beyond me.

Искра

3rd February 2012, 14:02

artanis17

3rd February 2012, 14:31

why my peaceful thread caused this mayhem ? :crying:

Искра

3rd February 2012, 14:36

But more importantly, to you; learn to make an argument. :rolleyes:

And yet nowhere in the entire post, or thread really, have you even attempted to refute the position of self-management qua self-management. :rolleyes:

People are not the cores of ideas. If you were to attack modern evolutionary theory by attacking Darwin's view of evolution, you would make no difference to the academic community at large. Those criticisms were already made, the ideas were adjusted, and evolutionary theory moved on.
Ideas are important, not people. Who cares about Proudhoun's theory of self-management, unless you are debating Proudhoun or a Proudhounist.So, why do you then, when you are writing a critique of Stalinism and Leninism talk about Marx's ideas? What you wrote here makes no sense.

Awww, did that offend you :crying:
Try harder.

No, you described why factory councils are dangerous. Nowhere in this thread have you made an adequate refutation of the position that "workers should manage themselves."
As, I said you don't understand what workers self-managemant is. Factory councils were bodies which promoted it and I've described them as such and wrote a critique of their politics which is - self-managemant.

it will change the foundation of top-down management. But that's irrelevant...
What does this have to do with self-management qua self-management. There's only one self-managemant and unless you invent something new for this therm I'm done with it. I've wrote my critique, you haven't respont do it, you are just continuing to demand something which makes no sense.

It doesn't really matter what your position is. I'm asking you to critique self-management. So far you have failed to do so.
Well, if it does if you are trying to score some kind of moralist discussion points on "bad Lenin" argument. I wrote a critique of self-managemant in a form I wanted to present on Internet forum. I'll soon probably write whole article (on English) on that subject you you'll also have a critique of self-managemant in that form (with numbers, years, fancy quotes and all that circus).

A leninist is a person who thinks they know better than anyone else, and is not only willing, but wanting, to use authoritarian violence to prove it. :rolleyes:
Isn't that a libertarian?

I want you to tell me what communism is if it doesn't, apprently, involve a class of managers telling workers what to do? You are saying self-management is a bad idea... ok... so then who should manage the workers?Managemant is labour relation which belongs to capitalism. Capitalism should be abolished and those relations with it.

I didn't ask you if you support revolution (spontaneous action of the working class against capitalism). I asked if you think workers should manage themselves, and questioned whether you actually trust them enough to do so.
Your question is stupid and moralist. Class struggle has nothing to do with trust. Answer on your stupid moralism you could find in my previous response.

You keep saying that. I want you to prove how. So far you have failed to do so. (Another tendency of the Leninist; label everything you disagree with as "liberal.")
I did that. Read.

Liberal = against interest of proletariat as class; something which at the end of a day works for maintaing capitalist system of explatation. Hence self-manegmant in all its froms from Spain 1936, Italy 1921, Yugoslavia and all these co-ops and fancy factories in Argentina, Bengal, Venezuela etc.

The emancipation of the working class is not the emancipation of the working class because 2 dicks with beards kicked each others asses 150 years ago? I want you to explain to me how self-managment is not a synonym for "there should be no class that rules over the working class."Oh, yeah... emancipation of working class really is emancipation just because some "guy with a beard" said so.

What I was refering to were arguments which Proudhon had and arguments with which Marx replayed to him. The fact that self-managing system Proudhon had in his mind was nothing but a capitalism. Same tendencies happened in Italy, Spain etc. and you have publications such as Prometeo and Bilan which defined them and attacked them.

Workers self-managemant is term which describes market economy. I said that... like 100 times. Ther's commodity production, wage labour, competition etc. It's especially dangerous when somebody tries, like anachists, left-liberals and other opportunists, to implement it in present day conditions. They you have Mondragon, Zanon and other shit.

Are you trolling?
That's your job. When I troll, I troll with style. What I said here is quite serious political position I stand for.

Oh... I guess you are :rolleyes:
That's a joke, even there's a lot of truth in it. Every smart ass once in while comes with this self-managemant populist shit and tries to scream how this is "what's its all about", ignoring all arguments against it from like more than 100 years ago.

You've done no such thing.
(Another tactic of the Leninist; be a tattletale. I found it far easier to say "self-management...?" then to say "ok, when are you going to start talking about self-managment and how it is anti-socialism?"
You are boring. And this is quite a trolling. You offer no counter-arguments just a bunch of usless questions and statemants/oneliners... oh, yeah... "leninist" again. Grow up.

So what you're saying is, they didn't have enough self-management... and that's why self-management fails?
No. I'm saying that they did have self-managemant. And that self-managemant is shit in it's essance. I'm saying that those forces were counter-revolutionary capitalist asslickers.

You really have nothing to offer here, do you?
Such "arguments" make me wanna puke my ass off....

I understand what it is well enough. If you think centralism didn't directly lead to Stalin, you're naive.
No. I'm just not moralist. Stalin was a product of counter-revolution, he was a grave digger of revolution... And that's has nothing to do with centrism, which existed in revolutionary organisations of working class at their revolutionary peek...

I'm not talking about federalism. Let's stay on topic here. I'm not an anarchist either, so...
Federalism is essential part of self-managemnat, so...

Not an anarchist. Not arguing for Anarchist Spain. Learn what a fallacy is, becuase you're in the middle of one right now.
As I said I don't give a fuck what you are. You pushed this "party leader" like some kind of an invincible argument and I've answered you with an organisation without a leader. There's one thing which is more dangerous than a party leader and that are unoficial charismatic leaders in federalist organisaitons. History of anarchist movement has showed that (and also present day conditions in IWA and Serbia for example).

Do they? I think you're just making that up.
Then prove me wrong. It's funny how I give an actual statemant and you respond with oneliner. This is pure flaming.

Then stop trying to put positions on me I don't support. I'm not a CNT supporter, I'm not an anarchist, so trying to charge me as such is nothing more than shifting the goal posts.
If you wanna discuss self-managemant etc. you can't reject me to refeer on CNT and federalism. I'm not shifting anything. I'm responding.

I don't have to counter-point, to point out your argument is terrible. Do you want a counterpoint?
Counterpoint would be something productive.

I still believe that you don't actually understand a shit what I write... especially when we come to this:

The emancipation of the working class cannot come from a class of managers, politicians, or bureacrats.
As a Left Communist, I hardly advocate techoncracy.

It can only come from the working class itself. How you propose to do that, other than to let the working class manage its own affairs is beyond me.By creating Soviets and taking up power, establishing proeltariats dictatorship, eliminating bourgeuisie and capitalist class relations in prodcution and establishing communism. Communism is communsim and it's not self-mangament. It's not based on single factory but on community.

Искра

3rd February 2012, 14:37

why my peaceful thread caused this mayhem ? :crying:What mayhem? It's a discussion not a hippie circle.

The Douche

3rd February 2012, 14:49

I gave a critiqe of anarchists trough history, mainly in Spain 1936 and Italy 1921. I could also gave critique of Makhno which has nothing to do with anarcho-syndicalism (and it's quite interesting that his movement used democratic centralism ;)) or I could write a critique of "propaganda by deed"... I don't see other important anarchists stuff to critique, except some recent events.

Anarchism is not self organisaiton of working class. Marxism is also for self organisation of working class. Anarchism has allways been a movement which supported self-managemant, federalism, autonomy of individual and it was against proletariat dictatorship.

Well you know that I'm not a fan of Makhno or platformism, and that I'm also not a fan of PotD (who is?).

The way you attack anarchism would be like if I engaged in a critique of Marxism with you, but avoided dealing with thinkers like early Negri, Bordiga, Pannekoek, etc, essentially what you're doing (and what you do when you talk about anarchism), is grabbing hold of the elements of anarchism which you don't like, and pretending that they define anarchism, and you're ignoring the areas in which anarchism (as a movement and an ideology) overlaps with your ideas.

I am not afraid to say that I find common ground with autonomists, situationists, and left communists. I recognize that anarchism as I understand it, in practice is not massively different from marxism as these people understand it, in many ways.

Your comments about anarchism not being about the self-organization of the working class is straight up hyperbole, and you know it. What you've done in the majority of this thread is trolled, admittedly, your trolling has been highly intelligent, and it has contributed to the discussion, but it has been trolling because you equate all of the anarchist movement with syndicalism. Which, as you know, is horseshit, because anarchists were critiquing syndicalism all the way back in the 1920s:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1925/04/syndic1.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1925/12/syndic2.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1926/03/syndic3.htm

Искра

3rd February 2012, 15:02

Your comments about anarchism not being about the self-organization of the working class is straight up hyperbole, and you know it.I'm not saying that anarcism is not about the self-organisation, but I'm saying that that's not all what's it about and that you can't define it in that way, because Marxism is also for self-organisation of working class.

I'm not picking what I don't like, but what I've have encountered within anarshist movement.

I also don't like Bonanno... but what the hell. Even though, I do have to admit that I don't know much about all this "post-modernist" and situationist anarchists stuff... So, you can give me recomendations for reading (one day).

artanis17

3rd February 2012, 15:16

What mayhem? It's a discussion not a hippie circle.

Yes it's dialectic actually

The Douche

3rd February 2012, 15:17

I'm not saying that anarcism is not about the self-organisation, but I'm saying that that's not all what's it about and that you can't define it in that way, because Marxism is also for self-organisation of working class.

I'm not picking what I don't like, but what I've have encountered within anarshist movement.

I also don't like Bonanno... but what the hell. Even though, I do have to admit that I don't know much about all this "post-modernist" and situationist anarchists stuff... So, you can give me recomendations for reading (one day).

I agree, Marxism can be for the self-organization of the working class, but it can also be substitutionist, and a method for managing capitalism.

I don't doubt that you have encountered many anarcho-leftists in your time, I spent more than a few years in their organizations. But I also run into more Marxist-Leninists and Trots than I do left-communists, but this is slowly changing as more anarchists (of the insurrecto variety) get in to things like Tiqqun, The Invisible Committee, and communization shit. I've also started to see more anarchists lately talking about Bordiga.

What I think is happening, is that the dynamic, modern, interesting elements of the anarchist movement (i.e. those outside of the big formal organizations) and starting to meld with left-communist ideas, some invent new titles for themselves, some adopt different titles, but whatever they call it is unimportant, I am just excited to see people caring less about dogma, and more about good ideas.

Искра

3rd February 2012, 15:30

but it can also be substitutionist, and a method for managing capitalism.
But then it's not Marxism, but a revisionism called Stalinist, Trotskyism etc. By your logic I could also say that anarchism can be a method for managing capitalism.

Also, just because I call myself a Left Communist, that doesn't mean that I follow some kind of a dogma (for example, I disagree with many leftcomes here, as I'm more Bordigist than they are usually), but that means that I agree with certain ideals which were named - Left Communist. To me that name sounds stupid anyway... I would call myself a Marxist-Fundamentalist, or Marxist-Totalitarian, cause it sounds more sweet :D

The Douche

3rd February 2012, 15:32

But then it's not Marxism, but a revisionism called Stalinist, Trotskyism etc. By your logic I could also say that anarchism can be a method for managing capitalism.

That's my point.;)

daft punk

3rd February 2012, 20:11

One man can't establish a dictatorship of class.
read the context.

Capitalism is society in which there's commodity production, wenge labour, where worker is allieneted from product of his own work etc. If you take that and add sending workers to labour camps if they don't fulfil idiotic dreams of tehnocracy you get Soviet Union - capitalist society.

Marx wrote Capital where he describet capitalism. If you take that theory and use it on Soviet Union you get capitalism. But then again, like "Trotsky's fan club" have anything to do with Marx.

Wrong both times. Capitalism is production for profit by a class who own the means of production, like in the west etc. Russia had a planned economy run by a bureaucratic dictatorship, completely different. It was a deformed workers state.

Russia wasn't backward country. It was Worlds 4th force and strong economy.

Wrong. Russia's GDP before WW1 was the same as Britain's, but with 3 times more people. So their income was a third of the Brits. But this was average. There was a large aristocracy in Russia and they owned the land and had all the dosh. Most people were very poor peasants, unable to read or write. Check your facts. There was some modern industry and much of it was foreign owned. About 3% of the population were urban workers, the people Marx believe had to carry out socialism.

Marx described the classic bourgeois revolutions in England, France and Holland, where the capitalists overthrew feudalism several hundred years earlier, bit later in France. They eliminate feudalism and established the right conditions for capitalism to grow. Capitalism created it's gravedigger, the urban working class.

That happened in England in 1640, about the same time in Holland, and 1789 in France. It had not taken place in Russia. In fact the Bolsheviks before 1917 assumed the revolution would start in the advanced countries of the west, or if one happened in Russia it would be a bourgeois one. Early in 1917 they were supporting the Provisional Government.

Daft Punk: "What did Lenin supposedly do wrong in Russia? "

Lead a bourgeois revolution.
The most ridiculous answer you could have given. Of course they had to complete the tasks of the bourgeois revolution, eg land reform, democracy, build industry etc.

Daft Punk: "Why do you think Russia was a bourgeois state from 1917 to 1924, when the Bolsheviks were fighting the bourgeois side?"

The Bolsheviks were consolidating power, from the landlords/bosses/monarchy, and also from the working class and peasants.

The Bolsheviks were fighting the bourgeois in the civil war ffs. They nationalised the land and most of the industry.

Daft Punk:"Why do you think the USSR was capitalist, when there was no capitalist class left (especially after Stalin killed them). "

Because capitalist property relations existed? If there were no capitalists, then are you suggesting that under Stalin the USSR was communist (as in a classless society)?

Is that "capitalist property relations existed" a question or a statement? The USSR was a deformed workers state, Stalin got rid of the capitalists.

The Bolsheviks had a revolution, right? The capitalists started a civil war. The Bolsheviks won. But they had to implement the NEP as a temporary retreat, because of hunger. It was to encourage peasants to get growing food. Stalin carried it on too long and was forced to collectivise very rapidly. This caused even more hunger and resentment and he ended up killing all who opposed him. After that it was a planned economy ruled by a dictatorship. It was classless. You could call the elite a caste maybe, not a class. They didnt own the means of production.

But you just said it was a classless society?
see above. It was classless, it was not communist, it was a dictatorship based on a workers state. A deformed workers state.

You cant give the USSR and the USA the same label, they are quite different.

Well of course I could be wrong. However, the subject on Spain has interested me for years. I have spoke with Noam Chomsky on the subject a couple of years ago and he informed me in depth about the destruction of the Spanish commune. And I have summarized what he has told me in the statement earlier. This of course is with confirmation on my own research and not just that of Professor Chomsky.
forget Chomksy he is a chump. See my sig.

Ravachol

4th February 2012, 00:01

This doesn't go to you cmoney, but to rest of anarchists.

I fucking love this rank and file of the CNT argument. When somebody says "anarchists were counter-revolutionary for this, this and this" anarchists respond "that was leadership and Stalinists". But why don't you then scream, cry and moan about Bolsheviks in Russia? Wasn't there also just "leadership"?

CNT in 1936 didn't give a rats ass about its rank and file. They were just struggeling with other leftists to take leadership of Popular Front.

I think you're misunderstanding my criticism. The structure and ideology of Bolshevism was what enabled the Russian counter-revolution. The structure and ideology of the CNT's Anarcho-Syndicalism was what enabled the popular front debacle and the Spanish counter-revolution. I'm active as an anarcho-syndicalist (though not in the 'classical' sense and I'm much, much closer to the 'communization' tendency if anything) and Spain '36 serves as a spot of light when compared to the darkness of the rest of history's theatre, just like Germany '19, Hungary '56, France '68,etc. That doesn't mean I just promote historical re-enactment and brush the failings of that period under the carpet with the 'oh that silly leadership' excuse.

What i'm saying is that you can't state that the entire rank&file of the CNT desired collaboration with the bourgeois state, that all workers aligned to the CNT promoted self-manged capitalism and chose the popular front over the revolution, cause that's not true.

If CNT was centralist, as we leftcom argue that proletarian party should be, then there is no force which could change organization from its basics principles, there’s no autonomy of anyone to force his individualist politics on organization as whole… but of course, that doesn’t mean that we have boogie man with goat beard to order all members … No, quite contrary, members of organization take part in collective decisions, respect them etc.

And if a faction disagrees with these decisions? They form an endless branching of warring sects and splits all adhering to their own centralist truths, seeking to be competing players on the market of ideas, seeking dominance for their own ideological commodity as 'the only one'. Centralism doesn't guarantee organic collectivism, something like that is the result of changed social relationships between participants, not the result of some artificially enforced social structure. The endless splitting and feuding of leftcom organisations is a testament to this.

If they’ve really intended to abolish market, i.e. expropriate bourgeoisie and establish dictatorship of proletariat/or abolish power in anarchist case, they would do that from the first day of revolution

I find it funny to hear this from a leftcom. My experience with leftcoms is that they always argue against 'premature revolutionary moving and scheming', learning 'the lessons of the marz-aktion,etc.etc.' and deriding the decision of a revolutionary organisation to make a push for the destruction of the state as 'putschism' or 'activism' disconnected from the proletariat.

I mean I'm all with you when you say the CNT should have pushed for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the DotP (Yes, I'm an anarchist and I support the DotP), something that has been argued by the Friends of Durruti as well post-'39. But how would you envision this, considering most leftcoms argue against such decisions ceaselessly...

I mean, jesus, its fucking unionism, the purpose of a union is the facilitate production!

I don't completely agree with that. In it's essence, 'union' could simply refer to any organisation of workers coming together to fight for their collective interests. The moment the purpose of the organisation becomes bargaining about the price of wage-labour with the bosses instead of seeking to organise workers for more effective, co-ordinated class struggle under the watch-word 'no negotiations', then things change indeed.

I haven't seen the guy in quite a few years, but if I saw him today I'd say the same thing I said to him then. I'm not interested in Lenin, and if his ideas are useable then you need to figure out a way to reformat them so that they can be distanced from the experiment of the USSR.

Well it didn't really work out for Operaismo since it split into Autonomia on the one hand and small feuding (armed, vanguardist) leninist sects on the other. I'm with Dauve as far as Lenin is concerned. (http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve).

Искра

4th February 2012, 00:17

What i'm saying is that you can't state that the entire rank&file of the CNT desired collaboration with the bourgeois state, that all workers aligned to the CNT promoted self-manged capitalism and chose the popular front over the revolution, cause that's not true.
I would never claim that rank and file of CNT was counter-revolutionary etc. Actually, you could read that I quite admire their actions which started a revolution etc.

I find it funny to hear this from a leftcom. My experience with leftcoms is that they always argue against 'premature revolutionary moving and scheming', learning 'the lessons of the marz-aktion,etc.etc.' and deriding the decision of a revolutionary organisation to make a push for the destruction of the state as 'putschism' or 'activism' disconnected from the proletariat.
I'm not advocating "premature revolutionary moving" or anything like that. I just believe that there was a basis in proletariat in Spain to go thowards establishing of proletariat dictatorship, but that initiative was sabotaged by opportunists from CNT, POUM etc. with turning class struggle into anti-fascist struggle for Capital. Maybe that wouldn't be "Spanish 1917", but it could be "Spanish 1905". Also, history of class struggle in Spain was really outstanding along with experience of Spanish proletariat...

I don't completely agree with that. In it's essence, 'union' could simply refer to any organisation of workers coming together to fight for their collective interests. The moment the purpose of the organisation becomes bargaining about the price of wage-labour with the bosses instead of seeking to organise workers for more effective, co-ordinated class struggle under the watch-word 'no negotiations', then things change indeed.I believe that union is no longer a structure which working class can use. I'm more in favour of workers networks and such things, something that organisations such as SolFed advocate.

Ravachol

4th February 2012, 00:47

I would never claim that rank and file of CNT was counter-revolutionary etc. Actually, you could read that I quite admire their actions which started a revolution etc.

I'm not advocating "premature revolutionary moving" or anything like that. I just believe that there was a basis in proletariat in Spain to go thowards establishing of proletariat dictatorship, but that initiative was sabotaged by opportunists from CNT, POUM etc. with turning class struggle into anti-fascist struggle for Capital. Maybe that wouldn't be "Spanish 1917", but it could be "Spanish 1905". Also, history of class struggle in Spain was really outstanding along with experience of Spanish proletariat...

I believe that union is no longer a structure which working class can use. I'm more in favour of workers networks and such things, something that organisations such as SolFed advocate.

Heh, well it seems we're really on the same line then on these matters :p

Искра

4th February 2012, 00:51

Heh, well it seems we're really on the same line then on these matters :p
Nice :cool:

Revolution starts with U

5th February 2012, 06:23

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
So, why do you then, when you are writing a critique of Stalinism and Leninism talk about Marx's ideas? What you wrote here makes no sense.

Try harder.

As, I said you don't understand what workers self-managemant is. Factory councils were bodies which promoted it and I've described them as such and wrote a critique of their politics which is - self-managemant.

There's only one self-managemant and unless you invent something new for this therm I'm done with it. I've wrote my critique, you haven't respont do it, you are just continuing to demand something which makes no sense.

Well, if it does if you are trying to score some kind of moralist discussion points on "bad Lenin" argument. I wrote a critique of self-managemant in a form I wanted to present on Internet forum. I'll soon probably write whole article (on English) on that subject you you'll also have a critique of self-managemant in that form (with numbers, years, fancy quotes and all that circus).

Isn't that a libertarian?

Managemant is labour relation which belongs to capitalism. Capitalism should be abolished and those relations with it.

Your question is stupid and moralist. Class struggle has nothing to do with trust. Answer on your stupid moralism you could find in my previous response.

I did that. Read.

Liberal = against interest of proletariat as class; something which at the end of a day works for maintaing capitalist system of explatation. Hence self-manegmant in all its froms from Spain 1936, Italy 1921, Yugoslavia and all these co-ops and fancy factories in Argentina, Bengal, Venezuela etc.

Oh, yeah... emancipation of working class really is emancipation just because some "guy with a beard" said so.

What I was refering to were arguments which Proudhon had and arguments with which Marx replayed to him. The fact that self-managing system Proudhon had in his mind was nothing but a capitalism. Same tendencies happened in Italy, Spain etc. and you have publications such as Prometeo and Bilan which defined them and attacked them.

Workers self-managemant is term which describes market economy. I said that... like 100 times. Ther's commodity production, wage labour, competition etc. It's especially dangerous when somebody tries, like anachists, left-liberals and other opportunists, to implement it in present day conditions. They you have Mondragon, Zanon and other shit.

That's your job. When I troll, I troll with style. What I said here is quite serious political position I stand for.

That's a joke, even there's a lot of truth in it. Every smart ass once in while comes with this self-managemant populist shit and tries to scream how this is "what's its all about", ignoring all arguments against it from like more than 100 years ago.

You are boring. And this is quite a trolling. You offer no counter-arguments just a bunch of usless questions and statemants/oneliners... oh, yeah... "leninist" again. Grow up.

No. I'm saying that they did have self-managemant. And that self-managemant is shit in it's essance. I'm saying that those forces were counter-revolutionary capitalist asslickers.

Such "arguments" make me wanna puke my ass off....

No. I'm just not moralist. Stalin was a product of counter-revolution, he was a grave digger of revolution... And that's has nothing to do with centrism, which existed in revolutionary organisations of working class at their revolutionary peek...

Federalism is essential part of self-managemnat, so...

As I said I don't give a fuck what you are. You pushed this "party leader" like some kind of an invincible argument and I've answered you with an organisation without a leader. There's one thing which is more dangerous than a party leader and that are unoficial charismatic leaders in federalist organisaitons. History of anarchist movement has showed that (and also present day conditions in IWA and Serbia for example).

Then prove me wrong. It's funny how I give an actual statemant and you respond with oneliner. This is pure flaming.

If you wanna discuss self-managemant etc. you can't reject me to refeer on CNT and federalism. I'm not shifting anything. I'm responding.

Counterpoint would be something productive.

I still believe that you don't actually understand a shit what I write... especially when we come to this:

As a Left Communist, I hardly advocate techoncracy.

By creating Soviets and taking up power, establishing proeltariats dictatorship, eliminating bourgeuisie and capitalist class relations in prodcution and establishing communism. Communism is communsim and it's not self-mangament. It's not based on single factory but on community.

I wrote a nice, long, detailed response... and then my computer interpreted a backspace as a call to go back a page, and I lost it.
So, in short I offer this:

You are arguing against all apples by arguing against Golden Delicious apples. You offer no arguments against self-management at all (except vague buzzwords like "abolish management"), but only insist on refuting self-management by refuting Proudhounianism.

You said that the rank and file followed the directions of their leaders, and it lead them back into capitalism. This sounds far too much to me like a lack of self-management, and an excess of boss management. Another critique of this position I would make is that all expirments in Socialism have reverted back to capitalism. So by your own words, basically you are saying socialism is liberal and reformist. It's a ridiculous argument.

Whether or not Socialism is a universal movement; there will still be individual productive efforts (factories, etc, if you will). You either think the workers their should manage their own affairs, or that someone else should. Stop talking about Proudhounism, Mutualism, and specific historical examples of anarchism, and start talking about self-management qua self-management.

Zulu

5th February 2012, 12:30

MarxSchmarx

5th February 2012, 13:14

I've got another question:

How the anarchists are going to deal with all kinds of public enemies, from organized crime, to religious fundamentalists, to Marxist-Leninists, who will all seek to destroy anarchy and re-establish hierarchy?

"Anarchists" won't, as a segment of the population, "deal" with these kinds of developments. Rather, everyone will deal with these enemies.

Individuals that advocate these kinds of broad-scale attempts to re-establish hierarchical systems (with them at the top, of course) will undoubtedly arise over and over again. But they have to be able to convince others to go along with them in order to have any credibility. And they must be able to do so in significant numbers. Absent that, their attempts will go nowhere.

The closest analogy I can think of is that these hierarchical institutions are artificial, and under anarchism would be rather like trying to make Esperanto the dominant language in a basically monolingual place like Korea. Sure a few individuals might from time to time devote quite a bit of effort to pulling this off, but absent getting others to go along with it, their attempts are futile.

Still, one possibility is that such groups will amass enough force of arms to form the core of a reconstructed ruling class at the point of a gun. Or if they get an atomic bomb they can blackmail others for example.

And why have they succeeded in the past? Precisely because of, and definitely not inspite of, the state.

It's worth pointing out that this is precisely what has happened in EVERY Leninist society leading to the restoration of capitalism, and arguably every "liberal democracy" is more nakedly oligarchical for the same reasons - when it didn't collapse into fascism. Significantly, each and every time this happened it was through the mechanisms of the state. Indeed, the state, as an institution of organized and deliberately concentrated violence has decidedly shown to be more conducive to the rise of the worse form of hierarchical rule than any other mechanism.

For hierarchical systems to exist, the few at the top must have a way of controlling everyone else basically under pain of death. The state has proven a remarkably effective tool to get this to work. Even "non-state" actors like organized crime or religious terrorists aspire to run, or at least manage, the state. Indeed, it's very telling to me that they understand that without the state acquiescing at the very least and without the resources of state repression, they cannot succeed in any meaningful sense. On this, likely the anarchists agree.