The breakdown of hierarchies within marxism

[queer-question]

Hello!

Im an 18 year old lefty who is torn right now between the various ideologies of socialism, marxism..and anarchism.

I have always believed that ironically enough, we need "more government" (i.e. welfare services and such) in the short term so that we can have "less government" (i.e. basically a stateless society)

I believe that working within the framework of oppression is our best bet at liberation...but who knows maybe I'm too conservative when it comes to the issue of revolution versus reform (probably due to notions of "violent" protest that have been engrained in my head since childhood)

Anyways, i'm beginning to think I am an anarchist but at the same time..how would that even work I mean really? On a large scale is anarchy "practical"?

I believe in stateless societies but I guess what Im asking is...what is the best way to get there?


what would marx do?...what would NOAM do?
what would you do?

[Zulu]

On a large scale is anarchy "practical"?

No, anarchy will be easily overrun by any cohesive group not shy on hierarchy.

[daft punk]

The two examples of anarchism I know are Spain and Russia.

In Spain, the leader of the anarchists admitted that they could have taken power in 1936, but didnt, on principle. Then the Stalinists crush the revolution. And then the anarchist leaders joined a Stalinist-capitalist government. Nice one.

The other example is Makhno in Russia. The Bolsheviks tolerated him, even used him, but in the end his mini gangster state was too much of a pain, attacking the trains and so on, with it's peasant conscript army. So the Bolsheviks had to attack his army in the end.

In Russia there were other anarchists of course. Many joined the Red Army and fought with the Bolsheviks.

Unfortunately then, they dont have a good track record.

No, you need to be organised. The Bolsheviks were. The end goal is the same. I dunno if the Bolsheviks got everything right, but they did their best. In the first half of 1918 Russia was a workers democracy. Then the Left SR party walked out of government in protest at Lenin's peace plan for WW1, and started a campaign of sabotage, killing the German Ambassador. The White (capitalist) armies of the Tsarist generals attacked and the Bolsheviks faced enormous problems.

In the end the revolution degenerated due to the failure to spread to other countries. Socialism cannot be achieved in a backward country in isolation.

[Trash Bazooka]

The Free Territory was in Ukraine, not Russia.

[Tim Cornelis]

On a large scale is anarchy "practical"?


No, anarchy will be easily overrun by any cohesive group not shy on hierarchy.

If you have anarchism on a "large scale" (e.g. global) then there wouldn't be any "cohesive group not shy of hierarchy" (e.g. imperialist powers). In any case, "cohesive hierarchical" groups does not automatically mean a more efficient military operation. The decentralised taliban are at present even forcing the cohesively organised Western military back into retrieval and are gaining ground.



In the end the revolution degenerated due to the failure to spread to other countries. Socialism cannot be achieved in a backward country in isolation.

The revolution failed already in 2018 when the Bolshevik government destroyed organs of workers' control before they even awaited whether the revolution spread internationally (the German revolution was still ongoing). The reason it failed was because of Bolshevik incompetence.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, anarchy will be easily overrun by any cohesive group not shy on hierarchy.
In other words, you do not support global communism, a stateless and classless world society?

As to the question posed in OP, my answer would be: working class organizations and militant action, shunning the relaince on existing union structures which are long time absorbed by the capitalist state, alongside a strong presence of communist militants within the class, defending communist positions (political autonomy for the class, no united fronts or any such bullshit with pro-capitalist parties, internationalism as opposed to support for national liberation and the theory of socialism in one country, total abolition of the market which is anyway necessitated by the abolition of capital, supporting working class initiative such as wildcat strikes, supporting workers' councils as the basis of the political structure, of political power in the period of transition as opposed to the advocacy of the party-state) and organized in the International of communist parties, and finally the frontal assault on the bourgeois state and its destruction and replacement with the revolutionary workers' government - the workers' councils and workplace committees.

Now, I don't think it's wrong to assume that a certain procedure of decision making other than that based on workers' councils should be established immediately after the seizure of power, because of one important fact: any national working class will be faced by the global capitalist class hell bent on destroying the dictatorship of the working class, which means military threat. While proletarian democracy is essential, I still think that for it to thrive we need to have something simple - time, which is vital for the process of deliberation and discussion, and people faced with the capitalist war machine don't have much of it. Though, this command structure must be based on the workers' possibility to directly intervene, or in other words, on the healthy functioning of workers' councils and other organs of class rule (that's why I support the absolute freedom of political organization IF an org accepts the power of councils and the communist programme). And finally, I support the absolute rejection of violence within the proletarian camp, which means no strike breaking and no repression for workers' and their political organizations, be they anarchist or marxist.

[daft punk]

The revolution failed already in 2018 when the Bolshevik government destroyed organs of workers' control before they even awaited whether the revolution spread internationally (the German revolution was still ongoing). The reason it failed was because of Bolshevik incompetence.

Please post evidence for this claim.

Even some anarchists say Russia was democratic in 1918.

[Zulu]

If you have anarchism on a "large scale" (e.g. global) then there wouldn't be any "cohesive group not shy of hierarchy" (e.g. imperialist powers).
It doesn't have to be an imperialist power. It may be the Marxist-Leninists. Or religious fundamentalists. Or a drug-trafficking cartel.





In any case, "cohesive hierarchical" groups does not automatically mean a more efficient military operation. The decentralised taliban are at present even forcing the cohesively organised Western military back into retrieval and are gaining ground.
There is much more to the Afghan war that eludes the news reports. First of all, its primary goal: turn Afghanistan into a huge poppy farm. As long as the imperialists believe they can keep it this way at the expense of the local security personnel cheap lives, it makes little sense to chase down every last one Taliban fighter.

Besides, decentralized does not mean anarchist. The Taliban definitely aren't anarchist.

[Zulu]

In other words, you do not support global communism, a stateless and classless world society?

Communism =/= anarchism. Stateless =/= anarchy. There will be natural and mild hierarchies, such as by age, experience, qualification. Some managerial activities may be turn-based. However, that will be only in the Bright Future, when everyone is a true communist, and people have lost any idea, what the oppression is like (and how cool it is to be an oppressor, which is in many people's genes today, like it or not). And that is quite distant (hundreds of years).

[Ilyich]

The revolution failed already in 2018 when the Bolshevik government destroyed organs of workers' control before they even awaited whether the revolution spread internationally (the German revolution was still ongoing). The reason it failed was because of Bolshevik incompetence.

Are you suggesting that the failure of socialism in Russia was not due to the conditions of Russia (its backwardness and isolation) but in fact resulted from the actions of a relatively small group of individuals?

[Tim Cornelis]

It doesn't have to be an imperialist power. It may be the Marxist-Leninists. Or religious fundamentalists. Or a drug-trafficking cartel.

There is much more to the Afghan war that eludes the news reports. First of all, its primary goal: turn Afghanistan into a huge poppy farm. As long as the imperialists believe they can keep it this way at the expense of the local security personnel cheap lives, it makes little sense to chase down every last one Taliban fighter.

Besides, decentralized does not mean anarchist. The Taliban definitely aren't anarchist.

I'm not arguing that the Taliban is anarchist. Revolutionary militias need some form of hierarchy, albeit democratically controlled hierarchy out of necessity. I think most anarchists would agree on this. But such revolutionary militias will most likely be decentralised. The Vietnamese "people's war" during the Vietnam war also proved viable (although the Vietnamese suffered incredible losses). Point is, an anarchist force could very well succeed in defending themselves.


Please post evidence for this claim.

In 1918 the Bolshevik regime began their policy of "War Communism" which basically entailed the (temporary) suspension of workers' control in order to skip capitalism. War Communism included:


All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced

Discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism)

A moderately pro-Bolshevik Russian reported on the decree cast by the Bolshevik regime in 1918:


As for the rank and file of the workmen, the new system was scarcely conducive to enthusiasm on their part. In the first place they were forced to give up definitely the idea that the workmen employed in each particular enterprise were going to own or at least control that enterprise. This idea had been carefully inculcated in them by the demagogical agitators [anarchists?], and the introduction of nationalization was, indeed, a disappointment to them. For under the system of nationalized industry, the workmen became simply servants of the state, forced to submit to the officials appointed by the state in precisely the same manner in which they had been formerly forced to submit to private entrepreneurs and their managers. Moreover, immediately after the apparatus of management was somewhat put together under nationalization, the Soviet authorities began to exact labour discipline, which, naturally, appeared so hard and prosaic to the rank and file of the workmen after the revolutionary carousal, that the task of obtaining efficiency under the circumstances became increasingly difficult.

Thus, organs of workers' control (industrial democracy) were destroyed. In State and Revolution Lenin also advocated "establishing strict, iron discipline backed up by the state power of the armed workers." although the role of managers in theory was different than it was in practice (As described in here above), where they were not mandated or recallable.

In 1919 organs of consumers' and workers' control were demolished by a decree destroying self-organisation and (industrial) democratic planning:


It was at the beginning of 1919 that the whole consumer's cooperative movement was entirely reorganized and placed on a new basis.
This reorganization was effected by the decree of March 20, 1919, which abolished the former consumers' societies and substituted for them “consumers' communes,” later on renamed into "workman-peasant consumers' societies." The object of the decree was to place the whole distributive cooperation in the hands of the Soviet Government and make of it the instrument of distribution on a national scale. For this purpose, all distributive functions were taken out of the hands of the various governmental supply divisions and handed over to the reorganized cooperative system.
The basis of the new consumers' cooperation is a network of "workman-peasant consumers' societies," which must cover the whole country, one for each district. Within its territory, the consumers' society must include the whole “labouring” population. For this purpose, all fees and membership dues are abolished. Membership in these societies and the right to vote in them is granted in accordance with the provisions in the Soviet constitution, concerning political suffrage.
The principle upon which the cooperative units can unite into larger bodies was also radically changed. In its pro-Communistic form, the cooperative movement consisted of separate and independent units, combining into larger associations or unions without losing their identity and independence and delegating to these larger bodies only definite functions. Under the [new] plan, hierarchical subordination is introduced. Local cooperative units combine into regional bodies; regional bodies are united in provincial bodies; provincial bodies are controlled entirely by the central All-Russian body, the reorganized “Centrosoyuz.”

Source: The Economics of Communism (http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o)

Remember, this all occured a year and a half to six months prior to the defeat of the German revolution. The Bolsheviks clearly did not await an international revolution and instead abolished workers' control because they assumed themselves to be more enlightened than the stupid workers and therefore they knew better what was best for them.


Even some anarchists say Russia was democratic in 1918.

Doubt it, or they must be misinformed, as War Communism started in 1918. 1917, sure, but that's another question.


Are you suggesting that the failure of socialism in Russia was not due to the conditions of Russia (its backwardness and isolation) but in fact resulted from the actions of a relatively small group of individuals?

The way you formulated the question is very suggestive. A "small group of people" implies a negligible group in terms of power, but this "small group of people" managed to seize all power and concentrate in their hands. And as the above empirical evidence proves, the Bolshevik regime by means of their decrees backed by armed violence, destroyed the foundations of socialism (i.e. workers' control), thus proving that it was indeed this "relatively small group of individuals" that defeated the social revolution.

This, however, does not mean I think socialism and communism would otherwise have flourished. The isolation and backwardness may have later on proven to be disastrous to workers' control in terms of the construction of socialism if it was given the chance, which it was not, it was destroyed prematurely.

[The Idler]

The time for hierarchies is really past, and ought to be relegated to the 20th Century. In the 21st Century, and the age of Wikipedia, Anonymous, Occupy, Real Democracy Now and other movements based on horizontal principles (horizontalidad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontalidad)) etc., people becoming radicalised simply won't submit to hierarchies and nor should they. When workers self-organise for a stateless, classless society, the proto-leaders and ex-leaders will be generals without an army for whom resistance will be futile. Have a look at Libertarian Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism).

[Ilyich]

The way you formulated the question is very suggestive. A "small group of people" implies a negligible group in terms of power, but this "small group of people" managed to seize all power and concentrate in their hands. And as the above empirical evidence proves, the Bolshevik regime by means of their decrees backed by armed violence, destroyed the foundations of socialism (i.e. workers' control), thus proving that it was indeed this "relatively small group of individuals" that defeated the social revolution.

It is true that the Bolsheviks were an influential group of individuals but they were still only that, a group of individuals. Whether or not socialism succeeds in any given country can certainly be influenced by the decisions and actions of individuals. Ultimately, however, the material conditions of that given country will determine whether or not socialism succeeds there. The point is that the Bolsheviks can hardly be considered incompetent for their actions in 1918. I was not good that they dissolved the organs of workers' democracy and it did take Russia off the path to socialism. However, anyone in their position of trying to prevent the infant workers' state from collapsing would have done the same. The Bolsheviks were faced with a choice. Either they could keep the organs of workers' democracy fully intact and watch the new state collapse almost immediately or they could temporarily (at least that was the intention) suspend certain aspects of workers' democracy and implement war communism. The latter option would contribute to the bureaucratic degeneration of Russia and take it off the path to socialism permanently. The Bolsheviks chose the latter, however, because it was the option that would not lead to the collapse of the workers' state. If there had been anarchists instead of Bolsheviks in power in 1918, they would have made the same choices as the Bolsheviks or they would have seen the new state collapse.

[Zulu]

The time for hierarchies is really past, and ought to be relegated to the 20th Century. In the 21st Century, and the age of Wikipedia, Anonymous, Occupy, Real Democracy Now and other movements based on horizontal principles (horizontalidad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontalidad)) etc., people becoming radicalised simply won't submit to hierarchies and nor should they. When workers self-organise for a stateless, classless society, the proto-leaders and ex-leaders will be generals without an army for whom resistance will be futile. Have a look at Libertarian Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism).
It'll be a perpetual war between street gangs and the workers' militia (which will be the same thing after a while). Until the North Koreans swoop in, of course.

[Azraella]

Communism =/= anarchism. Stateless =/= anarchy. There will be natural and mild hierarchies, such as by age, experience, qualification. Some managerial activities may be turn-based. However, that will be only in the Bright Future, when everyone is a true communist, and people have lost any idea, what the oppression is like (and how cool it is to be an oppressor, which is in many people's genes today, like it or not). And that is quite distant (hundreds of years).



Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.


Come on even anarchists recognize that there is such a thing as legitimate authority. This goes all the way back to Bakunin.



It'll be a perpetual war between street gangs and the workers' militia (which will be the same thing after a while). Until the North Koreans swoop in, of course.


And street gangs are created due to material conditions. Most "criminality" is a result of capitalism. You know this and I know this.

[Zulu]

And street gangs are created due to material conditions. Most "criminality" is a result of capitalism. You know this and I know this.
And those material conditions resulting from capitalism are called "the anarchy of production"... What a strange coincidence!

[Azraella]

And those material conditions resulting from capitalism are called "the anarchy of production"... What a strange coincidence!
Right... you know what? You have absolutely no fucking idea about what you're talking about. Anarchy the descriptor is not the same as the political ideology 'anarchism'.

[Zulu]

not the same

Like I said... coincidence.

[eyeheartlenin]

Hello!

Im an 18 year old lefty who is torn right now between the various ideologies of socialism, marxism..and anarchism.

I have always believed that ironically enough, we need "more government" (i.e. welfare services and such) in the short term so that we can have "less government" (i.e. basically a stateless society)

I believe that working within the framework of oppression is our best bet at liberation...

I believe in stateless societies but I guess what Im asking is...what is the best way to get there?

what would marx do?...what would NOAM do?
what would you do?

First, the one question I can easily answer for you. Noam Ch would continue to urge the rest of us to vote for the Democrats in every presidential election year. That is NOAM's answer. And that is no answer, I am convinced.

The other thing that I know for sure, since I've been around for over six decades, is that the current arrangement of power in the US, and, I believe, in every other class society, is designed to prevent change, so the next historically determined task for workers and allies is to overthrow the exploiting class, which means smashing the existing state, a mechanism for keeping the exploiters in power, not just because it sounds like a great idea, but because there is no other possibility for real, fundamental change. "Working within the framework of oppression," that is, inside the existing political system of pro-capitalist parties, is a dead end, since those parties and the utterly phony elections they participate in, have as their only purpose, keeping the exploiters in power.

One good book to read is Lenin's State and Revolution, which even some anarchists have called Lenin's "most anarchist" book

[Thirsty Crow]

Communism =/= anarchism. Stateless =/= anarchy. There will be natural and mild hierarchies, such as by age, experience, qualification. Some managerial activities may be turn-based. However, that will be only in the Bright Future, when everyone is a true communist, and people have lost any idea, what the oppression is like (and how cool it is to be an oppressor, which is in many people's genes today, like it or not). And that is quite distant (hundreds of years).
Nope, the goal of a classless, stateless world society is shared by marxists and anarchists. The so called hierarchies you talk about are no more hierarchies than those that develop between physically strong people and physically weak people in relation to weight lifting, or in other words they're not hierarchies anarchists argue against.
And I would love to see a demonstration of just how it's in people's genes that "oppression is cool" (or was that meant to be taken figuratively?).

Of course, I haven't seen any coherent description coming from you, of how you expect that world communism might be attained.

[Zulu]

how you expect that world communism might be attained.

Through economic development, which will for a long time require stricter hierarchies than anarchists are prepared to tolerate. Under communism the state will be useless because the word of the "current" manager will be regarded as law by the "current" executor and no enforcement of any kind will be necessary. Something quite contrary to Bakunin's nihilistic writings actually.

[Rooster]

Communism =/= anarchism. Stateless =/= anarchy. There will be natural and mild hierarchies, such as by age, experience, qualification. Some managerial activities may be turn-based. However, that will be only in the Bright Future, when everyone is a true communist, and people have lost any idea, what the oppression is like (and how cool it is to be an oppressor, which is in many people's genes today, like it or not). And that is quite distant (hundreds of years).

lol utopianism much?


And those material conditions resulting from capitalism are called "the anarchy of production"... What a strange coincidence!

I'm going to have to agree that you have no real idea what the word anarchy means.


Through economic development, which will for a long time require stricter hierarchies than anarchists are prepared to tolerate. Under communism the state will be useless because the word of the "current" manager will be regarded as law by the "current" executor and no enforcement of any kind will be necessary. Something quite contrary to Bakunin's nihilistic writings actually.

Ha, fuck sake, man. Stop cracking me up. Through economic development, right, with strict hierarchies, okay. Is this what you're aiming for? Cause, you know, we've been going through this for a couple of hundred years now. I think you might have heard of it. It's called capitalism. If you don't know what that is, then I suggest you pick up a book with the same title. Maybe that way you'll eventually understand what socialism is. I'd laugh, but this is so tragic.