How would socialism work

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I have made long studies of the anarchist theory, so I know that there is no problem with communism, but I think that there are many problems with socialism.
Both anarchists and communist are trying to achieve the same society, but communists want a "transition state".
I want to know why communists want such a state, why not do a direct transition form capitalism to communism (anarchy), when I think about it I come to the conclusion that this "direct transition", as I called it before, seems to be the safe way.
This is because i believe that any state will use its power to keep itself in power (as proven by Soviet Union).
I read Alexander Berkman's "The Bolshevik Myth" which tells of the time Berkman was deported to the Soviet Union and what it was like, it describes a totalitarian state that destroys all competition, whether monarchist or anarchist, to stay in power.

So after you reading this thing I wrote I want you to accuratly describe how socialism would work as a transition state, and why it didn't work in the Soviet Union.

[Tim Cornelis]

Class antagonisms, in two words. Marxists see social transformation through the prism of materialism. This means that they see the state as a centralised body used by the ruling class to oppress or suppress the other social class(es). The state is the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. It is therefore necessary, they argue, for the working class to become the ruling class over the bourgeoisie by establishing a workers' state. Since class antagonisms will not die out immediately after the expropriation of the means of production, it is argued we need a transient "semi-state". Marxists thus believe communism can only be achieved by extolling the working class to the position of ruling class, after which class antagonisms wither away making the state obsolete.

You are begging the question: was the Soviet Union (which didn't exist until 1922 by the way, which is a trivial point) or Russia actually a workers' state? I'd say no. Marxist-Leninists say yes. Some anarchists say yes. Left Communists say no. Trotskyists say it was a degenerated workers' state.

[Blake's Baby]

You're asking about two different things, and I shall try to unpick them as thoroughly as I can.

1-socialism is only a 'transition state' if you believe the Leninists. The rest of us reject that distinction;
2-the soviet union was never socialist; nor, in the opinion of non-Leninsts Marxists, was it the dictatorship of the proletariat (at least, not after about 1919 or thereabouts, exactly how much mileage you give to the Soviet Republic is a matter of where you're coming from).

I'd turn the questions (and the reasons for the questions) round, to be honest. Do you believe that there was a 'policy' (set of decisions) that could have been taken in Russia in 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921... that would have led to communism? If you do, do you believe that communism is possible in one country?

For the non-Marxist-Leninists (non-Stalinists) amongst us, socialism in one country is impossible. It could never have worked, either in the USSR or anywhere else in isolation. For the non-Leninists (non-Stalinists, non-Trotskyists) the USSR was a state-capitalist economy presided over by the CPSU party-state machine. So it has little to do with socialism.

But confusions over what socialism is and isn't aside; if you want to know why the transitional state didn't result in communism, it can't in an isolated state. Communism will be built worldwide after capitalism has been overthrown. That never happened, so communism as a future project stalled when the world revolution ended - in 1927, or whatever. Individual mileage varies again as to what weight is given to various events of 1917 and after. Some groups such as the Council Communists and the SPGB deny that the October Revolution was 'socialist' at all.

So, on the transitional state...

For Marxists, a state is an organ of class rule. After the revolution, the marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state because it is the means by which the proletariat rules over the bourgeoisie.

However, as the revolution is worldwide, because capitalism must be overthrown worldwide, what this means in effect is that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the working class's organisation of revolutionary territory. Engels pointed to the Paris Commune as 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

For Anarchists, I don't see this as a problem (I was an anarchist-communist for 20 years and never had a problem with the Commune as being a model for the revolution) because to Anarchists, in general, a state is an organisation for a minority to oppress a majority. It isn't just a question of class rule but hierarchy. There's no hierarchy under the dictatorship of the proletariat, it's just the majority of the people directly managing their own affairs.

This is why the state 'withers away' when property is collectivised: the state is an organ of class oppression, class is based on property, without property there is no class, without class there is no state. When the masses of people are all working together in furtherance of their common aims, then there is no property, no class, no state.

So, how do we get there?

Firstly, revolution will not be exactly simultaneous. Some areas will overthrow the state and begin collectivisation before other areas. Those areas cannot 'become socialist/communist', they have to retain some state functions, some property functions; they need to organise to fight the capitalists at their borders and to produce to feed their own people and rebuild the territories devastated by the war; all this must be happening while the world civil war is staill raging.

Thus, there needs to be a transitional state, a state that exists in the 'liberated' (not finally liberated, but provisionally liberated) territories, while the world revolution is still being fought out elsewhere.

This is the stage Russia was caught in; unable to advance towards socialism because the world revolution had failed, it stuck in its 'provisionally liberated' status. Of course, because revolution is a dynamic, and the dynamic went into reverse, those of us who are not Leninists (Trotskyists or Marxist-Leninists) think that what emerged in Russia was decidedly counter-revolutionary. The Trotskyists believe it just stopped still and was preserved at a frozen moment until 1991 - it was a deformed workers' state in 1936, it was a deformed workers' state in 1991; the Marxist-Leninists believe a whole lot of things but generally agree it was going forward until 1956 (except Titoists) when they all start to fall out about whether Mao or Hoxha or Kruschev or Castro or whoever was right after that.

So; why do marxists support a transitional stage? Because in general we're unconvinced that you can have: 'day one, revolution; the bourgeoisie and capitalist state apparatus have been overthrown worldwide... day two, collectivisation, all property is now in the hands of 'the people' and we can have communism by tea-time'.

Having said that, there are Marxists who believe that immediate communisation is possible. I don't I think the revolution will be a longer and bloodier process, but please believe that if it isn't, and it's all quite easy, I'd be very happy because it would save a lot of disruption.

So the transiltional state I think is something of a necessary evil; we can't really avoid it, the trick is surely to make it as much as possible administered by and serving the interests of the working class, not a gaggle of bureaucrats who become a new ruling class.

[Caj]

I have made long studies of the anarchist theory, so I know that there is no problem with communism, but I think that there are many problems with socialism.

Communism and socialism are synonymous. I'm not a fan of the term revisionism, but there is really no better word to encapsulate the myth that socialism in some way a transitory stage prior to the advent of communism.


Both anarchists and communist are trying to achieve the same society, but communists want a "transition state".

Most communists advocate a DotP that is compatible with anarchism. Unfortunately, hardly any communists or anarchists realize that their differences amount to mere semantics much of the time.


I want to know why communists want such a state, why not do a direct transition form capitalism to communism (anarchy), when I think about it I come to the conclusion that this "direct transition", as I called it before, seems to be the safe way.
This is because i believe that any state will use its power to keep itself in power (as proven by Soviet Union).

The Soviet Union was a bourgeois state, not a workers' state. So long as the state is controlled democratically by the workers, the possibility of degeneration into state capitalist dictatorship shouldn't be a huge concern.


So after you reading this thing I wrote I want you to accuratly describe how socialism would work as a transition state, and why it didn't work in the Soviet Union.

It didn't work in the Soviet Union because it was a bourgeois state.

[Ostrinski]

The seizure of state power is the purest expression of class interest, the state being the means by which we liquidate the class enemy. I think the importance of this rests in the fact that we don't have the power to predict the course of history, and it is idealist to think we do. We do not know how long it is going to take to secure proletarian class rule, to develop the socialist productive process, to subdue private property in all its forms. It's impossible to know how things will formulate. There are just so many dimensions, an infinite number of historical scenarios. To lay out a blueprint is futile. We don't know how long we will need the state machine, or in what manner it will be utilized.


This is because i believe that any state will use its power to keep itself in power (as proven by Soviet Union).The phenomenon you are describing here is not the self-enrichment of the state, but the development of a de facto bourgeoisie with bourgeois social functions in the bureaucracy through the course of counter-revolution. This was, of course, the imminent course of action as a reflection of revolutionary isolation. The westward expansion of the revolution would have negated the analogue that any authoritarian tendencies or opportunist roaders would have had.

Edit:
Communism and socialism are synonymous.This is true. Even Lenin, who is often credited with the formulation of the distinction, often used them interchangeably. But when there is a differentiation, it's usually in reference to the lower and later stages of communism described Marx and Engels. It's just semantics really.

[GoddessCleoLover]

To narrowly answer RedAnarchist's point, I would view the empowerment of the working class rather than the empowerment of one vanguard political party as the main point of departure between my vision of the transition and that of the Soviet Union. I believe that we need a model of socialism totally different from that of the Comintern.

More broadly, the most difficult issue of the post-revolution transition involves the internationalization of the revolution and the development of both the forces of production and the the relations of production.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brospeirre and Blake's baby

So what you are saying is that socialist revolution did not work in the Soviet Union because it wasnt a universal revolution.
I don't see how a revolution can happen everywhere at the same time,a country may be at the verge of a revolution but another country might not.

Also what I have learned that socialism envolves a state and that communism doesn't, how can they be the same?

So how would left communists do things if they don't support this?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@gramsciguy

How can an entire class be in power, it either has a vanguard or no state at all.

[Ostrinski]

So what you are saying is that socialist revolution did not work in the Soviet Union because it wasnt a universal revolution.
I don't see how a revolution can happen everywhere at the same time,a country may be at the verge of a revolution but another country might not.It's not a question of simultaneous action but of momentum. We don't think that just because revolution doesn't happen all at once then it fails, that's preposterous and non-materialist, as every region as its own unique set of factors. But it's a question of the movement of revolution into more regions, namely, the industrialized ones. Most of us hold that revolution in the industrialized world is vital for the revolution in the non-industrialized world to be sustainable. This position isn't incompatible with anarchism. If you crush the global market at its root (the developed countries), everything else goes to shit. Since the industrialized world has access to and authority over all resources and so on, revolution there is vital for global revolution to succeed.

Capital is a global phenomenon, there is scarce-a-place that isn't heavily integrated into the world capitalist system.


Also what I have learned that socialism envolves a state and that communism doesn't, how can they be the same?We're marxists, and Marx and Engels used them interchangeably, so we just choose to continue that tradition. Some choose not to, and choose to differentiate. This creates a problem of semantics.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Am genuinely perplexed by the vanguard/no state at all dichotomy. I view the workers' state as one where workers' democratically choose their representatives. Under the Soviet/Chinese model the vanguard assumed dictatorial powers that were then used to deny the working class the right to choose its political representatives as well as the power to formulate social and economic policy.

Let me turn the question around; how is overall political, social or economic policy formulated in the absence of a state? I am concerned that some vanguard party might seize power and impose its power by force even in the formal absence of state institutions.

[Blake's Baby]

@Brospeirre and Blake's baby

So what you are saying is that socialist revolution did not work in the Soviet Union because it wasnt a universal revolution.
I don't see how a revolution can happen everywhere at the same time,a country may be at the verge of a revolution but another country might not...

If one country is 'on the verge of revolution' and another country is not... how much of a revolution is it? Are you sure it's not just a coup? Or just some people in one place pissed of with their government?

The revolution is the act of the international working class. It isn't isolated in one place - in 1916-1927, there were revolutionary upsurges, mass strikes, mutinies and the establishment of soviets among French, Russian, German, Hungarian, Austrian, Italian, American, Canadian, British, Chinese and a load of other different nationalities' workers and soldiers. The Russian Revolution in particular acted as a beacon for a few years to the entire working class throughout the world.

On the other hand, in Argentina in 2000, there was a crisis that led to the fall of a dozen governments, but nothing fundamentally changed. The state remained intact, the world slept easy.

If 'the revolution' happens in one place then that place is fucked. Simple as. Socialism in one country is only possible if you're a Stalinist. There are no islands of socialism. Unless you're an 'anarchist' who supports Cuba, while us Marxists condemn it?

As I explained above, the revolution can't be absolutely simultaneous; but if it's seperated by years in different territories, then I'm afraid thae places that 'went red' first are likely to have degenerated.


Also what I have learned that socialism envolves a state and that communism doesn't, how can they be the same?...

Because what you've learned is wrong. Unless you take a Leninist (Stalinist, Trotskyist) definition. For the rest of us, socialism is another way of saying communism. None of the non-Leninist Marxists support a Party dictatorship over the proletariat.


So how would left communists do things if they don't support this?

Don't support what? A party dictatorship? We'd 'do things' the same way the Anarchists would; in the soviets and factory committees, arguing for the interests of the proletariat.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Gramsci guy

I now see what you mean, but I support that after the revolution everywhere would be divided into communities, these communities make dicisions through direct democracy.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism and socialism are synonymous. I'm not a fan of the term revisionism, but there is really no better word to encapsulate the myth that socialism in some way a transitory stage prior to the advent of communism.

That's like saying that catholicism and christianity are synonyms. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. Just like all catholics are christian, but not all christians are catholic.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@blake's baby

You say revolution cannot happen in just one coutry, but talk of a communist revolution, what would you say would happen to ana anarchist revolution if it was isolated

So you mean that left communism is synonimous to anarcho-syndicalism?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Direct democracy is fine for local decisions, but for decisions that affect larger communities it is just not logistically feasible. Issues like food production have to be decided really on an international basis and I cannot see any feasible way that everyone could directly participate in an international decision-making process. That is why I view it as essential for workers to have broad democratic options lest some dictatorial ruling party seek to usurp the power of the working class.

[Blake's Baby]

Oh, Goti...

Words refer to things. Guess what? People can apply them to different things.

Either: socialism refers to a political philosophy that espouses the overthrow of capitalism and the state; or it refers to anything that one might want it to mean.

So, if you like, you can say that what is preached by the French Socialist Party is 'socialism' (must be because they're called 'Socialist') and therefore whatever happened in the Soviet Union was 'communism' (because the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was in charge) and whatever Barak Obama does is 'democratic' (because he's the president for the Democrat Party); or you can recognise that 'socialism' is not dependant on the political manouevres of those who might call themselves 'socialist'.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@gramsci guy

That's exactly what i meant, anarchist communism works better with smaller communities(rural), for larger communities (urban) anarcho-syndicalism works better.

[Blake's Baby]

@blake's baby

You say revolution cannot happen in just one coutry, but talk of a communist revolution, what would you say would happen to ana anarchist revolution if it was isolated..

I don't believe in 'anarchist revolutions' or 'communist revolutions', I believe in revolutions. Revolutions are not made by anarchists, or marxists, or any other sort of 'ists', revolutions are made by the working class. Most haven't read any political theory.

An isolated revolution, as I've said in two previous posts, is fucked.


...So you mean that left communism is synonimous to anarcho-syndicalism?

No, and I fucking hate it when people say 'so you mean...'. If you mean 'that sounds to me a lot like anarcho-syndicalism, would you agree?' then say that.

I reject anarcho-syndicalism as I don't think it goes to the root of the class relationship.

Left Communism is the name for the political programme of the groups that were expelled from the Communist International in the 1920s (for being too 'left wing'), and their descendants today. It's Marxist; it's just not Leninist (except some of the Italian groups that are 'Bordigist', that claim to be 'more Leninist than Lenin'). In fact it claims to be the direct descendant of the Communist International, having stayed true to its founding principles (the 21 Conditions). Left Communism supports the notion of the proletarian state, seeing it as necessary (if not exactly desirable); the dictatorship of the proletariat will be a class society (as Marxists understand it) even if not a hierarchical state as Anarchists understand it.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

All systems involving state are heirarchical
Revolutions happen when people "wake's up" and realises that the current system is not the best for them, what comes next is entirely the will of the people, if the people want anarchism there will be an anarchist revolution.

So what i understand of your definition of left communism is that it is marxism

[TheRedAnarchist23]

You need to explain left communism better, all you have said about it just sounds like plain old marxism

[Caj]

All systems involving state are heirarchical


You're using the definition of "state" common among anarchists. There are plenty of Marxists that advocate a non-hierarchical DotP. If people could recognize this, I think it would be fruitful for the unity of the left.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I am going to go to bed now, I will check this tommorow

[Blake's Baby]

All systems involving state are heirarchical..

OK. Where is the hierarchy when the majority is participating in the state through direct democracy?


...
Revolutions happen when people "wake's up" and realises that the current system is not the best for them, what comes next is entirely the will of the people, if the people want anarchism there will be an anarchist revolution...

And do they all have to go and read Bakunin, Rocker, Kropotkin, Goldman, Malatesta, Makhno and Durutti first? Can they not have a revolution without coming to terms with the mutualist-collectivist-communist progression, the debates in the Workers' Truth Group about soviets v unions, or the structure of the Nabat Confederation? Will you stop them having a revolution if they haven't finished reading Voline and Abel Paz?




...

So what i understand of your definition of left communism is that it is marxism

Yeah, pretty much. Marxism as developed in the early 20th century by, among others, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Gorter, Pankhurst, Bordiga, Bukharin and others. But yes, Marxism up to and including 1917, and beyond.

In the conception of the Left Communists, it's the Leninists, Stalinists and Trotskyists who've abandoned Marxism.

[Ostrinski]

I would say to the OP that you're putting too much emphasis on the politicization of tendencies, if you read Lenin, Luxemburg, Bordiga, etc. you will gain a better understanding.

[Rooster]

I don't see how a revolution can happen everywhere at the same time,a country may be at the verge of a revolution but another country might not.

Did the bourgeois revolution happen all at the same time everywhere?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Im a marxist and i belive that the transition must be both political and economical. Meaning that the proletariat must take control, both over the the staten and by workers councils taking over the production, and organize theire neighborhoods. Its first then we can provet the rising of a new ruling class of beurocrats, since the state representatives mandates are truly democratic (and now the state and the grassroot organizations can work togheter since they have a common cause) that also can be taken away, imidiatly, if someone dosnt do what they are suposed to.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Blake's baby

Like someone said yesterday direct democracy is not feaseble when applyed to large territories.

"And do they all have to go and read Bakunin, Rocker, Kropotkin, Goldman, Malatesta, Makhno and Durutti first? Can they not have a revolution without coming to terms with the mutualist-collectivist-communist progression, the debates in the Workers' Truth Group about soviets v unions, or the structure of the Nabat Confederation? Will you stop them having a revolution if they haven't finished reading Voline and Abel Paz?"

I never said that (and I don't think Makhno ever wrote any books) one can be an anarchist without reading about it, he can learn about it with others. If revolution happens something must change, for revolution to happen people have to agree on what is to change, and for it to happen sucessfully they most agree on what will come next.

@ caj

Dictatorship means totalitarian state, so if you want a non-hierarchical dictatorship of the proletariat what you want are worker unions, in this case the anarcho-syndicalists agree with you that society can be organized through worker unions, but in rural communities you don't need unions because there are less people.
(anarcho-communism).

@rooster

No, it didn't. Yet it didn't "get fucked", as Blake's baby said.

@brospierre

What is an OP?

[Blake's Baby]

@Blake's baby

Like someone said yesterday direct democracy is not feaseble when applyed to large territories...

Meaning?

You don't think direct democracy works, or large territories should be broken up into smaller ones? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, or what the point it.


...

"And do they all have to go and read Bakunin, Rocker, Kropotkin, Goldman, Malatesta, Makhno and Durutti first? Can they not have a revolution without coming to terms with the mutualist-collectivist-communist progression, the debates in the Workers' Truth Group about soviets v unions, or the structure of the Nabat Confederation? Will you stop them having a revolution if they haven't finished reading Voline and Abel Paz?"

I never said that (and I don't think Makhno ever wrote any books) ...

http://www.ditext.com/makhno/struggle/struggle.html

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/krem/kremind.htm



...
one can be an anarchist without reading about it, he can learn about it with others. If revolution happens something must change, for revolution to happen people have to agree on what is to change, and for it to happen sucessfully they most agree on what will come next...

Are you saying that you think anarchist 'theory' is pointless, because all knowledge of revolution is born from experience?

If anarchism exists with out anarchist theory, what is the point of anarchist theory and indeed organisations?


[email protected] caj

Dictatorship means totalitarian state, so if you want a non-hierarchical dictatorship of the proletariat what you want are worker unions, in this case the anarcho-syndicalists agree with you that society can be organized through worker unions, but in rural communities you don't need unions because there are less people.
(anarcho-communism).

@rooster

No, it didn't. Yet it didn't "get fucked", as Blake's baby said.

@brospierre

What is an OP?

Original Poster. The person who started the thread.

[daft punk]

I have made long studies of the anarchist theory, so I know that there is no problem with communism, but I think that there are many problems with socialism.
Both anarchists and communist are trying to achieve the same society, but communists want a "transition state".
I want to know why communists want such a state, why not do a direct transition form capitalism to communism (anarchy), when I think about it I come to the conclusion that this "direct transition", as I called it before, seems to be the safe way.
This is because i believe that any state will use its power to keep itself in power (as proven by Soviet Union).
I read Alexander Berkman's "The Bolshevik Myth" which tells of the time Berkman was deported to the Soviet Union and what it was like, it describes a totalitarian state that destroys all competition, whether monarchist or anarchist, to stay in power.

So after you reading this thing I wrote I want you to accuratly describe how socialism would work as a transition state, and why it didn't work in the Soviet Union.

This is pretty easy to explain. Marxism predicted that socialism could not exist in one country. Also, Marx and Engels thought, correctly, that socialism would be much harder, impossible really, in a backward country.

In 1906 Trotsky realised that in backward countries, development to advanced capitalist countries, with the industrialisation necessary for a base for socialism, was never gonna happen. He predicted that backward countries could be where revolutions by the workers happened.

So basically Marxism believed in the sequence feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism.

Trotsky said in backward countries feudalism-> socialism, BUT ONLY if the revolution spread to advanced countries, who then helped the initial backward one to achieve socialism.

Now I understand that people reading this will
a. disagree because they dont understand it and/or follow other theories
b. want to nitpick because the above is a gross simplification.

The bottom line is the revolution degenerated because it was isolated in a single backward country.

Once you get your head round the above, never mind if it makes sense or not, just try to understand what I'm trying to get across, you can move on to the details.

For brief historical background, the Bolsheviks swapped from the basic stages theory to the skipping a stage theory in 1917.

Now, I expect an onslaught from Stalinists, left coms / anarchists, and even Trots.

This is a simplification of a theory, ok?

[Blake's Baby]

Do you mean me?

I essence I agree with you (and Trotsky). Can't see why you'd expect an 'onslaught' from Left Communists, pretty much every one of whom would agree that it's the international situation - development of capitalism as a world system, development of the working class internationally, inter-imperialist rivalries - that determines the revolutionary potential or likelihood. If you examine any one country it's never ripe for the revolutionary transformation of society, because 'a country' isn't a viable unit of revolutionary transformation. The revolution is international and therefore development (or lack of it) in one area is secondary to international development.

[Rooster]

@rooster

No, it didn't. Yet it didn't "get fucked", as Blake's baby said.

Ah, so here we go. What does it mean to have a revolution then? The bourgeois revolution didn't "get fucked", obviously, but it didn't wholly succeed everywhere until very recently, you know, the whole concept of modern, liberal, capitalism. But the process of revolution, the bourgeois one, happened within the feudal framework, over a long period of time, over a large geographical area, relating to things such as urbanisation, the industrial revolution, etc. The bourgeois in England didn't completely succeed in their revolution; why else would they still cling onto the monarchy for so long? Nor in Russia in the age of the Tsars. Both again are separated by a large amount of time. So what is a revolution? Maybe it has something to do with the productive forces growing up and the political institutions holding them back meaning that something had to give. It did not happen all at once but through the whole time, through the English Revolution, to the French, to the Russian, the process of revolution was continuous.

[GoddessCleoLover]

In theory Trotsky's concept made sense, but IMO the impetus toward world revolution was stopped cold by the summer of 1920 by three events; the crushing of the German revolution, the failure of the Hungarian soviet republic, and the Red Army's military debacle in Poland. In the wake of the Kronstadt rebellion the following March the Bolsheviks began to consolidate the rule of their party and for some reason Lenin succeeded in convincing the 1921 Party Congress to eliminate internal party democracy. Thus the stage was set for the dictatorship that followed.

[Blake's Baby]

Oooh, rooster, I was totally with you until you said 'Russian' at the end there.

I think it's a very good point that the bourgeois revolutions grew inside feudalism. That's because the bourgeoisie was able to build its economic power by exploiting the newly-born proletariat inside a class society. The proletariat can't do that, we're not exploiting another class and we're not setting up a new class society. We don't have the luxury of getting fat in the cracks between the breaks in capitalism, they way the bourgeoisise was able to exploit the room that the aristocracy allowed it. We need to overthrow capital and the state, not adjust the system of rulership to our increased power. We don't make deals with the bourgoisise to carve up state power, the way the bourgoisie did with the aristocracy.

There's another big difference between bourgeois revolutions and proletarian rerevolutions; because the fuedal system was based on dynasties, the revolutions against it were national revolutions. The nation-state was a revolutionary vehicle for the bourgeoisie. Because the bourgeoisie is based in nation-states, they are now a reactionary force, the proletariat must transcend them, so its revolution must be international.

So; that's why the proletarian revolution isn't like bourgeois revolutions... though in answer to the substantive point that RedAnarchist makes, most revolutionary bourgeois states were invaded by or had to fight wars with other states, both bourgeois and feudal.

[Rooster]

Oooh, rooster, I was totally with you until you said 'Russian' at the end there.

I know, I couldn't really articulate that better. I was meaning the process of capitalisation under the feudal monarchy but the bourgeois were never really able to throw off the Tsar, you know, 'cause the bourgeoisie were no longer able to play a progressive role. They were almost on the same power basis, relatively, as the English bourgeois but weren't as strong as the French.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

blake's baby

How did you manage to misunderstand everything i wrote?

You said there wasn't heirarchy when the torritory is managed trough direct democracy, but you forget that for that to work you either divide the territories or use representative democracy.

"Are you saying that you think anarchist 'theory' is pointless, because all knowledge of revolution is born from experience?

If anarchism exists with out anarchist theory, what is the point of anarchist theory and indeed organisations?"

You were saying that I would force people into reading theory before I would allow them to make a revolution, i answered that that would not be necessary because people can learn about theory without reading books.

@daft Punk


"The bottom line is the revolution degenerated because it was isolated in a single backward country. "

That is what every communist in here has been saying.
I don't understand what isolation has to do with a degenaration of revolution.
In fact i think isolation would make it easier (less enemies).

[Blake's Baby]

blake's baby

How did you manage to misunderstand everything i wrote?...

Because you don't explain yourself very well?



...
You said there wasn't heirarchy when the torritory is managed trough direct democracy, but you forget that for that to work you either divide the territories or use representative democracy...

And your point is...?

If you divide 'the territory', then what des 'the territory' mean? Do you mean the much smaller territories (the communes) or do you mean the former country?

What's the problem with the communes governing themselves, and establishing a delgate committee to oversee things that need to be co-ordinated on a regional scale (like power supply, water-management, transport networks etc)?


...

You were saying that I would force people into reading theory before I would allow them to make a revolution, i answered that that would not be necessary because people can learn about theory without reading books.
...

I'm not sure what you think here. I didn't say you would force people to read anarchist theory, I asked if you would force them to read anarchist theory. I can't see how you expect 'people' (what people? The workers? the peasants? The bourgeoisie?) to make 'an anarchist revolution' without a knowledge of anarchism; it's not like fungus, it doesn't just grow in the night, it's not like rain falling down from the sky. Anarchism is a body of political theory. If it's possible to make 'an anarchist revolution' without 'anarchist theory' then 'anarchist theory' is pointless. In a period without revolution, it's pointless because it doesn't have any application, and in a period of revolution it's pointless, because 'the people' can make their revolution without it.


...
I don't understand what isolation has to do with a degenaration of revolution.
In fact i think isolation would make it easier (less enemies).

What do you think we mean by 'isolation'?

We mean 'isolation from allies ie other revolutionaries'. Not 'isolation from capitalism'. Your revolution is taking place in a country surrounded by powerful capitalist states who can crush your revolution with military power. It has no friends. It's fucked. Our revolution is taking place in a country surrounded by capitalist states in turmoil because their working classes are also in revolt. Their militaries are paralysed or severealy restricted.

That's why an 'isolated revolution' is fucked, it's isolated from friends.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Given its vast land mass and natural resources, I don't completely buy the notion that the Soviet Union was doomed to its destiny by isolation. Back on topic, IMO the transition phase would last as long as capitalism remained a significant factor in the world economy. Although IMO the Union could have been more democratic under then-existing objective material conditions, nonetheless major economic advances would require a world where capital was no longer ascendant Material poverty certainly prevents full socialism let alone communism in isolated countries like Cuba or poor countries like China. Internationalization is a condition-precedent for socialism. This is a clear lesson of 20th century revolutionary history.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Blake's baby

"What's the problem with the communes governing themselves, and establishing a delgate committee to oversee things that need to be co-ordinated on a regional scale (like power supply, water-management, transport networks etc)?"

I never said there was any problem with it.

"I'm not sure what you think here. I didn't say you would force people to read anarchist theory, I asked if you would force them to read anarchist theory. I can't see how you expect 'people' (what people? The workers? the peasants? The bourgeoisie?) to make 'an anarchist revolution' without a knowledge of anarchism; it's not like fungus, it doesn't just grow in the night, it's not like rain falling down from the sky. Anarchism is a body of political theory. If it's possible to make 'an anarchist revolution' without 'anarchist theory' then 'anarchist theory' is pointless. In a period without revolution, it's pointless because it doesn't have any application, and in a period of revolution it's pointless, because 'the people' can make their revolution without it."


What I am saying is people should learn theory(I never said I would force them to do so) so they can have a good idea of what to do after the revolution. If most people agree with anarchist theory they will, after the revolution, try to extablish anarchy. In the same way could the people be divided by theory and in one place there could be anarchy and in another there could be socialism (as proven by Soviet Union).
What doomed the revolution in Russia was the existance of government, without it the people(the proletariat) could have implanted whatever system they wanted and revolution could have lasted much longer without degenarating, the bolsheviks killed all other revolutionaries to stay in power: the moscow commune, the Ukraine...
The goverment took everything from the people to allegedly distribute it to the poorest, instead they kept it for themselves. All the harm that was caused in Russia was ordered by the government, if government had instead been abolished in the revolution all the harm that happened could have been avoided and your international revolution would be one step closer to achieve.
That is why I support anarchism, because I know government only does harm.
And I know that "day one: revolution ; day two: collectivization" is possible as proven by the Spanish revolution, the Ukraine revolution and even the Russian revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

Good luck. I think you're wrong and your experiment is doomed to failure because communism isn't possible by the end of day 2. I also think that a revolution is possible long before enough people have read the necessary theory (I don't believe that the working class can only develop trade-union consciousness without the injection of revolutionary theory from the intelligensia, but it seems you do). I also don't believe in socialism in one country (but it seems you do).

Are you sure you're an anarchist? Those last two look suspiciously like conceptions from 1-Lenin and 2-Stalin to me.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@blake's baby
"I think you're wrong and your experiment is doomed to failure because communism isn't possible by the end of day 2."

AHEM!evidence...:cool: read a book about the spanish revolution and you will see that it IS possible:)

"I also don't believe in socialism in one country"

Niether do I. I beleive in world-wide anarchy.:)

(I started using smillies because i think you understand better this way:laugh:)

"the working class can only develop trade-union consciousness without the injection of revolutionary theory from the intelligensia"

What intelligensia?:confused:
That I know of there is no intelligensia in our current society, how are you going to teach the workers with intelligensia if you don't even have inteligensia.:confused:

"I also think that a revolution is possible long before enough people have read the necessary theory"

Yes it is, but what would happen after it? If the people don't know any alternatives to capitalism how are they to know what to do after the revolution:confused:.

[l'Enfermé]

The bourgeois state is abolished during the course of the revolution, this is agreed upon by all Marxists. What replaces it is a Proletarian state, that eventually "withers away".

The Anarchist argues that the State, in all it's forms, must immediately be abolished. Several issues arise from such idealism. Mainly, you're abolishing the state without abolishing the conditions(to abolish these conditions, the proletariat needs a tool, a mechanism, the Proletarian State) that lead to it's creation, thus the re-creation of the state and capitalism is a certain inevitability. The whole revolution is simply wasted, at great cost to the working people. The Anrachist argument doesn't hold.

[l'Enfermé]

@blake's baby
"I think you're wrong and your experiment is doomed to failure because communism isn't possible by the end of day 2."

AHEM!evidence...:cool: read a book about the spanish revolution and you will see that it IS possible:)

"I also don't believe in socialism in one country"

Niether do I. I beleive in world-wide anarchy.:)

(I started using smillies because i think you understand better this way:laugh:)

"the working class can only develop trade-union consciousness without the injection of revolutionary theory from the intelligensia"

What intelligensia?:confused:
That I know of there is no intelligensia in our current society, how are you going to teach the workers with intelligensia if you don't even have inteligensia.:confused:

"I also think that a revolution is possible long before enough people have read the necessary theory"

Yes it is, but what would happen after it? If the people don't know any alternatives to capitalism how are they to know what to do after the revolution:confused:.
The Spanish revolution was terminated in 1937, due to the mistakes of it's Anarchist and Socialist leadership. If anything, the Spanish Revolution is evidence of failure of Anarchist idealism.

[Night Ripper]

The Anarchist argues that the State, in all it's forms, must immediately be abolished.

Is there some guy running around calling himself "The Anarchist" or are you willfully stereotyping an entire group of political philosophies, each with their own nuances, into some bullshit hamfisted strawman?

[l'Enfermé]

Is there some guy running around calling himself "The Anarchist" or are you willfully stereotyping an entire group of political philosophies, each with their own nuances, into some bullshit hamfisted strawman?
Would I be "willfully" stereotyping an entire group of political philosophies if I said that Socialists advocate Socialism? I'd like to see a genuine Anarchist that doesn't advocate the abolition of the State in all it's forms. Does any Anarchist here oppose my statement, that Anarchists call for the abolition of the State?

[Night Ripper]

Would I be "willfully" stereotyping an entire group of political philosophies if I said that Socialists advocate Socialism? I'd like to see a genuine Anarchist that doesn't advocate the abolition of the State in all it's forms. Does any Anarchist here oppose my statement, that Anarchists call for the abolition of the State?

You said immediate abolition which is the strawman. The state has to return stolen property. We don't just shut down everything and revert to nature. The only idealism being preached is by you.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@borz

You are wrong.
If the will of the people is that capitalism should be ended, then it will be ended, after the revolution the capitalists will run from the country, because if they don't they will have to work like the rest of the people.
Socialism stops the natural progress of revolution by creating a state, the people can do fine without a state, the fact that they were able to make a revolution demonstrates their power, don't you think they could use this to create communism instead of creating a state.
When one sees himself in a position of power he will do anything to remain there, because it will increase his survivabillity. This proves that once a state is established only revolution can stop it, even a socialist state.

#EDIT

And by the way:
what destroyed the spanish revolution was the fascists, what destroyed the ukrainian revolution was the bolsheviks (left-wing fascists)these same people destroyed the russian revolution.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@night ripper

Although I do not support your individualist beliefs I thank you for your help.

[#FF0000]

bolsheviks (left-wing fascists)

No.


these same people destroyed the russian revolution.

that doesn't exactly follow considering, uh, most of the bolsheviks were murdered to make the counter-revolution

[Ostrinski]

@blake's baby
AHEM!evidence...:cool: read a book about the spanish revolution and you will see that it IS possible:)And where are they now? I'll be in Spain in a couple months, will I be joining my comrades in utopian splendor?


What intelligensia?:confused:
That I know of there is no intelligensia in our current society, how are you going to teach the workers with intelligensia if you don't even have inteligensia.:confused:Really? No professors, doctors, lawyers, scientists?


Yes it is, but what would happen after it? If the people don't know any alternatives to capitalism how are they to know what to do after the revolution:confused:.http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-National-Colonial-Question-Joseph/dp/1410205894/ref=wl_it_dp_o_npd?ie=UTF8&coliid=I15MFRTZOI80D7&colid=23KFET23M5JI1
Read this, I think you will find some common ground with this guy.


If the will of the peopleYou sound like Robespierre. Or Hegel, I can't decide. In any event you're taking the liberal line.


And by the way:
what destroyed the spanish revolution was the fascistsSo you agree then, anarchism was not successful in Spain?


what destroyed the ukrainian revolution was the bolsheviks (left-wing fascists)Christ man. Think before you post.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@#FF0000

"no"

yes. They started out as revolutionaries but when the reached power they became fascists.

@Brospeirre

"And where are they now? I'll be in Spain in a couple months, will I be joining my comrades in utopian splendor?"

Like I said destroyed by the fascists who were bigger in number and were supported by more powerfull countries. It was not destroyed by the inside, it was destroyed by the outside.:cool:

"Really? No professors, doctors, lawyers, scientists?"

How many of those are revolutionaries?:p

"Read this, I think you will find some common ground with this guy."

I don't think anarchism and ultra-fascism are compatible:cool:

"In any event you're taking the liberal line."

What is this liberal line which you speak of?:confused:
You seem to believe that after the revolution (if a revolution has happened then most people already have their mind set on revolutionary philosophies) if the workers don't seize the state they will just be sent back to work by the capitalists, if that was the case then it wouldn't be an actual revolution, and even if the capitalists ordered them to go back to work the workers (who have just made a revolution) would just
tell them to fuck off.
You should know that if the people join together they can achieve anything, that is what I meant with "the will of the people".

"So you agree then, anarchism was not successful in Spain?"

It was, but then the fascists "who were bigger in number and were supported by more powerfull countries" destroyed it, but the revolutionaries didn't go down without a fight.

"Christ man. Think before you post. "

Killing people that didn't agree with the regime (even fellow revolutionaries), propaganda in favor of the state, police state, stealing goods from the people (even fellow workers), extreme bureacracy, ect...
Those are the things that went on in Russia, these are also common with fascist states.

[#FF0000]

@#FF0000

"no"

yes. They started out as revolutionaries but when the reached power they became fascists.

No, they were not fascist. I do not like what the Bolsheviks and the Russian Revolution became, but the way you are just using the word 'fascist' in the sense of it being 'something i don't like'.

also, like i said, most of the bolshevik leadership was murdered before Stalin came to power in the first place.

[#FF0000]

The Bullshiviks were doomed to be fascists read Road to Serfdom communism/socialism knows fascism only

Anarchism in spain was a utter failure just go to jim.com and see for yourself

neat assertions.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@#FF0000

They didn't start out as fascist they at first were socailist revolutionaries, but when they came to power they implanted a totalitarian regime (according to my logic totalitarian=fascist)

"most of the bolshevik leadership was murdered before Stalin came to power in the first place. "

That i did not know, but in Lenin's time it was already a totalitarian state.

@socialjusticeactvist

Bullshiviks?:laugh:

"Anarchism in spain was a utter failure just go to jim.com and see for yourself "

I actually went and checked it, and you may be right, anarcho-syndicalism may fail
Now I want an example of anarcho-communism failiure.

[#FF0000]

@#FF0000
[QUOTE]
They didn't start out as fascist they at first were socailist revolutionaries, but when they came to power they implanted a totalitarian regime (according to my logic totalitarian=fascist)

Well I'm sorry but it being your logic doesn't make it so. They were not fascist, that is not what fascist means, and I would even argue that totalitarian is a useless term to use as well (in ANY instance, but especially in the case of the USSR, whose state was a fucking shambles).

"most of the bolshevik leadership was murdered before Stalin came to power in the first place."


That i did not know, but in Lenin's time it was already a totalitarian state.

Again, 'totalitarian' is a meaningless term, not much more than a political epithet. I'm not a fan of a lot of Lenin, but what you're saying is pretty lazy if not outright false.

But still I'm kinda curious.

When was the USSR a totalitarian state under Lenin? After the civil war? After the soviets were absolutely gutted? I get the feeling you don't know a whole lot about the russian revolution and the early history of the USSR. You really should take a closer look of the history. Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution" is a pretty decent source.

[gorillafuck]

And by the way:
what destroyed the spanish revolution was the fascists, what destroyed the ukrainian revolution was the bolsheviks (left-wing fascists)these same people destroyed the russian revolution.bolsheviks are not "left wing fascists", that is so ridiculous.

especially calling Lenin's Russia totalitarian, that is absurd. considering how Lenin's Russia wasn't even at all capable of being totalitarian.