How would anarchists repress the bourgeois during a revolution?

[Comrade Jandar]

If the use of the state is out of the question what would be the alternatives to repressing the bourgeois and reactionary proletarians? Furthermore would anarchists allow the bourgeois and reactionaries to have free speech? I understand one the the pillar of anarchism is a stance against coercion, but does this extend to other classes? I have read quite a bit of anarchist literature and there does not seem to be a definitive answer.

[Revolution starts with U]

Are you asking how anarchists would become masters over the bourgeoisie and express authority?

[daft punk]

Makhno formed an army and had conscription.

[Prinskaj]

If the use of the state is out of the question what would be the alternatives to repressing the bourgeois and reactionary proletarians? Furthermore would anarchists allow the bourgeois and reactionaries to have free speech? I understand one the the pillar of anarchism is a stance against coercion, but does this extend to other classes? I have read quite a bit of anarchist literature and there does not seem to be a definitive answer.
Yes the use of a state is, for anarchist, out of the question. Advanced organization is not however. Organizing militias, local defense and the likes are part of the revolutionary process, but as in any dire situation, as a revolution no doubt will be, nothing can be taken completely off the table.
But the issue of freedom of speech is very disputed issue, some believe that such measures are necessary in stopping a counter-revolution. I prefer a more pragmatic approach, allowing it, since without an already oppressive state, limiting freedom of speech becomes close to impossible, and removing this freedom from the masses, will only give the reactionary more support from the people desiring these liberties.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anarchists would not oppress the bourgeoisie. Such a simplistic sentence implies that anarchists will use their ideology to gain political power on behalf of the working class, at the head of the revolution [the vanguard] and wield power thus.

In all likelihood, anarchist revolution would involve anarchists at certain levels of the revolutionary process, but would not be full of Marxist language and red flags (political education aside). It would be a revolution carried out solely by the working class, for the working class, against the ruling class. Hopefully, such a massive majority of support would be reached that capital would be defeated without resorting to civil war, and without having the strength to sabotage the revolution politically or economically, in any meaningful way.

[Comrade Jandar]

Anarchists would not oppress the bourgeoisie. Such a simplistic sentence implies that anarchists will use their ideology to gain political power on behalf of the working class, at the head of the revolution [the vanguard] and wield power thus.

In all likelihood, anarchist revolution would involve anarchists at certain levels of the revolutionary process, but would not be full of Marxist language and red flags (political education aside). It would be a revolution carried out solely by the working class, for the working class, against the ruling class. Hopefully, such a massive majority of support would be reached that capital would be defeated without resorting to civil war, and without having the strength to sabotage the revolution politically or economically, in any meaningful way.

How does oppressing the bourgeois = vanguard?

[gorillafuck]

historically it has been through secret police forces, extrajudicial executions, and military methods

[Comrade Jandar]

Yes the use of a state is, for anarchist, out of the question. Advanced organization is not however. Organizing militias, local defense and the likes are part of the revolutionary process, but as in any dire situation, as a revolution no doubt will be, nothing can be taken completely off the table.
But the issue of freedom of speech is very disputed issue, some believe that such measures are necessary in stopping a counter-revolution. I prefer a more pragmatic approach, allowing it, since without an already oppressive state, limiting freedom of speech becomes close to impossible, and removing this freedom from the masses, will only give the reactionary more support from the people desiring these liberties.

What I mean by limiting freedom of speech is not allowing the bourgeois mass media to continue to operate. In other words no more New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, etc.

[Hermes]

I'm not sure the revolution would be counted as successful until the bourgeois media/politicians were sufficiently dismantled.

So yes, I guess it would be through military means to achieve that.

[Ostrinski]

They would form a state apparatus and secret police organ just like everyone else.

[Ocean Seal]

They would form a state apparatus and secret police organ just like everyone else.
This. And if you want an example just use any place that anarchism has been moderately successful.

[Prinskaj]

How does oppressing the bourgeois = vanguard?
To some degree, yes. Some form of authoritarian structure is necessary for political oppresion to be that effective.

What I mean by limiting freedom of speech is not allowing the bourgeois mass media to continue to operate. In other words no more New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, etc.
If that's what you mean by "limiting freedom of speech", well you don't have to silents them by force, you could just allocate resources elsewhere. Unless of course, they become too dangerous.

[gorillafuck]

If that's what you mean by "limiting freedom of speech", well you don't have to silents them by force, you could just allocate resources elsewhere.so in other words, do the exact same sort of repression except pretend that it's morally righteous because you're not openly taking away freedom of speech, you just secretly are.

[Tim Cornelis]

There is no anarchist answer to this, rather there are anarchists with diverging answers. Personally, I would say that we should strip the bourgeoisie of their power, but not limit their freedom. After they are neutralised, let them be (i.e. do not imprison or execute them).

We would wield workers' power rather than state power to bring down bourgeois institutions to their knees, that is, by refusing to supply the bourgeoisie with necessary resources for them to conduct their counter-revolution. But never imprison those who oppose us. If right-wing papers continue to spread their propaganda I wouldn't have a problem with it, a socialist revolution requires the participation or sympathy of the majority of the working class. They will not all of a sudden be persuaded during a revolution they started themselves that the revolution was wrong. Suppression of free speech is only necessary in a putsch as it lacks the sympathy and participation of the majority. So on the one hand, let them have their free speech as it is harmless. On the other hand we have no obligation to supply them with anything.

But there is that which I believe, which other anarchists believe, and that which happens in practice.


so in other words, do the exact same sort of repression except pretend that it's morally righteous because you're not openly taking away freedom of speech, you just secretly are.

It wouldn't be a secret at all. There is a difference between using coercive power to imprison dissenting voices as happened under the Bolsheviks or Marxist-Leninists states, or using voluntary disassociation and not supply the bourgeoisie with what they need. Does it infringe upon the rights of the bourgeoisie if the workers refuse to hand them teargas, bullets, and general weaponry? Of course not.


Are you asking how anarchists would become masters over the bourgeoisie and express authority?

No, he is asking how anarchists would stop the bourgeoisie from being the masters over the working class, and how anarchists would prevent them from expressing their authority. Stop twisting it around.

Anarchists want to prevent the capitalist class from asserting their authority over us, not us asserting authority over them.


Makhno formed an army and had conscription.

Right, but no anarchist advocates conscription today, just like no Trotskyist advocates concription of labour today. The question is how anarchists would, not how anarchists historically have.

[Prinskaj]

so in other words, do the exact same sort of repression except pretend that it's morally righteous because you're not openly taking away freedom of speech, you just secretly are.
If not supplying reactionaries with the means to produce a counter-revolution is "repression". Then so is not giving a psychopath a knife or gun.

[gorillafuck]

It wouldn't be a secret at all. There is a difference between using coercive power to imprison dissenting voices as happened under the Bolsheviks or Marxist-Leninists states, or using voluntary disassociation and not supply the bourgeoisie with what they need. Does it infringe upon the rights of the bourgeoisie if the workers refuse to hand them teargas, bullets, and general weaponry? Of course not.and in real life that is the difference between having a government ban Marx or having book publishers all voluntarily decide that they will not distribute anti-capitalist material.


If not supplying reactionaries with the means to produce a counter-revolution is "repression". Then so is not allowing a psychopath to obtain a knife or gun.yes, restricting psychopaths from obtaining guns is an infringement on the rights of psychopaths. just as not allowing the bourgeois to have guns is an infringement on the rights of the bourgeois.

[bcbm]

surrealist prisons

[arilando]

Yes everyone would have unrestricted free speech, even during a revolution. And private property would be repressed by anarchist/working class militias.

[arilando]

What I mean by limiting freedom of speech is not allowing the bourgeois mass media to continue to operate. In other words no more New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, etc.
Why would the workers continue to work for them?

[Franz Fanonipants]

anarchists are pretty good at taking over the violence of the state so welp i imagine it will be mass graves for everyone

[Искра]

There will be no anarchist revolution, so why are these questions important?

[Tim Cornelis]

and in real life that is the difference between having a government ban Marx or having book publishers all voluntarily decide that they will not distribute anti-capitalist material.

Your point being? That some political entity has the right to force book publishers to publish anti-capitalist material if they do not so voluntarily?

I have no problem with right-wingers having free speech.


There will be no anarchist revolution, so why are these questions important?


sec·tar·i·an·ism   [sek-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
a. sectarian spirit or tendencies; excessive devotion to a particular sect, especially in religion.
b. Kontrrazvedka

The question was during a revolution. Are you saying there will be no anarchists participating in any revolution at any time in any place?

[Искра]

I doubt that I'm sectarian, but whatever...

I'm saying that anarchists will never be in position of deciding who is going to be repressed and who is not. Revolutions are not made by small groups by but class and in order to start a revolution working class needs to seize the power. When they do that they'll decide about repression, creating Cheka etc. So, anarchists can only put their propaganda for "peace and love", but sill I think that working class will eliminate capitalists... you know... like killing them. There's nothing romantic or moral about revolutions or working class.

[Ostrinski]

Every revolution goes through a period of Jacobian authoritarianism, I see no reason to think that a proletarian revolution would be any different. The question of the OP implies that anarchists would have some kind of control over the revolution, which they wouldn't. None of these tendencies would. I think it's important to remember that anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, etc. will all become irrelevant when the day of proletarian revolution actually dawns.

The proletarian revolution is made by, of, and for the proletariat.

[Искра]

Every revolution goes through a period of Jacobian authoritarianism, I see no reason to think that a proletarian revolution would be any different.
What do you meen by this?

[Ostrinski]

What do you meen by this?I mean the proletarian class would exert its class authority over the bourgeoisie, I wasn't using the Leninist line.

[Comrade Jandar]

Yes everyone would have unrestricted free speech, even during a revolution. And private property would be repressed by anarchist/working class militias.

I'm going to have disagree with you. In fact I would consider such a thing counter-revolutionary. I generally believe the anarchist principle against authority or coercion only applies to the proletariat. When it comes to the bourgeois or reactionaries, I could care less of their rights were curtailed. Maybe some would call me an authoritarian, but this is one aspect of anarchism that needs to be seriously discussed.

[Искра]

I'm going to have disagree with you. In fact I would consider such a thing counter-revolutionary. I generally believe the anarchist principle against authority or coercion only applies to the proletariat. When it comes to the bourgeois or reactionaries, I could care less of their rights were curtailed. Maybe some would call me an authoritarian, but this is one aspect of anarchism that needs to be seriously discussed.
As Engels puts it, revolution is authoritarian itself, because point of revolution is that one class takes power from another one. Will bourgeuis defend their power and property? Yes, they will and they'll be eliminated.

Concept of authoritarianism and libertarianism is moralist concept. We Marxists do not care about it. Of course, only serioulsy troubled people wank on violence and executions... or "Red Terror". "Red Terror" is something which is necessary but which must be controled. I'm not for elimination of working class forces but for defeting anarchist-utopianism trough discussions and program of Party.

[l'Enfermé]

They will abandon all their beliefs and principles, like they have always done in the past, and do worse than what they accuse us "authoritarian Marxists" of doing.

[l'Enfermé]

How can you accuse anti-Anarchists around here of "sectarianism" when they abuse Anarchism? Marxists aren't a sect of the same group as Anarchists, Anarchism and Marxism/Socialism are two different movements. Sectarianism would be attacks by Trotskyists that think the USSR was a "degenerated worker's state" on Trotskyists that think the USSR was "state capitalist"...even attacks by Trots on M-L's is not sectarianism, why do people keep on abusing this word without knowing it's meaning?

[Искра]

Sorry to spam, but what is with this Felix fetish? First it was Rafiq, then Brospierre and then Borz...

[Ostrinski]

Idk I like Robespierre too. I'm fucked up in the head

[Prinskaj]

I doubt that I'm sectarian, but whatever...

I'm saying that anarchists will never be in position of deciding who is going to be repressed and who is not. Revolutions are not made by small groups by but class and in order to start a revolution working class needs to seize the power. When they do that they'll decide about repression, creating Cheka etc. So, anarchists can only put their propaganda for "peace and love", but sill I think that working class will eliminate capitalists... you know... like killing them. There's nothing romantic or moral about revolutions or working class.
It's a good thing to actually explain what you mean, when you use a vague wording, it can easily be misinterpreted. Since we all, pretty much, agree that it will be a working class revolution, and not a "insert-tendency-here"-revolution, that will destroy capitalism. Whether it be anarchist, marxist-leninst or left-communist.

[arilando]

I'm going to have disagree with you. In fact I would consider such a thing counter-revolutionary. I generally believe the anarchist principle against authority or coercion only applies to the proletariat. When it comes to the bourgeois or reactionaries, I could care less of their rights were curtailed. Maybe some would call me an authoritarian, but this is one aspect of anarchism that needs to be seriously discussed.
But the question is, who decides who is bourgeois or reactionary? Besides, what harm could there possible come from the bourgeois having freedom of speech? That they will convince people to return to give up socialism in favor of capitalism? I find that extremely unlikely.

[Lolumad273]

I don't understand this at all.... the bourgeoisie let us have our freedom of speech right now, I guess I just imagined we'd do the same for them. I don't like the way any of this sounds.

The rich elite are very few in number, how could they possible assert their dominance? I imagine through military... a military made up of proletariat. Our goal should be to get the military on our side, to strip the bourgeoisie of the ability to assert dominance. Then they have no choice but to step down among us. Very little violence.

Why do we argue so much over anarchism vs no anarchism? It is my understanding that the final stage in Communism would be anarchist in nature, without a state. So why all the bickering? How can we possibly have a revolution when we can't even agree on basic things... like human rights! Freedom of speech, is it really a question? How can you possibly sell people on the idea of taking away others' rights? How does that make us any better than the bourgeoisie?

[l'Enfermé]

Sorry to spam, but what is with this Felix fetish? First it was Rafiq, then Brospierre and then Borz...
He is one of the most admirable figures in the whole of human history. The great, incorruptible Proletarian Hero is a role model for us all.

Also because I like Poles and Poland.

[Comrade Jandar]

I don't understand this at all.... the bourgeoisie let us have our freedom of speech right now, I guess I just imagined we'd do the same for them. I don't like the way any of this sounds.

The rich elite are very few in number, how could they possible assert their dominance? I imagine through military... a military made up of proletariat. Our goal should be to get the military on our side, to strip the bourgeoisie of the ability to assert dominance. Then they have no choice but to step down among us. Very little violence.

Why do we argue so much over anarchism vs no anarchism? It is my understanding that the final stage in Communism would be anarchist in nature, without a state. So why all the bickering? How can we possibly have a revolution when we can't even agree on basic things... like human rights! Freedom of speech, is it really a question? How can you possibly sell people on the idea of taking away others' rights? How does that make us any better than the bourgeoisie?

Human rights? What is that shit? I could care less whether or not we have the moral high ground in relation to the bourgeoisie. The morality of a given era is whatever is favorable to the ruling class at the time.

[Comrade Jandar]

But the question is, who decides who is bourgeois or reactionary? Besides, what harm could there possible come from the bourgeois having freedom of speech? That they will convince people to return to give up socialism in favor of capitalism? I find that extremely unlikely.

Whether or not someone is bourgeois is very objective. You either own the means or production or you don't. Reactionaries would be proletarians suffering from false consciousness who actively attempt to sabotage the revolution.

[Revolution starts with U]

@Goti.
My point was to make it obvious that the question, as it was formulated, was nonsense.

I don't get this whole "anarchist peace and love" comment either, as anarchists have often been at the forefront of revolutionary violence. We just dont trust a state to do that in the interests of proletariat, or not for long.

[Lobotomy]

I don't understand this at all.... the bourgeoisie let us have our freedom of speech right now, I guess I just imagined we'd do the same for them. I don't like the way any of this sounds.

I disagree with this. "free speech" is not all about being able to go out on a street corner and say whatever comes to mind. the bourgeoisie effectively restricts our free speech by holding a monopoly on most forms of mass media.

[Lolumad273]

Lobotomy, you are correct, they do hold a monopoly on the media, and that does restrict our freedom of speech. We resent that, and we see the wrong that it is. So why on Earth would we continue with this wrong, just because it would benefit us during and after the revolution? Once again, that wouldn't be an improvement, it would be dethroning the bourgeois, and becoming kings ourselves. There's no equality in that.

Comrade Jandar, I believe we, as leftists, value freedom. I believe that freedom of speech is quite important. I do recognize that rights come and go with the time period, and set of values the ruling class hold. We see restriction of rights as evil, I do anyway, I don't want any law abiding person to have fewer rights than myself. Certainly not based on whether or not they agree with the majority view on politics.

[Lolumad273]

We seem to understand that the first simple idea that pops into our heads as a solution to problems, is generally too simplistic. There is little more simplistic than "KILL THE BOURGEOIS!".

If you don't care whether or not we're on equal "moral ground" with the bourgeois, then how do you plan to create a better society? I understand the view on morality as being the ruling class' view pushed onto everyone else... But I'm sure any sane man can come to the conclusion all on his own that murder is wrong. To kill another serves no one's interest. If you don't want to do better than the bourgeois, then you're saying that the evils they have committed, you have too have license to commit. That means there is no forward motion.

[Ostrinski]

I don't understand this at all.... the bourgeoisie let us have our freedom of speech right now, I guess I just imagined we'd do the same for them. I don't like the way any of this sounds.You have a pretty wild imagination.


Lobotomy, you are correct, they do hold a monopoly on the media, and that does restrict our freedom of speech. We resent that, and we see the wrong that it is. So why on Earth would we continue with this wrong, just because it would benefit us during and after the revolution? Once again, that wouldn't be an improvement, it would be dethroning the bourgeois, and becoming kings ourselves. There's no equality in that.Indeed, proletarian class rule, this is what we seek. We don't seek equality with the bourgeoisie or hypothetically former bourgeoisie.


We seem to understand that the first simple idea that pops into our heads as a solution to problems, is generally too simplistic. There is little more simplistic than "KILL THE BOURGEOIS!".Well I mean if there are no bourgeois left this ceases to be a problem


If you don't care whether or not we're on equal "moral ground" with the bourgeois, then how do you plan to create a better society?Who says that we're planning on creating a better society, solely on the basis that it is better than capitalist society? Whatever social outgrowth develops after proletarian class rule is just fallout.

[Lolumad273]

I'm actually appalled with this.

I'm a Communist because I thought Communism was equality. I don't want to be a ruler over anyone. How would that make us any better than the current bourgeois?

Why does it have to be murder the bourgeois? You can remove them from power, then they're not bourgeois anymore.

Too much violence, too much discrimination. If we're not proposing a better society, then why bother?

[Ostrinski]

I'm a Communist because I thought Communism was equality. I don't want to be a ruler over anyone. How would that make us any better than the current bourgeois?Common ownership over the means of production. You are right in the abstract.

We're not communists because we're better people than the bourgeoisie, nor is capitalist society shitty because the bourgeoisie are bad people.

[arilando]

Whether or not someone is bourgeois is very objective. You either own the means or production or you don't. Reactionaries would be proletarians suffering from false consciousness who actively attempt to sabotage the revolution. See defining reactionaries is far too subjective to allow me to be comfortable with the idea of censorship. Besides freedom is the most important thing in the world for, yes even more important than achieving socialism, and restricting speech would just be a fundamental breach of my principles that i could never agree to. Off course i am in no position to direct a revolution and say what methods can and cannot be used, but it is just my opinion that we should not restrict freedom of speech.

[KlassWar]

Through liberal application of overwhelming force: There's no way around that.

If the victorious anarchists want to keep their newly conquered rights and freedoms safe from reaction, they'll have to organize into revolutionary people's militias and wage a no-quarter class war against the bourgeoisie and the reactionaries.

[Lolumad273]

I wouldn't say we're better people, but then again I'm not the one proposing we fucking execute all of them...

Is that really how a revolution would go down? Just executing rich people? I kinda figured since they're so few in number... why would we kill them?

[KlassWar]

Honestly?

Once the bourgeoisie are completely expropriated and deprived of status and influence I don't much care whether they get away, get killed or get spared.

The bourgeoisie must be completely destroyed as a class. Whether they live or die makes no difference: The key is that they must lose all wealth, all power and all status.

[Lolumad273]

It's easy turning people into a statistic... But killing bourgeoisie even after their power has evaporated... that's probably the worst thing I've heard in a long time.

They're people.

[Comrade Jandar]

After further thought, considering the history of insurrectionism and propaganda of the deed, I don't think we have to worry about anarchists "holding back" or making sure the bourgeois have their precious human rights. I can sleep now. Thank you all. By the way, this moralist streak in anarchism really has to be done away with. Any of the anarchists here ever heard of Max Stirner?

[Lolumad273]

Someone care to explain how to justify murder? I'm having a much harder time aligning myself with the left.

[Revolution starts with U]

Most of us aren't sociopaths like this bro. Don't worry about it.

[Ostrinski]

I wouldn't say we're better people, but then again I'm not the one proposing we fucking execute all of them...

Is that really how a revolution would go down? Just executing rich people? I kinda figured since they're so few in number... why would we kill them?We're probably not going to fucking execute them all. The point was that it doesn't matter if we do or not.

[Ostrinski]

Someone care to explain how to justify murder? I'm having a much harder time aligning myself with the left.There is no all-bearing moral justification.

[KlassWar]

It's easy turning people into a statistic... But killing bourgeoisie even after their power has evaporated... that's probably the worst thing I've heard in a long time.

They're people.

For the bourgeoisie's power to evaporate, they've gotta lose their wealth, their influence and their grasp over the means of production.

Bourgeois power can only evaporate after the bourgeoisie is fully overthrown and expropriated.

I'm not proposing wholesale slaughter of all bourgeois folks everywhere. I'm saying that their individual fates make no difference from a historic perspective: What matters from a historic perspective is the dismantling of the bourgeoisie as a class.

As for those individual fates? To a great extent, it depends on their own actions.


Some bourgeois will be part of the overthrown authorities. In the process of smashing the bourgeois State, they'll have to get smashed as well.

Many bourgeois (perhaps most) will put up physical resistence against expropriation. Revolutionaries will have little choice but to crush and destroy them.

Some bourgeois will have been especially oppressive and exploitative: Their workers might have both an axe to grind and the will to actually grind it. I wouldn't predict a long post-revolution lifespan for those.

Some will flee in fear of the revolution. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. They'll lose everything they can't carry, but they'll probably make it out alive.

Some bourgeois won't dare to resist. It's quite likely that those will make it out alive and unharmed, too. These will get expropriated and thus declassed. Some won't be able to bear it and will join the ranks of the counterrevolution. Then they'll get smashed. Others will be resentful but remain passive. A fraction will successfully adapt to their new working class condition and will be able to lead productive lives under socialism/anarchy.

The number of the apathetic or contented ex-bourgeois is expected to increase as the material condition of the post-Revolution working class improve.

A few progressive bourgeois elements (mostly professionals and toiling masses petty bourgeoisie) will be on the Revolution's side to begin with for ideological reasons. Aside from not being able to exploit other people's labor, their personal situation is likely to change little. :tt2:

Quite a few of the petty-bourgeois (those that don't exploit the labor of others) actually have class interests that closely align with those of the proletariat: Professionals like doctors, architects and engineers, freelancers and independent contractors, family farms, small bar or store owners... These "working bourgeois" can often be described as semi-proletarian elements. Successful agit-prop should be able to bring quite a few of these to the ranks of the revolution, considering that their objective interests lie with it.