Why does this allways happen?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Why is it that when one makes a thread to ask "what do anarchists think of this" or "do anarchists agree with..." there isn´t any time for an anarchist to answer because it has already been flooded with responses from communists.
I saw this happen twice today!
If the thread asks "what anarchists think of ..." or "what are the views of anarchists" you should wait for an anarchist to show up and not answer for him, after all your views (as a communist) are different from those of us anarchists.

[Prometeo liberado]

Maybe your qustion is the answer.

[lombas]

you should wait for an anarchist to show up

Maybe you should just show up earlier.

On "allways": have a happy period!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@jbeard
"Maybe your qustion is the answer."

So what you mean is communists answer questions about anarchism because people asked for anarchists to answer?

@lombas

"On "allways": have a happy period! "

Espero que saibas que eu sei realmente escrever "always" mas como no dia em que escrevi estava frio as minhas maos estavam tremer.

Got that?

[lombas]

@lombas

"On "allways": have a happy period! "

Espero que saibas que eu sei realmente escrever "always" mas como no dia em que escrevi estava frio as minhas maos estavam tremer.

Got that?

I have to figure out your Portuguese with my Spanish, but yes, I got that - and your hopes are correct: I did presume you could write it.

:D

[Искра]

Because we are fucking cool and you are not.

[Ostrinski]

Anarchists are communists, brethren.

[lombas]

Anarchists are communists, brethren.

You just couldn't leave out the dash of Christian compassion there, now could you?

[Ostrinski]

You just couldn't leave out the dash of Christian compassion there, now could you?Just doing my bit to make the world a better place

[Omsk]

Is it just me,or are there just a few anarchists on this forum,currently? And the ones that are online,are either weak in debate,or they don't talk about politics that much.

[Искра]

It's just you. Anarchist group is the biggest group here, fyi. Thing is that some older anarchist users got sick of this forum...

[Bronco]

Is it just me,or are there just a few anarchists on this forum,currently? And the ones that are online,are either weak in debate,or they don't talk about politics that much.

I dunno, Anarchist is still by far the biggest usergroup on here, maybe there are some who are less active now though, left Com seems to be the dominant tendency right now

[Omsk]

But that's just what i wanted to say,although the anarchist group is quite huge,most of the members are not active,and don't post.It's the same with a number of other tendencies,although the thing is,the 'old members' of those tendencies are here,the 'older anarchists' are not.

[Искра]

I think that there are only few "old members"... you can see from the number of their posts and years when they've joined in. There is a lot of "old" Marxist-Leninists missing, especially Maoists... Also, few "ultra-left" users got banned recently... People change here all the time.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brospierre
"Anarchists are communists, brethren."

Anarchist are LIBERTARIAN communists, brethren.

By the way, I think Kontrazvedka and Rafiq have formed an epic alliance bent on denying everything I write

[Искра]

@Brospierre
"Anarchists are communists, brethren."

Anarchist are LIBERTARIAN communists, brethren.
I'm materialist so I don't care for "libertarian" and "authoritarian" moralist claims. Can I call you a liberals?

[Susurrus]

I'm materialist so I don't care for "libertarian" and "authoritarian" moralist claims. Can I call you a liberals?

So you see no materialistic difference between the governments of, say, the Paris Commune, and the USSR?

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm materialist so I don't care for "libertarian" and "authoritarian" moralist claims. Can I call you a liberals?

You are presuming that libertarianism and authoritarianism are necessarily normative ethics and not descriptive. Moreover, you could be a libertarian for reasons other than ethics.

Some see freedom as the aim, and socialism as the means (most anarchists), some see socialism as the aim and libertarianism as the means--you cannot achieve genuine socialism without libertarianism as otherwise a revolution will degenerate into state-capitalism. The latter is certainly compatible with materialism.

[Ostrinski]

But you cannot have a revolution without some form of authoritarianism.

[l'Enfermé]

Historical materialism is a method of studying history, it doesn't have anything to do with morals...

[Rafiq]

So you see no materialistic difference between the governments of, say, the Paris Commune, and the USSR?

Yes, though both were capitalist in nature.

[l'Enfermé]

Is it just me,or are there just a few anarchists on this forum,currently? And the ones that are online,are either weak in debate,or they don't talk about politics that much.
Marxist-Leninists are "weak in debate" also. Did I say also? Anarchists are pretty decent around here actually, the ones I've seen. Better 1,000 Anarchists than 1 reactionary Stalinist, I say.

[Ostrinski]

I dunno, Anarchist is still by far the biggest usergroup on here, maybe there are some who are less active now though, left Com seems to be the dominant tendency right nowhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSh7CzOP-KE5Mdpqo6C845I-xLWMHzZPPmkE5ntb2rmYzoMzqOm
But seriously though weren't most of the members that got banned recently leftcoms?

[Omsk]

Marxist-Leninists are "weak in debate" also. Did I say also? Anarchists are pretty decent around here actually, the ones I've seen. Better 1,000 Anarchists than 1 reactionary Stalinist, I say.


I am not sure if you are being objective in this.

[Rafiq]

You are presuming that libertarianism and authoritarianism are necessarily normative ethics and not descriptive. Moreover, you could be a libertarian for reasons other than ethics.

Some see freedom as the aim, and socialism as the means (most anarchists), some see socialism as the aim and libertarianism as the means--you cannot achieve genuine socialism without libertarianism as otherwise a revolution will degenerate into state-capitalism. The latter is certainly compatible with materialism.

here we go again. Why? Because "Power corrupts"? Such is inherently a bourgeois concept. Because the state carries institutions within itself bent on keeping it in tact, thus making it "whithering away" impossible? 1. Though this is false, there is no evidence to suggest a state and proletarian dictatorship are antithetical, or a state is antithetical to the rule of the proletariat (Yes, it's a step away from Lenin).

2. I see no reason such structure would be necessary after counter revolution is no longer a threat.

Bolshevik Russia never "acheived socialism" and "went back to capitalism". It never SURPASSED the capitalist mode of production. With this in mind, we see the only reason the revolution degenerated was solely due to it's isolation.

[Bronco]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSh7CzOP-KE5Mdpqo6C845I-xLWMHzZPPmkE5ntb2rmYzoMzqOm
But seriously though weren't most of the members that got banned recently leftcoms?

Haha I guess that's true, just seems a lot of the most active and prominent posters around here are left coms, I don't think that's a bad thing though, that's just how it seems to me, might just be my perception of it

[Tim Cornelis]

But you cannot have a revolution without some form of authoritarianism.

Not this bullshit again...

"Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority."

A revolution, firstly, is not a social organisation. It is not a social institution. But even if we ignore this. A libertarian revolution would strip the bourgeoisie of their power (i.e. end their authoritarianism). How is ending authoritarianism authoritarian?

Was the abolition of slavery authoritarian? No, because the slave owners were not forced to give up their personal autonomy, they were forced to give up their "property" but not their personal autonomy. Hence it could not possibly be authoritarian.


here we go again. Why? Because "Power corrupts"?

No.


Such is inherently a bourgeois concept.


This shit is so tiresome. Your definition of "bourgeois" = everything I disagree with.

It is a fallacy to argue in such a manner. Rather than arguing why it's wrong, you merely use the guilty by association fallacy.

But fallacies are bourgeois inventions I'm sure.


Because the state carries institutions within itself bent on keeping it in tact, thus making it "whithering away" impossible?

Not what I meant. But yes, a state in the Marxist-Leninist sense, a top-down centralised regime is a class society where class antagonisms exist between the state and the working class, thereby recreating class antagonisms and thus the need for a state. Withering away of such a state, therefore, is logically impossible from a materialist point of view.


Bolshevik Russia never "acheived socialism" and "went back to capitalism". It never SURPASSED the capitalist mode of production. With this in mind, we see the only reason the revolution degenerated was solely due to it's isolation.

Yet the revolution degenerated prior to its isolation.

Here's why libertarianism is an imperative in the success of socialism. Not because power corrupts, not because the state is a self-perpetual social institution, but because socialism requires the active and direct participation of the workers in the construction and maintenance of a socialist system. This, on its turn, requires a decentralisation of decision-making power as to 'concentrate' power into the hands of the workers and their respective social institutions. Decentralisation is libertarian, centralisation is authoritarian. No morality, no ethics, no "power corrupts". Any to construct socialism without decentralisation of power will lead to a concentration of power, thereby causing the degeneration of the revolution into state-capitalism.

[Ostrinski]

A libertarian revolution would strip the bourgeoisie of their power (i.e. end their authoritarianism). How is ending authoritarianism authoritarian?There is no libertarian revolution, just as there is no authoritarian revolution. It's not like it's something we just decide to do a certain way or other. Revolution has needs, and its agents respond to them through a variety of means. The revolution strips the bourgeoisie of their power and ends their specific form of authoritarianism through authoritarian means, i.e. forcing the bourgeoisie to capitulate and submit to the proletariat's demands.


Was the abolition of slavery authoritarian? No, because the slave owners were not forced to give up their personal autonomy, they were forced to give up their "property" but not their personal autonomy.The abolition of slavery was authoritarian in that it was carried out through authoritarian means. The owners of slaves didn't get together and democratically decide to abandon ownership over the slaves, they had to have them pried out from the grasp of their grimy fingers, i.e. the state had to exert its authority upon them and they were forced to capitulate and submit. In the case of America this led to war. You don't think the slave owners viewed this act as authoritarian? You don't think the bourgeoisie will view the communist revolution as authoritarian?

[Tim Cornelis]

There is no libertarian revolution, just as there is no authoritarian revolution. It's not like it's something we just decide to do a certain way or other. Revolution has needs, and its agents respond to them through a variety of means. The revolution strips the bourgeoisie of their power and ends their specific form of authoritarianism through authoritarian means, i.e. forcing the bourgeoisie to capitulate and submit to the proletariat's demands.

You act as if a revolution is something alien to those who create it while it's not. "The revolution has needs and it is supplied in those needs by agents", this clearly implies the revolution exists outside the agents and the agents merely supplement it, as if "the revolution" has its own will--you act as if it has his own consciousness separate from the agents. Rather than recognising that the revolution is the agents and their wishes of social transformation transformed into action.

Forcing someone to end authoritarianism =/= authoritarianism. How hard is this?


The abolition of slavery was authoritarian in that it was carried out through authoritarian means. The owners of slaves didn't get together and democratically decide to abandon ownership over the slaves, they had to have them pried out from the grasp of their grimy fingers, i.e. the state had to exert its authority upon them and they were forced to capitulate and submit. In the case of America this led to war.

Authoritarianism is characterised by a loss of personal autonomy. If you strip the bourgeoisie or slave owners of their property, there is no loss of personal autonomy and therefore no authoritarianism.


the state had to exert its authority upon them

the state forced them to give up their property, but did the former slave-owners lose their personal autonomy?

(I purposely say "personal autonomy" instead of "freedom" or else I will get this bullshit about how "the freedom to own property").


You don't think the slave owners viewed this act as authoritarian? You don't think the bourgeoisie will view the communist revolution as authoritarian?

And they are wrong.

Your whole perception, idea, and definition of authoritarianism is wrong. I suggest you pick up a dictionary.

[Ostrinski]

You act as if a revolution is something alien to those who create it while it's not. "The revolution has needs and it is supplied in those needs by agents", this clearly implies the revolution exists outside the agents and the agents merely supplement it, as if "the revolution" has its own will--you act as if it has his own consciousness separate from the agents. Rather than recognising that the revolution is the agents and their wishes of social transformation transformed into action.But nonetheless the revolution as a process has needs in order to be sustained.


Forcing someone to end authoritarianism =/= authoritarianism. How hard is this?
Authoritarianism is characterised by a loss of personal autonomy.
If you strip the bourgeoisie or slave owners of their property, there is no loss of personal autonomy and therefore no authoritarianism.That is only half of it, it is also characterized by strict obedience and capitulation to authority.


Your whole perception, idea, and definition of authoritarianism is wrong. I suggest you pick up a dictionary.I seem to have misplaced mine. Perhaps you could help.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brospeirre

"But you cannot have a revolution without some form of authoritarianism. "

Yes you can.

I have already said why in another post.

[Rafiq]

sorry for the delay, my post will come after school. I've been busy all last night, only able to post a couple sentances via tapatalk.

[roy]

Even if authoritarianism is characterised by a loss of personal autonomy, forcing the bourgeoisie out of hegemony would still require massive dominance, whatever term you wish to give it.

[MotherCossack]

errr.... at first i thought this was cute???????
dont ask me why ... i am an ignoramous where the nitty gritty of political dogma is concerned... well partially anyhow....
i know the basics though and i know who i hate.... them what rule... them what subjugate, them what carve up the world in exact accordance with their every whim and desire. them what peddle bullshit, great big planet sized shit-loads of the stuff, serving it up for the betterment of the ignorant, little people . who are specially cultivated to swallow great chunks of nonsense and then smile and cheer. i hate them ...every single, awful one of them.... with a passion that gets uglier by the day.

and , you know what they say...
the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
in this case .... it applies...
if you hate those fuckers anything like me..... we can do business together.
names and labels are only that...
dont dismiss those with no 'hello i'm a/n ------ist. pleased to meet you'
they might have the same beliefs arranged differently.

so for the purposes of defeating our common foe..... we should try to all focus on the task and move in the same direction..

anyhow no-one has ever explained a possible working model of anarchism that is realistic and into which i can have any faith....
if you would like to oblige.... i would be glad to attend...

[Susurrus]

Yes, though both were capitalist in nature.

True. Those were bad examples, I suppose.

Well then, to pick different ones,

Kontrrazvedka, So there isn't any materialistic difference in the governance of a system of workers' councils, and a single party state?

[Tim Cornelis]

But nonetheless the revolution as a process has needs in order to be sustained.

Right. But you assume that therefore it cannot be either libertarian or authoritarian. But what if the "needs" of the revolution are libertarian? As I said before, decentralisation of decision-making power is an imperative for a successful social revolution. Concentration of decision-making power could lead, as it has done in Marxist-Leninist regimes, to renewal of class dynamics, and thus class antagonisms, and thus the need for a state. Decentralisation, and thus libertarianism, are perfectly reconcilable with a materialist analysis.


That is only half of it, it is also characterized by strict obedience and capitulation to authority.

Authoritarianism is a social arrangement or social institution characterised by strict obedience to authority. Thus, if anarchists were to go around to villages, towns, and cities telling people they are going to liberate them and that the people have to listen to the anarchists or else face punishment, the anarchists are acting authoritarian and expecting strict obedience to their will, the power-structure (and thus the social institutions) are authoritarian. Because their will is imposed on the people, and the people are expected to obey with harsh consequences if they don't.

Libertarianism is a social arrangement or social institution characterised by decentralisation of decision-making power, or a social arrangements with limited or no social hierarchy. Even if anarchists use authoritarian means, but the social institutions and arrangements they erect are libertarian it could arguably still be described as libertarian.

Forcing someone to end oppression is not oppressive as long as you do not erect a system of oppression in its place.

[lombas]

Isn't this the non-political part of the forum?

[Rafiq]

"Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority."

Which no society could exist without.


A revolution, firstly, is not a social organisation. It is not a social institution. But even if we ignore this. A libertarian revolution would strip the bourgeoisie of their power (i.e. end their authoritarianism). How is ending authoritarianism authoritarian?


This is an argument of ethics. We are not here to argue what is right or wrong. We are here to argue what is most efficient. A "Libertarian Revolution" lacks the potential capabilities to destroy the remnants of Bourgeois society and would, indeed, be just a social system living off of the fruits (Buildings, etc.) produced under the capitalist system rotting away. A totalitarian revolution is needed, a revolution that stretches in all corners of all society, liquidating the vestiges of the old society.


Was the abolition of slavery authoritarian? No, because the slave owners were not forced to give up their personal autonomy, they were forced to give up their "property" but not their personal autonomy. Hence it could not possibly be authoritarian.


What is "Personal Autonomy"? Such is an absolutist concept. Moralist none the less. Slave owners were required to give up what they believed to be their personal autonomy, and who are you to say that they were wrong? Indeed, as revolutionaries, we care not for these moralist semantically drenched games, we must be straight forward, total and forceful.





This shit is so tiresome. Your definition of "bourgeois" = everything I disagree with.


I call the concept of "Power corrupting" bourgeois because it is inherent to Bourgeois rationalism, which was the scientific structural mode of thought that arose, coincidentally, right after the bourgeois revolutions. This mode of thought could not account for the dynamics of human history, of class, etc. So, such concepts like "giving too much power corrupts" arose. But in truth, power itself belongs to a certain class. No individual or institution representing the individual (Like the bourgeois state) could "corrupt", it merely shifts in class relation, and it shifts in class relations based solely and as a direct result of changes in the mode of production. They say that after the Bolshevik revolution, power corrupted. But they never surpassed the capitalist mode of production to begin with. The Soviets proved useless in mobilizing mass regions against the class enemy, and administrating whole economies, which is why they were abandoned. After the revolution isolated, it was deemed necessary to retain the capitalist mode of production to integrate with the world economy, and trade with other countries. Foreign business developement was essential to the industrialization of Russia, as such was the fastest industrializing nation by 1914 (On an unrelated note, this is proof that Stalin could not be credited for the industrialization of Russia). This was the cause of it's slow degeneration.


It is a fallacy to argue in such a manner. Rather than arguing why it's wrong, you merely use the guilty by association fallacy.


So it's a coincidence this mode of thought arose in direct response to capitalist development and was developed by Bourgeois thinkers... Interesting. So Bourgeois rationalism doesn't exist, than? It was just a coincidence that it came about during the age of enlightenment? :rolleyes:


But fallacies are bourgeois inventions I'm sure.


It isn't too far fetched to suggest Bourgeois rationalism lacked the capability to understand human social relations in the same way that, say, Marxian Historical Materialism did.


Not what I meant. But yes, a state in the Marxist-Leninist sense, a top-down centralised regime is a class society where class antagonisms exist between the state and the working class, thereby recreating class antagonisms and thus the need for a state. Withering away of such a state, therefore, is logically impossible from a materialist point of view.


Only if the capitalist mode of production isn't surpassed and there is a minority of proletarians to begin with. Social relations in such a way simply do not sprout about just because there is some sort of hierarchical mode of organization. Why isn't there a class contradiction between the Bourgeoisie and the state of Bourgeois countries?

Power never "corrupted", Bourgeois States never formulated an interest antithetical to the Bourgeoisie, so why is this different in regards to proletarians?

Now, back to my reasoning in regards to the capitalist mode of production, Capital itself is something that surpasses mere social relations and "Management". The hunger of capital creates social relations, which is why a class contradiction formed, between the agents of capital and the proletariat. The "Marxist Leninist" state was forced to abide by the laws of capital, to serve it at all costs, in the end, in order to exist. And for not too long, the "Pure" remnants of the Marxist Leninist state that sought to, at the least, "Build Socialism within the confines of capital" disappeared, as such can be noted with Deng, or even better, Mao in the 70's. Such was to be expected.

But could they not simply surpass the capitalist mode of production, and the problem would be over? No. Countries cannot exist without abiding by the law of the land (Earth). And in order to change the law of the land, the revolution must occur in the belly of the beast, the regulator of world power. We know the Soviet Union was already a superpower, but by that time, Socialism was fuck all to them.



Yet the revolution degenerated prior to its isolation.


See above. There was never a degeneration before 1919. There was never even an open class contradiction before the late 1920's, as a matter of fact. Ripping supreme power from the Soviets was of absolute necessity. The Revolution had to die in two ways: Unintentionally by the Bolsheviks, or Squashed by the Counter Revolution. The Bolsheviks knew not of such a choice, and decided to defend the revolution, by the time the counter revolution ceased to be, they were already a lonely, isolated country. By 1920 Diplomatic and Trade relations formed with Capitalist Turkey. Such was a necessity to keep the economy alive.


Here's why libertarianism is an imperative in the success of socialism. Not because power corrupts, not because the state is a self-perpetual social institution, but because socialism requires the active and direct participation of the workers in the construction and maintenance of a socialist system.

And why is that? Because if not, it will degenerate into capitalism because "Power corrupts"?

And what do you mean by this? Even in the "Marxist Leninist states", Workers had active and direct participation in the construction and maintenance of the system. There are 7 Billion people on Earth, Goti. They cannot all administrate Earth on an individual scale, they must be organized by external factors after the revolution. Local Soviets, historically, have always proven incompetent in administrating mass regions and mobilizing mass populations. There must be an order that has power over these Local Soviets, and the Soviets themselves. Democracy, or Direct Democracy, is an impossibility in a world with seven billion human beings. But why can not everyone just stick to their own community, you say? Because there are resources in, say, Congo that are essential for building parts in, say, Ecuador. All of Earth needs all of Earth, nowadays. Such was a lesson we learned from Globalization. And administrating the process of this type of trade, is an impossibility at a direct democratic scale. Sorry, we are Scientific Marxists, we don't believe economic social relations in the Scientific sense arise because "X becomes in charge of x". That is not how class is defined. Class is defined by one's relation to the mode of production. If one is put in a position of power to manage the production process, in Socialism, this does not qualify him as a class separate from those who are producing. What separates proletarians and the bourgeois class is many things, Capital, Profit organization, ownership, etc. But Private Property as well.


This, on its turn, requires a decentralisation of decision-making power as to 'concentrate' power into the hands of the workers and their respective social institutions.

A Utopian notion. Do you think Somalia could be administrated in such a way, imminently after a revolution? Hell, even Greece could not, probably.


Decentralisation is libertarian, centralisation is authoritarian.

Than Authoritarianism is of absolute necessity. Centralized power is necessary in a world with 7 billion people and 7 continents. Because each region needs the other, for whatever reason. I'd prefer capitalism to what you are suggesting, because at least capitalism is change-catastrophic in it's for filling of the hunger of capital, in it's creating links and bonds between the whole world. Had it be your way, small local communities would be isolated from the rest of the world in the production process. Without central authority, there would be no way of administrating and regulating the Earth, a Neutral, higher power would simply not exist, thus, degeneration would be rapid, and a sham in the face of capitalist development. The masses would have to live off of the things produced under capitalism, not revolutionary innovation would take place, for the resources required would not be in existence, as a centralized authority would be necessary to distribute these resources accordingly. The notion of bringing about this is reactionary in nature, and would lead to the degeneration of human civilization.


If we are going to abolish capitalism, we must abolish all of capitalism, we must apply Hegel's notion of totality and accept it. Better full capitalism than half assed, remnants of capitalism. A cataclysmic destruction is necessary before any post capitalist society could come into place. Do you know what was required to purge the elements of Feudalism? And they still have not been successful!


No morality, no ethics, no "power corrupts". Any to construct socialism without decentralisation of power will lead to a concentration of power, thereby causing the degeneration of the revolution into state-capitalism.


And why? Because you think this power would not act in the favor of hte proletariat? Even though, they are representatives of hte proletariat? Why? Because you think they would "corrupt" ;) ?

[Rafiq]

Can someone move this thread? This isn't a non political topic, on behalf of the OP.

[Le Socialiste]

Anarchists are communists too, comrade.

Edit - I see this discussion has taken a fairly interesting turn...I'll weigh in when I can.

[Hermes]

Which no society could exist without.

You just made an incredibly controversial statement, and treated it as fact. There's no evidence to suggest that you're correct, and (if I remember correctly), there are examples of communities who have lived without a discernible authority structure. I may have remembered wrong.



This is an argument of ethics. We are not here to argue what is right or wrong. We are here to argue what is most efficient. A "Libertarian Revolution" lacks the potential capabilities to destroy the remnants of Bourgeois society and would, indeed, be just a social system living off of the fruits (Buildings, etc.) produced under the capitalist system rotting away. A totalitarian revolution is needed, a revolution that stretches in all corners of all society, liquidating the vestiges of the old society.

I disagree completely. A libertarian revolution is perhaps the only way to effectively destroy Bourgeois society. Any way that seeks to organize a power structure of any kind in order to destroy Bourgeois society will inevitably become that which they hope to destroy.


What is "Personal Autonomy"? Such is an absolutist concept. Moralist none the less. Slave owners were required to give up what they believed to be their personal autonomy, and who are you to say that they were wrong? Indeed, as revolutionaries, we care not for these moralist semantically drenched games, we must be straight forward, total and forceful.

The slave owners had to give up the ownership of their slaves so that the entire community could (in theory, anyway) enjoy personal autonomy. If a select group of people temporarily lose what they perceive to be their autonomy in order to ensure that all of humanity will eventually have autonomy, then I am willing to make that 'sacrifice'. It would far be preferable to the enslavement of the human body and mind.


I call the concept of "Power corrupting" bourgeois because it is inherent to Bourgeois rationalism, which was the scientific structural mode of thought that arose, coincidentally, right after the bourgeois revolutions. This mode of thought could not account for the dynamics of human history, of class, etc. So, such concepts like "giving too much power corrupts" arose. But in truth, power itself belongs to a certain class. No individual or institution representing the individual (Like the bourgeois state) could "corrupt", it merely shifts in class relation, and it shifts in class relations based solely and as a direct result of changes in the mode of production.

Power itself may not corrupt, but once people have taken a position of power it is much easier to lose track of what the actual will of the people is. After that point, you have people that attempt to act in the general interest, while hurting several.



They say that after the Bolshevik revolution, power corrupted. But they never surpassed the capitalist mode of production to begin with. The Soviets proved useless in mobilizing mass regions against the class enemy, and administrating whole economies, which is why they were abandoned. After the revolution isolated, it was deemed necessary to retain the capitalist mode of production to integrate with the world economy, and trade with other countries. Foreign business developement was essential to the industrialization of Russia, as such was the fastest industrializing nation by 1914 (On an unrelated note, this is proof that Stalin could not be credited for the industrialization of Russia). This was the cause of it's slow degeneration.

Again, the revolutions in Russia lacked the large majority of the people's will, with many people on the outskirts disagreeing and dissenting. Stalin and other leaders either didn't notice or didn't think it important, and disregarded them. The kind of power that he took distanced himself from the people.


Only if the capitalist mode of production isn't surpassed and there is a minority of proletarians to begin with. Social relations in such a way simply do not sprout about just because there is some sort of hierarchical mode of organization. Why isn't there a class contradiction between the Bourgeoisie and the state of Bourgeois countries?

Power never "corrupted", Bourgeois States never formulated an interest antithetical to the Bourgeoisie, so why is this different in regards to proletarians?

But the capitalist mode of production will never be surpassed if a power structure exists, because once you start organizing everyone's needs, you end up doing a worse job than people could do on their own or in small groups. You start to have an overwhelming bureaucracy that does more harm than good.


And why is that? Because if not, it will degenerate into capitalism because "Power corrupts"?

And what do you mean by this? Even in the "Marxist Leninist states", Workers had active and direct participation in the construction and maintenance of the system. There are 7 Billion people on Earth, Goti. They cannot all administrate Earth on an individual scale, they must be organized by external factors after the revolution. Local Soviets, historically, have always proven incompetent in administrating mass regions and mobilizing mass populations. There must be an order that has power over these Local Soviets, and the Soviets themselves. Democracy, or Direct Democracy, is an impossibility in a world with seven billion human beings. But why can not everyone just stick to their own community, you say? Because there are resources in, say, Congo that are essential for building parts in, say, Ecuador. All of Earth needs all of Earth, nowadays. Such was a lesson we learned from Globalization. And administrating the process of this type of trade, is an impossibility at a direct democratic scale. Sorry, we are Scientific Marxists, we don't believe economic social relations in the Scientific sense arise because "X becomes in charge of x". That is not how class is defined. Class is defined by one's relation to the mode of production. If one is put in a position of power to manage the production process, in Socialism, this does not qualify him as a class separate from those who are producing. What separates proletarians and the bourgeois class is many things, Capital, Profit organization, ownership, etc. But Private Property as well.

You're correct. It would be impossible for a power structure to individually administrate everyone on Earth, which is how it needs to be. Therefore, the individuals and smaller groups would have to do so, as this is the only way to ensure equality.


A Utopian notion. Do you think Somalia could be administrated in such a way, imminently after a revolution? Hell, even Greece could not, probably.

It's regrettable that certain cultural/religious/classist casualties would result because of the loss of authority and enforcement. However, in the end, the yield for humanity would be greater and this problem would fade. Overall, this is why Anarchy almost demands a worldwide revolution, occurring either at the same time, or starting in the large powercenters, to avoid intervention.


Than Authoritarianism is of absolute necessity. Centralized power is necessary in a world with 7 billion people and 7 continents. Because each region needs the other, for whatever reason. I'd prefer capitalism to what you are suggesting, because at least capitalism is change-catastrophic in it's for filling of the hunger of capital, in it's creating links and bonds between the whole world. Had it be your way, small local communities would be isolated from the rest of the world in the production process. Without central authority, there would be no way of administrating and regulating the Earth, a Neutral, higher power would simply not exist, thus, degeneration would be rapid, and a sham in the face of capitalist development. The masses would have to live off of the things produced under capitalism, not revolutionary innovation would take place, for the resources required would not be in existence, as a centralized authority would be necessary to distribute these resources accordingly. The notion of bringing about this is reactionary in nature, and would lead to the degeneration of human civilization.

Again, you see in only power structures and bureaucracy. We don't even need many of the things that capitalism has given us, but we would be able to maintain that which we desired, in smaller communities. If it was impossible to attain at that time, we would live without it until we could.

In the end, the purification of human nature by an anarchic society would result in all of the benefits of organization and society without the evils of the state and authoritarianism.

(sorry for not responding to certain parts of your post. Also I may be wrong on certain things, still learning.)

[Rafiq]

You just made an incredibly controversial statement, and treated it as fact. There's no evidence to suggest that you're correct, and (if I remember correctly), there are examples of communities who have lived without a discernible authority structure. I may have remembered wrong.

All of which were crushed by the Bourgeois military because they could not mobilize the region as efficiently as the Bolsheviks could. Plus, there's s difference between a town being organized in such a manner, and all of Earth. I already stated this is very possible for small communities, but Earth being divided into small communities would be much less efficient as capitalism.

When you get bigger sizes to manage, like, say, Free territory in Anarchist Ukraine, you require more Authoritarianism, you require the Kontrazzvedka and open Military rule. It was a very centralized society, btw.





I disagree completely. A libertarian revolution is perhaps the only way to effectively destroy Bourgeois society. Any way that seeks to organize a power structure of any kind in order to destroy Bourgeois society will inevitably become that which they hope to destroy.


A bourgeois concept. Bourgeois philosophers tried to paint all society in the Western World as society in Ancient Greece, i.e. That nothing has changed, it's just new individuals are in power. And that all revolutions lead to corruption. This is a myth. I go as far to say, there must be a totalitarian order in place that stretches throughout all corners of society, controlled directly by the mob. Of course, temporarily. A Libertarian revolution would lack such emancipatory potential and would lead to something like Anarchist spain: No re-innovation of structures, just sitting on your ass living off of structures built by the bourgeois society. A libertarian revolution is a Liberalist myth, such can never even exist without being squashed. The Bourgeoisie use authoritarianism against the proletariat, and in turn, we shall use it against them. Such is the way of war. If your opponent shoots your comrade, are you going to give him a flower, run past him, or shoot him back so he shoots no one else? But how could you do htis, will this not "Turn you into" the guy you're fighting against?

See, it's pure Idealism what your asserting. The dynamics of class society, of hte mode of production, of social relations between classes, etc. are thrown away in the midst of this.. This Idealist myth "Well, you'll end up what your fighting against", Jesus Christ, have you any Idea what the Bourgoies status quo did after the revolutions? Why didn't they "Turn into" Feudal kings?



The slave owners had to give up the ownership of their slaves so that the entire community could (in theory, anyway) enjoy personal autonomy. If a select group of people temporarily lose what they perceive to be their autonomy in order to ensure that all of humanity will eventually have autonomy, then I am willing to make that 'sacrifice'. It would far be preferable to the enslavement of the human body and mind.


What you perceive as moral is drowning in inefficiency. It's a semantics game. In Authoritarianism, authority will not be exerted against people for fuck all. Don't I have the right to imprison an enemy of the revolution, because he is a potential threat against everyone's "Personal Autonomy" after the revolution? Would having a top down centralized command economy be so much a violation of one's personal autonomy, when the only people who will have to submit with force are those who refuse to carry out with the plan, though the plan is essential for the survival of everyone else s "Personal Autonomy"?

I don't have the time to waste for this moralist bullshit. You still haven't explained why "Personal Autonomy" Is important, other than using Bourgeois concepts to justify them.



Power itself may not corrupt, but once people have taken a position of power it is much easier to lose track of what the actual will of the people is. After that point, you have people that attempt to act in the general interest, while hurting several.


Holy shit.

"People" do not take power. Power belongs to a class. Any person(s) taking "Power" are doing so in the name of a class and act on behalf of a class. Or can you name examples proving otherwise? Secondly, Fuck the "Will of the People". Now that's a core tenet of Liberalism. The people do not exist, and it is impossible to forfill the will of them. This is Bourgeois rhetoric.



Again, the revolutions in Russia lacked the large majority of the people's will, with many people on the outskirts disagreeing and dissenting. Stalin and other leaders either didn't notice or didn't think it important, and disregarded them. The kind of power that he took distanced himself from the people.


You go from the Bolshevik revolution, than to Stalin as if nothing occurred in between? Out of all the Factions in Russia, the Bolsheviks were the most popular. Marxists don't care for this "Majority rule will make revolution" nonsense. They had the support of the Russian Proletariat 100% and that's all they needed. In this regard I concur with Bordiga completely.




But the capitalist mode of production will never be surpassed if a power structure exists, because once you start organizing everyone's needs, you end up doing a worse job than people could do on their own or in small groups. You start to have an overwhelming bureaucracy that does more harm than good.


Perhaps bureaucracy is of absolute necessity to manage Earth's 7 billion human beings. In Congo there are resources that are necessary for everyone, etc. This is going to have to be administrated by a Centralized, Higher power. Though, that doesn't mean communities can't have local Soviets to decide what they want, it just will not be allowed to conflict with the Interests of the Human collective.



You're correct. It would be impossible for a power structure to individually administrate everyone on Earth, which is how it needs to be. Therefore, the individuals and smaller groups would have to do so, as this is the only way to ensure equality.


No, No, No. [I]It would be impossible for multiple individual power structures to administrate Earth decentralized and locally. If all these different communities had nothing to do with each other, than I would concur with your bullshit. But they do. Earth cannot be administrated in such a decentralized manner, not in modern times at least. All seven Continent need resources from all seven continents, and the interests of local communities will conflict with others over resources, which is why a higher neutral power is necessary to unite all of them under one banner, which is why there is no time for them to decide everything, there must be a centralized, command style means of distributing and planning the production of things. On a universalized scale.



It's regrettable that certain cultural/religious/classist casualties would result because of the loss of authority and enforcement. However, in the end, the yield for humanity would be greater and this problem would fade. Overall, this is why Anarchy almost demands a worldwide revolution, occurring either at the same time, or starting in the large powercenters, to avoid intervention.


It's disgusting what you want. This would inevitably lead to chaos.

Now, you attack me for saying the state would whither away, but now you suggest that in a place like Somalia, Libertarianism would make all of their problems "Whither away"? That's fucking ludicrous, man. What you're doing would fuck things up even more than they are already.


Again, you see in only power structures and bureaucracy. We don't even need many of the things that capitalism has given us, but we would be able to maintain that which we desired, in smaller communities. If it was impossible to attain at that time, we would live without it until we could.


This is reaction, a return to a previous state of affairs, which is very shitty. That computer you have relies on parts manufactored over seas, that metal in your computers does not exist in "Your community", none the less your continent. Don't fucking tell me small communities can survive by themselves with no other universalized collective influence, because it's horse shit.


In the end, the purification of human nature by an anarchic society would result in all of the benefits of organization and society without the evils of the state and authoritarianism.


Not only do you adhere to the Bourgeois concept of "Power corrupts", you're an adherent of the Idealist concept of "Human Nature". Trust me, if "Human nature" existed, Anarchism would't fucking purify it. As a matter of fact, I'd probably brainwash many and take power, or some other asshole will.

You're a Utopian, my friend, just like the stateless capitalists who believe the free market will solve everything. Go outside, go to the city, or whatever, look at the humans, look at traffic on the road, and you mean to tell me all of this can be organized completely decentrally? Regulations, decentrally? Absurdity!


(sorry for not responding to certain parts of your post. Also I may be wrong on certain things, still learning.)


No problem, friend, the more you chill here the more you will learn.

[Rafiq]

Anarchists are communists too, comrade.

Edit - I see this discussion has taken a fairly interesting turn...I'll weigh in when I can.

Some Anarchist movements are inherently our comrades, and of course they are to be supported in times of class struggle. But, eventually, a line will have to be made.

[Rafiq]

True. Those were bad examples, I suppose.

Well then, to pick different ones,

Kontrrazvedka, So there isn't any materialistic difference in the governance of a system of workers' councils, and a single party state?

There isn't a "Material difference" in regards to the mode of production, Worker's Councils and a Single Party state could (well, not so much Worker's councils on a whole scale, as such is unrealistic) be in place to administrate several things, whether it be a socialist mode of production or a capitalist mode of production.

What is more of a material difference, Feudalist France in contrast with Fascist Italy, or Fascist Italy in contrast with democratic and "egilitarian" Sweden? The former. As both Sweden and Italy were riding the capitalist mode of production all the way.

[Le Socialiste]

Some Anarchist movements are inherently our comrades, and of course they are to be supported in times of class struggle. But, eventually, a line will have to be made.

The question is when such a line must be drawn, and what that line will be.