Anarcho-communist

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

How is an anarcho-communist different from let's say a Marxist.
I mean Marxist don't believe in something like a ruling-class which is the same as anarchist, but then what is the difference?
Or is it just a way to not be associated with Stalinist?

[The Jay]

Who says that they can't be Marxists?

[Railyon]

Marxism is a methodology of analysis; anarchist communism, which shares its goal with all other communisms, is more of a philosophy of how to get there.

Anarchists can of course be Marxists and vice versa.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Most anarchists (though not all) do not support the idea of a transitional state to achieve the end of a classless and stateless society. Along with support for Makhno, that really seems to be the only real differences.

BTW not all anarchists support that dipshit Makhno.

I know this is off topic but here is a good article on Makhno. http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

[Brosip Tito]

Marxists hold dialectical materialism, historical materialism and Marx's economics as the basis.

Anarchists do not hold them as core beliefs. Though some may agree with Marx at times.

Marxist's believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat. The organization of the revolutionary working class into a workers' state, where the bourgeois state apparatus is under worker control, and used to organize society and the economy, as well as prevent counter-revolution and foreign intervention.

Anarchists believe that this is a failure of an idea, and that it is too authoritarian. That it will lead to a Stalinist dictatorship every time. Therefore, the anarchists support immediate progression into a communist (or Syndicalist, or mutualist) society.

Method and theory differ.

[Railyon]

Marxists hold dialectical materialism, historical materialism and Marx's economics as the basis.
Not too sure about dialectical materialism really...



Marxist's believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat. The organization of the revolutionary working class into a workers' state, where the bourgeois state apparatus is under worker control, and used to organize society and the economy, as well as prevent counter-revolution and foreign intervention.
Depending on how you define workers state, anarchists would support this. They are clearly not against a DotP itself, but against the idea that the workers should seize the bourgeois state apparatus. They're in favor of building new structures to suppress counter-revolution.

[Grenzer]

Marxists hold dialectical materialism, historical materialism and Marx's economics as the basis.

Personally, I think dialectics is a load of bullshit.

Does that make me not a Marxist? Some might argue that, but I just don't see the importance of dialectics. Materialism is far more important to Marxist analysis than dialectics is.

[x359594]

Personally, I think dialectics is a load of bullshit...

I think it depends on how it's presented. From my reading of Marx his use of dialectics is a methodological device for expounding his argument that any given mode of production shapes all aspects of life, and that in turn changes in other social relationships shape further developments in the mode of production. A dialectical relationship is one in which all the elements co-determine each other through simultaneous interaction. Marx doesn't reify dialectics into a law of nature. He uses dialectics as a heuristic device.

[Tim Cornelis]

Along with support for Makhno, that really seems to be the only real differences.

It strikes me as oddly specific to single out Makhno, he is not really a key figure in anarchism at all.


BTW not all anarchists support that dipshit Makhno.

I know this is off topic but here is a good article on Makhno. http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml


The Makhno Myth is full of falsehoods.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/on-the-bolshevik-myth
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq.html
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/in-defence-of-the-truth
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append4.html

------------------------------------------------
Unlike others here, I don't think one can consistently be an anarchist and a Marxist simultaneously.

Anarchist David Greaber describes the difference as follows:


Marxism has tended to be a theoretical or analytical discourse about revolutionary strategy.
Anarchism has tended to be an ethical discourse about revolutionary practice.

Which is quite accurate in my opinion.

And obviously, an anarchist is opposed to a state whereas Marxism is not. In theory, Marxists aim for a "semi-state" that "has ceased to be a state in the traditional sense of the word" (to paraphrase Lenin and Engels respectively) and arguably anarchists can live with that, but a dictatorship of the proletariat is nevertheless still a centralised body, whereas anarchism aims at decentralisation.

[Grenzer]

I think it depends on how it's presented. From my reading of Marx his use of dialectics is a methodological device for expounding his argument that any given mode of production shapes all aspects of life, and that in turn changes in other social relationships shape further developments in the mode of production. A dialectical relationship is one in which all the elements co-determine each other through simultaneous interaction. Marx doesn't reify dialectics into a law of nature. He uses dialectics as a heuristic device.

I'm not against that kind of usage, but many of his successors have codified dialectics into objective, material law which it clearly is not. At best, dialectics is a tool for organization; but at worst its just pseudo-mystical nonsense that doesn't add anything and distracts from the purpose at hand, which more often than not seems to be what it's used for. One of the best ways to cover up knowledge of the facts at hand is to engage in dialectical babble.

[x359594]

As for Marxism (as distinct from Marx's own analysis of the capitalist mode of production) the tendency is toward some form of economic determinism and the working out of "natural laws" of capitalism, so that the emergence of socialism from capitalism is inevitable when a certain level of capitalist development is reached. Anarchist communists don't recognize the inevitability of socialism. They also pay attention to hierarchical relationships in all spheres of life: order giver over order taker, men over women, straight over gay, boss over worker, white over people of color, human over nature, etc.

So, to combat capitalist hegemony in the work place, it is necessary to replace the institution of the marketplace with direct cooperative production and exchange. To combat the hegemonies of men over women, straight over gay, sexist and heterosexist institutions must be replaced by freely-chosen personal relationships. To overthrow the hegemony of the nuclear family, free sexual relationships are a necessity. To end the destruction of the natural enviornment , industry must be transformed from a force of and for itself into the consciously controlled tools of human beings. To break the grip of alienating ideology, education must be turned from an institution for training and socializing people into a personal learning experience. In every case, free and conscious personal relationships must replace the existing social restrictions.

[x359594]

...many of his successors have codified dialectics into objective, material law which it clearly is not. At best, dialectics is a tool for organization...

That's true. Apparently this started in Marx's lifetime and prompted him to exclaim, "Thank God I'm not a Marxist!"

[TheRedAnarchist23]

That is easy, anarchists don't beleive in opressive forms of government, so they do not support the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat, at least an authoritarian one, although I have no idea how a dictatorship can not be authoritarian

[x359594]

That is easy, anarchists don't beleive in opressive forms of government, so they do not support the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

That's a very narrow view of what anarchists don't believe in. If anarchists are true to their principals they don't believe in oppressive social relationships of any kind.

Indeed there are anarchist outfits formed around particular modes of oppression. For example, Queer Anarchist Youth addresses straight over gay, old over young. Anarcha-Feminists deals with the men over women mode of oppression, the Black Riders white over black, etc. (These are all local anarchist groups that people outside of Southern California may no be familiar with.)

[daft punk]

Marxism and anarchism are quite different. They have the same goal bit different ideas on how to get there.

Marxists believe that a workers state is needed to establish socialism and keep the capitalists from counter-revolting.

Anarchists claim they believe you can dispense with the workers state. However I dont know what they think will stop the capitalists from sabotage if they just leave them to it.

There are no real examples of anarchism in action. The main one was Spain where they could have easily taken power, but the anarchist leaders refused to do so on principle.

Later the anarchists joined a Stalinist-capitalist government. This government then crushed the revolution and then the fascists took power.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It strikes me as oddly specific to single out Makhno, he is not really a key figure in anarchism at all.



The Makhno Myth is full of falsehoods.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/on-the-bolshevik-myth
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq.html
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/in-defence-of-the-truth
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append4.html

------------------------------------------------
Unlike others here, I don't think one can consistently be an anarchist and a Marxist simultaneously.

Anarchist David Greaber describes the difference as follows:



Which is quite accurate in my opinion.

And obviously, an anarchist is opposed to a state whereas Marxism is not. In theory, Marxists aim for a "semi-state" that "has ceased to be a state in the traditional sense of the word" (to paraphrase Lenin and Engels respectively) and arguably anarchists can live with that, but a dictatorship of the proletariat is nevertheless still a centralised body, whereas anarchism aims at decentralisation.

I'll check out those criticisms later, thanks

[x359594]

...There are no real examples of anarchism in action. The main one was Spain where they could have easily taken power, but the anarchist leaders refused to do so on principle...

This seems to be a contradiction in terms. If there are no real examples of anarchism in action, than how could the "main one" be in Spain?

On the contrary, there are plenty of examples of anarchism in action. Take a look at Chris Ealham's Anarchism and the City, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval, With the Peasants of Aragon by Augustin Souchy, The Anarchist Collectives: Workers Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution edited by Sam Dolgoff.

[Railyon]

Unlike others here, I don't think one can consistently be an anarchist and a Marxist simultaneously.

Anarchist David Greaber describes the difference as follows:

Which is quite accurate in my opinion.
I don't see a contradiction there.


And obviously, an anarchist is opposed to a state whereas Marxism is not. In theory, Marxists aim for a "semi-state" that "has ceased to be a state in the traditional sense of the word" (to paraphrase Lenin and Engels respectively) and arguably anarchists can live with that, but a dictatorship of the proletariat is nevertheless still a centralised body, whereas anarchism aims at decentralisation.

First off, state buzzword. Secondly, DotP doesn't need to be centralized to be able to fight off counter-revolution. Decentralization doesn't mean a total lack of coordination.

You make it sound like anarchism neither aims, can or wants to be revolutionary.

Maybe I am not an anarchist after all though... weird...

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That is easy, anarchists don't beleive in opressive forms of government, so they do not support the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat, at least an authoritarian one, although I have no idea how a dictatorship can not be authoritarian
Any anarchist who struggles for the overthrow of capitalism and the capitalist ruling class is an authoritarian in that instance.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

That is easy, anarchists don't beleive in opressive forms of government, so they do not support the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat, at least an authoritarian one, although I have no idea how a dictatorship can not be authoritarian

This is a classic misunderstanding of what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. When Marx was analyzing capitalist society he called capitalist democracy a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and this could only be offset by proletariat democracy, of a dictatorship of the proletariat. This isn't a socialist society, but a democratic and proletariat society to transition to a stateless and classless society.

Here is a group on the subject. http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=932

[x359594]

Any anarchist who struggles for the overthrow of capitalism and the capitalist ruling class is an authoritarian in that instance.

How so?

Also, overthrowing capitalism still leaves many other forms of hierarchy and domination in place; racism, sexism, and heterosexism to name a few iterations of oppression will also have to be overthrown.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@ x359594

Libertarian and authoritarian viewpoints are class based. The bourgeoisie would consider this society libertarian while we do not, and they would feel a workers society in which they were suppressed as authoritarian while we would not.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How so?
If you want to overthrow the capitalist class, one presumes said class won't voluntarily cede its power.

[Ted Lawrence]

I think the point is that the overthrow of capitalism, the revolutionary act, is in itself authoritarian. I don't know, I'm new but that does make some sense to me. In that sense, an Anarchist revolution might be authoritarian but the type of society that might result from such a thing would not be.

I don't know. I might not know what I'm talking about.:confused:

[x359594]

If you want to overthrow the capitalist class, one presumes said class won't voluntarily cede its power.

But what makes overthrowing the capitalist class authoritarian as such?

[x359594]

...The bourgeoisie would consider this society libertarian while we do not, and they would feel a workers society in which they were suppressed as authoritarian while we would not.

Why are the "feelings" of the bourgeoisie privileged? How is that the subjectivity of the bourgeoisie makes a workers' society objectively authoritarian?

[Comrade Jandar]

Marxists hold dialectical materialism, historical materialism and Marx's economics as the basis.

Anarchists do not hold them as core beliefs. Though some may agree with Marx at times.

Marxist's believe in a dictatorship of the proletariat. The organization of the revolutionary working class into a workers' state, where the bourgeois state apparatus is under worker control, and used to organize society and the economy, as well as prevent counter-revolution and foreign intervention.

Anarchists believe that this is a failure of an idea, and that it is too authoritarian. That it will lead to a Stalinist dictatorship every time. Therefore, the anarchists support immediate progression into a communist (or Syndicalist, or mutualist) society.

Method and theory differ.

There are multiple things I will address here.

1. Historical materialism is most definitely a core belief of anarchism and any anarchist who rejects this as the basis of his beliefs is no anarchist.

2. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not at all against the goals and ideas of anarchism. Anarchists recognize that even after the social revolution, bourgeoisie as a class, will not have completely disappeared and will have to be actively repressed in order to protect from counter-revolution. RAAN has a good article about the anarchist perspective on the DtOP. http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html

3. Mutualism is not a form of anarchism.

[Comrade Jandar]

It's important for people to recognize that when anarchists are only against authoritarianism among fellow workers. Anarchists have no problem with using coercion of authority when it comes to dealing with the bourgeoisie.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But what makes overthrowing the capitalist class authoritarian as such?
Because one class asserting its authority over another class and depriving it of power is inherently authoritarian. There's no way around that.

[Ele'ill]

Because one class asserting its authority over another class and depriving it of power is inherently authoritarian. There's no way around that.


If classes were kept around for fun.

[x359594]

Because one class asserting its authority over another class and depriving it of power is inherently authoritarian. There's no way around that.

All right then. But once divested of power, once separated from their ownership of the means of production from whence their power derives, they cease to exist as a class and willy nilly become proletarians.

There's an interesting description of factory collectivization in one of the volumes of Pierats' The C.N.T. in the Spanish Revolution where he describes owners staying on as workers in some cases, leaving the plant altogether in other cases.

[Comrade Jandar]

The terms libertarian or authoritarian are meaningless without the context of class. There is nothing wrong with authoritarianism in and of itself. The problem lies in the subject of the authority; if the subject are fellow proles, then I take issue with authority, if it is not,then I have no problem with it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

All right then. But once divested of power, once separated from their ownership of the means of production from whence their power derives, they cease to exist as a class
Yes, and this is why questions of libertarian/authoritarian become relevant after a revolution. That's where you start to see divisions between different tendencies of communism, in how they think that post-revolutionary should be organized.

But I think it's naive to expect that post-revolution, dispossessed capitalists will immediately lose their class consciousness. Some of them may come over to the side of the victorious workers, but others may want to create a counter-revolution.

[daft punk]

Originally Posted by daft punk http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2410703#post2410703)
"...There are no real examples of anarchism in action. The main one was Spain where they could have easily taken power, but the anarchist leaders refused to do so on principle... "

This seems to be a contradiction in terms. If there are no real examples of anarchism in action, than how could the "main one" be in Spain?

On the contrary, there are plenty of examples of anarchism in action. Take a look at Chris Ealham's Anarchism and the City, Collectives in the Spanish Revolution by Gaston Leval, With the Peasants of Aragon by Augustin Souchy, The Anarchist Collectives: Workers Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution edited by Sam Dolgoff.

Ok it was an example of them in action, and their leaders blew it, on principle.

So their basic theory let them down.

[Railyon]

Ok it was an example of them in action, and their leaders blew it, on principle.

So their basic theory let them down.

Great Man in History principle, huh?

How is class collaboration a failure of theory? If so, we can soundly dismiss all communist theory and throw it right out the window because people of all ideological milieus have done so or advocated it in the past, starting with Marx all the way through to most if not all contemporary major "working class" political parties.

[thriller]

If classes were kept around for fun.

Exactly. The idea is that once the proletariat is the dictator of society (has complete control over production, rather than the bourgeoisie) classes will eventually cease to exist because the proletariat is the final class, the last class to be fully oppressed in society. You can agree or disagree with Marx, but DotP simply means complete and total control over society by the working class (the masses) and therefore really isn't authoritarian, since it can only function in a democratic manner.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

How is overthrowing capitalism an authoritarian action when its porpuse is freedom?
Authoritarian would be overthrowing capitalism to replace it with an authoritarian system like fascism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Any anarchist who struggles for the overthrow of capitalism and the capitalist ruling class is an authoritarian in that instance.

Authoritarianism is a social institution. Forcing people to abolish authoritarian social institutions is not authoritarian.


Because one class asserting its authority over another class and depriving it of power is inherently authoritarian. There's no way around that.

No because that's not authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a social institution. If you force people to end an authoritarian social institution, it is not authoritarian.
Unless we erect authoritarian social institutions in its place, it is libertarian.

[The Jay]

Authoritarianism is a social institution. Forcing people to abolish authoritarian social institutions is not authoritarian.



No because that's not authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a social institution. If you force people to end an authoritarian social institution, it is not authoritarian.
Unless we erect authoritarian social institutions in its place, it is libertarian.

Would you just call it class-coercion then? Is there some other word that is commonly used for what they're trying to say?

[x359594]

It seems to me that the discussion here is neglecting the abolition of the other equally important iterations of hierarchy and domination. There's more involved than only overthrowing the capitalist class.

It's entirely possible to overthrow the capitalist class and still leave unequal power relations in place with men dominating women, whites dominating people of color, straights dominating gays for starters.

[daft punk]

Great Man in History principle, huh?

How is class collaboration a failure of theory? If so, we can soundly dismiss all communist theory and throw it right out the window because people of all ideological milieus have done so or advocated it in the past, starting with Marx all the way through to most if not all contemporary major "working class" political parties.

I dont think class collaboration was a policy of the anarchist leaders, only the Stalinists. Sure the anarchists did join the government for a while but it's not really the same thing.

The anarchist leaders refused to take power when they admit they could have, 'on principle'. I dont know much more about their reasoning for that or why they then joined the government.

Marx advocated some class collaboration in certain conditions. The time not to do it is when a workers government can be formed. It would have been easier in Spain than in Russia 1917, yet the Bolsheviks didnt collaborate with the capitalists, they took power off the Provisional Government. The anarchist leaders are to blame, and the Stalinists were even worse of course.

It is not great man it is dialectical materialism. You cant just sit around and expect socialism to materialise out of thin air. At some point, a workers leader has to say 'ok lets do it'. The anarchist leaders didnt and the Stalinists did the opposite of a revolution.

[x359594]

...At some point, a workers leader has to say 'ok lets do it'. The anarchist leaders didnt and the Stalinists did the opposite of a revolution.

On the other hand, Marx said that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. Notice that this is in the plural and not singular; it seems to rule out a workers' leader (though not necessarily a workers' spokesperson.)

[daft punk]

On the other hand, Marx said that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. Notice that this is in the plural and not singular; it seems to rule out a workers' leader (though not necessarily a workers' spokesperson.)

and what good is a spokesman? What you need is someone organising at national or international level, pinning everything together. A central committee of the top revolutionaries. Planning and implementing a revolution. Lenin and Trotsky showed how it should be done.

There have been countless revolutionary situations but only one real proper stab at it, the rest lacked leadership. The workers will never spontaneously set up a socialist society on their own.

"We need a nationally coordinated organization, a party. It is not true that political parties are always undemocratic and authoritarian. Often anarchist movements are much more undemocratic than socialist parties, because they lack the democratic procedures to make majority decisions. Instead you get the 'tyranny of structurelessness' - where the best speakers (or the loudest!), those with the best informal clique links, are able to manipulate and dominate the movement. When you have formless movements, you don't have accountability, regular elections or a collective overview of whether decisions have been implemented."

http://www.socialistaction.org/anarchism.htm

Daft Punk, spouting the party line as usual. Not sure what party, but is is tattooed to my cock. Apparently.

[Grenzer]

Railyon is quite right about one thing: class collaboration is usually a failure of action and strategy, not theory(although it can be). I know some are quite fond of popular front strategies.


On the other hand, Marx said that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. Notice that this is in the plural and not singular; it seems to rule out a workers' leader (though not necessarily a workers' spokesperson.)

I'm not really sure this is what Daft Punk means, he might be trying to say that we need a "glorious leader" to implement socialism, in which case he'd be wrong; but I don't think this is what he was trying to say. It seems to me that he was more criticizing the perennial anarchist hysteria over the seizure of state power and asserting themselves politically. In a way, it brings the Paris Commune to mind. The communards were afraid to to assert their state power in an "authoritarian" way to crush the class enemy, so they in turn were crushed.

Materialism is not a part of anarchism, even if one would like to claim otherwise. At best it's taken out of context and applied haphazardly when convenient. This nonsense over "authoritarian vs libertarian" is a complete chimera at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. There is nothing material or scientific in the conception of "authoritarianism". It seems like pure liberalism. We must use every tool at our disposable to permanently destroy the bourgeoisie, state power is one of those tools that is absolutely essential to this end. Under certain circumstances, "libertarianism" is a self-imposed liberal handicap that only serves to aid the bourgeoisie. We should let the conditions determine the course of action, not ideals. Sometimes I get the impression that anarchists are concerned about suboordinating the class interest of the workers to their romantic conceptions of 'liberty' and 'freedom'. Sucks that some people will cling onto these notions despite them having proven to be completely disastrous, as in the case of the Spanish 'revolution'.

I agree with Bordiga fully when he stated that the hour before the final triumph of the revolution, "Liberty!" will be the rallying cry of the counter-revolutionaries, just as those ancient bourgeois revolutionaries of old.

[daft punk]

Railyon is quite right about one thing: class collaboration is usually a failure of action and strategy, not theory(although it can be). I know some are quite fond of popular front strategies.

Action and strategy, theory, call it what you want. It was largely an excuse for the Stalinists to oppose revolutions. They probably didnt know it, but Stalin certainly did. he first tried it in China before he was a fully fledged counter-revolutionary, and after the Third Period it was full on policy.

Don't confuse this with the United Front Trotsky advocated in the Third Period, which is simply a temporary unity of action.

Also don't confuse it with any bits Marx might have written in a sort of stagist sense 60 years earlier.





I'm not really sure this is what Daft Punk means, he might be trying to say that we need a "glorious leader" to implement socialism, in which case he'd be wrong; but I don't think this is what he was trying to say.
A revolutionary leadership heading up a democratic party is needed. Someone has to coordinate stuff. This 'someone' would be the Central Committee, which could be 100 people who are elected from the branches.





It seems to me that he was more criticizing the perennial anarchist hysteria over the seizure of state power and asserting themselves politically. In a way, it brings the Paris Commune to mind. The communards were afraid to to assert their state power in an "authoritarian" way to crush the class enemy, so they in turn were crushed.

Materialism is not a part of anarchism, even if one would like to claim otherwise. At best it's taken out of context and applied haphazardly when convenient. This nonsense over "authoritarian vs libertarian" is a complete chimera at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. There is nothing material or scientific in the conception of "authoritarianism". It seems like pure liberalism. We must use every tool at our disposable to permanently destroy the bourgeoisie, state power is one of those tools that is absolutely essential to this end. Under certain circumstances, "libertarianism" is a self-imposed liberal handicap that only serves to aid the bourgeoisie. We should let the conditions determine the course of action, not ideals. Sometimes I get the impression that anarchists are concerned about suboordinating the class interest of the workers to their romantic conceptions of 'liberty' and 'freedom'. Sucks that some people will cling onto these notions despite them having proven to be completely disastrous, as in the case of the Spanish 'revolution'.

I agree with Bordiga fully when he stated that the hour before the final triumph of the revolution, "Liberty!" will be the rallying cry of the counter-revolutionaries, just as those ancient bourgeois revolutionaries of old.

Yes, the anarchists did have leaders, but their leaders refused to take power in Spain, and they admitted that they could have done it. A revolution thrown down the toilet basically. Not long after that they were being attacked by the Stalinists. In between they actually joined a capitalist-Stalinist government.

[Grenzer]

It sounds like between the Stalinists and the Anarchists, they more or less managed to complete destroy the potential for the revolutionary establishment of a proletarian dictatorship. There is also the question of whether the workers themselves were motivated to take power in the first place, something that may have been absent. I have seen some describe the anarchists' actions as a kind of elitist coup foisted on the workers, but I don't really know enough details to comment on whether it's true. In the October Revolution, the seizure of state power was an act of majority by the workers themselves as opposed to a small cadre of conspirators who wished to overthrow the bourgeois government.

I also agree that centralization, which entails some kind of leadership committee, is absolutely essential. In the case of a revolutionary party of the workers organized democratically, this would be definition be an extension of the class interests of the workers, and therefore an act of the class itself.

[x359594]

It sounds like between the Stalinists and the Anarchists, they more or less managed to complete destroy the potential for the revolutionary establishment of a proletarian dictatorship. There is also the question of whether the workers themselves were motivated to take power in the first place, something that may have been absent...

Since your refererring to what happened in Spain in 1936, the evidence is that the workers were indeed motivated to take power to the extent that it meant seizing the means of production.

The population of Spain in 1936 was about 25 million with an industrial proletariat of around 5 million almost all of whom belonged to the CNT or the UGT. Far more numerous was the peasantry, 90% of which was landless. In the north eastern industrial parts of Spain the workers seized the factories and in the south the peasants seized the land. There's a very good oral history edited by Ronald Fraser called Blood of Spain that gives eyewitness accounts and supporting evidence in the footnotes.

As to the larger question of why the Spanish revolution failed (and all the other revolutions of the 20th century save the anti-colonialist ones,) well, logical action plays a relatively minor role in human behavior, history is often a record of confused attempts to achieve incompatible goals, the outcomes of human action are frequently unforeseen and seldom correspond to people's motives or intentions, political success is often a matter of luck, fraud and conspiracy are fundamental factors of political life with or without conscious deception, and political labels typically conceal more than they reveal.

[daft punk]

It sounds like between the Stalinists and the Anarchists, they more or less managed to complete destroy the potential for the revolutionary establishment of a proletarian dictatorship.

well, it was their leaders that were to blame.



There is also the question of whether the workers themselves were motivated to take power in the first place, something that may have been absent.

The workers werent just motivated, they were doing it. They were taking power.



I have seen some describe the anarchists' actions as a kind of elitist coup foisted on the workers, but I don't really know enough details to comment on whether it's true. In the October Revolution, the seizure of state power was an act of majority by the workers themselves as opposed to a small cadre of conspirators who wished to overthrow the bourgeois government.

I also agree that centralization, which entails some kind of leadership committee, is absolutely essential. In the case of a revolutionary party of the workers organized democratically, this would be definition be an extension of the class interests of the workers, and therefore an act of the class itself.

You wanna read Beevor or Morrow for a detailed description.


Felix Morrow

Revolution and Counter Revolution in Spain



Foreword (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/foreword.htm)
1 Why the Fascists Revolted (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch01.htm)
2 The Bourgeois ‘Allies’ in the Peoples Front (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch02.htm)
3 The Revolution of July 19 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch03.htm)
4 Towards a Coalition with the Bourgeoisie (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch04.htm)
5 The Politics of the Spanish Working Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch05.htm)
6 The Programme of the Caballero Coalition Government (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch06.htm)
7 The Programme of the Catalan Government (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch07.htm)
8 Revival of the Bourgeois State: September 1936 – April 1931 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch08.htm)
9 The Counter-Revolution and the Masses (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch09.htm)
10 The May Days: Barricades in Barcelona (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch10.htm)
11 The Dismissal of Largo Caballero (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch11.htm)
12 ‘El Gobierno de la Victoria’ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch12.htm)
13 The Conquest of Catalonia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch13.htm)
14 The Conquest of Aragon (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch14.htm)
15 The Military Struggle under Giral, and Caballero (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch15.htm)
16 The Military Struggle under Negrin-Prieto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch16.htm)
17 Only Two Roads (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/ch17.htm)
18 Postscript (http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/postscript.htm)


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514VQveVZPL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/postscript.htm)




http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Battle-Spain-Spanish-1936-1939/dp/0753821656/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334085356&sr=1-1


The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 [Paperback]

Antony Beevor (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Antony-Beevor/e/B000APGKKE/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1)[/URL] (Author)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51b4cf09CjL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg


[URL="http://www.marxists.org/archive/morrow-felix/1938/revolution-spain/postscript.htm"]
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Battle-Spain-Spanish-1936-1939/dp/0753821656/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334085356&sr=1-1#)

[daft punk]

"In a word, without so much as by-your-leave to the government, the proletariat had begun a war to the death against the fascists. The initiative had passed out of the hands of the republican bourgeoisie."
Felix Morrow Chapter 3.

[Grenzer]

I'll be sure to check those out, I was starting to stock up on some books for the summer and I ordered Story of the Iron Column a few days ago. Anyone have word on how that's supposed to be?

If nothing else, the events in Spain seem pretty damn interesting. It seems extremely chaotic and complex since you have the Anarchists, the Republicans, the Stalinists, and all the fascists. It's a shame it doesn't get brought up more often around here.

[Comrade Jandar]

Railyon is quite right about one thing: class collaboration is usually a failure of action and strategy, not theory(although it can be). I know some are quite fond of popular front strategies.



I'm not really sure this is what Daft Punk means, he might be trying to say that we need a "glorious leader" to implement socialism, in which case he'd be wrong; but I don't think this is what he was trying to say. It seems to me that he was more criticizing the perennial anarchist hysteria over the seizure of state power and asserting themselves politically. In a way, it brings the Paris Commune to mind. The communards were afraid to to assert their state power in an "authoritarian" way to crush the class enemy, so they in turn were crushed.

Materialism is not a part of anarchism, even if one would like to claim otherwise. At best it's taken out of context and applied haphazardly when convenient. This nonsense over "authoritarian vs libertarian" is a complete chimera at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. There is nothing material or scientific in the conception of "authoritarianism". It seems like pure liberalism. We must use every tool at our disposable to permanently destroy the bourgeoisie, state power is one of those tools that is absolutely essential to this end. Under certain circumstances, "libertarianism" is a self-imposed liberal handicap that only serves to aid the bourgeoisie. We should let the conditions determine the course of action, not ideals. Sometimes I get the impression that anarchists are concerned about suboordinating the class interest of the workers to their romantic conceptions of 'liberty' and 'freedom'. Sucks that some people will cling onto these notions despite them having proven to be completely disastrous, as in the case of the Spanish 'revolution'.

I agree with Bordiga fully when he stated that the hour before the final triumph of the revolution, "Liberty!" will be the rallying cry of the counter-revolutionaries, just as those ancient bourgeois revolutionaries of old.

I certainly agree that there is certain amount of idealism within anarchism, but at its core it's very much based upon a materialist conception of society, at least in its modern form. Here is a solid article about materialism and its relation to anarchism.

http://anarchistplatform.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/materialism-and-idealism/

"However, anarchism proper is nothing other than a concrete historical product, that has its origin under determined material conditions. Anarchism circumscribes at the moment of ascension and consolidation of the bourgeoisie while dominant class, with their bourgeois revolutions, that give new forms of production and reproduction of social life, new material bases and also philosophies."

Once again we have spiraled into a tendency war.

[x359594]

...It seems extremely chaotic and complex since you have the Anarchists, the Republicans, the Stalinists, and all the fascists. It's a shame it doesn't get brought up more often around here.

Very chaotic and complex. One book that attempts to make sense of it all is The Revolution and Civil War in Spain by Pierre Broue and Emile Temime. The authors are Trotskyists and in my judgement they treat the facts fairly even if one may not agree with their analysis. In this respect they're superior to all bourgeois historians of the revolution and civil war who pretend to objective but none the less but a spin on the what happened by glossing over some events and emphasizing others. Of the bourgeois historians, Beevor is the best.

As for The Iron Column, it's a good military history of an ideologically informed "people's army." Paz reprints circulars, orders and editorials from the anarchist press of the time as well as a lengthy memoir of one of the militiamen. A very good read.

Recently published that I haven't read yet is The Spanish Holocaustby Paul Preston. The book is a study of Franco's repression during and after the Civil War. Based on an excerpt that I read it's a horrifying and deeply disturbing account.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Forcing people to abolish authoritarian social institutions is not authoritarian... If you force people to end an authoritarian social institution, it is not authoritarian.
So you're forcing them to do something that they don't want to do? How is that not authoritarian even if it's necessary for the liberation of the working class?

[Magón]

So you're forcing them to do something that they don't want to do? How is that not authoritarian even if it's necessary for the liberation of the working class?

Uh, because unlike the Authoritarianism they live under, that holds strong to one group of people being better/more deserving, than another group of people, among other things, you're erasing class and all other divisions, making people equal to one another no matter where they come from, what they're about, or how they grew up.

Anarchism is also fighting to allow people their full civil liberties, not just the ones the State says they can have, or what the party says, making the people tow the party line. Anarchism allows people to be whoever they want, and express that however they want without some government jackboot stepping on them, and telling them they can't express themselves this way or that. Basically rather than continuing to allow people who protest a situation they may not agree with, and thus are arrested, corralled, and dispersed by police or military, Anarchists look to give people their full voice on a situation and matters concerning them. Authoritarians look to silence those who speak out against them, or simply something that they don't like, no hesitation.

[daft punk]

At the risk of being accused of having my 'cock tatooed with an image of Hannah Sell' or whatever, here is a good short article on Spain

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

Spanish Revolution 75th anniversary. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory

22/07/2011
This week is the 75th anniversary of the start of the Spanish Civil War, on 18 July 18. We mark this hugely important event in world history with an article first published on socialistworld.net in 2009.
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party (CWI in England & Wales)