Authoritarian socialism

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I have seen many authoritarian theories of socialism, like marxist-leninism, stalisnism, trotskyism, etc.

Yet they all sound the same to me.
They all involve an authoritarian state, I don't understand why they fight each other, their goals look the same to me.

According to my anarchistic views a state serves only itself, it is an organization that preys on people, steals their work and limits their freedom.
If you think this way then you realize that a system with an authoritarian state is never going to achieve socialism.

I consider authoritarian a government that has power to change the lives of the people without their consent( parlamentary democracy is
authoritarian). I consider libertarian a system where the people have a say in what measures are to be taken, direct democracy is libertarian.

A state has only its own interest (totalitarian) or the interest of the capitalists (capitalist) in mind, and cares nothing for the people, the only reason why you have food and house is to make sure you live to give profit to the state's capitalist masters, the other luxuries you have serve to create an ilusion of freedom, and ilusion that the state does care about you and that the capitalist system does work.

If you consider that today the state serves its capitalist masters, then can we make the state serve the workers?
Of course not! The state is an organization that opresses the people, it can never serve them!

I cannot understand the differences between the theories of authoritarian socialism, they all have an authoritarian state, all authoritarian states have the same goals, to opress the people so that the people will work for them.

If we are to have a revolution of the people (or, like you guys love to call it, the working class) then this revolution must have a libertarian form of government.

After you are done screaming at me for this can you explain to me the differences between the several theories of authoritarian socialism?

[Koba Junior]

That you differentiated between Marxism-Leninism and "Stalinism" suggests that you aren't actually very familiar with the ideology. "Stalinism" is generally a pejorative term for Marxism-Leninism, particularly in the context of anti-revisionism. As for "authoritarianism," the concept itself is rather unimpressive. The state has no reason to serve itself, as if the state exists in a vacuum. Rather, the state exists to serve the interests of the ruling class. Under capitalism, the state serves the bourgeoisie. When the proletariat seize power through revolution, they establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, a proletarian state to initiate the construction of socialism and combat counter-revolutionary efforts. In a sense, the proletarian state is highly authoritarian, but it is so in the sense that, by design, it suppresses the former exploitative ruling class.

[The Douche]

How does democracy, even if it is direct, not have the "power to change peoples lives without their consent"? And do "the people" not have "a say" in bourgeois democracy?

[marl]

OP - Class rule is inherently authoritarian, and "totalitarian" is a meaningless buzzword (there's been several discussions regarding that word).

[Book O'Dead]

As I understand it, socialism is not authoritarian. Socialism is by definition egalitarian, inclusive and democratic.

Stalinism is authoritarian because it a counterfeit form of 'socialism', a tragic result of Leninism's fundamental hostility to proletarian self-rule and democracy.

[Book O'Dead]

OP - Class rule is inherently authoritarian, and "totalitarian" is a meaningless buzzword (there's been several discussions regarding that word).

This is wrong. Totalitarianism is real. It expresses itself in capitalism's presence and influence in the lives of all--or nearly all--the people of the Earth.

[Koba Junior]

As I understand it, socialism is not authoritarian. Socialism is by definition egalitarian, inclusive and democratic.

Stalinism is authoritarian because it a counterfeit form of 'socialism', a tragic result of Leninism's fundamental hostility to proletarian self-rule and democracy.


This is wrong. Totalitarianism is real. It expresses itself in capitalism's presence and influence in the lives of all--or nearly all--the people of the Earth.

I've never facepalmed so hard in my life. Oh, RevLeft, you and your curve-balls.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I have seen many authoritarian theories of socialism, like marxist-leninism, stalisnism, trotskyism, etc.

Yet they all sound the same to me.
They all involve an authoritarian state, I don't understand why they fight each other, their goals look the same to me.

Wow, what an ignorant statement. Even anarchists note the differences in these theories.


According to my anarchistic views a state serves only itself, it is an organization that preys on people, steals their work and limits their freedom.
If you think this way then you realize that a system with an authoritarian state is never going to achieve socialism.

1. "Authoritarianism" and "Libertarianism" mean absolutely nothing without a class outlook attached to these terms. Hypothetically, if there was an anarchist revolution what may seem "libertarian" to the working class would absolutely seem authoritarian to the bourgeoisie (such as confiscating their property, etc.)
2. As an anarchist, you must understand that the state must exist as classes exist, correct? This is something Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others have noted. To believe that right after the revolution classes won't exist is a ridiculous assumption. Therefore, their necessarily must be a state. This state would be used in a way to oppress "freedom", such as the freedom of the bourgeoisie. Most anarchists do not disagree with this, depending on the view of the proletarian dictatorship expounded by different people.


A state has only its own interest (totalitarian) or the interest of the capitalists (capitalist) in mind, and cares nothing for the people, the only reason why you have food and house is to make sure you live to give profit to the state's capitalist masters, the other luxuries you have serve to create an ilusion of freedom, and ilusion that the state does care about you and that the capitalist system does work.

Yes, the bourgeois state only has the interests of the bourgeoisie in mind. No one would argue any differently. What is your point?


If you consider that today the state serves its capitalist masters, then can we make the state serve the workers?
Of course not! The state is an organization that opresses the people, it can never serve them!

Unless the state machinery is used to oppress the bourgeoisie and violent counter-revolutionaries that are sure to appear after the revolution. Every revolution, from the July 26th Movement in Cuba, to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, to the Bolsheviks in Russia, to the Paris Commune, etc. etc. have all faced serious and oppressive counter-revolution and imperialist attack after taking power. These instances necessitate the need for a transitional state.


If we are to have a revolution of the people (or, like you guys love to call it, the working class) then this revolution must have a libertarian form of government.

Again, the words "libertarian" and "authoritarian" mean ABSOLUTELY nothing without a class analysis behind them. Also, what if conditions don't allow for pure democracy like you advocate? In Nigeria, after independence, the new society formed was extremely dysfunctional and the parties and organizations that formed were based on regional alliances. This meant that rule was done from the most populous area each election and the party in power would only give resources and benefits to the region it represented at the expense of other regions. After a new government was formed a law was made that a party or organization seeking political power had to have a certain amount of support in each region to change the deficiencies. This would be considered "authoritarian" and went against "direct democracy" but it was a measure of absolute necessity for the situations of the country.


After you are done screaming at me for this can you explain to me the differences between the several theories of authoritarian socialism?
They are really self explanatory. I have spent much time typing this, so another user might have already explained. I might if no one else does.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

As I understand it, socialism is not authoritarian. Socialism is by definition egalitarian, inclusive and democratic.

No class analysis behind these terms, of course! THEY MEAN NOTHING!


Stalinism is authoritarian because it a counterfeit form of 'socialism', a tragic result of Leninism's fundamental hostility to proletarian self-rule and democracy.

So, I am an anti-Stalinist and a Leninist. "Stalinism" did not result from "Leninism's fundamental hostility to proletarian self rule and democracy". That is a statement very ignorant of the conditions of Russia at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. The country, while industrializing, was still very backwards and the majority were illiterate and lacking basic skills for a modern society (like every backwards nation). After the revolution workers' self rule showed to be unfavorable because of the need to rapidly industrialize the nation, the chaos that ensued from workers' control (because again, most workers were illiterate, etc.), and the counter-revolution and civil war. Again, if in the United States there was a socialist revolution, while the counter-revolution would absolutely appear, illiteracy and industrialization are not a problem and so nationalization would not be of necessity over workers' control like it was in Russia in the early 1900s.

[Rooster]

I have seen many authoritarian theories of socialism, like marxist-leninism, stalisnism, trotskyism, etc.

Yet they all sound the same to me.
They all involve an authoritarian state, I don't understand why they fight each other, their goals look the same to me.

Yeah, I don't know either. Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are the same thing by the way.


I cannot understand the differences between the theories of authoritarian socialism, they all have an authoritarian state, all authoritarian states have the same goals, to opress the people so that the people will work for them.

If we are to have a revolution of the people (or, like you guys love to call it, the working class) then this revolution must have a libertarian form of government.

After you are done screaming at me for this can you explain to me the differences between the several theories of authoritarian socialism?

Well, the thing is, those types of socialism, which should be called utopian socialism, have to defend the idea of the state because it is through the state that they wish to change society into a socialist one. You should maybe read the last chapter and some of the drafts for Marx's The Civil War in France. I'm too tired right now to provide quotes and junk but he talks about how the state became an entity unto itself, how the state has become centralised and how the proletariat has to be rid of it. The main thing, though, is the idea of the proletariat gaining state power has to be turned around. The state has to be subsumed underneath society.

[Rafiq]

Authoritarian Socialism? Anarchists here are inventing their own opponents, i.e. They take what they call "Authoritarian" and apply it to several socialist movements as the sole base of their criticism. It's a useless and unscientific argument. First, they must establish why "Authoritarianism" is bad, and if they fail to do this outside of Bourgeois-Liberal constrained thought, why even call themselves Socialists at all? (Of course, they are Socialists, merely because of their class origins, not "theory").

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Anarchists here are inventing their own opponents, i.e. They take what they call "Authoritarian" and apply it to several socialist movements as the sole base of their criticism.

At the same time, many do the same thing with the word "reactionary" or "Utopian".

[Book O'Dead]

No class analysis behind these terms, of course! THEY MEAN NOTHING!

Right...


So, I am an anti-Stalinist and a Leninist. "Stalinism" did not result from "Leninism's fundamental hostility to proletarian self rule and democracy". That is a statement very ignorant of the conditions of Russia at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. The country, while industrializing, was still very backwards and the majority were illiterate and lacking basic skills for a modern society (like every backwards nation). After the revolution workers' self rule showed to be unfavorable because of the need to rapidly industrialize the nation, the chaos that ensued from workers' control (because again, most workers were illiterate, etc.), and the counter-revolution and civil war. Again, if in the United States there was a socialist revolution, while the counter-revolution would absolutely appear, illiteracy and industrialization are not a problem and so nationalization would not be of necessity over workers' control like it was in Russia in the early 1900s."Lenin's methods lead to this: the party organization at first substitutes itself for the party as a whole; then the Central Committee substitutes itself for the organization; and finally a single 'dictator' substitutes himself for the Central Committee." Trotsky, Our Political Tasks, 1904.

To me that's a prescient statement regarding Lenin's unwitting enabling of Stalin.

And there's more:

"The concentration of power within the party matched a similar process in the organs of state. The same men, sharing the same traditions and the same purpose, directed the affairs of party and of state; the same incessant crisis and the same uninterrupted pressure of events weighed equally between 1917 and 1921 on party and on Soviet institutions. The outstanding developments of these years in the machinery of state - the concentration of central authority in the hands of Sovnarkom at the expense of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets and of VTsIK, and the concentration of authority at the centre at the expense of the local Soviets and congresses of Soviets and their organs--had actually preceded the corresponding developments in the party organization. For some time the lines of development in party and state ran parallel. Then, by an inevitable process they began to converge and, finally, to coincide. This process had been virtually completed before Lenin's death."

--E.H. Carr

[Koba Junior]

For accurate, objective analysis of Leninism, you can't do much better than Trotsky.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

First, I love E.H. Carr's work on the Bolshevik revolution :D

I don't necessarily disagree with the above statements. In fact, Lenin condemned the bureaucratic state that developed before his death. I agree that conditions for Stalinism were created in Lenin's years (considering I don't hold some idealist view of Lenin like some comrades) but I don't like the quotes you used out of context, and that matters a great deal. Of course "authoritarian" :rolleyes: forms of organization would develop under circumstances of civil war, invasion, sabotage, counter-revolution, underdevelopment, famine, etc. I do not morally condemn Stalin but recognize that the material conditions in Russia, along with the choices Stalin and the rulers made within those conditions, necessitated in the bloating of state power and bueracracy. I don't disagree with your post, as any truthful and anti-Stalinist Leninist would.

EDIT: When I say "necessitate" I do not mean to imply that I think that Stalin had to make the decisions he did and that they were correct because conditions made those decisions of necessity. I mean that the material conditions of Russia combined with Stalin's heavy-handed, bureaucratic, etc. approach made the bloating of the state inevitable. Stalin and (more importantly) Stalinist policies should be criticized for this.

[Klaatu]

I have seen many authoritarian theories of socialism, like marxist-leninism, stalisnism, trotskyism, etc.

Yet they all sound the same to me.
They all involve an authoritarian state, I don't understand why they fight each other, their goals look the same to me.

According to my anarchistic views a state serves only itself, it is an organization that preys on people, steals their work and limits their freedom.
If you think this way then you realize that a system with an authoritarian state is never going to achieve socialism.

I consider authoritarian a government that has power to change the lives of the people without their consent( parlamentary democracy is
authoritarian). I consider libertarian a system where the people have a say in what measures are to be taken, direct democracy is libertarian.

A state has only its own interest (totalitarian) or the interest of the capitalists (capitalist) in mind, and cares nothing for the people, the only reason why you have food and house is to make sure you live to give profit to the state's capitalist masters, the other luxuries you have serve to create an ilusion of freedom, and ilusion that the state does care about you and that the capitalist system does work.

If you consider that today the state serves its capitalist masters, then can we make the state serve the workers?
Of course not! The state is an organization that opresses the people, it can never serve them!

I cannot understand the differences between the theories of authoritarian socialism, they all have an authoritarian state, all authoritarian states have the same goals, to opress the people so that the people will work for them.

If we are to have a revolution of the people (or, like you guys love to call it, the working class) then this revolution must have a libertarian form of government.

After you are done screaming at me for this can you explain to me the differences between the several theories of authoritarian socialism?


The first step will be to remove and proscribe all private money out of politics. Investing and owning agents of government leads to tyranny,
and must be abolished. It should be illegal to donate even one dollar to a politician, or his campaign, or to even run ads touting (or attacking) such-and-such public official. (Only public funds can be used; and these are equally distibuted to insure fairness)

That being done, the Socialist Revolution can get underway.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

There is no true distinction between authoritarian and libertarian for Marxists.

I support the full and complete liberty of the proletariat. I also support the full and complete authority of the proletariat over other classes. (DoTP) As such, I am, by definition, both authoritarian and libertarian.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

So left-communism is indeed authoritarian.
An authoritarian system is a system that advocates opression, a libertarian system does not, taking the money from the burgeosie is not opression, it is turning them into workers.

@Rafiq

I am not inventing my own oponents due to the fact that if just said "socialism" instead of "authoritarian socialism" you would have accused me of criticising myself.
Are you mad? Authoritarianism, not bad!?
For there to be successfull authoritarianism the leader would have to be like a god an know about everything and how to best resolve every situation.
Do you not know that two heads think better than one?

@cmoney

In direct democracy the wholle people get a say in decisions, decisions can be taken against their will, unless there is consensus, but I do not believe in consensus.
In burgeois democracy the people get to choose their opressor.

@koba junior

The state will serve itself because it is formed by people, and when people see themselves in a position that will improve their survivability will do anything to stay there. The state is not a tool to be wielded, it is an organisation with its own goals.

@marl

Indeed, class rule is authoritarian, but anarchism does not stand for class rule, it stands for cooperation, the burgeoisie will be turned into workers or be expelled from the community they are in (by the workers who decided (maybe democraticaly) that he should be expelled).

@Brosa Luxemburg

First of all a socialist revolution should abolish classes, not opress them. You abolish the burgeoisie by changing the way economy works, you change to socialist mode of production and distribution, and the burgeoisie will not have profit and thus may not exist and will either escape to other countries (where the revolution has not happened) or will become workers.
Libertarianism/authoritarianism is not about whay measures are applied, but how measures are applied, for example if a comunity has voted (in direct democracy) for a law that forbids the use of spoons it is still libertarian, because it let the people decide if the measure should be applied or not.

Counter-revolutionaries do not apear after every revolution, for example the portuguese 25th of april revolution was peacefull and their were no counter-revolutionary movements. It does not take an authoritarian state (in the sence explained above) to destroy counter-revolution, although the existance of some form of authority to organize the armies is necessary, anarchist armies had chains of command, because an army NEEDS to be organized in this manner so that it will be effective, but a country does not.

BTW stalinism, leninism, and trotskyism seem the same to me, but in one the leader is Stalin, and in the other the leader is Trotsky.

@Brooster

It is through revolution that one changes society into anarchism, it does not take a state, all it takes is the will of the people.


Please could someone actually explain what the diferences are between stalinism, leninism, troskyism and the other authoritarian forms of socialism (the ones that involve an authoritarian state)

[Welshy]

@Brosa Luxemburg

First of all a socialist revolution should abolish classes, not opress them. You abolish the burgeoisie by changing the way economy works, you change to socialist mode of production and distribution, and the burgeoisie will not have profit and thus may not exist and will either escape to other countries (where the revolution has not happened) or will become workers.
Libertarianism/authoritarianism is not about whay measures are applied, but how measures are applied, for example if a comunity has voted (in direct democracy) for a law that forbids the use of spoons it is still libertarian, because it let the people decide if the measure should be applied or not.

Just because you eliminate their economic basis during the revolution, doesn't mean that forces who were once the capitalists wouldn't seek to re-establish their position. This why authoritarianism (what you recognize as authoritarianism) is needed without it how do you fight counter revolutionaries? Also in your last sentence, would you consider it to be libertarian if an entire community voted to banned speech that supports capitalism? Would it be libertarian if an entire community votes to take up arms a pro-capitalist force that wishes to turn the property they put under communal control back into private property?



Counter-revolutionaries do not apear after every revolution, for example the portuguese 25th of april revolution was peacefull and their were no counter-revolutionary movements. It does not take an authoritarian state (in the sence explained above) to destroy counter-revolution, although the existance of some form of authority to organize the armies is necessary, anarchist armies had chains of command, because an army NEEDS to be organized in this manner so that it will be effective, but a country does not.


You can't compare some "revolution" that changed a dictatorship to a democracy with a social revolution that would be required to establish socialism. In the example you gave, capitalism was never challenged so the capitalists had no need to fight it. Had it been that way I can almost guarantee you that that revolution (if it remained peaceful) would have been violently suppressed and failed. Rarely does life ever respect you idealistic notions of authoritarian vs. libertarianism nor does it ever allow for a peaceful social revolution in the way that you hope for.

[Offbeat]

I think we need to take a look at the term "authoritarian" to clear things up. As Brosa Luxemburg points out, for most Marxists this is a meaningless term unless it is applied to class rule. Even anarchist communism could be considered "authoritarian" by this definition - certainly, it would seem that way to the bourgeoisie.

Anarchists tend to use this term when considering the existence of a state, a state being a centralised, hierarchical power structure rather than the "organ of class rule" as described by Marx. Thus Leninism could be described as an authoritarian form of socialism, as a state in this sense existed from the earliest days of the Soviet Union.

[campesino]

what is wrong with authoritarianism? especially if it operates on developing communism.

[Brosip Tito]

I would like to coin an official term for Marxist "authoritarianism".

Authoritarian Democracy. The revolutionary minority excercising it's authority is far from the bourgeois concept of authoritarian governments.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

.

@marl

Indeed, class rule is authoritarian, but anarchism does not stand for class rule, it stands for cooperation, the burgeoisie will be turned into workers or be expelled from the community they are in (by the workers who decided (maybe democraticaly) that he should be expelled).



So, Welshy already accuratley responding for me (thanks Welshy) so I wanted to look at this. I thought anarchists didn't like Trots for their class collaborationist ideas in their United Front, yet here you openly want the cooperation of the capitalists. For starters, it seems you have some utopian idea that the capitalists will peacefully give up the means of production and secondly this seems highly class collaborationist. I think most anarchists would disagree with this. Also, how is expelling the bourgeoisie not "authoritarian"?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Please could someone actually explain what the diferences are between stalinism, leninism, troskyism and the other authoritarian forms of socialism (the ones that involve an authoritarian state)

Well Stalinism advocated Socialism in One Country. This is the belief that a classless and stateless society can exist in one country and that there isn't a need for international revolution for socialism to exist. (Stalinism is generally called Marxism-Leninism by Stalinists by the way). Stalinism also advocated "socialist patriotism" and advocates that socialists have great love for the "socialist homeland" and whatnot. Stalinism is based around a cult of personality of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin who, according to anti-Stalinists like myself, ruled over a essentially capitalist society in which generalized commodity production, wage labor, etc. still existed. This is generally called "state capitalism" by critics but it should be also noted that "state capitalism" is sometimes a necessary stage of development for backwards and third world countries (although many, such as myself, do not view it as necessary during Stalin's time or consider the way in which Stalin went about it as wrong). Stalin is also criticized for his purges, vast gulag system, etc.

Trotskyism advocates international socialism versus Socialism in One Country. It sees Socialism in One Country as being fundamentally opposed to proletariat internationalism. It sees the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat which would wait for international revolution before instituting socialism. Trotsky is generally criticized by left communists such as myself for his united front policies (which are seen as class collaborationist). Also, Trotsky viewed the economic policies of the Soviet Union as flawed and viewed the Soviet Union and other "socialist" states as deformed workers states (not state capitalist). The writing Platform of the Joint Opposition was put out to criticize Stalin and his ideas. Trots also criticize Stalin for the purges, etc.

Leninism involves many lines of thought, including the 2 mentioned above. It also includes Left Communist schools of thought and ideas as well. Left Communists that consider themselves as Leninists generally agree with Bolshevik tactics for the revolution and agree with Lenin's tactics after he came to power. They disagree with Lenin's writing on Left Communism (see Herman Gorter's response to this for a Left Communist critique). It criticizes Lenin's want for revolutionaries to participate in parliaments and trade unions. Some argue instead for "organic centralism" instead of "democratic centralism".

From antagonism press's Bordiga Versus Pannekoek:

At the time that Party and Class was written, Bordiga regarded the Bolsheviks, and the Third International as real communist parties. He was later to oppose the policy of Bolshevization, which ordered a mechanical unity, enforced by the “top executives”, preferring an “organic centralism” in which all members were to participate actively. “It would be a fatal error to consider the party as dividable into two groups, one of which is dedicated to the study and the other to action; such a distinction is deadly for the body of the party, as well as for the individual militant.”14 Later still he was to criticise Lenin. Nonetheless, in seeing the ICP, the existing formal party, as the essence of the proletariat as a revolutionary class, he retained elements of a Bolshevik position throughout his life.

These definitions are incomplete and obviously need more added to them. I tried to be as unbiased as I could while writing these, but I am sure that my bias came out in these definitions. I think I hit the main points though.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brosa Luxemburg

What I meant by cooperation was cooperation among the wholle people, capitalists will either be turned workers (by their own will) or escape to other countries where revolution has not happened yet, if not they will be forced to exit.

@welshy

Yes, if a community votes for repressive measures it can still be considered authoritarian, since no one complains, if one complains then we have a problem.
Like I said before authoritarianism is not necessary to fight counter-revolutionaries, but a chain of command is necessary to organize armies, thus one can have generals, but no centralized form of government. It is not the state that fights wars, it is the people.
Brosa Luxemburg was saying that is every revolution their had been counter-revolution, I proved him wrong. I did not say I believe that when a revolution comes it will be peaceful(although it might).

@campesino

Are you retarded?
What is wrong with authoritarianism is it stands for centralized rule of very few who have absolute power over all, these few do not know the problems of the country, authoritarian government is extremely inefective, all authoritarian governments end, the problem is they are many times replaced with another authoritarian government.
State cannot be used to develop communism, because any state (wether fascist or socialist, even anarchist) will only do what is best for itself, a government is composed of people, these people see an oportunity improving their survivability by staying in power.
It did not work in the USSR, it will never work, authoritarianism stops the development of communism and limits the people's freedom, even freedom to proceed with revolution. If the state has to exist only to stop counter-revolution (explained why it is not necessary under any circumstance in post above) and then the people have to do away with it, that would take a second revolution.
A state is a tool of opression it serves only to limit the people's abilities, it hinders development, both mental and technological.

When you see one that has the right to boss you around, tell you what to do, do you not feel bothered. Even if he says he is bossing you around for the revolution he is only making you do his biding, government allways works for itself (or for the capitalists who reward the people in government for doing their biding).

@Brosa Luxemburg

Thank you for explaining authoritarian forms of socialism, so the only diference between them is one thinks it should be local and the other thinks it should be international.

[Rooster]

@Brooster

It is through revolution that one changes society into anarchism, it does not take a state, all it takes is the will of the people.

It's more like it's through a complicated process but yeah, only the proletariat as a class can rid the world of class society.


Please could someone actually explain what the diferences are between stalinism, leninism, troskyism and the other authoritarian forms of socialism (the ones that involve an authoritarian state)

They're all utopian so come under the same umbrella.

[Rooster]

what is wrong with authoritarianism? especially if it operates on developing communism.

You don't develop communism, you implement it.

[campesino]

@ TheRedAnarchist23
Stalin didn't end the Soviet Union, Perestroika did. What is freedom? the freedom to be over-run by the capitalist, the Russian Mafia, to be a mail order bride for some pathetic foreigner or a sex-slave to oil-sheikhs. I believe in authoritarianism that does not torture or imprison or have death penalty, and strives to develop communism. There are good and bad examples of authoritarianism some are good and some are bad. two good examples is Kwame Nkrumah and Juan Peron, although Peron was capitalist. Until there are no more capitalist there will be a need for authoritarianism(by your definition, which includes parliamentary democracy). So that is my opinion.

[Rafiq]

Petestroika didn't end the Soviet Union, the material forces and mode of production which necessiated it did. And what caused those, is a whole nother story.

[TheMyth]

@Brosa Luxemburg

First of all a socialist revolution should abolish classes, not opress them. You abolish the burgeoisie by changing the way economy works, you change to socialist mode of production and distribution, and the burgeoisie will not have profit and thus may not exist and will either escape to other countries (where the revolution has not happened) or will become workers.
Libertarianism/authoritarianism is not about whay measures are applied, but how measures are applied, for example if a comunity has voted (in direct democracy) for a law that forbids the use of spoons it is still libertarian, because it let the people decide if the measure should be applied or not.

Counter-revolutionaries do not apear after every revolution, for example the portuguese 25th of april revolution was peacefull and their were no counter-revolutionary movements. It does not take an authoritarian state (in the sence explained above) to destroy counter-revolution, although the existance of some form of authority to organize the armies is necessary, anarchist armies had chains of command, because an army NEEDS to be organized in this manner so that it will be effective, but a country does not.

BTW stalinism, leninism, and trotskyism seem the same to me, but in one the leader is Stalin, and in the other the leader is Trotsky.



Are you sure you are Portuguese ?
Because you should know who was Spínola and is attempt to coup the power to him .
You should also know that MFA Itself was a movement who want a change of government only .
It was the people who ask and protest for elections and Freedom for Political Prisioners .
You also should know that MFA ask to the people to stay at home and keep quite and ask to the Fascist Police to use their " civism" .
Why MFA didn't occupy PIDE ?
Why MFA in their program had Police of Informations in Colonies ?
You know the slogan POVO-MFA MFA-POVO it's was only a move to Militars regain in power .
And the most important thing is that Otelo the " great " strategist admit that Coup was anticipated to 25 of April because the 1 May strikes against Government .

[JAM]

Well Stalinism advocated Socialism in One Country. This is the belief that a classless and stateless society can exist in one country and that there isn't a need for international revolution for socialism to exist.


"Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?


Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.


We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.


But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.
" by Josef Stalin.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@Brosa Luxemburg

What I meant by cooperation was cooperation among the wholle people, capitalists will either be turned workers (by their own will) or escape to other countries where revolution has not happened yet, if not they will be forced to exit.

1. Capitalists almost never turn over the means of production "by their own will". History has shown this time and time again.
2. "Forcing" them to exit is "authoritarian".


Like I said before authoritarianism is not necessary to fight counter-revolutionaries, but a chain of command is necessary to organize armies, thus one can have generals, but no centralized form of government. It is not the state that fights wars, it is the people.

The state is the most effective means to organize the war effort. For an example, the Bolshevik revolution faced counter-revolutionary internal sabatoge and assassination of government leaders, assassination of pro-Bolshevik workers, invasion by 14 imperialist countries, civil war, famine, the need to industrialize, etc. etc. In a situation like that a stateless society would be unfathomable. To believe otherwise is VERY Utopian.


Brosa Luxemburg was saying that is every revolution their had been counter-revolution, I proved him wrong. I did not say I believe that when a revolution comes it will be peaceful(although it might).

1. You did not "prove me wrong" by any means. You used one example of a revolution that toppled a dictatorship but DID NOT distribute the means of production, try to implement socialism, etc. etc. as Welshy pointed out.
2. This also may be a problem on my part. I made it sound like I was supporting some absolutist idea that "any revolution will evoke a violent, counter-revolutionary response". I do not agree with that, but history shows almost EVERY socialist revolution has resulted in this type of response, and so a violent counter-revolution would almost certainly develop in that type of situation. I doubt that you would disagree with this.


@Brosa Luxemburg

Thank you for explaining authoritarian forms of socialism, so the only diference between them is one thinks it should be local and the other thinks it should be international.

Well, there is much more than this. (A HELL of a lot more than this). Even anarchists I know do not simplify the vast and different theories this much. I don't want to explain any more without giving you a vary biased answer. I would research more on these theories yourself to get a more unbiased opinion.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@ Jam

Again, I am biased against Stalinism (M-L, whatever you wanna call it). Obviously this came out in my response, which I do not deny.

However, I do sharply disagree with SOIC and some of the things you mentioned in your post, but a debate on this is not appropriate in this forum (unless the OP dosen't mind).

[JAM]

@ Jam

Again, I am biased against Stalinism (M-L, whatever you wanna call it). Obviously this came out in my response, which I do not deny.

However, I do sharply disagree with SOIC and some of the things you mentioned in your post, but a debate on this is not appropriate in this forum (unless the OP dosen't mind).

I didn't mentioned anything in my post. I only transcribed a quote from Stalin which contradicts what you said about it.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It is the fact that you Stalinists believe that socialism CAN exist in one country that bothers me and many others, which is not contradicted in your post quoting Stalin. Again, this is not the place unless the OP doesn't care.

[Koba Junior]

It is the fact that you Stalinists believe that socialism CAN exist in one country that bothers me and many others, which is not contradicted in your post quoting Stalin. Again, this is not the place unless the OP doesn't care.

What is it that makes it so impossible for a classless society to exist within a certain defined territory? What about not being simultaneously global makes it impossible? It's not as though capitalism had any trouble existing in some parts and not others.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

...god I hope the OP is okay with a debate.

Again, this is not the place as of now.

[Koba Junior]

I think the topic of the thread can include a debate regarding socialism in one country.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'll come back to this tommorow, but you are probably correct Koba Junior.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'll make a thread on this in the Politics section.

[JAM]

It is the fact that you Stalinists believe that socialism CAN exist in one country that bothers me and many others, which is not contradicted in your post quoting Stalin. Again, this is not the place unless the OP doesn't care.

You didn't get it. What is wrong is your understanding of SIOC, not if it's possible to build socialism in one country or not. Look at what you said:


"This is the belief that a classless and stateless society can exist in one country and that there isn't a need for international revolution for socialism to exist."

Now look at the quote from Stalin:


"Can the victory of Socialism in one country be regarded as final if this country is encircled by capitalism, and if it is not fully guaranteed against the danger of intervention and restoration?


Clearly, it cannot, This is the position in regard to the question of the victory of Socialism in one country.


We could say that this victory is final if our country were situated on an island and if it were not surrounded by numerous capitalist countries.


But as we are not living on an island but "in a system of States," a considerable number of which are hostile to the land of Socialism and create the danger of intervention and restoration, we say openly and honestly that the victory of Socialism in our country is not yet final.
"

Did you get my point now?

[JAM]

Counter-revolutionaries do not apear after every revolution, for example the portuguese 25th of april revolution was peacefull and their were no counter-revolutionary movements.


Sometimes I doubt if you really are Portuguese or not due to the extremely inaccurately things you say.

There were no counter-revolutionary movements?

11th March 1975 and ELP/MDLP ring the bell?

[Leftsolidarity]

I read the first page of this thread and kind of wanted to cry

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Well Stalinism advocated Socialism in One Country. This is the belief that a classless and stateless society can exist in one country and that there isn't a need for international revolution for socialism to exist.

This is most certainly not true. When Stalin changed his position on socialism in one country, he meant for it to be the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, if you prefer that term, not socialism (as in communism) in one country.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i wonder if a 'libertarian' society were to emerge in only one geographical area; that there would be the idea of 'libertarianism in one country.'

the words "socialism in one country" are so loaded now they it cant even be discussed as a reflection of reality that there is only socialism in one country without someone shreiking "You're saying socialism should only be built in one country!*"

*or some other chant


another thing, viewing the world along the lines of 'totalitarian' and 'libertarian' have no basis in reality. what does have a basis in reality is the understanding that no matter what, class society is one in which the state exists and therefore is a society where one group rules, coercively, over another.

if you do not eliminate class division or recognize that is must be done away with in your outlook, you cannot even begin to speak in terms of 'libertarianism' or 'totalitarianism.'


and what leninists talk about in regards to the state and its use in class struggle is that yes, the state must be done away with. no proletarian uprising can succeed without the destruction of the bourgeois state. but where leninists continue on with is that no proletarian revolution can last without building up its own means to defend its gains and supress reaction(or fend of intervention and all that) because even if the working class overthrows the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie still exist elsewhere or internally and will seek to reassert themselves.


and then, only when the ability to actually personally extract wealth from another person's labor for personal consumption through the ownership of capital can the proletarian state finally lose its legitimacy or reason for existence.


but the primary task is this; the working class must be in power and its gains must be defended. only after that can anything like communism be seen as the true next step.

[Zealot]

Yes, indeed, we Leninists are proud, unapologetic authoritarians. We will do away with property, freedom, justice and liberty...of the bourgeoisie. And to top it all off, we seek a dictatorship...of the proletariat.


And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. - Marx/Engels, The Communist Manifesto

[Brosip Tito]

...without someone shreiking "You're saying socialism should only be built in one country!*"



I've never seen or heard of this argumentative line. Not even here, on revleft, where I make it a hobby to enter threads about Stalin and Stalinism, and argue.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

In fact I really am portuguese, what I meant about no counter-revolutionary movements was no war with counter-revolutionaries.

@Brosa Luxemburg

Like I said before a measure is only authoritarian if the people dont agree with it, when a measure is decided democratically (and the majority agrees) it is libertarian, even if the measure is extablishing dictatorship (they will regret that later).

I don't believe that the revolution will occur everywhere at the same time, socialism is prepared for that, but such preparation is unecessary. It is more likely that anarchist revolution will occur only in one area (small one), in such an area organization can occur easily without an authoritarian government, in a larger area it is harder.
Like I said before it does not take a state to organize a war effort, all it takes is a chain of command in an army (as proven by anarchist armies in Ukraine and Spain (1936-1939). It is not the state that wages war, it is the people, but the people require coordenation to be effective, thus the need of a chain of command.

You said that all revolutions had a counter-revolutionary movement to fight, you forgot to say "socialist".



O facto de eu escrever isto prova que sou na verdade português, e, afinal de contas, foi eu quem pediu o sub-forum em portugues, porque nenhum de vocês se incomodou a fazê-lo.



How can there not be socialism in one country, it should be easier than communism everywhere (less world wars).

[AinoAnarchist]

Wow, what an ignorant statement. Even anarchists note the differences in these theories.




There are people that dont go into details much, like from my point of view, theyre all authoritarian and thats all that really matters, and since Im libertarian I shouldnt worry about details about authoritarian theories.


1. "Authoritarianism" and "Libertarianism" mean absolutely nothing without a class outlook attached to these terms. Hypothetically, if there was an anarchist revolution what may seem "libertarian" to the working class would absolutely seem authoritarian to the bourgeoisie (such as confiscating their property, etc.)
2. As an anarchist, you must understand that the state must exist as classes exist, correct? This is something Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others have noted. To believe that right after the revolution classes won't exist is a ridiculous assumption. Therefore, their necessarily must be a state. This state would be used in a way to oppress "freedom", such as the freedom of the bourgeoisie. Most anarchists do not disagree with this, depending on the view of the proletarian dictatorship expounded by different people.



1. Even so, what they do is wrong, whatever point of view they may have,
besides the working class is consisted of more people so their "libertarian" revolution has more support.
2.Why so?Why must something that rules over you and makes decisions for you exist?They shouldnt have rights over me.All people should be equal.At least I would LOVE to leave freely.




Yes, the bourgeois state only has the interests of the bourgeoisie in mind. No one would argue any differently. What is your point?



The point would be that they shouldnt do that -_-.



Again, the words "libertarian" and "authoritarian" mean ABSOLUTELY nothing without a class analysis behind them.



They would mean SOMETHING if they exist.Everything has a meaning, besides, Why would you need class analysis to give meaning to the words
libertarian and authoritarian?

[JAM]

In fact I really am portuguese, what I meant about no counter-revolutionary movements was no war with counter-revolutionaries.

@Brosa Luxemburg

Like I said before a measure is only authoritarian if the people dont agree with it, when a measure is decided democratically (and the majority agrees) it is libertarian, even if the measure is extablishing dictatorship (they will regret that later).

I don't believe that the revolution will occur everywhere at the same time, socialism is prepared for that, but such preparation is unecessary. It is more likely that anarchist revolution will occur only in one area (small one), in such an area organization can occur easily without an authoritarian government, in a larger area it is harder.
Like I said before it does not take a state to organize a war effort, all it takes is a chain of command in an army (as proven by anarchist armies in Ukraine and Spain (1936-1939). It is not the state that wages war, it is the people, but the people require coordenation to be effective, thus the need of a chain of command.

You said that all revolutions had a counter-revolutionary movement to fight, you forgot to say "socialist".



O facto de eu escrever isto prova que sou na verdade português, e, afinal de contas, foi eu quem pediu o sub-forum em portugues, porque nenhum de vocês se incomodou a fazê-lo.



How can there not be socialism in one country, it should be easier than communism everywhere (less world wars).

I don't know if you noticed but I'm relatively new here in RevLeft. But I agree with you, we have sub-forums in many languages but we don't have one in Portuguese.

Regarding the Carnation Revolution, we almost had civil war as you may know between the revolutionary forces (MFA, PCP and other socialist movements) and the so called "democratic" forces (PS,PSD,CDS) alongside the pro-fascists elements from MDLP and Spínola. We had the siege of parliament by the workers and there was an attempt to isolate Lisbon from the rest of the country in what was called the "Commune of Lisbon". It was a civil war environment, no doubt about it. The day of the revolution itself was peaceful (despite the death of protesters by the fascist police(PIDE)) but the period that followed the revolution was very far from being peaceful.

Regarding the examples that you gave of anarchist armies, both examples have something in common: they weren't successful.

One mistake that people commonly do is regarding the nature and objective of SIOC as merely national. It isn't and that is why I showed that quotes from Stalin himself.

SIOC came in a very specific period after the revolution failed to spread to Germany. Everybody (specially Lenin) was convinced that the revolution would spread to Germany but the reality is that it didn't. This was a new reality to deal with. What were the options of USSR at the time? It could have admitted the failure of socialism and dropped the socialist revolution in Russia since it failed to spread to Germany or it could have conceived a theoretical justification to continue with the revolutionary process in Russia in order to What were the goals of SIOC? Try to advance further with the revolutionary process as much as it could be possible in one country, recover and strengthen the USSR internally and once the country was in conditions to export the revolution to do it again. This was done after the Second World War.

You think that ML's want to make a socialist revolution in one country and just stay alone neglecting the international ? This would be our goal if we were living in a island like Stalin mentioned, but we aren't. Achieving a classless and stateless society will only be possible with a world revolution, or at least a revolution large enough to crush the bourgeoisie dominance and influence because as long as you have a strong and powerful bourgeoisie outside you'll need the state to protect yourself from it. That's unavoidable. Otherwise, the bourgeoisie will easily crush your revolution.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I don't believe that the revolution will occur everywhere at the same time, socialism is prepared for that, but such preparation is unecessary. It is more likely that anarchist revolution will occur only in one area (small one), in such an area organization can occur easily without an authoritarian government, in a larger area it is harder.
Exactly, when a revolution achieves a position of power it almost always has to turn to what you would call "authoritarianism". It seems you basically just admitted what I was trying to convey this entire time.
Also, the belief in international revolution vs. socialism in one country isn't a belief that we cannot invoke a revolutionary struggle unless everywhere else in the world will join us at the same time. It believes that the revolution must stay in the dictatorship of the proletariat stage until international revolution occurs, and then the other stages of socialist development can be implemented.



Like I said before it does not take a state to organize a war effort, all it takes is a chain of command in an army (as proven by anarchist armies in Ukraine and Spain (1936-1939). It is not the state that wages war, it is the people, but the people require coordenation to be effective, thus the need of a chain of command.

You are wrong to believe that these examples didn't amount to what even you would call a state, and I doubt you know much about these situations from this post. To take one example, the Makhno myth (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml), Makhno ruled over the areas he controlled with iron force which resembled a military dictatorship structure. He also had 2 Cheka-like institution, instituted conscription among the peasants, used the Regional Military-Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers and Insurgents to suppress all political dissent, etc. etc.


How can there not be socialism in one country, it should be easier than communism everywhere (less world wars).

Again, read above. Also, what are you going on about "world wars"?

Here is something I posted in a Socialism In One Country thread I tried to start but was closed by godlessutopian.

"I really need to get going, but I understand your concerns here jbeard. I will do a quick post on what I feel is wrong with socialism in one country. Then I will have to "take off" and go to work.

I believe that soic cannot exist cuz as long as global capital still exists it will dominate. Sioc ignores the fact that when capitalism exists everywhere else there will still be international exchange and competition, etc. and will allow a basic capitalist economy to exist in these conditions. Socialism is the destruction of generalized commodity production and national division. As someone once put it, communism cannot be built inside capitalism. The transition period, because of these circumstances, can only be abolished by a worldwide revolution.

Now I REALLY have to go."

[Brosa Luxemburg]

There are people that dont go into details much, like from my point of view, theyre all authoritarian and thats all that really matters, and since Im libertarian I shouldnt worry about details about authoritarian theories.

I am not an anarchist, yet I have studied anarchist theory and practice to try to understand the opposing point of view, because it is important to understand where your other comrades are coming from. Simplifying things as much as that is extremely stupid.



1. Even so, what they do is wrong, whatever point of view they may have,
besides the working class is consisted of more people so their "libertarian" revolution has more support.

Why wouldn't other revolutions have more support, even Leninist ones? Contrary to what you may have heard, the Bolshevik revolution was not a coup led by a small group of revolutionaries. The Bolshevik party by 1917 consisted of the most revolutionary trade unions, factory councils, and workers in generally claiming socialism.

Actually, here is a good thread that comrade Brooster and fellow Roosterist made on this. I think my great leader disagrees with me on this point though :D
http://www.revleft.com/vb/charge-blanquism-against-t171367/index.html?t=171367


2.Why so?Why must something that rules over you and makes decisions for you exist?They shouldnt have rights over me.All people should be equal.At least I would LOVE to leave freely.

I am assuming here that you are talking about the proletariat state, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. Such as transitional state would be of necessity, as it has in every post-revolutionary situation. I don't want to keep making this point, so look back at some of my earlier posts.


The point would be that they shouldnt do that -_-.
The point I was making is that no one on this website would disagree with ending the bourgeois state.


They would mean SOMETHING if they exist.Everything has a meaning, besides, Why would you need class analysis to give meaning to the words
libertarian and authoritarian?

Again, I have already explained this, as have other users.

[JAM]

Here is something I posted in a Socialism In One Country thread I tried to start but was closed by godlessutopian.

"I really need to get going, but I understand your concerns here jbeard. I will do a quick post on what I feel is wrong with socialism in one country. Then I will have to "take off" and go to work.

I believe that soic cannot exist cuz as long as global capital still exists it will dominate. Sioc ignores the fact that when capitalism exists everywhere else there will still be international exchange and competition, etc. and will allow a basic capitalist economy to exist in these conditions. Socialism is the destruction of generalized commodity production and national division. As someone once put it, communism cannot be built inside capitalism. The transition period, because of these circumstances, can only be abolished by a worldwide revolution.

Now I REALLY have to go."

I've already answered you three times. You didn't read none of them apparently because what I've defended was exactly same thing you just said. If you want to discuss you simply cannot ignore what is answered to you. I won't be here repeating the same thing all over again indefinitely.

Again, what is wrong is your misconception about the meaning of SIOC.

You talked about national divisions, and you did it rightfully. Stalin again:

"When speaking of the “period of socialism” in our country, I had in mind not the “final” victory of socialism, a victory which can be achieved only on an international scale, when socialism is victorious in all or in a number of the major countries, but the period of the building of socialism in our country. That is obvious from the entire presentation of the question in my speech at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East. Can it be asserted that during the period of the building of socialism in our country (the “period of socialism”), i.e., before the victory of socialism in other countries, the nations in our country will unfailingly disappear, that they will merge into one common nation with one common language? I think that it cannot be asserted. More than that. Even after the victory of the proletarian dictatorship on a world scale, even after that, for a long time national and state differences will still exist.

Lenin was quite right when he said that “national and state differences among peoples and countries . . . will continue to exist for a very, very long time ever after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale” (see Vol. XXV, p. 227).



How, then, are we to understand the passage from Lenin quoted by Comrade Mikhelson, which states that the aim of socialism is, in the long run, the merging of nations? I think we should understand it differently from the way Comrade Mikhelson does, for it is obvious from what has been said above that in this passage Lenin had in mind the merging of nations as the ultimate aim of socialism, to be achieved as a result of the victory of socialism in all countries “a very, very long time . . . after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale.” by Josef Stalin

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I've already answered you three times. You didn't read none of them apparently because what I've defended was exactly same thing you just said. If you want to discuss you simply cannot ignore what is answered to you. I won't be here repeating the same thing all over again indefinitely.
I was responding to other posters and got something from another post I made in a whole different forum. The other times I have been busy, getting ready for work, etc. Now I have some time.


"When speaking of the “period of socialism” in our country, I had in mind not the “final” victory of socialism, a victory which can be achieved only on an international scale, when socialism is victorious in all or in a number of the major countries, but the period of the building of socialism in our country. That is obvious from the entire presentation of the question in my speech at the Communist University of the Toilers of the East. Can it be asserted that during the period of the building of socialism in our country (the “period of socialism”), i.e., before the victory of socialism in other countries, the nations in our country will unfailingly disappear, that they will merge into one common nation with one common language? I think that it cannot be asserted. More than that. Even after the victory of the proletarian dictatorship on a world scale, even after that, for a long time national and state differences will still exist.

Lenin was quite right when he said that “national and state differences among peoples and countries . . . will continue to exist for a very, very long time ever after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale” (see Vol. XXV, p. 227).



How, then, are we to understand the passage from Lenin quoted by Comrade Mikhelson, which states that the aim of socialism is, in the long run, the merging of nations? I think we should understand it differently from the way Comrade Mikhelson does, for it is obvious from what has been said above that in this passage Lenin had in mind the merging of nations as the ultimate aim of socialism, to be achieved as a result of the victory of socialism in all countries “a very, very long time . . . after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world scale.” by Josef Stalin

This is all good and dandy, but this still assumes that the building of socialism in one country is even possible, which I disagree with greatly for reasons I have already stated. Taking the example of Stalin's Russia there was still the problem of commodity production, wage labor, exchange, etc. that would not exist in socialism and socialist development. Like someone told me, this can be defined possibly as "socialism in one factory" based on a loose definition of socialism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat must wait for at least the majority of countries to establish their own proletariat dictatorships before even beginning to institute the first phases of communism and socialism.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Jam

"both examples have something in common: they weren't successful. "

Don't you dare speak of anarchist armies, or anarchist war, when you know nothing of it. Those armies were not successfull, because they were outnumbered and outgunned, not because of lack of state, even if there had been a state the result would have been the same.

@Brosa Luxemburg

I said organization in a large area is harder, not that state is necessary for it. Anarchist theory speaks of a federation of communities, that is how it will be organized. When the counter-revolutionaries appear we will need an army, a state does not form armies.

You got your information about Makhno in a socialist website, get an anarchist website to say that about Makhno and then maybe I will believe you.

I was speaking that if revolution would appear everywhere at the same time there would be world war with the counter-revolutionaries.

The fact is, you authoritarians speak of dictatorship, we anarchists know better, we know all dictatorships lead to the same result. There can never be a proletarian state unless it is a (direct) democracy.

[JAM]

but this still assumes that the building of socialism in one country is even possible

What it means building? That is built or that is being built?



The dictatorship of the proletariat must wait for at least the majority of countries to establish their own proletariat dictatorships before even beginning to institute the first phases of communism and socialism.

Who said the contrary?

[gorillafuck]

The fact is, you authoritarians speak of dictatorship, we anarchists know better, we know all dictatorships lead to the same result. There can never be a proletarian state unless it is a (direct) democracy.you don't understand the definition of dictatorship when talking about bourgeois dictatorships and proletarian dictatorships. dictatorship just means the rule of a certain class over another.


You got your information about Makhno in a socialist website, get an anarchist website to say that about Makhno and then maybe I will believe you.http://www.akpress.org/kontrrazvedka.html

this is the makhnovist secret police force. they were nearly identical to the cheka.

in anarchist spain there was no legal free speech, press, or assembly. all of which are violations of the supposed ideal of "libertarianism".

[Brosa Luxemburg]

You got your information about Makhno in a socialist website, get an anarchist website to say that about Makhno and then maybe I will believe you.

How is this any different than Hoxhaists and Stalinists saying that they won't believe that Stalin was a horrible dictator because the facts we use are "bourgeois" or "ultra-leftist"? The article cites from anarchist authors and articles along with statistical information and basic facts. The sources it uses are legit. EDIT: Total of 114 citations.


I was speaking that if revolution would appear everywhere at the same time there would be world war with the counter-revolutionaries.Again, I really do not know what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound like an ass, and I know I will so sorry, but I don't know if this is just a REALLY stupid claim or if I am not understanding what you are saying (and I have a feeling I am just not understanding what you are saying).


The fact is, you authoritarians speak of dictatorship, we anarchists know better, we know all dictatorships lead to the same result. There can never be a proletarian state unless it is a (direct) democracy.

I will point to another post I made earlier in this same thread, which you never responded to.

Also, what if conditions don't allow for pure democracy like you advocate? In Nigeria, after independence, the new society formed was extremely dysfunctional and the parties and organizations that formed were based on regional alliances. This meant that rule was done from the most populous area each election and the party in power would only give resources and benefits to the region it represented at the expense of other regions. After a new government was formed a law was made that a party or organization seeking political power had to have a certain amount of support in each region to change the deficiencies. This would be considered "authoritarian" and went against "direct democracy" but it was a measure of absolute necessity for the situations of the country.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

What it means building? That is built or that is being built?



Who said the contrary?

By more classical and basic Marxist standards the theory of socialism in one country is impossible, as you possibly might agree with. After a while, depending on what each person means, it just becomes a matter of semantics.

It seems that it becomes a debate over Stalin's rule in Russia, honestly. After a while, from more discussions with other comrades, it seems that one might take soic to mean dotp and vice versa for various definitions of the terms.

This just seems to be semantics now. As for the practice of Socialism in One Country, that would be a interesting discussion if you would like to have it. There is no need to discuss theory without it's practical implementation.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@Jam

"both examples have something in common: they weren't successful. "

Don't you dare speak of anarchist armies, or anarchist war, when you know nothing of it. .

Read his post, he obviously does know and understand the historical events of these situations. You just dismissed him because you don't agree with his theory.

[JAM]

@Jam

"both examples have something in common: they weren't successful. "

Don't you dare speak of anarchist armies, or anarchist war, when you know nothing of it. Those armies were not successfull, because they were outnumbered and outgunned

The existence of a state mitigates those two disadvantages.


even if there had been a state the result would have been the same.

No it wouldn't and you provide me a good example: Ukraine. From all the territories that seceded from Russia after the WW I, Ukraine was the only territory that Moscow was able to regain.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Brosa Luxemburg

Do you know what a federation of communities is?
The direct democracy I speak of is based upon this.
A community takes its own decisions (through direct democracy) and is completely independent from other communities. That is how direct democracy will function in anarchist society.

"You just dismissed him because you don't agree with his theory. "
The bastard accused my comrades of dying for nothing.

@Gorillafuck

Dictatorship is the rule of a minority over a majority, it is not about class.

The link only explains that it was an inteligence service, not that it was repressive, after all, if you are waging war you absolutely have got to have inteligence.

Give me prove of your accusations of anarchist Spain.

@Jam

"The existence of a state mitigates those two disadvantages."

Does having a state make you have more troops or better guns?

"From all the territories that seceded from Russia after the WW I, Ukraine was the only territory that Moscow was able to regain. "

So?

The Ukranian anarchists lost the war against the red army, they had many more troops.

[ckaihatsu]

As I understand it, socialism is not authoritarian. Socialism is by definition egalitarian, inclusive and democratic.

Stalinism is authoritarian because it a counterfeit form of 'socialism', a tragic result of Leninism's fundamental hostility to proletarian self-rule and democracy.


It may be helpful to distinguish on the objective measure of *scale* here....

Just as we make a distinction between a (developing) nation's overall foreign/international, and domestic, policies -- calling for its national liberation while condemning its leadership's treatment of its own people, we may make the same distinction for socialist-transitional movements as well: Socialism can be authoritarian in crushing its class foe, the bourgeoisie, while being democratic and inclusive *internally*, for deciding matters of production, etc.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

It may be helpful to distinguish on the objective measure of *scale* here....

Just as we make a distinction between a (developing) nation's overall foreign/international, and domestic, policies -- calling for its national liberation while condemning its leadership's treatment of its own people, we may make the same distinction for socialist-transitional movements as well: Socialism can be authoritarian in crushing its class foe, the bourgeoisie, while being democratic and inclusive *internally*, for deciding matters of production, etc.

An authoritarian state cannot be democratic. That was what the state in USSR was supposed to do, you can see how that turned out.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@Brosa Luxemburg

Do you know what a federation of communities is?
The direct democracy I speak of is based upon this.
A community takes its own decisions (through direct democracy) and is completely independent from other communities. That is how direct democracy will function in anarchist society.

Don't condescend me. I was an anarchist for 2-3 years and studied the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Guillame, etc. etc. I know the ideas of anarchist theory and I have my own opinions of why they are flawed, and why I turned from them after 2-3 years of complete dedication to anarchism and anarchist thought (specifically anarcho-communist thought)


"You just dismissed him because you don't agree with his theory. "
The bastard accused my comrades of dying for nothing.

Your comrades? You fought and knew the anarchist revolutionaries in Spain and the Ukraine? Wow, you must be really old!

He stated things based on historical fact. I think that you don't really know anything about those movements but just support them because they are self described "anarchists".


@Gorillafuck

Dictatorship is the rule of a minority over a majority, it is not about class.
You really don't understand Marxism and Marxist theory, do you?


The link only explains that it was an inteligence service, not that it was repressive, after all, if you are waging war you absolutely have got to have inteligence.

Deny anything that doesn't fit into your worldview, huh? Even when facts are given and your demand for facts was met? It isn't denied that the Kontrrazvedka was a secret police force. It wasn't just used for intelligence, it was used to crush opposition.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I am still awaiting a response to this.

what if conditions don't allow for pure democracy like you advocate? In Nigeria, after independence, the new society formed was extremely dysfunctional and the parties and organizations that formed were based on regional alliances. This meant that rule was done from the most populous area each election and the party in power would only give resources and benefits to the region it represented at the expense of other regions. After a new government was formed a law was made that a party or organization seeking political power had to have a certain amount of support in each region to change the deficiencies. This would be considered "authoritarian" and went against "direct democracy" but it was a measure of absolute necessity for the situations of the country.

[Welshy]

Sorry Brosa I'm responding to something meant for you again.




"You just dismissed him because you don't agree with his theory. "
The bastard accused my comrades of dying for nothing.

I'm sure that you wouldn't have hesitated to imply the same about his. This is an internet forum, so chill. Plus it is a pretty obvious fact that they were both unsuccessful, so I don't know how that means he said your "comrades" died for nothing.





Dictatorship is the rule of a minority over a majority, it is not about class.

ah so you get to define the terms now? When marxists talk about the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, that is what we are talking about, the class rule of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. You are trying to redefine our terms because it is useful for you which is intellectually dishonest.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Sorry Brosa I'm responding to something meant for you again.

Considering that you and I seem to have pretty much the same ideas for a response to these posts, go ahead. :D

[ckaihatsu]

An authoritarian state cannot be democratic.


Again, there is an 'internal' and an 'external', until only the fully-socialist world is all that exists.

While there remains an 'internal' and an 'external', those matters that are *external* will be about usurping capitalist rule since that class rule is external to the revolution.

Those matters that are *internal* will be worker-democratic since the whole point of a proletarian revolution is to collectively control the means of mass production.





That was what the state in USSR was supposed to do, you can see how that turned out.


"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"You really don't understand Marxism and Marxist theory, do you?"

I understand how state works, theory is not practice.

"Deny anything that doesn't fit into your worldview, huh? Even when facts are given and your demand for facts was met? It isn't denied that the Kontrrazvedka was a secret police force. It wasn't just used for intelligence, it was used to crush opposition."

You should be happy then, that is what you authoritarians support.

"I am still awaiting a response to this. "

Here it is:

Do you know what a federation of communities is?
The direct democracy I speak of is based upon this.
A community takes its own decisions (through direct democracy) and is completely independent from other communities. That is how direct democracy will function in anarchist society.

@Welshy

When I see an authoritarian state that actually works for a majority, then I will believe you, but it is a fact that a state is a minority that oppresses a majority.

@ckaihatsu

The nazis externaly oppressed the jewish and internaly helped the arians.:D

Even in nazism it didn't work because the arians were also oppressed.

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

And fail again because you don't understand that a state is a tool of oppression for a majority, it does not oppress minorities.

[ckaihatsu]

If the state has to exist only to stop counter-revolution (explained why it is not necessary under any circumstance in post above) and then the people have to do away with it, that would take a second revolution.


This is a baseless, unfounded assertion.

I could just as easily say that if the revolutionary state exists only to stop counter-revolution, then once it's complete, those involved with its functioning will all decide to go jump into the ocean since they no longer have any function to fulfill.

It's more *reasonable* to say that once a revolutionary command has dispatched the bourgeoisie from rule, it, like capitalism, would no longer have any material (political) foundation for its existence. The proletariat would be able to run society unhindered and would no longer need or participate to run a state of any kind.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Okay, unless you can provide a good response to these claims, Redanarchist, I am done here.

[JAM]

@Jam

"The existence of a state mitigates those two disadvantages."

Does having a state make you have more troops or better guns?

Yes. Having a state you have a regular army with all the advantages which result from it.



"From all the territories that seceded from Russia after the WW I, Ukraine was the only territory that Moscow was able to regain. "

So?

The Ukranian anarchists lost the war against the red army, they had many more troops.

The red army also waged war against the three Baltic Republics and Poland and lost, failing to regain those territories.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

It's more *reasonable* to say that once a revolutionary command has dispatched the bourgeoisie from rule, it, like capitalism, would no longer have any material (political) foundation for its existence.

When you give someone power, that person will do everything he can to keep that power, because it will increase his survivability, therefore if such a state exists to oppress a minority (which would probably not even be there anymore and ran away because of the revolution) and it is done oppressing that minority, it will not go away, it will now make sure it keeps its power.

This is all proven by what happened in the USSR.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Jam

So, according to your logic, if I create a state, an army will materialize and destroy that state's enemies. right?

In case you do not know this, the ukraine and the baltics are diferent places.

The anarchist army fought not only the reds, but the whites as well, and resisted for 3 years (I think), with smaller numbers.
The anarchist black army was fundamental in taking back the Ukraine, (that means that it was not the red army alone that took back the Ukraine) theres was a short period where the black army helped the red army to defeat the whites, in return they were betrayed and destroyed by an army with much greater numbers.

[gorillafuck]

@Gorillafuck

Dictatorship is the rule of a minority over a majority, it is not about class.at least when left coms (though not excluively left coms) speak about dictatorship of the proletariat, it is about class. so if you are trying to understand it then you need to understand that. that is the definition they are going by, so when they say something about it you need to respond going by that definition or else you will be arguing about two separate things.


The link only explains that it was an inteligence service, not that it was repressive, after all, if you are waging war you absolutely have got to have inteligence.it was secret police, and how do you think secret police operate?


Give me prove of your accusations of anarchist Spain.it is common knowledge (at least among people that know about the civil war) that if you were a rightist you could not go into anarchist areas and start propagating your views...

[TheRedAnarchist23]

@Gorilla fuck

I know their definition of dictatorship of the proletariat is diferent, I am advocating that dictatorship cannot be of the proletariat.

Secret police protect a country from attacks from other countries.

They are using the measures you left-coms want to use. Do you think that propagating fascist views to anarchists is going to achieve anything?

[ckaihatsu]

When you give someone power, that person will do everything he can to keep that power, because it will increase his survivability, therefore if such a state exists to oppress a minority (which would probably not even be there anymore and ran away because of the revolution) and it is done oppressing that minority, it will not go away, it will now make sure it keeps its power.

This is all proven by what happened in the USSR.


No -- my disagreement is based on the *scope* of the revolution in question:

If you're going to depend on *one* historical playing-out of proletariat vs. bourgeoisie then you're confining your understanding to a limited geographical scope and a limited instance.

If the bourgeoisie is thoroughly defeated, *worldwide*, then there *is no* bourgeois minority anymore -- the proletariat has become unanimous in politics, like humanity's role as controllers of nature. This is distinctly different from any historical example that might be brought forth.

There would be no "power" to control as there would be no separate area of interest existing in parallel to the worldwide proletarian one.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

No -- my disagreement is based on the *scope* of the revolution in question:

If you're going to depend on *one* historical playing-out of proletariat vs. bourgeoisie then you're confining your understanding to a limited geographical scope and a limited instance.

If the bourgeoisie is thoroughly defeated, *worldwide*, then there *is no* bourgeois minority anymore -- the proletariat has become unanimous in politics, like humanity's role as controllers of nature. This is distinctly different from any historical example that might be brought forth.

There would be no "power" to control as there would be no separate area of interest existing in parallel to the worldwide proletarian one.

You are seeing the burgeoisie as a separate species, it does not take a state to supress thier practices, all it takes is the will of the people, if the people had just made a socialist revolution they can begin to work in the socialist mode of prodution and supress borgeois practices, it does not take a state to do that.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Okay, I am back after reading something so blatantly stupid.

@Gorilla fuck

I know their definition of dictatorship of the proletariat is diferent, I am advocating that dictatorship cannot be of the proletariat.

Talk to Raiylon if you don't want to listen to us. He is an anarchist that doesn't reject the idea of the dotp for various reasons.


Secret police protect a country from attacks from other countries. And how do you think they protect the country? I'll give you a hint, it involves the dreaded "authoritarianism" :laugh:


They are using the measures you left-coms want to use.
We are showing that the conditions didn't allow for your idealistic vision of an anarchist society and that even the anarchists resorted to "authoritarian" methods to defend themselves and their revolutionary activity and, ultimately, used statist tactics and methods.


Do you think that propagating fascist views to anarchists is going to achieve anything?

What are you talking about "fascist views"? Do you even know what fascism is?

[JAM]

@Jam

So, according to your logic, if I create a state, an army will materialize and destroy that state's enemies. right?

Right.



In case you do not know this, the ukraine and the baltics are diferent places.

Both regions belonged to the Russian Empire.


The anarchist army fought not only the reds, but the whites as well, and resisted for 3 years (I think), with smaller numbers.


The Baltics also fought against the German forces and the Reds and they resisted it successfully.



The anarchist black army was fundamental in taking back the Ukraine, (that means that it was not the red army alone that took back the Ukraine) theres was a short period where the black army helped the red army to defeat the whites, in return they were betrayed and destroyed by an army with much greater numbers.

The Lithuanian and Estonian forces were also outnumbered by the Red Army and the German divisions and even so they were able to resist it successfully.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The Baltics also fought against the German forces and the Reds and they resisted it successfully.


The Lithuanian and Estonian forces were also outnumbered by the Red Army and the German divisions and even so they were able to resist it successfully.

So your point is that because they had a state they were able to resist, but the whites had a state and they fell, they were (as the anarchists) outnumbered.

@Brosa Luxemburg

Even if anarchists use authoritarian methods they do not apply those through state, the problem I have with (your) dictatorship of the proletariat is state, it will not go away after the burgeoisie are all turned workers.
You will see that in my latest reply to ckaihastu (i think that is how you spell his name) that I admited that dictatorship of the proletariat does not need a state, but that it may exist.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

@Brosa Luxemburg

Even if anarchists use authoritarian methods they do not apply those through state

The "authoritarian" measures created institutions that any anarchist would consider a state. It was out of necessity to defend themselves, just like the Bolsheviks.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The "authoritarian" measures created institutions that any anarchist would consider a state. It was out of necessity to defend themselves, just like the Bolsheviks.

The Bolsheviks allways meant to have a state, but that state became increasingly authoritarian to fight counter-revolution.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The Bolsheviks allways meant to have a state, but that state became increasingly authoritarian to fight counter-revolution.

So did the anarchists in the Ukraine...because of the situation in Russia....

EDIT: Not have a state, but they became "authoritarian" for same reasons.

[JAM]

So your point is that because they had a state they were able to resist, but the whites had a state and they fell, they were (as the anarchists) outnumbered.


You're little confused. The whites didn't have a state. They were trying to retake Russia from the Bolsheviks.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu

The nazis externaly oppressed the jewish and internaly helped the arians.:D

Even in nazism it didn't work because the arians were also oppressed.


Why are you facilely comparing a proletarian-vanguardist oppressing of the minority bourgeoisie to a *Nazi* oppression of a *racial* minority -- ??!

Besides being a bad *political* comparison and not being analogous, you're still using limited geography as your scope.

As an anarchist wouldn't you want your libertarian confederationism to be *total* and *complete*, to fully displace bourgeois rule -- ?





"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

And fail again because you don't understand that a state is a tool of oppression for a majority, it does not oppress minorities.


Currently the bourgeoisie -- a minority of the human race, based on class -- is using the state to oppress the majority, the working class. This bourgeois state, being elitist, uses racism, sexism, and other trivial social distinctions as a permanent way of introducing social stratification to divide-and-conquer the working class against itself.

Since the proletariat has been unsuccessful in the 20th century at overthrowing the bourgeoisie that does mean it should "give up" the struggle and stop fighting in its own interests -- ? -- !

[gorillafuck]

I know their definition of dictatorship of the proletariat is diferent, I am advocating that dictatorship cannot be of the proletariat.you are opposed to the concept of the working class repressing the bourgeois?


Secret police protect a country from attacks from other countries.think a little harder.


They are using the measures you left-coms want to use.I am not the one claiming to be against all repression, you are.


Do you think that propagating fascist views to anarchists is going to achieve anything?no, but that is completely beside the point. the fact is that it is completely undeniable that banning free speech for rightists is a violation of free speech and is "authoritarian".

[TheRedAnarchist23]

are you facilely comparing a proletarian-vanguardist oppressing of the minority bourgeoisie to a *Nazi* oppression of a *racial* minority -- ??!

Yep:D

"Since the proletariat has been unsuccessful in the 20th century at overthrowing the bourgeoisie that does mean it should "give up" the struggle and stop fighting in its own interests -- ? -- ! "

I never said that, I said that state is not necessary for DotP.

@Gorillafuck

"you are opposed to the concept of the working class repressing the bourgeois?"

see above.

"no, but that is completely beside the point. the fact is that it is completely undeniable that banning free speech for rightists is a violation of free speech and is "authoritarian". "

not if a majority agreed on it.



I will resign by saying that DotP involving a state will result in faliure, that (and authoritarianism itself) is what I have against authoritarian socialism .

[ckaihatsu]

You are seeing the burgeoisie as a separate species, it does not take a state to supress thier practices,


Then who, or what force, controls the bourgeois state until it is dissolved, and by what means could the bourgeois state be dissolved without directly seizing it -- ?





all it takes is the will of the people, if the people had just made a socialist revolution they can begin to work in the socialist mode of prodution and supress borgeois practices, it does not take a state to do that.


I don't think the *functioning* of the state can be side-stepped. It will continue to function and oppress the working class and social minorities as long as it's operating. It's strategically better to *seize* the state and dissolve it rather than trying to chip away at it from different directions.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I will resign by saying that DotP involving a state will result in faliure, that (and authoritarianism itself) is what I have against authoritarian socialism .

Even though almost every single point you brought up was proven to be wrong, flawed, or just plain idiotic? This isn't even about anarchism vs. etc., because there are anarchists who would be able to adequately respond to these claims, this is about the failure of your points and the shaky foundation of your views and beliefs.

[ckaihatsu]

Yep:D


Okay, that's on public record now.





"Since the proletariat has been unsuccessful in the 20th century at overthrowing the bourgeoisie that does mean it should "give up" the struggle and stop fighting in its own interests -- ? -- ! "

I never said that, I said that state is not necessary for DotP.


(Okay, I addressed this point in my previous post.)

[ckaihatsu]

@Brosa Luxemburg

Even if anarchists use authoritarian methods they do not apply those through state, the problem I have with (your) dictatorship of the proletariat is state, it will not go away after the burgeoisie are all turned workers.
You will see that in my latest reply to ckaihastu (i think that is how you spell his name) that I admited that dictatorship of the proletariat does not need a state, but that it may exist.





The "authoritarian" measures created institutions that any anarchist would consider a state. It was out of necessity to defend themselves, just like the Bolsheviks.





The Bolsheviks allways meant to have a state, but that state became increasingly authoritarian to fight counter-revolution.


To no one in particular:

- Note that TRA acknowledged that anarchists do use authoritarian methods.

- BL asserted that these methods, or measures, create institutions that are state-like. TRA did not deny or respond to this assertion.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Do you know what a federation of communities is?
The direct democracy I speak of is based upon this.
A community takes its own decisions (through direct democracy) and is completely independent from other communities. That is how direct democracy will function in anarchist society.





and when one community is completely independent form another (yet in a federation with that same one it is in relation with) and a third community violates the independence of another, what does the victim community do and what does the other community do? (history has shown that even proletarian states have fought each other which is a question for the future of marxism-leninism)

is the aggressor community punished? does the non-involved community come to the defense of the assailed community?


what keeps communities from forming their own states or becoming communities of marauders? is it just principle and ideology or is there a real basis for the non-violent coexistence of all communities globally?


now, a feder(A)tion (heh) has never been in existence so what happens if the concept fails? what if there are revisions made to the concept based on experience?

from the get-go, what is the solution to avoiding counter-revolution after a successful taking of power by the working class (or the people, as you like to say)?



And let me be clear, i was a proponent of the whole federation of communes and all that before i realized it was a bit preposterous.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I added something stupid TheRedAnarchist23 said to my signature ;)

[ckaihatsu]

I added something stupid TheRedAnarchist23 said to my signature ;)


Ooooop -- typo. Flattered, though.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Ooooop -- typo. Flattered, though.

Yeah, I noticed the typo as well, but I wanted to be factual and accurate because most people wouldn't believe that someone would be dumb enough to say such a thing.

Like you said, it's public record now :cool:

[Rusty Shackleford]

I added something stupid TheRedAnarchist23 said to my signature ;)
being a dick is fine, and this is quite funny, but it would probably be a bad idea to push it beyond that.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, I noticed the typo as well, but I wanted to be factual and accurate because most people wouldn't believe that someone would be dumb enough to say such a thing.

Like you said, it's public record now :cool:


Yeah, but since the typo is attributed to me and I didn't do the typo I wouldn't mind if you corrected it. Thanks.

[wsg1991]

Just because you eliminate their economic basis during the revolution, doesn't mean that forces who were once the capitalists wouldn't seek to re-establish their position. This why authoritarianism (what you recognize as authoritarianism) is needed without it how do you fight counter revolutionaries? Also in your last sentence, would you consider it to be libertarian if an entire community voted to banned speech that supports capitalism? Would it be libertarian if an entire community votes to take up arms a pro-capitalist force that wishes to turn the property they put under communal control back into private property?


first , how can capitalist , a small limited portion of the society , stripped away from their only source of power ( capital \ money ) to even threat a revolution ,

[Brosa Luxemburg]

first , how can capitalist , a small limited portion of the society , stripped away from their only source of power ( capital \ money ) to even threat a revolution ,

Through violent counter-revolutionary activity and sabotage. The Bolshevik revolution faced massive counter-revolution, sabotage attempts, and imperialist intervention. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua faced massive counter-revolutionary attack from the imperialist-backed Contras. The July 26th Movement in Cuba faced counter-revolution and imperialist attack, etc. etc.

[ckaihatsu]

To no one in particular:

- Note that TRA acknowledged that anarchists do use authoritarian methods.

- BL asserted that these methods, or measures, create institutions that are state-like. TRA did not deny or respond to this assertion.


I'd also like to point out that, on the left-right political spectrum, anarchism is situated squarely "on the fence" between liberalism (to its right) and Marxism (to its left).

I conceive leftward political forces as exerting a *centrifugal*-like force -- like a ball being swung around on a string -- while the capitalist establishment exerts a *centripetal*-like force, like that of a spinning ice-skater.

This is to say that the anarchist position is untenable in the long term and that either the politics of the person will have to readjust to reality, or else reality will have to readjust to prevailing political sentiment. (Base-superstructure.)


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

http://postimage.org/image/1g4s6wax0/

http://postimage.org/image/2cvo2d7fo/


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://postimage.org/image/34modgv1g/

[Anarpest]

I'd also like to point out that, on the left-right political spectrum, anarchism is situated squarely "on the fence" between liberalism (to its right) and Marxism (to its left).

On the left-right spectrum, anarchism is securely out of left field.

Which is to say, the left-right spectrum is basically incoherent, especially when applied to differences between communists.

[ckaihatsu]

On the left-right spectrum, anarchism is securely out of left field.

Which is to say, the left-right spectrum is basically incoherent, especially when applied to differences between communists.


Yeah -- I don't mean to be petty or to bicker over dissimilarities, but nonetheless we'd all just call ourselves 'leftists' if there were zero differences within leftism.

In practice, in the real world, these differences may not be of any significance, depending on the issue. (In the illustration this is shown as a platform-in-common being held up by various political stripes.) But underlying a commonality in practice are different *principles* at work.

At any given moment we can say, "Why isn't that other leftist holding up a line on recent events that's *more* leftward -- ?"