Anarchists and Communist??

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Aren't anarchists a hindernace to the socialist/communist movement? I mean, If this country were socialist, would'nt they (anarchists) be fighting AGAINST that socialist government too? Why then, are anarchists embraced on this site? Why do I usually see communist party members protesting side by side with their anti-government counterparts at most rallies? Can anyone help me out here?

[CommieKiller]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 01:43 PM
Aren't anarchists a hindernace to the socialist/communist movement? I mean, If this country were socialist, would'nt they (anarchists) be fighting AGAINST that socialist government too? Why then, are anarchists embraced on this site? Why do I usually see communist party members protesting side by side with their anti-government counterparts at most rallies? Can anyone help me out here?
Yes.


Because they are ignorant of ecconomics and government.


P.S. That's exactly who commies pray on. The ignorant and slow. They are easier to control. See? It all works out in the end.

[Monty Cantsin]

I think anarchists are bit to far out there but maybe people see them as a crowd for heir. Also I don’t see how they are considered left wingers when you need to have a government to have a command/centralized economy.

[CommieKiller]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 01:48 PM
I think anarchists are bit to far out there but maybe people see them as a crowd for heir. Also I don’t see how they are considered left wingers when you need to have a government to have a command/centralized economy.
So they're right wingers?

[The Feral Underclass]

so profound commie killer...

to answer your question castro..anarchists are communists, the difference lies between marxist-leninists. We both have the same goal, it is how we achieve is what causes the problem.

Yes anarchists would be a hinderence to any form of government, and in most revolutionary situations the leninists have stabbed used us and then stabbed us in the back. However, we do not live in a revolutionary or post revolutionary situation and there is a balance of anarchists and marxist leninists on this board.

anarchists and marxist leninists are envolved in the same united front causes but we work seperatly inside them...the anticaptialist movement is dominated by anarchist prinicples and the marxist leninists do not have a foot hold in it to their annoyance. Where as the stop the war coalition is dominated by marxist leninists. We both work inside each cause but seperatly...remember, our outlook on society is pretty much the same so you will see us linked, albeit extremly loosly, where ever there is a left wing cause to be fought...

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by CommieKiller+Dec 10 2003, 07:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CommieKiller @ Dec 10 2003, 07:51 PM)
[email protected] 10 2003, 01:48 PM
I think anarchists are bit to far out there but maybe people see them as a crowd for heir. Also I don’t see how they are considered left wingers when you need to have a government to have a command/centralized economy.
So they&#39;re right wingers? [/b]
Well having no government would mean having a free market don’t you think, but then there social view about how people don’t need someone suppressing them to function in a society are seen as left wing.

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

So my question is:

What would happen to that "fragile" peace/understanding between communists and anarchists should a government turn socialist/communist? Would there be a power struggle? Would there be infighting within both groups? I just don&#39;t get how both parties would be able to exist along side one another.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature —Israel Shenker>


Main Entry: an·ar·chist
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

[The Feral Underclass]

Well having no government would mean having a free market don’t you think, but then there social view about how people don’t need someone suppressing them to function in a society are seen as left wing.

We are anti-captialists and revolutioanries...we do not want to have governments or a free market...we dont want capitalism or statism...we want anarchism&#33;&#33;&#33;

To be mroe precise we are ultra-left wing&#33;&#33;&#33;

[CommieKiller]

so you&#39;re for "survival of the fittest". But isn&#39;t that kinda what capitalism is?

[The Feral Underclass]

You make some very interesting points castro...we could not exist together...come a revolutionary situation we would be enemies...although anarchists have in the past tried to work along side marxist leninists, history also proves how many times they have stabbed us in the back, russia 1917 and spain. It is difficult to say what would happen, I personally would work with anarchists comrades in over throwing capitalism, what would happen next is hard to tell...we would probably be arrested as counter-revolutionaries and I would certainly try and be involved in showing the workers that these authotarians will not bring about freedom.

If it were an anarchist revolution I am certain the marxist leninist would try and asser their authority. But the workers hopefully will be able to see past these tendancies and remain true to anarchist principles. If anarchism did succed these leninists would be eating their words, and would definatly fall silent and join the movement.

As for this dictionary definition, some of it is correct other of it is bouregois interpretation. Anarchists were violent at the beginning of the century, but have now realised that it does not achieve our goal and infacts isolates us from the working class. We do however realise the inevitablity of a revolution when a confrontation with capitalism comes.

Another misinterpretation is that anarchy means chaos and disorder...these are not true. Anarchism believes in organization, just not through centralization a state or hierarchy.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2003, 08:00 PM

Well having no government would mean having a free market don’t you think, but then there social view about how people don’t need someone suppressing them to function in a society are seen as left wing.

We are anti-captialists and revolutioanries...we do not want to have governments or a free market...we dont want capitalism or statism...we want anarchism&#33;&#33;&#33;

To be mroe precise we are ultra-left wing&#33;&#33;&#33;
You can’t be left wing that means the economy is controlled. What you should be saying is, I’m a libertarian.

[The Feral Underclass]

You can’t be left wing that means the economy is controlled. What you should be saying is, I’m a libertarian.

No...left wing is not defined on how much controlling of the economy you want...anarchism advocates an end to capitalism, centralization and the state in place of collectives and co-operation between humans. In a federation. The economy does not have to be controlled, we would simply produce what we needed. Those who could work, work and in return are provided for by society.

indeed i am a libertarian, but not in the sense you are using the word.

[CommieKiller]

Originally posted by euripidies+Dec 10 2003, 02:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (euripidies @ Dec 10 2003, 02:06 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2003, 08:00 PM

Well having no government would mean having a free market don’t you think, but then there social view about how people don’t need someone suppressing them to function in a society are seen as left wing.

We are anti-captialists and revolutioanries...we do not want to have governments or a free market...we dont want capitalism or statism...we want anarchism&#33;&#33;&#33;

To be mroe precise we are ultra-left wing&#33;&#33;&#33;
You can’t be left wing that means the economy is controlled. What you should be saying is, I’m a libertarian. [/b]
OMG. Please do not say Libertarian Communist. My fragile brain will explode.... :(

[The Feral Underclass]

yes, those three brain cells must be working over time.

[CommieKiller]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2003, 02:11 PM
yes, those three brain cells must be working over time.
well not really. I wa strying to make you feel good. :)

[Bianconero]

If anarchism did succed these leninists would be eating their words, and would definatly fall silent and join the movement.

I for one would indeed join your &#39;movement.&#39; I&#39;m sorry to spoil your neat dream, The Anarchist Tension, but this is simply not going to happen.

Anarchists are just liberal richkids revolting against their parents. I couldn&#39;t care less for them.

You see, &#39;Castro Sucks&#39; (congratulations, my friend, that&#39;s a very stupid name I have to admit), anarchists are progressive as long as they serve the people, i.e. as long as they fight for revolution. Afterwards (after revolution that is), they are no better than any petty bourgeois fascist. Their angry liberalism is a serious treat to the proletariat and needs to be fought against.

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 08:25 PM
&#39;Castro Sucks&#39; (congratulations, my friend, that&#39;s a very stupid name I have to admit)....
So I&#39;ve been told. But although it may be stupid...its still pretty accurate. Anyway, Regardless of what YOU may think of castro, I thank you for your feedback to this post.

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 08:25 PM
I for one would indeed join your &#39;movement.&#39; I&#39;m sorry to spoil your neat dream, The Anarchist Tension, but this is simply not going to happen.

.
I don&#39;t get this statement. Are you saying you WILL or will NOT join the anarchist movement?

[Bianconero]

I don&#39;t get this statement. Are you saying you WILL or will NOT join the anarchist movement?

Anarchism is utopianism and nothing but that. Anarchists claim that proletarian class-counsciousness will be achieved under capitalism, despite the state being in the hands of the bourgeois. They totally reject any authority, also for the good of the proletarian class. They usually babble about the &#39;whole class&#39; rising &#39;all together&#39;, &#39;without leadership&#39; etc. These pretty phrases you probably know allready.

I would of course join them if they ever achieved anything. Truth is thouh that they never achieved anything and never will. That&#39;s why I don&#39;t support them. I mean I could aswell claim that in ten years time green creatures will come from outer space to save us from that greedy bourgeois monster. Does that help the cause? Answer it for yourself and change that username, for Fidel&#39;s sake.

[Monty Cantsin]

CASTRO_SUCKS would you go to cubas economic problems thread becuase i would like to hear your views, thats if your not going to start talking about human rights not economics.


The Anarchist Tension www.politicalcompass.org/ that site covers all we&#39;ve been talking about pretty well.

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 08:56 PM
.....and change that username, for Fidel&#39;s sake.
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...hl=castro_sucks (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=19468&hl=castro_sucks)


This should tell you a little about me.



Euripidies: I&#39;ll go take a look-see

[The Feral Underclass]

Do not listen to the whinning bitterness of bianconero. he is full of crap. he has no idea what he is talking about. The only reason he dosnt like anarchism is because it messes with his dreams of world domination.

And for the record, there is not wrong with being utopian.

[Bolshevika]

If the Anarchist Federalists did succeed and establish a sucessful anarchist nation (not just a few thousand people, I mean a over a vast territory) then I too would join them. But they won&#39;t.

I guess anarchists and communists both hate capitalism and both have material interpretations of history, events, etc (although sometimes their judgement is clouded by their rabid anti-authoritarianism). Although, this most definetly varies from anarchist to anarchist. The Anarchist Tension is very non-dogmatic, whilst others like Morpheus are opinionated and unwilling to criticize their own experiments.

And Anarchist Tension, utopianism is very UnMaterialist. You are a materialist, no?

[Guest1]

anything worth fighting for is idealistic.

even marx believed the state to be as oppressive as capitalism, I can&#39;t believe any self-respecting marxist would try to deny that.

the reason anarchists and communists work together, is because we are now seeing the fall of the leninists amongst the youth. about time. we&#39;re seeing people rise up who worship no one, and don&#39;t wanna start worshipping anyone after the revolution either. they wanna live their life free of money and free of oppression. so they see no problem with the ideal fo the elimination of the state.

the only difference between them and anarchists is how far in eliminating it they think we can go.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Also I don’t see how they are considered left wingers when you need to have a government to have a command/centralized economy.

Wow. I&#39;m shocked. So, let&#39;s see, it seems that for you, left=command economy and right=free market. Let&#39;s see...where does fascist&#39;s corporatism fit there? Where does the "welfare state" goes? It seems you only heard of leninism and neo-liberalism. Anarchism has different economical alternatives. There are those who want a market (mutualism), but without profits or wage slavery. Then we have collectivists and pareconists, who want different associacions to control the economy, and there are communists who want a communist economy without a state controlling everything. Excepting mutualism, these different alternatives could be called federally planned economies. Also, you havent taken into account things like who controls the means of production, competition or cooperation and existing classes, which should show the basic economical alternatives. Think about it.


so you&#39;re for "survival of the fittest". But isn&#39;t that kinda what capitalism is?

Who said that?


You can’t be left wing that means the economy is controlled. What you should be saying is, I’m a libertarian.

Are you a stalinist?

[synthesis]

Anarchists are just liberal richkids revolting against their parents. I couldn&#39;t care less for them.

Jesus fucking Christ. Anyone who says anything remotely resembling this statement needs to be immediately taken out back and shot.

First off, it&#39;s a stupid argument because it asserts that age or class have anything to do at all with the validity of one&#39;s ideas. A rich kid is much better than a rich adult because a rich kid can change.

Secondly, the comment is especially stupid because, if one examines the population of this board as an example, the ratio of Stalinist kids to Anarchist kids is quite impressive.

Finally... yeah. It&#39;s just dumb.

[RedCeltic]

To say that any Marxist or Marxist-Leninist state that would arise would immediately try to imprison, deport or otherwise persecute anarchists is just as idiotic as saying that anarchists would always work to undermine any government even if it was highly beneficial to the people… and takes on the assumption that the human race is incapable of learning from histories mistakes.

Communists in first world nations such as the United States, Canada, and European countries today for the most part (except maybe Stalinists) do not seek to create a country that resembles the form of communism under the Soviet Union and its satellite states, but rather to rethink their strategies and learn from the mistakes made in the past.

I think that one of the major mistakes the Soviet Union made early on is the outright persecution of the anarchists, rounding them up and labeling them as counter-revolutionary which in fact goes against the simple fact that anarchist were not only in support of the revolution, but were willing to put their ideology on the back burner to help the fledgling worker’s state along. Many even took up positions within the government.

However it is quite difficult to think of an alternative solution that would result in a positive outcome. Someone had suggested to me that a post revolutionary Marxist state may consider the option of allowing for an anarchist autonomous zone. However this may end up as problematic as Native American reservations are in the current political situation in the US. Where would it be allowed for and where not? And I am sure there would be some people opposed to the idea of providing universal healthcare, guaranteed jobs, education and other social services to all but those who live in these zones. And, others may deem them as a potential threat.

If the shoe was on the other foot however, and for some reason the anarchist were able to achieve their goal of getting rid of the government (I’m still not really clear on exactly how that occurs) what exactly are their plans for those who do want to live in a country with a government that provides social services?

In the hypothetical situation where there is a successful revolution of one kind or another, there must be some sort of agreement that can be drawn up between those level headed enough to sit down at a table together without calling each other “counter-revolutionary” and work something out.

[SonofRage]

I suggest those with these misconceptions of Anarchism read this Wikipedia article (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 10 2003, 10:38 PM
anything worth fighting for is idealistic.

even marx believed the state to be as oppressive as capitalism, I can&#39;t believe any self-respecting marxist would try to deny that.

the reason anarchists and communists work together, is because we are now seeing the fall of the leninists amongst the youth. about time. we&#39;re seeing people rise up who worship no one, and don&#39;t wanna start worshipping anyone after the revolution either. they wanna live their life free of money and free of oppression. so they see no problem with the ideal fo the elimination of the state.

the only difference between them and anarchists is how far in eliminating it they think we can go.
Well marx was talking about a capitalistic state; you have to look at who controlls and in whos intrests the sate is working.

I am a revolutionary marxist and I see nothing wrong with working with anarchists although there are frequently ideological and political differences which occour - especially when movents are low and people have time to sit around and squabble over this and that historical interprestation.

I think if there was a workers revolution and people leaned more toward a socialist party, anarchists would need to be another competing party working to make it&#39;s case inside whatever workers government there was and trying to win their points with the working class. Any state, in marxist terms, is an apparatus of control (a good thing to be wary of and cautious about), specifically the controll of one class over another. Revolutionary marxists believe that socialism is necissary for a period so that the working class (the majorety class) can set up a state that will ensure that they will be in controll. But, as the new system comes into place and people figure out how to meet demands for products and there are not any threats from the old bourgoise ruling class, this controll will become less and less necissary and eventually there will be communism (no state and no classes - the same thing left anarchists want). So I think anarchists would be important in a possible future worker&#39;s society (except they would probably cease to be revolutionaries and they would become reformers) because they would be like the new progressives pushing socialism along until communism is finnally achieved.

In there was a worker&#39;s revolution and the popular forces achieved communism through anarchist tactics and methods, then I will eagerly admit that I was wrong about the best way to go and congradulate every anarchist I see and socialism will be totally superflous.

[The Feral Underclass]

Bolshevika


And Anarchist Tension, utopianism is very UnMaterialist. You are a materialist, no?

Materialism the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. (dictionary.com)

Utopianism, for me, is simply the belief that a better world is possible. I believe that any world we dream for is possible, simply by the fact we dream it. We have the ability as humans to create what ever material reality we want, it is just some are limited in their mind. I believe that anarchism is possible because I have faith in people that they can change, and that if we want anarchism to work, we can make it work.

These two thoughts do not contradict each other. In fact my utopian belief is based on materialism and if you take the time to look deeply at them is completely logical.

[Bolshevika]

When I meant materialism, I meant Marxian/Hegelien dialectical materialism.

Marxist (you are an anarcho-"communist" yes?) ideas have roots back to Blanc and Owen and other utopian socialists. However, what makes Marxists different from utopian socialists/anarchists is that we scientifically analyze history and perfect our ideology based on these antagonisms.

Utopianism fails to acknowlege contradiction. Class, race, sexuality all tie us down, hence, we need a revolutionary force to free us from these contradictions. It is a dream to think that one day the peoples will be conscious and be willing to cut these chains. The old, reactionary ideas of past society will still be present in your "free" society and the bourgeois will simply regroup and retake your nation, imposing a far more brutal capitalist regime, history shows this. To think the bourgeois will simply capitulate, the working people will all of a sudden become anarchist, and live in a perfect society is idealism. Hence, utopianism is idealism.

[redstar2000]

Anarchists claim that proletarian class-consciousness will be achieved under capitalism, despite the state being in the hands of the bourgeois.

So did Marx and Engels.


They usually babble about the &#39;whole class&#39; rising &#39;all together&#39;, &#39;without leadership&#39; etc.

That&#39;s what actually happened in Russia in February 1917. It&#39;s also happened a few other places as well.

You may argue, of course, that these uprisings were unsuccessful. But Leninism has also failed...and its failures, you must admit, have been a good deal bloodier.


Truth is though that they never achieved anything and never will.

Fortunately, there is an extensive literature on the achievements of anarcho-syndicalists in Spain that shout louder than your denial of history.


However, what makes Marxists different from utopian socialists/anarchists is that we scientifically analyze history and perfect our ideology based on these antagonisms.

Yeah, that&#39;s what Marxists are supposed to do. I&#39;ve seen no evidence of that on the part of "Marxist"-Leninists on this board in more than a year here.

All I hear is that the collapse of the USSR, China, etc. was the result of "treachery" and "betrayal"...what Charles Beard properly criticized as "the devil theory of history" back in the early 1920s&#33;

Where is the materialist analysis of those events? Where&#39;s the science?

The failure of Leninism in the advanced capitalist countries is "analyzed" in terms of the incredible proposition that "the whole working class has become bourgeois".

In the end, "Marxism"-Leninism is reduced to the level of a peasant ideology.

And, as any feudal aristocrat will confirm, peasants "always" require "a firm hand".


It is a dream to think that one day the peoples will be conscious and be willing to cut these chains.

But it is "realistic"--:lol:--to "think" that one day the peoples will choose new despots (you?) to replace the existing despots???

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Sabocat]

TAT:


I believe that any world we dream for is possible, simply by the fact we dream it.

I&#39;m with you.


"If you will it, it is no dream"

Theodor Herzl

[The Feral Underclass]

Redceltic


To say that any Marxist or Marxist-Leninist state that would arise would immediately try to imprison, deport or otherwise persecute anarchists is just as idiotic

There is nothing "idiotic" about it at all. Look at history, marxist-leninists etc have consistently betrayed anarchists, murdered them and imprisioned them. Please tell me what will be so different the next time?

Bolshevika


Marxist (you are an anarcho-"communist" yes?) ideas have roots back to Blanc and Owen and other utopian socialists. However, what makes Marxists different from utopian socialists/anarchists is that we scientifically analyze history and perfect our ideology based on these antagonisms.

This makes little sense. What I will say in response to you is that I also take a scientific look on history in so far as I believe it developed as a result of economic needs, and indeed continues to do such. I fully endorse and support marx&#39;s theories on historical materialism and the dialectic.


Utopianism fails to acknowlege contradiction.

Not only is this nonsensical it is a flat out lie.


The old, reactionary ideas of past society will still be present in your "free" society and the bourgeois will simply regroup and retake your nation, imposing a far more brutal capitalist regime, history shows this.

These same conditions will exist in any post revolutionary society. You simply have to organize to defeat them. What do you have that we don&#39;t, a magic wand?


To think the bourgeois will simply capitulate, the working people will all of a sudden become anarchist, and live in a perfect society is idealism.

I do not think the bouregoisie will simply capitulate, nor do I think society will be perfect during or post revolution. What I believe is that the working class will reach a level of consciousness and confront capitalism, demanding societal change and will then work together to dismantle it and create a fair and equal society.


utopianism is idealism.

Again, I do not think that being utopian and having pointful ideals is a bad thing. There is nothing illogical about anarchism,only the restrictions of your mind.

[Guest1]

Let&#39;s do something interesting here...

an experiment...

bolshevika, go back and reread your posts, except pretend they are aimed to discredit communism, not anarchism.

then tell me your arguments make sense.

[(*]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 02:45 PM


P.S. That&#39;s exactly who commies pray on. The ignorant and slow. They are easier to control. See? It all works out in the end.
Dude, you just described most americans&#33; That is who Bush and his cronies pray[sic] on&#33;

[RedCeltic]

There is nothing "idiotic" about it at all. Look at history, marxist-leninists etc have consistently betrayed anarchists, murdered them and imprisioned them. Please tell me what will be so different the next time?

Please take the time to read my whole post... and stop being so fucking stuck in the 1930s.

How do we know you fucking anarchists aren&#39;t going to take us all out back and have us shot? The way you talk on this board that&#39;s the impression you give me.

If all you want to do is talk about history, and not theorize on what is possible.... than fine... how is it that anachism was a falure in the one place it was almost started bUT you hyporcritial sectarian blockheads still think it&#39;s possible?

If the only hope for any Marxist revolution is something close to the USSR... than the only hoPe for an anarchist one is what they have had in history F A I L U R E &#33; &#33; &#33; &#33;


SEE&#33;&#33;&#33; Here we see the true example of what Anarchists are about... I offer the possibility of anarchists and communists working together and I&#39;m slapped in the face.

I suppose than that every communist is a clone of Lenin... just as every democrat is a clone of JFK and every Republican is a clone of Reagan, and every anarchist is a clone of Emma Goldman...

We are living in a real living and breathing world my friend, not in a history book.

How is it that while anarchists accuse communsits of being dogmatic, they always come out being the ones who believe in the hype?

[RedCeltic]

You may argue, of course, that these uprisings were unsuccessful. But Leninism has also failed...

Failure how exactly? Not only did they successfully seize power of the largest country on earth in 1917, and ruled it for almost 80 years… but there are still Marxist Leninist countries in the world.

The breakup of the Soviet Union had a lot of factors that could have been eliminated under de-Stalinization.


Fortunately, there is an extensive literature on the achievements of anarcho-syndicalists in Spain that shout louder than your denial of history.

So, tell me exactly how this works here… is the Government of Spain nonexistent? Last time I checked there was still a government there that very much ruled the people who live in Spain, and always have going back to the uniting of the Iberian Peninsula under Ferdinand and Isabella.

How does this work now? If I lock myself in my house…. Refuse to contribute to the capitalist system, and pay taxes… am I now a successful anarchist nation?

I think you’re living in la la land.

[The Feral Underclass]

Redceltic

You claimed it was idiotic to think that authotarians would not betray us come a revolution. I said it wasnt idiotic because that is exactly what they have done before. Why do you think it would be any different? A question you didnt answer. I wasnt stating fact, I was telling you that it was far from idiotic to think it based on past experience. And if you think ignoring history is how you build for a new society you are greatly mistaken.


Please take the time to read my whole post

I read your post. I was addressing the fact you had claimed it to be idiotic to be wary of authotarians.


If all you want to do is talk about history, and not theorize on what is possible.... than fine... how is it that anachism was a falure in the one place it was almost started bUT you hyporcritial sectarian blockheads still think it&#39;s possible?

A great piece of theorizing there&#33;


If the only hope for any Marxist revolution is something close to the USSR... than the only hoPe for an anarchist one is what they have had in history F A I L U R E &#33; &#33; &#33; &#33;

No. You are wrong. The reason any anarchist movement has failed is because authotarians stabbed us in the back. They destroyed out collectives and shot our comrades in spain. They fought the anarchists in the Ukraine, even though it was clear that the people did not want bolshevism. They attacked and murdered anarchist comrades in Kronstadt because they spoke out against the legitamacy of Lenin and Trotskys authority. The ruined any hope of direct action when the asserted their authority over a predominantly anarchist movement in Paris 1968....These things failed because the authotarians are too busy asserting their authority to work along side us...Now you tell me, why would it be any different?.. Because we all sit around a table. We have fundamental disagreements on fundamental issues. They believe in a state, we do not, it is not something you sort out over a bottle of wine and poker. Get real.

The nature of the dictatoship of the proletariat is to assert a dictatorship. anarchists demand the state to be abolished. The authotarians do not and will not compromise on it and will attempt to defend this state by any means necessary. You have heard the rhetoric. Defend the revolution at all costs&#33; Well my flarey american friend, what this means is a huge blank cheque behind a few thousand guns. We, being the naughty anti-authotarians we are will pose a direct threat to the validity of any "workers" state, and the new Lenin, just like all the Lenins that have past will work to destroy us quicker than that of the bouregoisie. It is naive to think any differently.


SEE&#33;&#33;&#33; Here we see the true example of what Anarchists are about... I offer the possibility of anarchists and communists working together and I&#39;m slapped in the face.

Your suggestion was to have an Anarchist autonomous zone and to sit around the table and talk about it. Go and speak to any authotarian party and you will soon learn that we anarchists are as evil as the capitalists...Creating an autonomous zone will be an affront to the authority of the leaders of the new "workers" state. It will pose to much of a threat.

What do you think the dictatorship of the proletariat is? It isnt some happy liberal everyone is included kind of a thing. It is an authotarian and if needed brutel regime against anyone who poses any kind of a threat.

And I didnt "slap you in the face" I disagreed with you. Get over yourself&#33;


I suppose than that every communist is a clone of Lenin... just as every democrat is a clone of JFK and every Republican is a clone of Reagan, and every anarchist is a clone of Emma Goldman...

I never claimed that every communist was a clone of Lenin. The fact is you either have the dictatoship of the proletariat or you dont. Which one is to be?


We are living in a real living and breathing world my friend, not in a history book.

And what does this have to do with anything? if you feed your pet snake and it bites you every time you put your hand in its cage do you keep on doing it over and over again or do you learn from your mistake and move one. We learnt our mistake too many times in the past to be stupid enough to do it again.


How is it that while anarchists accuse communsits of being dogmatic, they always come out being the ones who believe in the hype?

It isnt hype, its fact.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 01:23 PM

You may argue, of course, that these uprisings were unsuccessful. But Leninism has also failed...

Failure how exactly? Not only did they successfully seize power of the largest country on earth in 1917, and ruled it for almost 80 years… but there are still Marxist Leninist countries in the world.

The breakup of the Soviet Union had a lot of factors that could have been eliminated under de-Stalinization.

Longevity does not imply success. While the Soviet Union existed for decades, the revolution had been long betrayed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Redceltic

All this coming from somone who up until last week believed it possible to change society through parlimentary means. From a reformist to a staunch support of sovietism in the space of a few days. A remarkable achievment.


Failure how exactly? Not only did they successfully seize power of the largest country on earth in 1917,

A country full of illiterate peasents and brutally oppressed people. people were ripe for change. If it hadnt been Lenin, it would have been someone else. It was no great achievement. It was going to happen anyway.


ruled it for almost 80 years…

Yes. And look what happened.


but there are still Marxist Leninist countries in the world.

Name them?


So, tell me exactly how this works here… is the Government of Spain nonexistent? Last time I checked there was still a government there that very much ruled the people who live in Spain, and always have going back to the uniting of the Iberian Peninsula under Ferdinand and Isabella.

The reason it ultimatly failed was because the communists, supported by the cominturn, attacked anarchists at key statigic points, Barcelona Phone exchange 1936 as an example and then smashed collectives and murdered anarchists and anarchist supporters. So instead of concentrating on fighting the fascists they used their resources to betray us.

The actual work they achieved was incredible. In barcelona the entire city was collectivsed with people working together co-operativly, and more importantly making it work, without central authority or hierarchies. They had collectivised the means of production and had succesfully began to produce and destribute goods...that was, until the authotarians came along and fucked it all up. As redstar points out...read some literature.


How does this work now? If I lock myself in my house…. Refuse to contribute to the capitalist system, and pay taxes… am I now a successful anarchist nation?

Is this supposed to be an attack on anarchism? is this the conclusion of endless reading and understanding of anarchist theory?...I suspect not :rolleyes:


I think you’re living in la la land.

And this the extent of your so called "theorizing" is it?

[RedCeltic]

Since last week? Tell me... since when do you have a window into my brain?

You need to stop with your assumptions because it&#39;s really fuckilng pissing me off.

I have been trying to say that communists and anarchists could and should work for a common goal but you just want to sling mud, why? Because it justifies your own position.

If I ever said I was anything except a Marxist I am truly sorry. You are mistaken in what I ment when I was talking about the USSR.

Look, questioning my position, and arguing points for the sake of argument is what I&#39;ve always been about on this board. I was arguing in favor of anarchism not too long ago....


.... but ofcourse you have that magic beem that lets you see inside of my head so you already know that.


AS for what I know about Anarchists... let me get this through your thick skull because obviously you are too fucking dense to understand the words that I am typing.

I BELIEVE IN FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ANARCHISTS FOR THE COMMON GOOD BECAUSE I DO JUST THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD (iww)


I have never been to Russia, I don&#39;t speak Russian, and I know very little about their culture. I&#39;m an Irish American.... I believe in personal freedoms and Marxist revolution.

Why is Russia different from the United States???


Because Amerians are individualistic. HELLO &#33;


It&#39;s people like you that are only here to bash on other people&#39;s form of anti-capitalism that destroys the movement.


How many times do I have to say that I will not support bashing on anarchists?

How many times do I have to say that I do not, and never will believe in an athoriterian police state like the USSR?

Any kind of a Revolution in my countery is too far away to think about, I will be long dead when it comes, and perhaps a better and more humaine concept of society will come about.

In the mean time we should be working together and NOT attacking eachother&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;



read some literature.

I&#39;ve read plenty of fucking books on anarchism, marxism, anthropogy, history, and yes even literature.. I don&#39;t know who you are... but you don&#39;t know me and you are not justifide in trying to say that I am stupid because I don&#39;t agree with you.

[RedCeltic]

I don&#39;t understand what the fuck is going on here&#33;&#33;

I basicly say I don&#39;t believe in anarchism but I&#39;ll fight for their right to believe in what they want

and I&#39;m told I&#39;m stupid because I don&#39;t believe in anarchism? What a fucking asshole&#33;&#33;&#33;

[redstar2000]

...but there are still Marxist Leninist countries in the world.

Indeed. They are all clearly moving towards the restoration of capitalism. The evidence for this is wide-spread.

What Leninists in the "west" cannot seem to achieve is the ability to ask themselves in an honest way why does this happen?.

Not just once or twice but over and over again with a consistency that&#39;s actually fairly rare in history.

Is "treachery" a "dominant characteristic" of "human nature"?

Or is there something wrong fundamentally with the Leninist paradigm such that even when it "wins", it loses?

"Anarchism" may or may not be "utopian" and may or may not "work"--but surely there must come a point in which the verdict of history is overwhelming: "authoritarian socialism" does not work. It inevitably devolves back into ordinary capitalism.


The breakup of the Soviet Union had a lot of factors that could have been eliminated under de-Stalinization.

On the contrary, it was part of the process of "de-Stalinization" that accelerated the return of capitalism. Most notably, it was Khrushchev&#39;s "economic reforms"--giving factory managers more autonomy in the market place and linking their compensation to the profitability of their enterprises--that made those guys think "more than ever" that they really "ought" to be owners.

It was also under Khrushchev, if I&#39;m not mistaken, that the "black market" really "took off"...since the police were told (or bribed) to "look the other way".

Contrary to Bolshevika and other members of the faithful, bourgeois ideology wasn&#39;t "imported" from the west...it was home grown.


So, tell me exactly how this works here...is the Government of Spain nonexistent?

I think you misinterpreted my point. Bolshevka asserted that "anarchists have never achieved anything" and, of course, there was a period in Spain where they achieved quite a lot in those parts of Spain where their influence was felt.

They didn&#39;t "win", of course...but, as discussed above, the Leninists have always managed to lose, even when they "win".

I can certainly understand the appeal of Leninism as late as the 1980s...we all want to be "on the winning side", right?

But how can people still respond to Leninism&#39;s appeal? They always lose in the end.

And it shows...with every passing decade they become more and more "cult-like", still endlessly replaying the old battles that they "won" and mourning the passing of their "great leaders". They more and more resemble the types that still celebrate the Confederacy...imagining how if General X had done this or if General Y hadn&#39;t blundered there, then the CSA would be a proud independent nation today and slavery would be an "honored" institution. They even have their own "treachery" theories...the Confederate Governor of Georgia is a favorite target.


How does this work now? If I lock myself in my house...Refuse to contribute to the capitalist system, and pay taxes...am I now a successful anarchist nation?

I think you’re living in la la land.

There are worse places to live. :lol:

But seriously, the kind of "anarchists" that go in for that sort of thing have never been and will never be a factor in the revolution...everyone knows that, including them.

What may become much more significant in the future is the influence on the working class of serious anarchist thought...a revolutionary alternative to the Leninist cargo-cults.

I think it&#39;s interesting that young anarchist militants are coming into contact with disaffected workers a lot these days...around demonstrations and rallies against globalization. These are workers who are receptive to new ideas...and I wonder what they&#39;re hearing from the kids? And how they&#39;re taking it?

We shall see.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[RedCeltic]

But seriously, the kind of "anarchists" that go in for that sort of thing have never been and will never be a factor in the revolution...everyone knows that, including them.


That&#39;s very true. As always RedStar2000, you always make great points. You are very knowlegable and clear thinking.

As I&#39;m sure you recall from my rather obnoxious attack on smoking in public.... I tend to take a side one way or the other at times on issues I don&#39;t have a strong feeling on... a ban on public smoking is one of those places where at the time I really wasn&#39;t sure where I stood, but since have found myself on the opposite side, seeing that nowdays they do in fact have a public smoking ban here in New York, and I don&#39;t think it&#39;s as good of an idea as I once thought.

AS for this issue, you were also involved in threads where I debated on the side of anarchism against Staninists.

I have a very anti-athoriterian streek running through me, and am very much opposed to the "cultist ideologies" where the words of Lenin, Stalin, etc are spoken as the gospels.

I can&#39;t bring myself to support an overly large beurocratic superstate such as the USSR... but than I just can&#39;t wrap my mind around what the outcome of an anarchist revolution would become.

People who know exactly the vein of revolutionary thining that they can fit themselves in I consider lucky. For as I read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin, etc... I find something from each that I agree with and disagree with.

I know what I want to end, but how to get there and what comes next are still up in the air even now at 33. As a long time member of the workforce, I&#39;m very much open to new alternitives.

I suppose I&#39;m just a general Wobbly haha... this old IWW song pretty much sums up how I feel:::::


ONE BIG INDUSTRIAL UNION
By G. G. Allen
(Air: "Marching Through Georgia")


Bring the good old red book, boys, we&#39;ll sing another song.
Sing it to the wage slave who has not yet joined the throng
Of the revolution that will sweep the world along,
To One Big Industrial Union.


CHORUS


Hooray&#33; Hooray&#33; The truth will make you free.
Hooray&#33; Hooray&#33; When will you workers see?
The only way you&#39;ll gain your economic liberty,
Is One Big Industrial Union.


How the masters holler when they hear the dreadful sound
Of sabotage and direct action spread the world around;
They&#39;s getting ready to vamoose with ears close to the
ground,
From One Big Industrial Union.


Now the harvest String Trust they would move to Ger-
many.
The Silk Bosses of Paterson, they also want to flee
From strikes and labor troubles, but they cannot get
away
From One Big Industrial Union.


You migratory workers of the common labor clan,
We&#39; sing to you to join and be a fighting Union Man;
You must emancipate yourself, you proletarian,
With One Big Industrial Union.


CHORUS


Hooray&#33; Hooray&#33; Let&#39;s set the wage slave free.
Hooray&#33; Hooray&#33; With every victory
We&#39;ll hum the workers&#39; anthem till you finally must be
In One Big Industrial Union.

[The Feral Underclass]

Redceltic


Since last week? Tell me... since when do you have a window into my brain?

No. you wrote about it in a thread.


I have been trying to say that communists and anarchists could and should work for a common goal but you just want to sling mud, why? Because it justifies your own position.

I know what you said. I told you I didnt agree. I told you why I didnt agree, you then made a post with a angry face calling me hypocrite accusing me left right and centre. I then tried to affirm my position to make it more clear to you, and now you are accusing me still. I am sorry if you do not like my argument. I am sorry if it dappens your dreams but what I have said is not illogical. Although you want communists and anarchists to work together I fail to see how this will be possible come a revolutioanry situation. No mud. I just dont agree with you.


I BELIEVE IN FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ANARCHISTS FOR THE COMMON GOOD BECAUSE I DO JUST THAT AS A MEMBER OF THE INDUSTRIAL WORKERS OF THE WORLD (iww)

Fine. And continue to do it. It is a good thing. But what will happen when a revolution happens. Let us say for arguments sake that is a marxist-leninist revolution, being led by a central committee. What happens then. Do you think we should compromise our position for the greater good? Should we accept the status quo and fight along side the authotarians in the hope that we can ideologically change them to see that a state is unnecessary? We have done this in the past. And all it got us was a bullet in the back. If you think it is going to be different the next time around. Fine believe it. I will reamin a skeptic on the metter.


It&#39;s people like you that are only here to bash on other people&#39;s form of anti-capitalism that destroys the movement.

What is this all about dude. All I said was that come a revolution I do not think, because of the nature of what communists want, anarchists and authotarians would be able to work along side each other up to any significant point. It isnt an invalid argument. It isnt illogical. Its a completely fair and legitimate point of view.


How many times do I have to say that I will not support bashing on anarchists?

Stop being so dramatic. I never said you did&#33;


How many times do I have to say that I do not, and never will believe in an athoriterian police state like the USSR?

Good.


In the mean time we should be working together and NOT attacking eachother&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Fine.


but you don&#39;t know me and you are not justifide in trying to say that I am stupid because I don&#39;t agree with you.

You were claiming things to be fact which arent true, the next logical step being that you didnt know whbat you were talking about. I never claimed you were stupid.


I basicly say I don&#39;t believe in anarchism but I&#39;ll fight for their right to believe in what they want

No. What you said was that it was idiotic for me to think that Leninists wouldnt betray us. I told you it wasnt idiotic. It may be untrue, but it is far from being idiotic. You my friend, then entered into a barrage of accusations and attacks.


and I&#39;m told I&#39;m stupid because I don&#39;t believe in anarchism? What a fucking asshole&#33;&#33;&#33;

I never said you were stupid because you dont believe in anarchism. What I said was, that you should try reading some books about it because then you would know what you were talking about. If you have read lots of books about it, forgive me, but they were the wrong books, because you have not been stating fact and demonstrate a lack of knowledge when it comes to anarchist history.

I think you need to relax a little bit.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think it&#39;s interesting that young anarchist militants are coming into contact with disaffected workers a lot these days...around demonstrations and rallies against globalization. These are workers who are receptive to new ideas...and I wonder what they&#39;re hearing from the kids? And how they&#39;re taking it?

Something I noticed in the anti-capitalist demonstrations, in the firebrigades piket and in a stop privatization committee was how workers organized themselves using anarchist principles without an kind of nudge or argument. No person was elected to be "incharge" and everyone took a responsability and fililled it. However most united front organizations in the UK are dominated by the Socialist Workers Party or the Socialist Alliance and the problem in the UK is there is no significant anarchist federation to counter this.

[Faceless]

Wow. This thread is so linear and based on massively unfair prejudices from both sides.

Anarchist Tension said:

The nature of the dictatoship of the proletariat is to assert a dictatorship.
And was wrong. The biggest crime of the USSR was to try and make this true in the eyes of the world to justify their power and th U&#036; gladly backed the claim in an attempt to discredit Marxism. Marx, Engels and later Kautsky described the current system of government as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". It claims to be a democracy (though it is not) and is certainly not the dictatorship of one man. Marxists though are intent only on defending the interests of the workers. The Paris Commune could even be described as a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" wherein they took power for themselves although no man was in control.

Here is an extract from chapter 2 of Kautsky&#39;s "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"

If in this struggle we place the Socialist way of production as the goal, it is because in the technical and economic conditions which prevail to-day Socialistic production appears to be the sole means of attaining our object. Should it be proved to us that we are wrong in so doing, and that somehow the emancipation of the proletariat and of mankind could be achieved solely on the basis of private property, or could be most easily realised in the manner indicated by Proudhon, then we would throw Socialism overboard, without in the least giving up our object, and even in the interests of this object. Socialism and democracy are therefore not distinguished by the one being the means and the other the end. Both are means to the same end. The distinction between them must be sought elsewhere. Socialism as a means to the emancipation of the proletariat, without democracy, is unthinkable.

And the Leninists on this thread:

Failure how exactly? Not only did they successfully seize power of the largest country on earth in 1917,
It was a failure because it put in place a structure by which one man could kill more than 10 million people but of course this is just a statistic and the Soviet Union produced much prettier statistics. There&#39;s no room for "whatifs" and "but"s. Dictatorship as a structure is wrong although there have been good dictators and potential dictators (ie Trotsky). Anyway, Lenin did jack shit. He only hijacked a bourgeois revolution.

I shall occupy the middle ground as a "Marxist" and not a dogmatic Leninist or an equally intollerant Anarchist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Faceless


Marxists though are intent only on defending the interests of the workers.

By what means? By perpetrating a state controlled by "intellectuals" who are supposed to be working on "behalf" of the proletariat. What actually happens is a huge monopoly of power is concentrated into their hands. The armed forces, police, security services and the economy are all controlled by this new ruling elite for reasons "to safe guard the revolution." This is the purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It turns out however, that safe guarding the revolution is not so the workers can have control, but safe guarding the revolution so these "intellectuals" can retain control. T

What has happened in the past when this has been tried countless times is clear to see. However, I accept this is the 21st century, but I ask what guarentees are there that this wont happen again? There are none. Unless the point of the revolution is to abolish the state and hierarchical authority all together.

You can say that it is for the interest of the workers but that does not make it true. History proves it.


The Paris Commune could even be described as a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" wherein they took power for themselves although no man was in control.

What kautsky says is commendable and if when you talk about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" you mean free association workers councils without a central command and hierarchy then fine. I can accept that. But if you mean to have a state and a central authority of 1, 2, 3 or even 12 people to work on "behalf" of the workers I say this is not acceptable.

At the end of the day what is the point of a revolution? For the workers to liberate themselves or for them to put their faith in yet more rulers with promises in the end they will not keep?

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called &#39;the People&#39;s Stick.&#39;" - Bakunin

[Faceless]

By what means? By perpetrating a state controlled by "intellectuals" who are supposed to be working on "behalf" of the proletariat. What actually happens is a huge monopoly of power is concentrated into their hands. The armed forces, police, security services and the economy are all controlled by this new ruling elite for reasons "to safe guard the revolution."
By any means. What I mean though is that a real Marxist does not care how and if there is any likelyhood of successful anarchism then a Marxist will simply drop what he is doing and support it (for the workers) but Marxists favour the most practical mean as they see it. A major betrayal of Lenin was to preserve the army etc. and hence another distinction between Leninists and Marxists. These were not a means to help to liberate the working classes of Russia. The real "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Russia was the temporary government in which the SRs and Mensheviks were more greatly represented than Bolsheviks. The Paris Commune and this government were both central states but easily distinguishable from other so called "democracys" and Leninist elite dictatorships. Marxism has yet to be disproven. Marxism isn&#39;t the most linear of theories and was never meant to be dogmatised. Marx suggested in the manifesto that the sweeping reforms necessary would never be identical but would likely be similar in a number of ways.

[@[email protected]@]

:rolleyes:
I CAN TELL U:
In Shanghai, government already in promoted application network work, this is the very effective method. It can serve for the people. You can understand?

[peaccenicked]

If Leninism is the bureaucratic stranglehold of a revolution then I am an anarchist.
If anarchism is the instant dismantling of the proletarian armed forces, then I am a Leninist.
There is just some compromises that have to be made. The Bolsheviks saw that their revolution would be defeated if it was not spread throughout the world, that is heavily documented.
Lenins orders persecuting anarchists is not so. Kronstadt was an armed uprising. It was civil war within a massive invasion of the USSR.
Rationalisation or not.
Anarchism is a well respected part of the workers movement, one need only think of the Red Flag and the chigaco martyrs, the world wide demonstrations against the State execution of Sacco and Vanzetti.
Should the Russian revolution be the demarcation between Marxists and anarchists forever.
It is time for a well studied history of that period that is not full of blind anti authoritarian venom or disrespect for the anarchist contribution to the workers movement and in particular their contribution towards the development to world revolution which started in Russia 1917 which has unfortunately been delayed since 1919. When the German revolution was buried.

[The Feral Underclass]

peaccenicked


If Leninism is the bureaucratic stranglehold of a revolution

It&#39;s the nature of the vangaurd and the dictatorship of the proletariat.


If anarchism is the instant dismantling of the proletarian armed forces, then I am a Leninist.

No&#33; It isn&#39;t. It is simply organized differently.


Lenins orders persecuting anarchists is not so. Kronstadt was an armed uprising.

Morpheus listed the demands made by the Kronstadt sailors. before he did he adds...

Morpheus

First of all, the Kronstaders weren&#39;t a minority. They were part of a large wave of unrest, including many strikes & hundreds of peasant uprisings, against the Bolsheviks. The majority was against the Bolsheviks. Furthermore, they weren&#39;t "bourgeois individualists" they were the folks who put the Bolsheviks in power. They were militant revolutionaries. The Bolsheviks were calling them the "backbone" and the "pride and glory" of the revolution until they rebelled. The quality of life for the common person was much worse under the Bolsheviks, this is admitted by Bolshevik sources. The Kronstaders were acting to defend the revolution against the Bolsheviks, who were the real minority destroying the revolution. The program of the Kronstdat rebellion was:

Krostandt Demands

1. In view of the fact that the present Soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, to immediately hold new elections to the Soviets by secret ballot, with freedom of pre-election agitation for all workers and peasants.

2. Freedom of speech and press for workers and peasants, anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. Freedom of assembly of both trade unions and peasant associations.

4. To convene not later than March 10th, 1921 a non-party Conference of workers, soldiers and sailors of the city of Petrograd, of Kronstadt, and of Petrograd province.

5. To free all political prisoners of socialist parties, and also all workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with worker and peasant movements.

6. To elect a Commission for the review of the cases of those held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all POLITOTDELS, since no single party should be able to have such privileges for the propaganda of its ideas and receive from the state the means for these ends. In their place must be established locally elected cultural-educational commissions, for which the state must provide resources.

8. To immediately remove all anti-smuggling roadblock detachments.

9. To equalize the rations of all laborers, with the exception of those in work injurious to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all military units, and also the various guards kept in factories and plants by the communists, and if such guards or detachments are needed, they can be chosen in military units from the companies, and in factories and plants by the discretion of the workers.

11. To give the peasants full control over their own land, to do as they wish, and also to keep cattle, which must be maintained and managed by their own strength, that is, without using hired labor.

12. We appeal to all military units, and also to the comrade cadets to lend their support to our resolution.

13. We demand that all resolutions be widely publicized in the press.

14. To appoint a travelling bureau for control.

15. To allow free handicraft manufacture by personal labor.

Not unreasonable...Torsky did not think so when he used artillary to bomb them.

[Faceless]

It&#39;s the nature of the vangaurd and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Again. Interesting that you should pair the two. It is entirely subjective to suggest that the latter would go that way. Of course we have never been allod to see. It has been crushed by the Soviet Union, the U&#036; and the Verssailes government when it appeared as social democracy (as it often manifests itself) and worker&#39;s states have proven terrible threats to the Cappie and Leninist status quo. I would beg to differ.

[peaccenicked]

Anarchist tension.
The programme of an armed group of men is perhaps what coheres them but their actions for that programme have to be examined. On the other hand,I think the Bolsheviks were mistaken and that a seige mentality had taken over them.
I condemn them for that.
Vanguardism is a form of leadership. I find anarchism most difficult here.
The abolition of leaders in the midst of civil war in a very backward country, does not fit in my gullet to well.
AS to DoP that is a very complex question. How could Leninists disagree with its abolition when it is their stated goal. Yet it is necessary to have proletarian armed forces. That is a state a means of carrying out the will of the majority. The Kronstadters were a minority that is why they got defeated.

[RedCeltic]

The Anarchist Tension


Some people may find themselves able to shift their ideology over the course of a week, yet I am not one of those people. I was insulted, and me ego brused" when you accused me of that, yet you do in fact have every right to accuse me.

The truth of the matter is, if I had always believed in representitive democracy I would never have started posting on Che-Lives. Yet, I started questioning my affilations with the Socialist Party USA, and I needed some questions asked, so I started posting here... or reading here at first at least... around December 2000.

When I did actually start to post here, I found that there were alot of other people here who believed that change could come about through the ballot box.

Since then I have found myself trying to justify different positions, that aren&#39;t neccerily my own.

You are also correct to say that I&#39;m being overly dramatic, that&#39;s pretty well known here on Che-lives... lol....

[synthesis]

I shall occupy the middle ground as a "Marxist" and not a dogmatic Leninist or an equally intollerant Anarchist.

That&#39;s a good way to put it. I wrote this article (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=15437) to attempt to explain and give a name to the ideology we share.

[The Feral Underclass]

Faceless


Interesting that you should pair the two.

One usually leads to the other.


It is entirely subjective to suggest that the latter would go that way.

Why was the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat thought up? Because it was Marx and Engles belief that the transition between capitalism and communism needed to be handled by a state structure so that it the transition could happen smoothly.

What is the point of the dictatorship of the proletariat? To organize society and defend the revolution. How does it intend to do that? The dictatorship of the proletariat is controlled by the Communist Party leadership who act on behalf of the working class, elected within the party if that, and they control the organization of the economy, the defence of the country and the suppression of counter-revolutionaries.

Who is it organized by? The communist party. How is it organized? Through committees and commissars, elected within the party who are responsable to an exectuive committee who is in turn responsable to the general assembly of yet more communist party officials...bureacracy is unavoidable, it&#39;s the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Of course we have never been allod to see. It has been crushed by the Soviet Union, the U&#036; and the Verssailes government when it appeared as social democracy (as it often manifests itself) and worker&#39;s states have proven terrible threats to the Cappie and Leninist status quo. I would beg to differ.

I didn&#39;t understand this, please rephraze it.

[The Feral Underclass]

peacceniked


The abolition of leaders in the midst of civil war in a very backward country, does not fit in my gullet to well.

You have looked at society and realised that there exists a state and a hierarchy with leaders. Most people recognize this, however your consciousness has taken it a step further and realised that the present state and hierarchy create injustices and therefore concluded that it should be changed so that the majority (workers) have control over the state and hierarchy. To then take it another step and say we do not need a state or hierarchy is all together incomprehensable to you, because it challanges everything you hold to be true. Therefore it is classed as "idealistic." When you are talking to a working class person and pose to them the idea of taking control of the state and turning it into a workers state they will accuse you of exactly the same thing. Pure idealism.

The point I am making is that it&#39;s simply layers of understanding, or consciousness. Yoy can not see how it can work. This does not mean it cant.


How could Leninists disagree with its abolition when it is their stated goal.

Exactly my point.


Yet it is necessary to have proletarian armed forces

I agree.


is a state a means of carrying out the will of the majority.

No&#33; The dictatorship of the proletariat is carrying out the will of the central committee who claim they are working on behalf of the working class....I am not being rhetorical here. It is fact. That is what they are doing.


The Kronstadters were a minority that is why they got defeated.

This isnt true either. There was a mass of uprisings and strikes against the bolshevik government. Kronstadt was just one of them.

[peaccenicked]

anarchistTension

Idealism..............pooh.
I just think you dont know what you are talking about or trying to confuse people either way you are a reactionary.
You say the Bolsheviks were unpopular. How about civil war and starvation
being under seige by 21 different armies including US troops.
Who won against the invaders? How did that happen?

[The Feral Underclass]

peaccenicked


I just think you dont know what you are talking about or trying to confuse people either way you are a reactionary.

A reactionary....I am the one advocating a progressive form of revolution, a revolution with a point. You are the one supporting old and out dated systems of government which dont work....


Who won against the invaders? How did that happen?

Ordering deserters to be shot was probably one way to win. Which is what Trotrksy did...he also condemed those who "put the right of workers to elect their own representatives above the Party, thus challenging the right of the Party to affirm its dictatorship, even when the dictatorship comes into conflict with the passing moods of the workers democracy." (L. Trotsky, Sochinenyia (Moscow 1925). p.89, p. 136)

He asserted full dictorial control over the read army and organized it using brute force...maybe this is also a reason he managed to beat back the invaders.

[Faceless]

Anarchist Tension ,
A real Marxist, as I am trying to explain, would allow factioning and certain partys who work be a certain line. And this is the dictatorship of the proletariat. The set line would include the upholding of certain freedoms and the end of private property which are demands which we both make and demand them ruthlessly. Why should oppression be tollerated.
Hence I am rubbishing your entire post addressed to me. The dictatorship of the proletariat is for the workers, by the workers and the Marxists want only to act to guide revolutionary passions and vigourously oppose any hegemony, oppression or capitalism wherever it lies and hence the democracy or demarchy, whatever, needs to be based on a non-party based system with the election of average people; representative and by the workers.
Hence:

How does it intend to do that? The dictatorship of the proletariat is controlled by the Communist Party leadership that is incorrect

Who is it organized by? The communist party. is wrong

How is it organized? Through committees and commissars, elected within the party is equal nonsense. One of a million stereotypes.

I didn&#39;t understand this, please rephraze it. OK. All imperial powers have been threatened by the rotten apple which is the true worker&#39;s state. The Versailles government with the ironic backing of the Germans. Allende threatened both U&#036; and the USSR with a democratic and truly communistic example. And then there were our favourite sailors in Krondstadt, demanding freedom with their share of Leninism. Cappies and Leninists alike have something to fear from the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

One usually leads to the other. Well, I explained earlier how the Paris Commune was a DoP but the uprising was entirely spontaneous and vanguardism was not it, certainly. Likewise for Allende, Arbenz and democratically elected Marxists.

peacenicked,

How could Leninists disagree with its abolition when it is their stated goal. It is not that Leninists are megalomaniacs set on world domination but that they misguidingly setting the foundations for a state which will be corrupted.

dyermaker,
Read your post and I liked it a lot. I have to agree with everything you wrote. Nice image :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Faceless


The set line would include the upholding of certain freedoms and the end of private property which are demands which we both make and demand them ruthlessly. Why should oppression be tollerated.

History does tend to point you in the other direction. The Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist parties in the UK at present do not advocate such things. I am skeptical. However I can accept the possibility of it being different if the chance arose again.


Hence I am rubbishing your entire post addressed to me.

Good job i&#39;m not trying to win points with you then isn&#39;t it.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is for the workers, by the workers and the Marxists want only to act to guide revolutionary passions and vigourously oppose any hegemony, oppression or capitalism wherever it lies and hence the democracy or demarchy,

I can accept it is your desire to have it like this. However, from past experience I think those with the really power in the authotarian revolutionary movement have and will have other ideas.


based on a non-party based system with the election of average people; representative and by the workers.

I can accept this on face failue and with open arms, but a centralised state will make this dream impossible.

----------

The Paris Commune was a shining success and it was rumoured had made Marx question his own authotarian views. Not for long, but still, it is an example of how the workers can take control without the need for a state structure or a vanguard to work in their interests.

As for the rest of the post. I will conceed my opinions may be dated and I should choose less dogmatic language. However, I do think although the past is the past, it should not be forgotten. Maybe we can use this to our advantage in building a movement together, I will remain optimistic. Unfortunatly though I can not help but feel a hint of cynicism, and with good reason.

[Faceless]

Hence I am rubbishing your entire post addressed to me. Sorry if that sounded harsh but perhaps I sould rephrase it. I denied that what you were saying was true. Something like that. Sorry

However, I do think although the past is the past, it should not be forgotten. Absolutely. A repeat of the USSR would be terrible not just for Leninists and Marxists but the entire labour movement and it must be resisted where it becomes apparent.

The Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist parties in the UK at present do not advocate such things. Your from the UK too? To be honest, I say that I support this or that party but to be honest there are just a million factions and there is a nagging doubt in my mind that many of them do not entirely see the full picture. The CPGB with whom I most feel affiliated state that they support temporary or permanent factioning and democracy but I always have scepticism about their "One Party" rhetoric. To them democracy is just a means to socialism which is their end, as Kautsky puts it, instead of both democracy and socialism being the means to human liberation (which we both want and demand). Back to the original question though, anarchists and Communists must be united to strengthen the labour movement generally; without which we are both impotent

[The Feral Underclass]

The CPGB

The Communist Party of Great Britain. Giving themselves away a bit their arent they? :P


Back to the original question though, anarchists and Communists must be united to strengthen the labour movement generally; without which we are both impotent

I can agree with you to the extent of joining a movement with Leninists such as yourself and Subversive Rob. And I agree some anarchists do need to be a little more compromising, to an extent. However, working with dogmatic leninists and other authotarians is not going to work. Ever&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Faceless]

I don&#39;t really have a "party"

with Leninists such as yourself you still calling me a Leninist? why?

[The Feral Underclass]

you still calling me a Leninist? why?

Sorry...im confused....what would you call yourself?

[CASTRO_SUCKS]

Ok, so far I have deduced that both anarchists and communists should (and probably will) work together for a dismantling of capitalism. However, although I sense this is a necessary, if but frail, union between both groups, I also strongly believe that if a revolution were to arise (and thats a big fat "IF"), that the frail union would quickly evaporate as both groups start to struggle for dominance. I&#39;ve said it before and I&#39;ll say it again: Judging by what the true meaning of "Anarchism" means, BOTH groups CANNOT co-exist&#33;

Prove me wrong&#33;

[Faceless]

Sorry...im confused....what would you call yourself? A marxist as I see Lenin&#39;s authorative rule as having corrupted, in every way, his teachings. In the end I can only await others putting labels on me. I want to help liberate workers and see Marxist teachings as being the way. Democracy and Socialism are a means (as I see it) to an end.

Prove me wrong&#33; Hmm. I fear I can not without a crystal ball. I will try and unite factions as many others will try but despite all our teachngs and guidance, the workers wil choose there own fait come revolution.