Anarchism in a Communist State

[SirBrendan]

The 20th century was, for political change, the single most exciting time in the history of man. There were anarchists, theocrats, capitalists, communists, fascists, the inception of the third way, and countless variations dancing between and adapting these varied belief systems.

On Revolutionary Left there are natural oppositions which unite us: we all dislike capitalism, theocracy, and fascism (hopefully). But the question with the utmost importance to me, as a libertarian socialist, is what happens in your dream embryonic revolutionary state when the opposition is ousted and the communists are left with us anarchists?

It's happened a handful of times, such as Ukranian Nabat and Spanish Andalusia. In all occasions I know of, the anarchists were massacred by communists. Even Bakunin, arguably the most prominent anarchist thinker of the 20th century, was expelled from the Internationale by Marx himself.

So my question becomes, although we can agree on who we don't like, are the members of the community willing to accept anarchism in their nations and acquiesce land to their completely autonomous communes? Will there be conscription of the anarchists to defend against enemies of the revoluton, as there was in Ukraine? And will our anarchists really be content to leave people under the control of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

*This post is not intended to be incendiary or divisive, but instead to provoke an honest discussion of how relatable our ultimate goals really are*

[Raúl Duke]

It's unknowable if anything new will happen to anarchists in any modern 21st century Leninist revolution...although perhaps more of the same.

Anarchists would probably seek to agitate from within (workplaces, soviets, etc) and point out any incongruities between whatever the Party/vanguard/etc is enacting to what they imagine socialism should entail. They will perhaps still debate with the Leninists verbally/through the media. It may or may not end in armed struggle alla Kronstadt, et.al. Perhaps a synthesis of sorts will arise between the two ideologies, or one will just kill the other as before.

[Revolution starts with U]

Based on the conduct of the Leninists on this board, I hold out little hope that they won't immediately denounce us as liberal class traitors at the first possible opportunity, all the while setting up a new form of capitalism.

I hope I'm wrong. None of us are fortune tellers, so there is no way to know.

[Omsk]

They will be eliminated, as the enemies of the revolution.

[Ostrinski]

There needn't be any coercion at all. They simply need to be asked to prove that their political principles prove to be more efficient with regard to combating all the dangers to socialism.

[Ostrinski]

They will be eliminated, as the enemies of the revolution.then maybe you should be eliminated (from revleft) as a self-proclaimed enemy of more or less half of the board (or more if you think trots and leftcoms are "enemies of the people" too)

[Omsk]

Hoho, let's not confuse a revolution with an internet forum. Since there are no actual revolutions and since the left is in such a bad position (The workers movement, generally.) i don't have actual enemies, only possible future ones, political. Mixing reality (Or, in 2012, fantasy.) with an internet forum is absurd, comrade.

[Revolution starts with U]

Whoa... thought you were joking. Removing my like

[Omsk]

Included in my signature.

[Ostrinski]

Hoho, let's not confuse a revolution with an internet forum. Since there are no actual revolutions and since the left is in such a bad position (The workers movement, generally.) i don't have actual enemies, only possible future ones, political. Mixing reality (Or, in 2012, fantasy.) with an internet forum is absurd, comrade.I'm not. I'm simply saying that since you see such a large portion of the board as either potential or inherent enemies (of the revolution, or whatever), then it soars above my head as to why you would even enjoy a place like this (with such a multi political presence and all)

[Omsk]

I don't, im here because of a couple of other similar-minded ML's.

[SirBrendan]

'They simply need to be asked to prove that their political principles prove to be more efficient with regard to combating all the dangers to socialism.'

Anarchists are piggy backers. As a whole, I don't believe we're willing to fight for world conquest or what have you. In capitalism, we form communes and pay land/sales taxes to be left alone. If ever a leftist revolution comes, it'll be a communist one as we live in a world of states.

Historically though anarchists become a very different gambit in communist nations, because socialism is already accepted our priority and advertisement is liberty, the most appealing concept I know of. In communism, we stop being 'just leave us alone please' and instead become, 'leave us alone or we'll shoot you in the face'. Nabat is the perfect example of this, both for the transition and the response of our annihilation when demanded into conscription into the Soviet army.

So when you say there will be no cooercion but we must prove our legitimacy in resistance, I become suspicous. Anarchists will never form a standing army or impressive military. If we form sucessfully again in a true sense, it wil be distinguished by an isolationist militia of volunteers with rifles. There will be no nukes or jetplanes, because anarchism simply can't manage it.

So naturally if your concern is defence, anarchists can't do it. There will never be an anarchist version of the Soviet Union. Anarchists can only exist sucessfully with either a global anarchist movement (we'll talk about it again in 2000 years....) or, more likely, the sanction of a sympathetic state simply because anarchism can not defend itself against national bodies.

So the question remains, will you suffer autonomous anarchist communes in your new communist state?

[Tim Cornelis]

Is advocacy of self-emancipation of the working class such a threat to you, Omsk?

[Omsk]

It's not a threat, but it's pointless.

[Art Vandelay]

Omsk will line up the anarchist against the wall.

Omsk will line the Trotskyists...oh I'm sorry Trotskyist-Fascists against the wall.

Omsk will line the Left-communists against the wall (infantile disorder and all).

Basically Omsk wants the revolution to be led by him and his red alert stalinist fanboys as they march to the Internationale in USSR esque military gear. As someone else once said: "I want to take a shit in Omsk's mouth." :)

As to the actual op, I see no reason why anarchists and communists cannot publicly engage in dialogue and whoever gets the support of the masses wins. After all we need to fight for "the right to disagree."

[Omsk]

As someone else once said: "I want to take a shit in Omsk's mouth."


You said that.:)

[Tim Cornelis]

It's not a threat, but it's pointless.

Are you for real? The self-emancipation of the working class is pointless? That's elitism plain and simple. And the fact that you feel the need to make decisions on behalf of the working class reinforces that indeed you are an elitist. Have you even read any actual Marxist literature?

You're a Blanquist, not a Marxist.

The fact that you are against self-emancipations reveals your true intentions: positioning yourself above the working class and becoming the new rulin class. You are a threat to the very emancipation of labour. RAAN is making much more sense now.

[Art Vandelay]

You said that.:)

OH was it me? Silly me, I thought I heard someone else said it and thought it was genius. I guess I am the genius who came up with it after all.

[Omsk]

Are you for real? The self-emancipation of the working class is pointless? That's elitism plain and simple. And the fact that you feel the need to make decisions on behalf of the working class reinforces that indeed you are an elitist. Have you even read any actual Marxist literature?


The Vanguard party is there, there is no elitism.


You're a Blanquist, not a Marxist.


No, im not, Leninism is not Blanquism.

[SirBrendan]

''As to the actual op, I see no reason why anarchists and communists cannot publicly engage in dialogue and whoever gets the support of the masses wins. After all we need to fight for "the right to disagree."'

So you're proposing a democratic showdown between anarchists and communists:p

I don't know. It's important to remember here that anarchism inspired communism (Proudhon to Marx), and that communism, as I understand it, aims to achieve anarchism as the ultimate goal (in its orthodox form).

The big difference is that anarchists don't want to wait through any statist transitional phase. If we were lucky enough to experience a genuine communist revolution in my lifetime, I can tell you now I would not be happy to wait for it be corrupted by government. I'd want my hippie farm and the government to leave me alone, just like I want in capitalist society.

'every kind of government is alike objectionable, no matter whether it be democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy, that all govern by force; and that, in the best of all possible cases, the force of the majority oppresses the weaknesses of the minority, he comes, at last, to the conclusion: “Nous voulons l’anarchie!” What we want is anarchy; the rule of nobody, the responsibility of every one to nobody but himself.' '

It's equally important to remember that Proudhon denounced communism. I'm just not convinced that statists can really co-exist with anti-statists unless there is a general concensus that the anti/non statists have a right to self-governance

(Dont know why the last paragraph is underlined; just ignore it)

[Welshy]

It's not a threat, but it's pointless.

Care to explain why the self-emancipation of the working class is pointless?

[CryingWolf]

So my question becomes, although we can agree on who we don't like, are the members of the community willing to accept anarchism in their nations and acquiesce land to their completely autonomous communes? Will there be conscription of the anarchists to defend against enemies of the revoluton, as there was in Ukraine? And will our anarchists really be content to leave people under the control of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

I don't see why a left-communist post-revolutionary government would need to acquiesce land to anarchists, seeing as how its ultimate destination is an anarchist, communist society for all workers in the first place. I don't see why it should, either, unless the anarchists form a strong enough political voice, because, you know, democracy.

[SirBrendan]

Omsk has a portrait of Stalin. Anyone with a portrait of Stalin should not be listened to on pretty much anything, imo.

I'm not a communist, but I like communism just fine. I don't disagree with it on any fundamental level and believe in open communication and cooperation. But when I speak of communists, it does not include authoritarians. Authoritarian capitalists, communists, or whatever name you want to go by are all authoritarians: a person who believes human life is numerical rather than sacred, and that soveriegnty over your body and mind is a privalige rather than a right.

They're all ugly, ugly trolls.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I think anarchists could be very healthy for communists in a post-communist revolutionary situation. Criticism, offering alternative ideas that aren't simple capitalist reformism, engaging in political debate and encouraging others to organise. Whether people agree with the anarchists would be irrelevant as it would ensure scrutiny of the communist platform and force them to offer justifications for their actions. There is historic conflict between anarchists and communists but in the case of a successful revolution 'we should abolish the remnants of capitalism using method X' and 'we should abolish the remnants of capitalism using method Y' becomes a little arbitrary and ultimately it should be the choice of everyone involved (as in the entire emanciptated proletariat) and not idealogues of different colours.

Or... we could just line them up against the same wall we lined up the bourgeoisie. :rolleyes:

[Omsk]

The working class needs the party, to help it achieve consciousness. Although self-emancipation (Reading, formal education, organization.) is worth to an extent.

[Ostrinski]

I want to take a shit in Omsk's mouth.[2]

[Welshy]

The working class needs the party, to help it achieve consciousness. Although self-emancipation (Reading, formal education, organization.) can be worth to an extent.

You do realize that the party and the self-emancipation of the working are not mutually exclusive, right? Unless you see the party as existing outside of the working class acting upon it, in which case you are the living embodiment of the strawman the anarchists/anti-leninists use to attack the concept of a (vanguard) party in general.

[Revolution starts with U]

The working class needs the party, to help it achieve consciousness. Although self-emancipation (Reading, formal education, organization.) is worth to an extent.

That doesn't sound very Marxist really.... wasn't he the guy who said class struggle, and the communist revolution were inevitability of the capitalist mode of production?

You're just an idealist really. You have your idea of what society should look like, and the working class can agree or get shot.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Vanguard party is there, there is no elitism.

Because we all know that a vanguard party is incapable of elitism. Are you this detached from reality? You act as if a vanguard party and elitism are mutually exclusive. The Nomenklatura, the military-style dictatorship of North Korea, "The Party is always correct" (East German slogan), and so forth. Each and every Marxist-Leninist was riddled with elitism.

Self-emancipation entails the 'democratic' self-rule of the working class in both the initial stage of the revolution and the post-revolutionary society.

What you necessarily advocate is rule over the proletariat by a vanguard party, i.e. elitism.


No, im not, Leninism is not Blanquism.

What you advocate is closer to Blanquism than Marxism.

Omsk, you are an absolute psychpath and a danger.

You advocate the murder of tens of thousands of people.

All because you are uncomfortable having them emancipate themselves.

But that shouldn't surprise me coming from a guy who was a Stalin avatar, a man whose policies were so miserable millions died as a result. The fact that anyone upholds such a maniac is appalling.


The working class needs the party, to help it achieve consciousness. Although self-emancipation (Reading, formal education, organization.) is worth to an extent.

Again, you are closer to Blanquism than to Marxism.

[Omsk]

You do realize that the party and the self-emancipation of the working are not mutually exclusive, right? Unless you see the party as existing outside of the working class acting upon it, in which case you are the living embodiment of the strawman the anarchists/anti-leninists use to attack the concept of a (vanguard) party in general.
That is why i said both are acceptable.I exaggerated this entire point in my original post.


Because we all know that a vanguard party is incapable of elitism. Are you this detached from reality? You act as if a vanguard party and elitism are mutually exclusive. The Nomenklatura, the military-style dictatorship of North Korea, "The Party is always correct" (East German slogan), and so forth. Each and every Marxist-Leninist was riddled with elitism.


You are an anarchist, these lines above are normal for you.


Omsk, you are an absolute psychpath and a danger.

All right let's not lead this to the path of personal insults, etc etc. A danger to who?


You advocate the murder of tens of thousands of people.


No i don't.

All because you are uncomfortable having them emancipate themselves.


A strawman, i am against anarchists, in a possible revolutionary situation, not against workers who want to emancipate themselves.

O tell me, what would happen to me if i found myself in the middle of an anarchist insurrection, in the style of the Spanish Civil War?

[The Douche]

Lots will probably end up dead or in gulags for being counter-revolutionaries, to be frank, I would fight a "socialist" state with more ferocity than I fight the current state, only because the social upheavel would provide the space for more ferocious fight back.

Real talk.

[Welshy]

That is why i said both are acceptable.I exaggerated this entire point in my original post.

Your post that I responded to shows that you have no idea what self-emancipation means. Self-emancipation means the working class is what overthrows capitalism. This is a basic concept that ALL marxists and most anarchists (I say most because I don't know how people classify Proudhon and others like him) uphold. It is a separate issue from how the working class is organized (party or not) or how the working class is to gain the conciousness necessary to fulfill its historical role.

[Positivist]

'They simply need to be asked to prove that their political principles prove to be more efficient with regard to combating all the dangers to socialism.'

Anarchists are piggy backers. As a whole, I don't believe we're willing to fight for world conquest or what have you. In capitalism, we form communes and pay land/sales taxes to be left alone. If ever a leftist revolution comes, it'll be a communist one as we live in a world of states.

So the question remains, will you suffer autonomous anarchist communes in your new communist state?

Uhh, how many communes do you know of under capitalism? To pay those land and sales taxes, you will need an income, which means an income tax. To meet all of these taxes you will be required to labor tirerlessly (as you will not only be laboring to meet these payments but also to sustain yourselves.) Also this is just assuming that you are only working for your needs. If you happen to have any wants you'll also need transportation and a higher income (meaning maintenance expenses, and higher income taxes.)

[Omsk]

Your post that I responded to shows that you have no idea what self-emancipation means. Self-emancipation means the working class is what overthrows capitalism. This is a basic concept that ALL marxists and most anarchists (I say most because I don't know how people classify Proudhon and others like him) uphold. It is a separate issue from how the working class is organized (party or not) or how the working class is to gain the conciousness necessary to fulfill its historical role.

It's a semantic problem, since in my native language, it translates to something close to 'self-education'.

[Welshy]

It's a semantic problem, since in my native language, it translates to something close to 'self-education'.

Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but emancipation is pretty clearly unrelated to education in english. However I won't be a douche about this point.

Oh just out of curiosity what language do you speak natively?

[Tim Cornelis]

You are an anarchist, these lines above are normal for you.

Denying reality is normal to you. There was no nomenklatura? There is no military-style dictatorship in North Korea? "Die Partei hat immer recht" was not a slogan?



All right let's not lead this to the path of personal insults, etc etc.

For anyone who even seriously thinks of killing thousands of people cannot be other than qualified as a psychopath in my book.


A danger to who?

To me for instance! To the revolution, to the emancipation of the working class, to the working class itself, to others like me!



No i don't.

What does eliminate mean if not killing people? You think anarchists will move out of their own if you ask them nicely? No, you will need to murder them. And since there are thousands of anarchists, you will need to kill thousands of people.


A strawman, i am against anarchists, in a possible revolutionary situation, not against workers who want to emancipate themselves.

Anarchists advocate self-emancipation. Nothing more.

What is self-emancipation? Setting up communes based on popular assemblies, expropriating the means of production, converting it to common property, and putting it at the disposal of the workers.

This is exactly what anarchists advocate (as well as Trotskyists, left-communists, etc.). Therefore, if you oppose anararchists in revolutionary situations (i.e. you oppose anarchists setting up communes and expropriating workplaces), you oppose workers being able to emancipate yourself.

Also, you pretend as if anarchists cannot be workers.


O tell me, what would happen to me if i found myself in the middle of an anarchist insurrection, in the style of the Spanish Civil War?

If you advocate the emancipation of labour through a network of democratic communes and workers' councils (as a proper Marxist would), nothing. If you actively seek to destroy these working class' organisations by means of violent confrontations to impose your rule as a new ruling class over the working class (as the historical precedent has been), then logically you will be combated.

[Omsk]

Denying reality is normal to you. There was no nomenklatura? There is not military-style dictatorship in North Korea?

The DPRK is a 'military-style dictatorship' - but to use actual terms which have an ideological weight, a revisionist dictatorship.



For anyone who even seriously thinks of killing thousands of people cannot be other than qualifies as a psychopath in my book.




If they fought the proletarian power, they will be combated, if not (And this will not happen.) they will be ignored, and eventually they will perish, non-violently.


To me for instance! To the revolution, to the emancipation of the working class, to the working class itself, to others like me!



How? By not wanting to take part in an anarchist insurrection?


What does eliminate mean if not killing people? You think anarchists will move out of their own if you ask them nicely? No, you will need to murder them. And since there are thousands of anarchists, you will need to kill thousands of people.


How can you prove there will be any anarchists in a country in which the revolution takes place? The anarchists will obviously go hostile during the process of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Anarchists advocate self-emancipation. Nothing more.

What is self-emancipation? Setting up communes based on popular assemblies, expropriating the means of production, converting it to common property, and putting it at the disposal of the workers.


What you advocate is pointless. The Vanguard party of the mass will take the leading role in the process of self-emancipation, just behind the workers themselves.



If you advocate the emancipation of labour through a network of democratic communes and workers' councils (as a proper Marxist would), nothing. If you actively seek to destroy these working class' organisations by means of violent confrontations to impose your rule as a new ruling class over the working class (as the historical precedent has been), then logically you will be combated.


What if i support the idea of a Vanguard party and the DOTP? And if i work with others to get to those goals? What than? Will we face elimination?

[Drosophila]

Omsk has a portrait of Stalin. Anyone with a portrait of Stalin should not be listened to on pretty much anything, imo.

I'm not a communist, but I like communism just fine. I don't disagree with it on any fundamental level and believe in open communication and cooperation. But when I speak of communists, it does not include authoritarians. Authoritarian capitalists, communists, or whatever name you want to go by are all authoritarians: a person who believes human life is numerical rather than sacred, and that soveriegnty over your body and mind is a privalige rather than a right.

They're all ugly, ugly trolls.

Human life isn't "sacred". If you believe this then what are you going to do if a violent revolution breaks out? Pray over the bodies of riot police?

And a huge number of communists are "authoritarian". You should realize that authority can be used in many ways. "Authoritarian" is a lame word anyway.

[l'Enfermé]

Petty-bourgeoisie-isms like the various forms of Anarchism will be suppressed and it's agents will be persecuted, the Proletariat will inflict similar fates to all other anti-Proletarian ideologies and their agents. This is all quite elementary, why would the victorious proletariat, if capable, not exterminate it's enemies, unless it has some use of them yet(the warlord Makhno, for example, was quite effectively utilized by the Bolsheviks, until it was more prudent to disband his little fiefdom)? This of course doesn't apply to pro-Proletarian Anarchists, of whom there are a few around here, but who historically have been a minority within the Anarchist movement.


Omsk will line up the anarchist against the wall.

Omsk will line the Trotskyists...oh I'm sorry Trotskyist-Fascists against the wall.

Omsk will line the Left-communists against the wall (infantile disorder and all).

Basically Omsk wants the revolution to be led by him and his red alert stalinist fanboys as they march to the Internationale in USSR esque military gear. As someone else once said: "I want to take a shit in Omsk's mouth." :)

As to the actual op, I see no reason why anarchists and communists cannot publicly engage in dialogue and whoever gets the support of the masses wins. After all we need to fight for "the right to disagree."
Wow, wow, wow, bro, don't dispresct the Internationale! The Stalinist regime actually replaced the Internationale with that shitty Russian chauvinist(the "Great Rus' joined together forever" one) anthem, L'Internationale is innocent! I've got the original French version tattood on my body.

Anyways, Bakunin and his followers were expelled from the first International because after years of trying to destroy the International from without, they infiltrated it and tried to destroy it from within. The decision to expel the Bakuninists wasn't some arbitrary act of "authoritarianism" on Marx's part, the entire International decided to expel them(and the International wasn't even controlled by a Marxist majority, it was mostly English trade unionists and Continental Utopian Socialists). The Hague Congress, after expelling the Bakuninists, actually decreed that the expelled Bakuninists be granted rights for re-admission if they publicly renounce all their connections to the Alliance of Socialist Democracy(the secret society founded by the Bakunists to either disorganize or dominate the first International - the foundation of this group was the reason for Bakunin's and his follower's expulsion). You can read it all here. (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/bakunin-report.htm)

[Art Vandelay]

For anyone who even seriously thinks of killing thousands of people cannot be other than qualified as a psychopath in my book.

Do you expect the revolution to be bloodless? I can guarantee you that there will be "thousands" of capitalists willing to bear arms in defense of their privilege and private property.

Peacefully if possible, obviously, but violently if need be.

[Art Vandelay]

Wow, wow, wow, bro, don't dispresct the Internationale! The Stalinist regime actually replaced the Internationale with that shitty Russian chauvinist(the "Great Rus' joined together forever" one) anthem, L'Internationale is innocent! I've got the original French version tattood on my body.

Haha I do like the internationale, I just wanted to beak Omsk. I guess I could go back and edit it to "the Great Rus in USSR esque military gear."

[Engels]

OP, the conflict between Bakunin and Marx was a little more complicated than you make it out to be. And I personally see no reason as to why anarchists and communists can’t collaborate.

Unfortunately, the stench of Stalinism still permeates. Take a look at Omsk, the perfect caricature of the Stalinist, a counter-revolutionary who simply wants to reorganise capitalist relations to benefit of the Vanguard.

I end with this quote, “Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!” - Bismarck

[Tim Cornelis]

The DPRK is a 'military-style dictatorship' - but to use actual terms which have an ideological weight, a revisionist dictatorship.


If they fought the proletarian power, they will be combated, if not (And this will not happen.) they will be ignored, and eventually they will perish, non-violently.

Anarchists don't oppose proletarian power (e.g. communes and workers' councils).


How? By not wanting to take part in an anarchist insurrection?

Anarchists would only start an insurrection against a top-down state that does not challenge wage-labour, not against a proper workers' state. In fact, if there was a genuine workers' state, there would hardly be anything to insurrect against from an anarchist perspective, only promote more decentralisation at worse.


How can you prove there will be any anarchists in a country in which the revolution takes place?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution


The anarchists will obviously go hostile during the process of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I doubt it. If the proletarian dictatorship is a network of genuinely democratic communes and workers' councils. If the DOTP means a top-down, new ruling class then yes.


What you advocate is pointless. The Vanguard party of the mass will take the leading role in the process of self-emancipation, just behind the workers themselves.

The Vanguard Party of the masses? That has never existed (not familiar with one), and never will exist. Not all workers will join a party. Then, if it's one, top-down party with a leading role, then it's not self-emancipation.


What if i support the idea of a Vanguard party and the DOTP?

Listen, I have no problem with people advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat. I have no real problem, in regards to the future, with left-communists, classical and Orthodox Marxists, nor Trotskyists--except for minor issues that will become irrelevant in a social revolution.

I have a problem with those advocating a dictatorship over the proletariat. With elitists masquerading as socialists, who feel the need to impose 'socialism' from above.


And if i work with others to get to those goals? What than? Will we face elimination?

If you disagree with the unconditional self-emancipation of labour, then you will rightly be denounced as part of a capitalist order.

If, however, you advocate workers' councils, common ownership, workers' control, popular communes, the abolition of parliamentarism, wage-labour, heads of state, money, and capital, then obviously you are not an enemy to the emancipation of labour.

The historical precedent, however and unfortunately, is that this is not the case. The historical precedent is that of imposing the will of the Party (always a minority) unto the working class, safeguard wage-labour relations, and so forth.


Do you expect the revolution to be bloodless? I can guarantee you that there will be "thousands" of capitalists willing to bear arms in defense of their privilege and private property.

Peacefully if possible, obviously, but violently if need be.

The difference is, then it would be violent self-protection, whereas Omsk stated that anarchists would be eliminated (which implied killing of some sort) without specifying under which conditions this would be necessarily, implying that he would want to eliminate anarchists regardless of the use of arms.

[Omsk]

Anarchists don't oppose proletarian power (e.g. communes and workers' councils).



But you oppose the Vanguard party, you oppose Bolshevism.



Anarchists would only start an insurrection against a top-down state, not a proper workers' state.



Oh come on, if you found yourselves in a revolution led by a ML Vanguard Party you would be against the ML's, and the proletarian state they want to build/have started to build.


(http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution)

Yes, what about it? You can guarantee that a strong anarchist movement will be present in a country going trough a revolution.


I doubt it. If the proletarian dictatorship is a network of genuinely democratic communes and workers' councils. If the DOTP means a top-down, new ruling class then yes.

Well i don't, look at the historical examples.


The Vanguard Party of the masses? That has never existed (not familiar with one), and never will exist. Not all workers will join a party. Then, if it's one, top-down party with a leading role, then it's not self-emancipation.


The Vanguard party put forward by Marx and Engels is clear: The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The Vanguard party would have two tasks,: Firstly, it would protect Marxism from outside corruption from other ideas as well as advance its concepts. And secondly, it would educate the proletariat class in Marxism in order to cleanse them of their false individual consciousness and instill the revolutionary class consciousness in them.

After that it would disappears, since everyone will be a 'revolutionary'.


Listen, I have no problem with people advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat. I have no real problem, in regards to the future, with left-communists, classical and Orthodox Marxists, nor Trotskyists--except for minor issues that will become irrelevant in a social revolution.


And what about ML's who advocate a DOTP and Vanguard party? You are against them and you would act just like the Spanish anarchists.


I have a problem with those advocating a dictatorship over the proletariat. With elitists masquerading as socialists, who feel the need to impose 'socialism' from above.


No such individuals here.



You know very well what i stand for, and i am asking you - what would happen to me if i agitated and tried to spread Marxism-Leninism with other ML's?

[l'Enfermé]

Do you expect the revolution to be bloodless? I can guarantee you that there will be "thousands" of capitalists willing to bear arms in defense of their privilege and private property.

Peacefully if possible, obviously, but violently if need be.
Hahahaha! The bourgeoisie, bearing arms? To defend anything? A bourgeoisie wouldn't defend his mother from a rapist! The entire class is a cowardly caricature of a genuine person, the bourgeoisie has demonstrated it's courage in battle countless times, let us only recount how these parasites fled from the Russian Empire like cockroaches in thousands after the October Revolution, or allow us to remember the franc-fileurs of the Paris Commune, the bourgeoisie that ran from Paris with their tails between their legs, terrorized at the prospect of the Parisian proletariat in power, quite the brave pack of individuals.

[Omsk]

Umh, Borz, they have the police and the army to fight for them, i think they are the groups which will be a problem. (Although the army can turn revolutionary.)

As for the actual capitalists, they will arm the reaction, and support the reaction, as they did before.

[l'Enfermé]

Umh, Borz, they have the police and the army to fight for them, i think they are the groups which will be a problem. (Although the army can turn revolutionary.)

As for the actual capitalists, they will arm the reaction, and support the reaction, as they did before.
Naturally.

[Omsk]

Although, some bourgeois fought against the revolutionaries, the most notable - Russian Cossacks.

Although in the end they did drag their rotten heads to Crimea and from there to the West and America.

[Omsk]

Oh yes, sorry, i mix up you people.

[Deicide]

You said that.:)

Actually it was me, good comrade!

- ah weird, I deleted my post by accident, and you replied before I posted it again :crying:

[Revolution starts with U]

And my first post seems to hold true. If the most vocal MLs on this site were the heads of state anarchists would be executed en masse as no different than the bourgeoisie. For what crime? Telling the state that the working class knows what it wants better than the state does.

[Magón]

But you oppose the Vanguard party, you oppose Bolshevism.

I don't think Anarchists have ever approved of the Vanguard Party idea, because Anarchists have always viewed it as simply disconnected, elitists, self perpetuators, and so on.


Oh come on, if you found yourselves in a revolution led by a ML Vanguard Party you would be against the ML's, and the proletarian state they want to build/have started to build.

That's because the Anarchists don't view the Vanguard Party, as something that can create a governing body in the name of the Proletariate. Only the Proletariate themselves, can. Of course Anarchists are anti-Statist, so any sort of State formation, whether under the name Capitalist or "Proletariate", would be seen as a problem to them, since to Anarchists, a "Proletarian State", is a oxymoron to what Communist Revolution is meant to achieve.


Well i don't, look at the historical examples.

I think he is.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Indeed. On the points that Anarchists don;t want to wait for a classless society, I would have to support them there. However, I believe that Socialism is somewhat necessary. We would need to rearrange society and eliminate any form of capitalism. However, I personally would try and close the gap a number of ways:

1. Tougher regulations on the Vanguard

The Vanguards powers will be limited to 'state' interests. It will be in control of things such as defense and diplomacy. However, even on these issues, it will need to answer to the soviets. The Vanguard will be able to stockpile resources so that they can be used to manage disasters, or to build infrastructure in areas that need it.

2. Communism within Socialism

At the same time as socialism is taking place, the soviets are made largly independent. They will need to provide the vanguard with resources (within reason), because, as stated above, it may be necessary to build infrastructure or relieve a disaster.

This may be considered similar to what Mao did in the Great Leap Forward. He built communes, and they supplied what they could to the vanguard. However, we will try to skip the famine issue.

3. Anarchists standing for election

This just means that anarchists can stand for election in the soviets, and can work with and against the vanguard as such. They may, if they want to, join the vanguard.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

The basic problems communists have with anarchists is that they seem to suffer from the delusion that we can have some kind of libertarian experiment while trying to liquidate the class enemy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The 20th century was, for political change, the single most exciting time in the history of man. There were anarchists, theocrats, capitalists, communists, fascists, the inception of the third way, and countless variations dancing between and adapting these varied belief systems.

On Revolutionary Left there are natural oppositions which unite us: we all dislike capitalism, theocracy, and fascism (hopefully). But the question with the utmost importance to me, as a libertarian socialist, is what happens in your dream embryonic revolutionary state when the opposition is ousted and the communists are left with us anarchists?

It's happened a handful of times, such as Ukranian Nabat and Spanish Andalusia. In all occasions I know of, the anarchists were massacred by communists. Even Bakunin, arguably the most prominent anarchist thinker of the 20th century, was expelled from the Internationale by Marx himself.

So my question becomes, although we can agree on who we don't like, are the members of the community willing to accept anarchism in their nations and acquiesce land to their completely autonomous communes? Will there be conscription of the anarchists to defend against enemies of the revoluton, as there was in Ukraine? And will our anarchists really be content to leave people under the control of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'?

*This post is not intended to be incendiary or divisive, but instead to provoke an honest discussion of how relatable our ultimate goals really are*

I think this is an abstract way to look at some of this history. As a "Leninist" whose tradition was treated in much the same way as anarchists by the USSR rulers and CPs throughout the world, I hardly see this as merely a clash of ideologies.

When you look at the initial Russian Revolution you see a huge convergence of radicals around many of the ideas of the Bolsheviks and many former social-democrats and many anarchists became supporters. What caused the breaking of this was not ideology, but initially the weakness of the working class in Russia (in numbers and in stability) and the difficult post-revolution situation and ultimately, the failure of the revolution to actually achieve worker's power in Russia let alone elsewhere.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The Vanguard party put forward by Marx and Engels is clear:As someone who believes that the vanguard of our class (that is the organic revolutionaries already involved and intrenched in various areas of the class struggle) should organize together, combine their experience and networks, i.e. build a party for united action and pooling of information... Marx and Engels never advocated what could be called "a vanguard party" in either the Bolshevik or later CP and Maoist senses of the term.

The vanguard party idea came out of a need to deal with reformism in the radical movement as worker and radical movements developed after Marx's lifetime and toward the end of Engels.


The Vanguard party would have two tasks,: Firstly, it would protect Marxism from outside corruption from other ideas as well as advance its concepts. And secondly, it would educate the proletariat class in Marxism in order to cleanse them of their false individual consciousness and instill the revolutionary class consciousness in them.

After that it would disappears, since everyone will be a 'revolutionary'.I think the revolution itself would mean the "vanguard" is no longer needed. I do think this kind of organizing is necessary to build toward revolution, but in a revolutionary period, people would, by and large, have to be in agreement with the idea of worker's power and so with this DotP it would be fairly easy for workers to set up some basic guidelines themselves coming out of the conditions of the revolution. People would want to protect worker's democracy and worker's power over production as a first step, they would proabably also want to cement-in any gains made during the Revolution by maybe passing laws or dictates on some basic things like "husing for everyone" "right to strike" "a principled opposition to racism and sexism" and so on. The process of revolution will be the "great teacher" about worker's ability to run society themselves, a vanguard is necessary to help get to that point IMO, but I highly doubt that a vanguard would be needed to "teach people" after a revolution. I think this reflects an idea that people are passive or that workers will be the recipient of Revolution rather than protagonists in it.

[Per Levy]

The working class needs the party, to help it achieve consciousness.

the working class needs their party not a your party that wants to set up a dictatorship over the proletariat.


And what about ML's who advocate a DOTP and Vanguard party? You are against them and you would act just like the Spanish anarchists.

ML's advocate a dictatorship over the proletariat not of the prolatariat, just to be clear on that. and stop it about spain, your ilk was going around and purging anarchists and other communists who werent stalinists not the other way around, it was your ilk that was killing revolutionarys while working together with social dems.

oh and just a little marx quote for you omsk:


That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves; that, the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1867/rules.htm

[Tim Cornelis]

But you oppose the Vanguard party, you oppose Bolshevism.

I don't oppose a "vanguard" organisation as such. I do oppose Bolshevism.


Oh come on, if you found yourselves in a revolution led by a ML Vanguard Party you would be against the ML's, and the proletarian state they want to build/have started to build.

Again, it depends. IF a Marxist-Leninist state will be a top-down state forcing its will on the workers, then anarchists will set up communes of a democratic nature, expropriate factories and implement workers' control. If the Marxist-Leninist state does not respect the workers' decision to control their own affairs, then yes I would be against it.




Yes, what about it? You can guarantee that a strong anarchist movement will be present in a country going trough a revolution.

There will, at some point, be a revolution in any country.


Well i don't, look at the historical examples.

That's good to hear.


The Vanguard party put forward by Marx and Engels is clear: The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

I agree.


The Vanguard party would have two tasks,: Firstly, it would protect Marxism from outside corruption from other ideas as well as advance its concepts.

Sounds idealist, but okey. How would this be done?


And secondly, it would educate the proletariat class in Marxism in order to cleanse them of their false individual consciousness and instill the revolutionary class consciousness in them.

There is nothing wrong with education. The question is how you educate them.


And what about ML's who advocate a DOTP and Vanguard party? You are against them and you would act just like the Spanish anarchists.

Again, I have no problem with a DotP. I have a problem when it's forced on an unwilling working class from above.


No such individuals here.

See above then.


You know very well what i stand for, and i am asking you - what would happen to me if i agitated and tried to spread Marxism-Leninism with other ML's?

Nothing. If you spread the word of Leninism, there is nothing wrong with that. I only oppose forcing it on people. So educating Leninism is not a problem to me.

You could participate in democratic communes, offer your ideas and make clear that they are Leninist, and if you can convince others you are right, then they will give you a mandate to carry it out.

[Manic Impressive]

There will be no place for capitalists in the revolution. Just as there will be no places for social democrats there will be no place for leninists who preach revolution but will sell out for petty reforms. These ideologies will die not the people but the ideas. There probably will be a few die hard stalinists floating around but I would suspect them to be treated as a source of amusement akin to other theories which have proven to be false, flat earth society for instance.

If they came to power as Omsk says then we would be treated as counter revolutionaries and imprisoned or killed. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this.

[Tim Cornelis]

I don't think Anarchists have ever approved of the Vanguard Party idea, because Anarchists have always viewed it as simply disconnected, elitists, self perpetuators, and so on.

Not necessarily. From the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism:


We have seen, with regard to the problem of the programme, what our general idea is of the relation between the oppressed class and the revolutionary organisation defined by a programme (that is, the party in the true sense of the word). But we can't just say 'class before party' and leave it at that. We must expand on this, explain how the active minority, the revolutionary vanguard, is necessary without it becoming a military-type leadership, a dictatorship over the masses. In other words, we must show that the anarchist idea of the active minority is in no way elitist, oligarchical or hierarchical.

[Rafiq]

If Anarchists challenge the DOTP, and the proletarian state, they will have to be dealt with. Other than that, I don't see a problem, so long as they don't collaborate with the enemy against it. I am hoping by that time the Communist movement will be more or less beyond 20th century feuds, and Anarchism and Communsim as we know them may very well not exist.

Marxism, though, will remain indefinitely. It isn't an ideology.

[Rafiq]

It's quite troubling to see Omsk, a self proclaimed Marxist, threatening to eliminate whole peoples on the basis of Ideology. Replace "Anarchist" with "Bourgeoisie" and I have no qualms. Anarchism is, or at least was a genuine current of the proletarian struggle/movement. It does indeed represent and embody their interests as a class. To divorce, historically, Anarchism from the Socialist movement is nothing more than historical revisionism. Let's just hope that Both the 20th century Communists and modern Day Anarchists see to a revival in real class struggle, instead of resorting to social democracy or unorganized petite bourgeois action, be it peaceful protest or something else.

[Magón]

Not necessarily. From the Manifesto of Libertarian Communism:

I know quite a few Anarchists who take issue with the whole use of the term, Vanguard, in the manifesto, along with some other things in it (or lacking in it,) as well.

I think the critique on Libcom, of Fontenis using Vanguard, was a good one, although light and not very in-depth, I agree with it.


If Anarchists challenge the DOTP, and the proletarian state, they will have to be dealt with. Other than that, I don't see a problem, so long as they don't collaborate with the enemy against it. I am hoping by that time the Communist movement will be more or less beyond 20th century feuds, and Anarchism and Communsim as we know them may very well not exist.

Marxism, though, will remain indefinitely. It isn't an ideology.

So do you mean that if Anarchists challenged the DOTP in anyway at all, they'd need to be dealt with, or just if it was challenged in a more violent way?

[Rafiq]

Challenged in a violent, forceful way, etc.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Challenged in a violent, forceful way, etc.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Like the SR's assassination attempt and injury on Lenin, murder of Communist Party members and disregard for the vanguard's state authority (i.e. assassinating a german diplomat, risking invasion) etc.?

[l'Enfermé]

Challenged in a violent, forceful way, etc.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Is that really enough? Anarchists lobbing dynamite at Marxists can be much less threatening to Proletarian power than Anarchists agitating against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat(through the press, for example).

[Revolution starts with U]

Unless of course it is the faux-DotP that is the real threat to prole power... tho I guess I'm probably being dumb asking someone who assumes the superiority of Leninism to critically examine Leninist states.

[Magón]

Is that really enough? Anarchists lobbing dynamite at Marxists can be much less threatening to Proletarian power than Anarchists agitating against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat(through the press, for example).

So you're for 100% destruction of Anarchists(ism), no questions asked, even when their criticisms are simply on the press level?

And let me guess, the only way they won't be, is if they succumb to the DOTP, and speak nothing but good about it, and how well things are going for everyone?

Makes sense.:laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

So you're for 100% destruction of Anarchists(ism), no questions asked, even when their criticisms are simply on the press level?

And let me guess, the only way they won't be, is if they succumb to the DOTP, and speak nothing but good about it, and how well things are going for everyone?

Makes sense.:laugh:

No, you're just a dirty ultra-left :lol:

[l'Enfermé]

Unless of course it is the faux-DotP that is the real threat to prole power... tho I guess I'm probably being dumb asking someone who assumes the superiority of Leninism to critically examine Leninist states.
How can the purest expression of proletarian power be a threat to proletarian power, and what the hell is a Leninist state?

[Revolution starts with U]

How can the purest expression of proletarian power be a threat to proletarian power, and what the hell is a Leninist state?

Are you saying the USSR was the end of history? Cuz obviously...

[l'Enfermé]

So you're for 100% destruction of Anarchists(ism), no questions asked, even when their criticisms are simply on the press level?

And let me guess, the only way they won't be, is if they succumb to the DOTP, and speak nothing but good about it, and how well things are going for everyone?

Makes sense.:laugh:
I'm a proletarian purist Comrade, and as such I can't tolerate anti-proletarian charlatanism like anarchism, but I have no issues with individual anarchists and admire various anarchist figures like Kropotkin(though I the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin simply disgust me, especially Proudhon - the man literally called for a Holocaust before any of the Nazi leaders were even born) for their noble souls and pure hearts. And anyways, this persecution of Anarchism doesn't have to be a physical extermination, all openly anti-Proletarian anarchists can be simply imprisoned during the most critical revolutionary moments.

[l'Enfermé]

Are you saying the USSR was the end of history? Cuz obviously...
I don't exactly understand what you're saying, could you explain it?

[Magón]

I'm a proletarian purist Comrade, and as such I can't tolerate anti-proletarian charlatanism like anarchism, but I have no issues with individual anarchists and admire various anarchist figures like Kropotkin(though I the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin simply disgust me, especially Proudhon - the man literally called for a Holocaust before any of the Nazi leaders were even born) for their noble souls and pure hearts. And anyways, this persecution of Anarchism doesn't have to be a physical extermination, all openly anti-Proletarian anarchists can be simply imprisoned during the most critical revolutionary moments.

And who might these Anarchists be? Anarcho-Communists? Syndicalists? Platformists? I find your dislike for Anarchists(ism), as just the stereotypical Marxist outlook to the theory, and the people. Nothing new, just old rhetoric said again and again, never actually being new. I mean, who today can you say is an Anarchist, and really follows Proudhon's thinking, without say, taking from others like Kropotkin, Malatesta, Goldman, etc. who they might actually take more of their views on Anarchism from, than the likes of Proudhon? Proudhon's logic is too obsolete and out of touch with today's Anarchists. The majority of Anarchists don't pay much attention to his works, and calls themselves a Mutualist.

[The Douche]

Borz might be the most successful troll in revleft history.

[Rafiq]

Is that really enough? Anarchists lobbing dynamite at Marxists can be much less threatening to Proletarian power than Anarchists agitating against the Dictatorship of the Proletariat(through the press, for example).

In Bolshevik Russia's case, you couldn't afford to have things like agitation via propaganda, though it won't always be like that.

You've also got to remember agitation exists beyond mere criticism. For one, Ayn Rand and other counter revolutionary intellectuals were only forced to leave (Notice how they were simply deported, not executed) around 1928.

Lenin said that hte press was technically a means of production (It was a business!) and therefore all press would be seized by the proletarian dictatorship (The proletarians of Russia did overwhelmingly support the Bolsheviks). In today's case, we have the Internet, and several non profit blogs, or whatever. So the situations would be extremely different.

[Rafiq]

I think, with uttermost conviction, the socalled "ultra leftists" of this forum are not Ultra Left enough.

[The Douche]

I think, with uttermost conviction, the socalled "ultra leftists" of this forum are not Ultra Left enough.

What does that even mean?

[Rafiq]

What does that even mean?

When I saw RSWU's "ultra left" remark.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't exactly understand what you're saying, could you explain it?

I'm going to simplify your argument. Correct me where I'm wrong:

The DotP is the purest expression of prole power.
The Soviet state was a prole state.
Therefore the Soviet state was the purest expression of prole power.
Anybody who criticizes the Soviet state is a counterrevolutionary who you would imprison or kill.

Except DotP is an arbitrary classification. If it is not the workers deciding whether the state represents their interests, rather it is the Party in the name of the workers, how is still a DotP?

A lot of Leninists are like the Marilyn Manson of leftism; pure shock value and not much more. :ohmy:

[Art Vandelay]

Except DotP is an arbitrary classification. If it is not the workers deciding whether the state represents their interests, rather it is the Party in the name of the workers, how is still a DotP?

A lot of Leninists are like the Marilyn Manson of leftism; pure shock value and not much more. :ohmy:

That is a caricature of Leninism, just like many Leninists turn anarchism into a character. Being a former anarchist I realize this, but it doesn't make it any better going the other way.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's why I said "a lot of" not "all."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm amazed that, on the one hand, people here chastise liberal democracy for not being democratic because, you know, the people only vote once every few years, the candidates are all the same and real power lies with capital, not the electorate. Yet, on the other hand, these same people say that, hey, if somebody disagrees with our version of Socialism and wants to present a different version, and tries to do so, then they deserve to be put in the Gulag or executed. And they call this democracy.

This is the legacy of Lenin, Stalin et al. Political dictatorship, and it's a god damn rotten legacy.

[Positivist]

I think that one of the important features of the Leninist party is that it is the organization of the class conscious workers. It may become necessary at times during the revolution for the party to perform the planning and administration which would usually be performed by the workers, in a period of revolutionary strife. This would be necessary if a substantial segment of the working population was loyal to the bourgiose out of ideology.

Now where most Leninist models falter, is in the abolition of party democracy (destroying the free organization of the class conscious proletarians) and in their definition of "class conscious." Obviously you can be a class conscious worker without subscribing to the theory of Marxism-Leninism. The kind of vanguard I would advocate would be built on programmatic unity, and would be inclusive to all sects of the active proletariat.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm amazed that, on the one hand, people here chastise liberal democracy for not being democratic because, you know, the people only vote once every few years, the candidates are all the same and real power lies with capital, not the electorate. Yet, on the other hand, these same people say that, hey, if somebody disagrees with our version of Socialism and wants to present a different version, and tries to do so, then they deserve to be put in the Gulag or executed. And they call this democracy.

That is a caricature. No one, perhaps maybe minus Omsk (and who gives a shit what he thinks anyways), has suggested anything along those lines. Anyone will be able to have open and honest dialogue in front of the working class. Anarchists will be able to participate or criticize the dotp all they want, the only time they would face punishment is if they violently attacked it. So don't act as if you anti-statist communists or anarchists wouldn't do the same if the shoe was on the other foot.


This is the legacy of Lenin, Stalin et al. Political dictatorship, and it's a god damn rotten legacy.

To equate Lenin's legacy with Stalin's is historical revisionism.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm amazed that, on the one hand, people here chastise liberal democracy for not being democratic because, you know, the people only vote once every few years, the candidates are all the same and real power lies with capital, not the electorate. Yet, on the other hand, these same people say that, hey, if somebody disagrees with our version of Socialism and wants to present a different version, and tries to do so, then they deserve to be put in the Gulag or executed. And they call this democracy.

This is the legacy of Lenin, Stalin et al. Political dictatorship, and it's a god damn rotten legacy.
I don't chastise liberal democracy for not being democratic enough, the word "democracy" at this point is an absolutely meaningless term, and frankly, I don't share your fetish for democracy, to me it's a means not an end and I see nothing inherently wrong with it's suspension at critical moments. The Proletariat, even in the 21st century, still doesn't even constitute a global demographic majority, i.e the Proletariat can conquer power and abolish all oppression and class distinctions only through anti-democratic means or through manipulation of democracy. Inter-proletarian democracy is a whole different thing and the Bolshevik's prosecution of utopian socialists and petty-bourgeois and bourgeois-socialists didn't violate it, the Bolsheviks enjoyed the support of the vast majority of the Proletariat since October and the Anarchists didn't: i.e the Anarchists of post-October Russia stood in opposition to most of the class-conscious proletariat and that is exactly why Marxists don't shed tears for their liquidation. If you're so supportive of the Anarchists' "alternative socialism", are you also supportive of the Mensheviks and the SR's "alternative socialism", 'cause you know, the suppression of those elements was also anti-democratic. A proletarian revolution is a political conquest of power by the organized proletariat and a brutal and merciless subjugation of all non-proletarian classes, how can this act in any way be a truly democratic act? Democracy and revolution are incompatible.

[l'Enfermé]

I'm going to simplify your argument. Correct me where I'm wrong:


Except DotP is an arbitrary classification. If it is not the workers deciding whether the state represents their interests, rather it is the Party in the name of the workers, how is still a DotP?

A lot of Leninists are like the Marilyn Manson of leftism; pure shock value and not much more. :ohmy:
The Bolsheviks did the best they could considering the extraordinary situation; the civil war, the imperialist interventions, the collapsing economy, etc. Now if you're implying that the Bolshevik party did not enjoy the support of the vast majority of the proletariat, you're talking out of your ass. You can only have objections to the Bolshevik state if you deny the rightful supremacy of the proletariat(as the left-wing opposition to the Bolsheviks did - and I'm not talking about the various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democrats and Socialists, like the Mensheviks, I'm talking about the Anarchists and the left-SRs in particular), but I find that position unacceptable.

[Omsk]

I am not on my pc so i cant write much, so i will just leave a short little message for you to read dwell upon and understand. Who is not with us, is against us.

And another thing, a lot of anarchists mentioned that they would fight a leninist state or revolution.

[Comrade Jandar]

I love how focused everyone is on ideology when we are supposed to historical materialists. :confused:

[Per Levy]

I am not on my pc so i cant write much, so i will just leave a short little message for you to read dwell upon and understand. Who is not with us, is against us.

yep, who is not with you establishing a party dictatorship over the proletariat, where the proles have nothing to say, is against you and rightfully so.


And another thing, a lot of anarchists mentioned that they would fight a leninist state or revolution.

actually what was said that anarchs would fight against a top down state that represses and exploits workers. not to mention that you said you wanted to elimnate all anarchists(and probally all left-coms, trots and what not, maybe maoists are allowed to stay), therefore it would be more a defence against said stalinist state.

[hatzel]

I think it's real cute how people are talking as if they'll ever be in a position to make decisions around this or that the scenario itself would even arise aww sweetiepies why ya gotta do this to me :blushing:

[Drosophila]

I think it's real cute how people are talking as if they'll ever be in a position to make decisions around this or that the scenario itself would even arise aww sweetiepies why ya gotta do this to me :blushing:

Yeah that kinda seems to be true. Everyone seems to think they'll be the next Lenin or Stalin.

[Revolution starts with U]

The Bolsheviks did the best they could considering the extraordinary situation; the civil war, the imperialist interventions, the collapsing economy, etc. Now if you're implying that the Bolshevik party did not enjoy the support of the vast majority of the proletariat, you're talking out of your ass. You can only have objections to the Bolshevik state if you deny the rightful supremacy of the proletariat(as the left-wing opposition to the Bolsheviks did - and I'm not talking about the various bourgeois and petty-bourgeois democrats and Socialists, like the Mensheviks, I'm talking about the Anarchists and the left-SRs in particular), but I find that position unacceptable.

Except for when they lost the majority support of the proles and proceeded to purge the opposition, right?

[Magón]

I think it's kind of funny that Omsk and Borz think this is like the 20th Century, and that it's the Anarchists who are such a threat to them, just like all those times before when Soviet rhetoric on Anarchism was the same thing they're spouting.

Well listen up guys, it's the 21st Century, 2012, not 1920. The USSR is gone, and neither Stalinism, Trotskyism, or Anarchism are what they once were back then. So grow up and look out a window, things are different.

[l'Enfermé]

Except for when they lost the majority support of the proles and proceeded to purge the opposition, right?
Oh yeah, when did that happen?


I think it's kind of funny that Omsk and Borz think this is like the 20th Century,
I don't know about Omsk but I own a calendar and I know we're in the 21st century


and that it's the Anarchists who are such a threat to them,
I don't think that and more importantly, Anarchism is a non-entity and is a threat to absolutely no one; as you also know the far-left practically doesn't exist anymore.


just like all those times before when Soviet rhetoric on Anarchism was the same thing they're spouting.
Marxism arose as a scientific alternative to the so-called utopian socialism, like that of the Anarchists back when they were all Proudhonians. Is it really so surprising that Marxists don't see eye-to-eye with Anarchists?



Well listen up guys, it's the 21st Century, 2012, not 1920. The USSR is gone, and neither Stalinism, Trotskyism, or Anarchism are what they once were back then. So grow up and look out a window, things are different.

I didn't know that! Thanks for opening my eyes :thumbup1:

[MuscularTophFan]

Well listen up guys, it's the 21st Century, 2012, not 1920. The USSR is gone, and neither Stalinism, Trotskyism, or Anarchism are what they once were back then. So grow up and look out a window, things are different.
Most people today are way to lazy to start a revolution. The conditions such as massive poverty, war, and monarchies in the 1910s caused people to revolt. People like Stalin and Hitler took power because the conditions of the time basically thrived for totalitarianism.

Seriously how many people are willing to die to overthrow a government? I vastly doubt anyone. Most western youth are fat, lazy, and so apolitical that they just spend all of their time either on the internet twittering or whatever.

[Magón]

I don't know about Omsk but I own a calendar and I know we're in the 21st century

Good, then quit talking like you're in the Russian Revolution or something, talking about how Anarchism could be a threat to your "future DOTP." It just sounds like a joke.


Marxism arose as a scientific alternative to the so-called utopian socialism, like that of the Anarchists back when they were all Proudhonians. Is it really so surprising that Marxists don't see eye-to-eye with Anarchists?

I just find it amusing you chose Proudhon to single out as an example of how Anarchism is faulty, rather than any other more modern and actually relevant Anarchist theorist, that you'd see contemporary Anarchists reading and talking about.

I mean, I kind of am surprised when Marxists talk like Anarchists still hold a lot in common with Proudhon, but that's just not the case at all. In reality, Proudhon is simply just someone to read for them; learn what some were talking and thinking about in the past during the early creation of Anarchism, not someone to actually consider significant to the present. (If you read Proudhon, and listen to contemporary Anarchists, you'll find that the two are on very different footing and mindset.)


I didn't know that! Thanks for opening my eyes :thumbup1:

No problem, but this contradicts what you said at the top. If you had a calendar, then why didn't you know things are different? :confused:

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Most people today are way to lazy to start a revolution. The conditions such as massive poverty, war, and monarchies in the 1910s caused people to revolt. People like Stalin and Hitler took power because the conditions of the time basically thrived for totalitarianism.

Seriously how many people are willing to die to overthrow a government? I vastly doubt anyone. Most western youth are fat, lazy, and so apolitical that they just spend all of their time either on the internet twittering or whatever.

Wut?

[Igor]

Seriously how many people are willing to die to overthrow a government? I vastly doubt anyone. Most western youth are fat, lazy, and so apolitical that they just spend all of their time either on the internet twittering or whatever.

There isn't a :rolleyes: big enough in the world.

Yeah, yeah, every generation gets worse and worse all the time and the youth today (get off my lawn!) just isn't what it used to be. We should ship every single one of those punks to a military school, there they'll learn how to behave and stay off that Tweet-Er.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Seriously how many people are willing to die to overthrow a government? I vastly doubt anyone. Most western youth are fat, lazy, and so apolitical that they just spend all of their time either on the internet twittering or whatever.

The youth are the future, if you write them off you might as well give up any chance of meaningful social change.

So when did you stop being a communist?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Most people today are way to lazy to start a revolution. The conditions such as massive poverty, war, and monarchies in the 1910s caused people to revolt. People like Stalin and Hitler took power because the conditions of the time basically thrived for totalitarianism.

Seriously how many people are willing to die to overthrow a government? I vastly doubt anyone. Most western youth are fat, lazy, and so apolitical that they just spend all of their time either on the internet twittering or whatever.

People don't put their lives on the line to overthrow a government. People overthrow a government/political system to save their lives. I think this is a key distinction you fail to recognise.

The reason many western youths are apolitical is because, whether we like it or not, Capitalism has delivered for a great majority of westerners a lifestyle that is far, far above subsistence level, and thus far too high for people to put their lives on the line.

Class consciousness comes before political consciousness for most people (obviously, some of us are ideologues and arrive at a particular ideology either irrespective of class or because of political/intellectual/academic reasons, rather than economic/socio-economic reasons). Thus, the working class must realise itself as a more homogenous social/socio-economic group before it realises its political potential.

If you can't grasp this, then i'm afraid you are in danger of becoming quite reactionary. No personal offence intended, of course.

[Positivist]

Yeah that kinda seems to be true. Everyone seems to think they'll be the next Lenin or Stalin.

Fuck that I wanna be Santa Claus.

[Chartist]

If Anarchists challenge the DOTP, and the proletarian state, they will have to be dealt with. Other than that, I don't see a problem, so long as they don't collaborate with the enemy against it. I am hoping by that time the Communist movement will be more or less beyond 20th century feuds, and Anarchism and Communsim as we know them may very well not exist.

Marxism, though, will remain indefinitely. It isn't an ideology.

But isn't non-violent opposition to a DOTP just as, or even more harmful to the dictatorship?

If there was a DOTP pursuing some necessary (according to them) programme, and anarchists refused to co-operate and started agitating to convince others to join their opposition, what would the DOTP do? Why would they violently oppose capitalists undermining the revolution but let anarchists do exactly the same thing?

If we accept that anarchists and Marxist-Leninists differ in their proposed way to implement communism, I think it's naive to think that anarchists would stand idly by and let socialism be implemented against their wishes.