Anarchists and Communists/Socialist MUST be united

[Taverner]

During the Russian Civil War the Red and Black armies were UNSTOPPABLE

During the Spanish Civil war the Republicans were unstoppable until Stalin had his Communists kill the CNT and Trotskyists.

The dialectic between both viewpoints will build the ideal solution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What?

[Igor]

Your idea of what's unstoppable might be a tad off.

[Ostrinski]

Fucking what?fixed

[Robespierres Neck]

Although your mention of Stalin's role in the Spanish Civil War is very off (he helped fund and arm the revolutionaries against Franco and his loyalists), I do agree we should be united against reactionary forces. The only time I think action should take place against anarchists is if, like any other individual/group, they partake in counter-revolutionary activity and is a threat to the revolution. I'm a bit critical of their theories, but we do share a common ground.

[helot]

Although your mention of Stalin's role in the Spanish Civil War is very off (he helped fund and arm the revolutionaries against Franco and his loyalists), I do agree we should be united against reactionary forces. The only time I think action should take place against anarchists is if, like any other individual/group, they partake in counter-revolutionary activity and is a threat to the revolution. I'm a bit critical of their theories, but we do share a common ground.

The problem is of course that there tends to be a very loose definition of counter-revolutionary.

You'll have to forgive me but i suspect that 3rd May 1937 as an example would repeat itself.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I agree. Anarchism and communism have a lot in common, so it's important.

[RedHammer]

I do agree that the left is far too fractured. We are a bunch of disconnected movements, although we should be unified. We agree on far more than we disagree; we all oppose capitalism and seek a better world.

If only anarchists could "see the light", so to speak, and turn to communism, that might happen.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I would love for this to happen but I have doubts it ever will, on equal terms, anyway.

If there were an anarchist revolution somewhere, I wouldn't oppose it, though, and I'd hope that anarchists would do the same for us.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I remember reading an article about some kid who, enamoured with Greek riots and such, went to Athens and struck up a friendly conversation with some Stalinists at a demonstration. He was an anarchist, so he said jokingly, "yeah, I bet you guys will just shoot me after the revolution, right?" To which they said, still friendly but completely serious, "Yeah, probably."

We need more of that refreshing honesty here on Revleft.

[Tim Cornelis]

If only anarchists could "see the light", so to speak, and turn to communism, that might happen.

This makes no sense.

[Prometeo liberado]

This makes no sense.

This whole thread makes almost no sense. Pretty sure.

[RedHammer]

This makes no sense.

It makes complete sense. Communism, which is based on Marxist thought, is rooted in materialism and reality. Anarchism is not; anarchism is simply absurd. No offense to any comrades who are anarchists.

[Tim Cornelis]

It makes complete sense. Communism, which is based on Marxist thought, is rooted in materialism and reality. Anarchism is not; anarchism is simply absurd. No offense to any comrades who are anarchists.

This is ahistorical. Communism precedes Marx by more than a few decades. Babeuf being one of the pre-Marxist communists. Communism is simply the advocacy of a stateless, classless, moneyless, egalitarian social order. The overwhelming majority of anarchists advocate this. Apparently you've never heard of 'anarcho-communism.'

Now that you introduced sectarianism into this...
Marxism-Leninism is absurd and not rooted in materialism at all. It believes an autocratic welfare state equals 'socialism' and that ideas ("revisionism") can cause reversion back to a previous mode of production in spite of increases in the productive forces of society.

In this sense, anarchists are more communistic than Marxist-Leninists.

EDIT:

An actual Marxist analysis of anarchism would be: its call for proletarian emancipation is a reflection of the material conditions while the movement itself is idealist. Anarchists advocate proletarian emancipation and a social revolution that would introduce communism, and hence is an 'ally' while at the same time recognising its theoretical flaws and that its 'ideals' and 'principles' (such as decentralisation) are meaningless (and therefore harmless) while its advocacy of self-emancipation is positive.

EDIT:


It makes complete sense. Communism, which is based on Marxist thought, is rooted in materialism and reality. Anarchism is not; anarchism is simply absurd. No offense to any comrades who are anarchists.

I just noticed the contradiction: if communism is based on Marxist thought then it is rooted in idealism, not materialism. You imply as if communism was an invention by Marx which is idealist. Rather, according to Marxism, communism is reflection of the material conditions : an actually existing movement, not an idea that society has to adjust itself to, yadayadayada.

[Hermes]

The problem seems to be that we're far too busy talking about what will happen after the revolution (which admittedly, is important) and not enough time actually talking about the revolution itself.

A large majority would agree more or less on the revolution, but most of the differences arise when we start dealing with the post-revolution (or post initial revolution).

(as to RedHammer, I actually thought you were being satirical when you said that about anarchists, in a thread promoting leftist unity)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I remember reading an article about some kid who, enamoured with Greek riots and such, went to Athens and struck up a friendly conversation with some Stalinists at a demonstration. He was an anarchist, so he said jokingly, "yeah, I bet you guys will just shoot me after the revolution, right?" To which they said, still friendly but completely serious, "Yeah, probably."

We need more of that refreshing honesty here on Revleft.

I suppose the honesty is nice, but it does reveal a deeper problem. If the Stalinists "win" in that material conditions favour their socioeconomic and political plans, then obviously the anarchists are screwed.

I'd like to think that if the anarchists were the ones "winning" then things would be better, because in order for anarchism to become a dominant political narrative there needs to a political system present that can accommodate a wide variety of positions, within the bounds of a relative handful of axioms. However, my support for anarchism is not unqualified, as it has its fair share of currents that I consider non-viable for various reasons (individualist anarchism, anarcho-primitivism et al).

The thing is, while I don't like or agree with either Stalinism or anarcho-primitivism, I don't want to shoot the people who advocate those ideologies, because the use of lethal force would represent a very material failure of whatever ideologies of mine I would be using lethal force to defend.

[Threetune]

This whole thread makes almost no sense. Pretty sure.

Certain ! er, I think. But your "almost" is a bit strong mate and if I had the time I'd enter into a dispute about it if you wouldn't mind.

[Leftsolidarity]

I remember reading an article about some kid who, enamoured with Greek riots and such, went to Athens and struck up a friendly conversation with some Stalinists at a demonstration. He was an anarchist, so he said jokingly, "yeah, I bet you guys will just shoot me after the revolution, right?" To which they said, still friendly but completely serious, "Yeah, probably."

We need more of that refreshing honesty here on Revleft.

Not all communists hold the same view as you probably already know.



It makes complete sense. Communism, which is based on Marxist thought, is rooted in materialism and reality. Anarchism is not; anarchism is simply absurd. No offense to any comrades who are anarchists.

Oh, shut up.

You can't call for unity and then say their views are completely ubsurd and needed to be abandoned. That's having unity with yourself.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If only anarchists could "see the light", so to speak, and turn to communism, that might happen.

Anarchists are communists.

In fact, anarchists argue for a far more immediate move towards communism than the Leninist advocates of the proletarian state.

[Threetune]

Not all communists hold the same view as you probably already know.

You will be telling us Santa doesn’t exist next and that our Revleft Great Comrade Moderators are fallible.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anarchism is not; anarchism is simply absurd.

Care to make an argument for this?

[Magón]

I do agree that the left is far too fractured. We are a bunch of disconnected movements, although we should be unified. We agree on far more than we disagree; we all oppose capitalism and seek a better world.

If only anarchists could "see the light", so to speak, and turn to communism, that might happen.

Oh how painful the irony, is here.

First a call for unity among various Communists, then a sectarian comment like a slap to the face to show why so many Communists in the real world don't want to work with certain other "Communists" who'd rather say, "See the light" or "Quit being Utopian".

What a joke. :rolleyes:

[Ravachol]

Although your mention of Stalin's role in the Spanish Civil War is very off (he helped fund and arm the revolutionaries against Franco and his loyalists)

What revolutionaries?

[Sheepy]

During the Russian Civil War the Red and Black armies were UNSTOPPABLE
That was until the Red Army killed everyone in the Black Army.

[Igor]

That was until the Red Army killed everyone in the Black Army.

yeah the anarchists were totally above killing their enemies

[Geiseric]

The makhnovists aren't as good an example of "anarchists" as the syndicallists in spain were. But basically Makhno contradicted any anarchist call for "non authoritarian" means, when he fought the whites. On many cases, he had to order traitors or racists to be purged from the black army, just like the bolsheviks did. The difference is that Makhno was a peasant leader, and had his base of support among the peasantry, putting his goals at odd with the russian working class. For example, did he ever talk about industrialization, collectivization, or the other things which got the support from the poor peasantry and working class the bolsheviks needed? Anyways, there's no point discussing "who started" the Red vs. Black conflict. I heard from a few sources that the Black army was raiding red army supplies, and same for vice versa. We need to go back to the 1st international if we REALLY want to see the beef between marxists and anarchists.

[leftistman]

I would partake in any leftist revolution as long as it did not seek to create state-control over our lives or the means of production. The revolution would also have to oppose the capitalistic means of production, not that there has ever been a social democratic revolution. Workers of the world, unite, regardless of your revolutionary tendency!

[Leftsolidarity]

I would partake in any leftist revolution as long as it did not seek to create state-control over our lives or the means of production. The revolution would also have to oppose the capitalistic means of production, not that there has ever been a social democratic revolution. Workers of the world, unite, regardless of your revolutionary tendency!

Sooooo you'd only support an anarchist revolution?

You can't go "I'd support any leftist revolution as long as..." and then exclude everyone except a certain type.

People here sure aren't understanding what unity means.

[Igor]

People here sure aren't understanding what unity means.

from what i've gathered so far it's supporting something even though it's in total contradiction with your political views

political differences aren't sectarian nitpicking, they're actual political differences

[Leftsolidarity]

from what i've gathered so far it's supporting something even though it's in total contradiction with your political views

political differences aren't sectarian nitpicking, they're actual political differences

I don't disagree that there are true political differences. Unity is about uniting on the principles that you can against our common enemy and setting aside our differences for the time being.

Anarchists and communists arent in total contradiction at all. We might have differences and can't always work together but there are many times that we can.

It's just silly when people go "I'll unite with anyone as long as they are the same tendency as me"

[human strike]

Ain't ideology great?

[Rational Radical]

Ain't ideology great?

Action and organization is better

[Peoples' War]

Anarchists are communists.

In fact, anarchists argue for a far more immediate move towards communism than the Marxist advocates of the proletarian state.
Fixed. Marx himself advocates a proletarian state.

Regardless, there is no reason not to WORK WITH anarchists. Anarchists took part in the elections of Workers Councils in Russia, were enthusiastic about the revolution, etc.

Kronstadt raises another topic, so let's stay off of it for now.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fixed. Marx himself advocates a proletarian state.

Regardless, there is no reason not to WORK WITH anarchists. Anarchists took part in the elections of Workers Councils in Russia, were enthusiastic about the revolution, etc.

Kronstadt raises another topic, so let's stay off of it for now.

Marx advocated a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and a transition to communism, but not a state in the sense of the USSR. His early writings on the topic he actually dis-regarded later on as a grave mistake (That bit where he makes 10 Social Democratic-esque demands, I can't remember the work).

[Luc]

Marx advocated a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and a transition to communism, but not a state in the sense of the USSR. His early writings on the topic he actually dis-regarded later on as a grave mistake (That bit where he makes 10 Social Democratic-esque demands, I can't remember the work).

The Communist Manifesto is the work

actually iirc it was more so writtin by Engels or something

[Igor]

Fixed. Marx himself advocates a proletarian state.

That's not, however, really central to his writings. Marxism doesn't really equal thinking like Marx did on every concept, you can absolutely oppose a state and still adhere to Marxist views. It's a very broad ideology, not just thinking whatever Marx thought.

[Sea]

I do agree that the left is far too fractured. We are a bunch of disconnected movements, although we should be unified. Bah! Typical Hoxhaist hogwash! :rolleyes:

[Caj]

His early writings on the topic he actually dis-regarded later on as a grave mistake (That bit where he makes 10 Social Democratic-esque demands, I can't remember the work).

As Ben said, that was actually Engels in one of his prefaces to the Manifesto, and he didn't say it was "a grave mistake"; he said the 10 points had been "antiquated" and would be "very differently worded today."

[Thirsty Crow]

I do agree that the left is far too fractured. We are a bunch of disconnected movements, although we should be unified. We agree on far more than we disagree; we all oppose capitalism and seek a better world.

If only anarchists could "see the light", so to speak, and turn to communism, that might happen.
I'm afraid you're stretching the meaning of the word "movement", a lot. At best, the revolutionary left is a fractured set of propaganda organizations (and intervention, in some cases). At worst, a series of sects. This goes for organizations representing the point of view I espouse as well, not just those I disagree with.

But the bigger problem is this assumption that "unification" would amount to something important.
From the financial point of view (you shouldn't fail to account for this as it has a huge impact on organizing), I can't see how much would be gained.
From the point of view of class struggle (the most important by far), this unification wouldn't and couldn't, by itself, bring about a significant increase in class struggle. That's the point. In fact, I think it's the other way around, that intensified class struggle could bring about a regrouping of revolutionary elements. If you put togehter all trots, stalinists, left coms and anarchists (forgotten anyone? surely, no offense) together, in no way would actual class war escalate.

And finally, from the point of view of the revolutionary programme, you would most probably get a terrible hodge podge of incompatible ideas. For instance, socialism in one country and internationalism are completely contrary, and egender different political practice, and cannot be magically and dialectically synthesized. And I for one actually think that the program carries weight and shouldn't be compromised.

[Peoples' War]

Marx advocated a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and a transition to communism,Yes...


but not a state in the sense of the USSR.What sense did he mean, and in what was the state in the sense of the USSR?

[Rafiq]

Perhaps it may have something to do with what that Bismark fellow said: Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite! (Speaking in regards to the split of the First International)

Unfortunately one, there isn't much of a "red and black" to unite in the first place, both are just as equally irreverent as ever. Secondly, a strategic split for ideological reasons is silly, idealist, and signifies nothing more than the fact that such an "organization" was not a genuine proletarian vanguard, was not a genuine proletarian movement, but a petite-bourgeois opportunist organization. The problem was never, though, an Ideological split. Both Bakunin and Marx were aware of each others differences, from the very beggining. As a matter of fact, Marx referred to Bakunin as "our friend" on several occasions. The problem arose when, well, you know, when Bakunin and his friends conspired against the first international to, I don't know "control the revolution" (And there are those who accuse Marxists of Blanquism!). That was the problem. It was purely strategic.

There isn't much of both the Anarchist and Communist movement today. Perhaps, perhaps, we shouldn't be asking whether we need to unite these two dead movements, but whether a new movement must arise in the midst of a dying system, one that has diminished the remnants of 20th century Communism once and for all.

[Rafiq]

That's not, however, really central to his writings. Marxism doesn't really equal thinking like Marx did on every concept, you can absolutely oppose a state and still adhere to Marxist views. It's a very broad ideology, not just thinking whatever Marx thought.

The biggest mistake is to dismiss Marxism as an ideology to begin with. Marxism is just as much of an Ideology as psychoanalysis (not the best example). What was central to Marx's thinking? Revolutionary strategy aside, what was central to his thinking was this completely new conception of human social relations, which would furtherly allow us to interpret both history and the current state of affairs in a way more accurately, and dynamically done then ever before. For the first time in human history (for all we know), a scientific conception of human social relations was conceived, of human history, and, more relevantly, the capitalist mode of production. When we attribute Marx as an economist, we don't mean he lies among the ranks of those parecon bullshitters. He was a genuine economist who focused on the dynamics of the capitalist mode of production. Marx's conception of human society, of human organization is at best fascinating.

But you're right, it isn't just about "whatever Marx thought". Marxism includes a variety of thinkers who over the ages have had something to contribute. The problem is the bullshitters, the asslickers, and the piss drinkers. (Those who direly mistinturperate him and underestimate him, Crytpo-Liberals, and Vulgarists). So it's really hard to decipher who really was a genuine Marxist. Plakhanov certaintly wasn't, though the likes of pre war Kautsky, Lenin, were.

[Thirsty Crow]

Secondly, a strategic split for ideological reasons is silly, idealist, and signifies nothing more than the fact that such an "organization" was not a genuine proletarian vanguard, was not a genuine proletarian movement, but a petite-bourgeois opportunist organization.
I'm aware that you're asserting this in connection to the historical conflict in the First International. But the universal judgement as you espouse it is, in my opinion, incorrect.

First of all, what you belittle as "ideological reasons" may very well turn out to be a serious programmatic issue. And I assume that there are people who would be myopic and confuse the two, especially those in the camp of ferevent advocacy of unity and action. If you think that the only point is to organize (recall Bernstein's maxim about the movement and the goal), then as I said, I'm afraid that there is a much bigger probability of such a confusin.
In this case, it is outright wrong to conclude that the split is "idealist" and that it is a product of petite bourgeois opportunism. In fact, the whole aversion to splits has historically shown ambiguous results, with the Italian Left being a prime example of this ambiguity. It may seem that such a strategic line depends more on a somewhat silly emotional and sentimental attachment to an organization than a rigorous and principled criticism of its potential.

When we attribute Marx as an economist, we don't mean he lies among the ranks of those parecon bullshitters.
Not to say anything of substance with regard to parecon, it's downright silly to dismiss model building as idealism in itself.
There are two reasons for me saying this:

1) such a judgement actually doesn't rest on a critical reading of the text in question - it asserts idealism without demonstrating it

2) from the viewpoint of propaganda - it is foolish as hell, since it is very easy to perceive that workers actually seek a plausible and rational explanation of how things might work after revolution. This is not a matter of asserting with absolute conviction that this is what is going to happen - as if the theoretician is the supreme maker of all and wverything. This is a matter of actually deducing the possible courses of action, and their results, from the very state of affairs under capitalism. Which is in percect correspondence with the axiom that material conditions shape material practice.

[Rafiq]

I'm aware that you're asserting this in connection to the historical conflict in the First International. But the universal judgement as you espouse it is, in my opinion, incorrect.

First of all, what you belittle as "ideological reasons" may very well turn out to be a serious programmatic issue. And I assume that there are people who would be myopic and confuse the two, especially those in the camp of ferevent advocacy of unity and action. If you think that the only point is to organize (recall Bernstein's maxim about the movement and the goal), then as I said, I'm afraid that there is a much bigger probability of such a confusin.
In this case, it is outright wrong to conclude that the split is "idealist" and that it is a product of petite bourgeois opportunism. In fact, the whole aversion to splits has historically shown ambiguous results, with the Italian Left being a prime example of this ambiguity. It may seem that such a strategic line depends more on a somewhat silly emotional and sentimental attachment to an organization than a rigorous and principled criticism of its potential.

No, no, the split of the First international, as I've said, was not silly or Idealist. It was necessary (Bakunin's conspiracy against the International).

Though, what I was referring to, are the several contemporary Leninist parties which had splits purely for ideological reasons, which didn't extend to a programmatic disagreement.

[Geiseric]

If somebody is completely an anarchist, an Anarchist Revolution is technically an oxymoron. This was proven in spain, anarchism's refusal of state power is utopian. State power equates to a workers state, such as what the U.S.S.R. had. The reason it degenerated was due to isolation, not some inherit contradiction in Marxism. The workers state is the true step foward and the only true way to abolish capitalism on a world or country wide scale, untill it can happen in other places. Marx and Engels were very much in favor of a proletarian state, I don't really need to bring up sources for that.

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat," = Workers State. If you don't believe in a workers state you don't advocate a DotP, thus you can't say you're a Marxist.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, no, the split of the First international, as I've said, was not silly or Idealist. It was necessary (Bakunin's conspiracy against the International).
Understood.
Though, I actually wasn't talking about this specific case, but in general, as you probably noticed.


Though, what I was referring to, are the several contemporary Leninist parties which had splits purely for ideological reasons, which didn't extend to a programmatic disagreement.
Yes, that is something different.


If somebody is completely an anarchist, an Anarchist Revolution is technically an oxymoron. This was proven in spain, anarchism's refusal of state power is utopian. State power equates to a workers state, such as what the U.S.S.R. had. The reason it degenerated was due to isolation, not some inherit contradiction in Marxism. The workers state is the true step foward and the only true way to abolish capitalism on a world or country wide scale, untill it can happen in other places. Marx and Engels were very much in favor of a proletarian state, I don't really need to bring up sources for that.

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat," = Workers State. If you don't believe in a workers state you don't advocate a DotP, thus you can't say you're a Marxist.
Isn't that cute, a Trot comes waltzing in and demarcating "true" Marxists from, well, quasi-Marxists.

I've no problem with criticizing the actions of the Spanish anarchists. They have historically proven themselves as a serious obstacle in the path of the social revolution. But definitely not for causes you state. Though, this is a topic for another debate.

As for your facile notion of working class political power, that is another thing, which says a lot actually. You're wavering between the recognition of the importance of political theory (anarchist theory destroying the potential for revolution) and its contrary, the refusal of this recognition in case of the Bolsheviks (the degeneration of the revolution to be attributed solely to progressive isolation). Consistency nowhere to be found, and frankly I have no idea why I am surprised.

[Taverner]

That was until the Red Army killed everyone in the Black Army.


Exactly

[Taverner]

Stateless and cashless was the goal