Renunciation of Anarchism

[Comrade Jandar]

As has happened with many others on this forum my politics have evolved. I've been moving away from anarchism for quite a while now but I think I've reached the point of no return. I now consider myself a Marxist and have recently been reading a lot of Bordiga. Proletarian Dictarorship and Class Party has to be one of clearest, yet edifying texts I've read in a while. What are the other staple texts of Bordiga?

[Mather]

As has happened with many others on this forum my politics have evolved. I've been moving away from anarchism for quite a while now but I think I've reached the point of no return. I now consider myself a Marxist and have recently been reading a lot of Bordiga. Proletarian Dictarorship and Class Party has to be one of clearest, yet edifying texts I've read in a while. What are the other staple texts of Bordiga?

What was it that made you move away from anarchism?

Did you have disagreements with anarchist theory? Did you become disillusioned with the group or organisation you were once with?

I would like to add that while I'm an anarcho-communist, I'm also a materialist and I agree with Marx on a number of things. However, I don't take his every word as gospel. Then again I don't do that with anyone, anarchists included.

[Yuppie Grinder]

http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-part-1-amadeo-bordiga-1957
Read this!

[Blake's Baby]

Can I recommend joining the 'Left Communist' group, if you're interested in Bordiga? Pretty certain that most of the knowledgeable Bordigists are in there (if they haven't all been banned).

[Mather]

(if they haven't all been banned).

Why would they get banned?

[Ravachol]

As has happened with many others on this forum my politics have evolved. I've been moving away from anarchism for quite a while now but I think I've reached the point of no return. I now consider myself a Marxist and have recently been reading a lot of Bordiga. Proletarian Dictarorship and Class Party has to be one of clearest, yet edifying texts I've read in a while. What are the other staple texts of Bordiga?

If you're interested in Bordiga, I'd recommend:

Pannekoek versus Bordiga, texts on the Dutch/German and Italian communist left (http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek)
Murdering the dead, texts by Bordiga on disaster and Capital's role in it (http://libcom.org/library/murdering-dead-amadeo-bordiga-capitalism-other-disasters-antagonism)
Texts by Jacques Camatte (former Bordigist who had many interesting insights and eventually turned into something of the 'founding father' of primitivism) (http://libcom.org/tags/jacques-camatte) though i'd read his works in conjuction with this text (theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dave-antagonism-jacques-camatte-and-the-new-politics-of-liberation)
Eclipse and re-emergence of the communist movement by Gilles Dauve and Francois Martin, associated with the 'communisation' current (many of whose participants are former Bordigists) to which I'd consider myself close (as an anarcho-communist) (http://libcom.org/library/eclipse-re-emergence-communist-movement)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

For a study guide to Bordiga's "Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party" see here...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/proletarian-dictatorship-and-t173013/index.html?p=2469467#post2469467

[#FF0000]

Why would they get banned?

there was a thing a year ago and a bunch of people got banned for dumb reasons.

[Conscript]

there was a thing a year ago and a bunch of people got banned for dumb reasons.

^ story of every forum ever

[Caj]

As has happened with many others on this forum my politics have evolved. I've been moving away from anarchism for quite a while now but I think I've reached the point of no return. I now consider myself a Marxist and have recently been reading a lot of Bordiga. Proletarian Dictarorship and Class Party has to be one of clearest, yet edifying texts I've read in a while. What are the other staple texts of Bordiga?

You should really join the Bordiga Literati (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=970) and Bordigist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=661) groups.

If you haven't read it already, you should check out Bordiga's "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism (http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/index.php?q=library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-part-1-amadeo-bordiga-1957)."

[Comrade Jandar]

What was it that made you move away from anarchism?

Did you have disagreements with anarchist theory? Did you become disillusioned with the group or organisation you were once with?

I would like to add that while I'm an anarcho-communist, I'm also a materialist and I agree with Marx on a number of things. However, I don't take his every word as gospel. Then again I don't do that with anyone, anarchists included.

More than anything, my conception of the state as an institution you could not simply decide to "get rid of" or replace with something else and the false dichotomy of authoritarian vs. libertarian.

[Ostrinski]

Oh god, please don't drink the Bordiga kool-aid

[Mr. Natural]

The specific expressions of anarchism aside, aren't anarchism and communism too similar to be opposed to each other? Wouldn't the definition of communism provided in the Manifesto also define anarchism? "We shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

But Marxism and anarchism have never known how to successfully organize free associations and revolutionary processes, and I insist such information can be found in the new sciences of the organization of life and community on Earth.

Do comrades see inherent differences between anarchism and communism? What are they? I see anarchism and communism as essentially identical socio-economic expressions of human community.

My red-green best.

[Blake's Baby]

I always said, in my 20 years professing to be an Anarchist-Communist, that I learned my Anarchism from the Manifesto, and it was precisely Marxism's failure to adhere to what Marx wrote (of course, I also quoted the Inaugural Address of the IWA - 'the liberation of the working class is the task of the working class' etc) that led me to reject it and turn to Anarchism as an authentic revolutionary current that wasn't tainted by the dross of 'actually existing socialism'.

However, having later come accross Marxist groups that weren't counter-revolutionary and don't flagrantly contradict Marx - first the SPGB, later the Left Communist groups and the work of the Council Communists - I began re-evaluating Marxism as a revolutionary current. Anarchism tends to borrow all its most coherent theories from Marxism anyway - I was already convinced of the Marxist critique of capitalism, and increasingly by a Marxist view of history.

Don't know how that compares to Comrade Jandar's experiences, but it's certinly true that one can see Anarchism and Marxism as being two routes to the same goal (that is 'communism'). But I think there is enough opposition between them that they you need to be either a 'Marxist' or an 'Anarchist', it's pretty much impossible to be both.

[Ravachol]

More than anything, my conception of the state as an institution you could not simply decide to "get rid of"

Not anymore than Capital, no. The state is a social relationship of particular qualitative aspects, it will not be destroyed because people 'decide to get rid of it' or people decide 'to replace it', it will be destroyed through a protracted insurrectionary process of ever-increasing intensity which replaces all existing social relationships with communist ones and robs the capital-relation and the state-relation of their oxygen. I don't think what you say requires a break with anarchism (however nebulous that concept may be at times).

[Comrade Jandar]

You should really join the Bordiga Literati (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=970) and Bordigist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=661) groups.

If you haven't read it already, you should check out Bordiga's "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism (http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/index.php?q=library/fundamentals-revolutionary-communism-part-1-amadeo-bordiga-1957)."


I'm making my way through "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism" at the moment. It seems like a fairly long read and I'd rather not rush through it. I'm sure I'll have lots of questions. Was this piece written entirely by Bordiga or with other members of the ICP?

[Caj]

I'm making my way through "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism" at the moment. It seems like a fairly long read and I'd rather not rush through it. I'm sure I'll have lots of questions. Was this piece written entirely by Bordiga or with other members of the ICP?

I think it was just written by Bordiga, but I'm not entirely sure. If you have any questions on it, there's a thread for each of the three parts of the text in the Bordiga Literati group.

[Yuppie Grinder]

^ story of every forum ever

nah mostly just this one

[o well this is ok I guess]

^ story of every forum ever Yeah but it was funnier here cuz it was put out as a grand fascist conspiracy

[Bakunin Knight]

Ravachol is correct. Certainly if the state were to simply be removed today, it would return since not only is it to the benefit of the special interests that currently control and profit from it, but its existence is also much desired by the general populace, who do not see how they are being oppressed by it and have all their political energy funnelled into the safe venue (from the perspective of the elites) of democratic politics. But the fact is that the movement against the state must come from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Another point is that, if anarchy is not desirable, what is, in fact?

[Mather]

More than anything, my conception of the state as an institution you could not simply decide to "get rid of" or replace with something else and the false dichotomy of authoritarian vs. libertarian.

Class struggle anarchists don't believe that you can simply "get rid" of the state, as if such tasks can be done on a whim. The state is both a social relationship and a tool of oppression and exploitation. It's formation and existence is due to capitalism, so only with the complete overthrow of capitalism can we even begin to talk of the abolition of the state.

Also, can you please elaborate on your view of authoritarian vs. libertarian being a false dichotomy? In what context does such a view apply?

[Art Vandelay]

Ravachol is correct. Certainly if the state were to simply be removed today, it would return since not only is it to the benefit of the special interests that currently control and profit from it, but its existence is also much desired by the general populace, who do not see how they are being oppressed by it and have all their political energy funnelled into the safe venue (from the perspective of the elites) of democratic politics. But the fact is that the movement against the state must come from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Another point is that, if anarchy is not desirable, what is, in fact?

It`s not that anarchy isn`t desirable (seeing as how it would function identically to communism, ie: stateless and classless) it`s simply that your ideas on how to get to said society, are utopian.

[Art Vandelay]

Class struggle anarchists don't believe that you can simply "get rid" of the state, as if such tasks can be done on a whim.

Yes you do, you think that the state can be abolished, before the material conditions which produce a state has disappeared.


The state is both a social relationship and a tool of oppression and exploitation. It's formation and existence is due to capitalism,

No it isn`t, states are not simply by product of capitalist societies, but of class societies.


so only with the complete overthrow of capitalism can we even begin to talk of the abolition of the state.

Only once classes, not capitalism has disappeared, can there be talk of the abolition of the state.


Also, can you please elaborate on your view of authoritarian vs. libertarian being a false dichotomy? In what context does such a view apply?

Any revolution is inherently an authoritarian act, read my sig. And please don`t get going about how a proletarian revolution can be ``libertarian,`` cause if I see that argument again I might puke all over my keyboard.

[Let's Get Free]

No it isn`t, states are not simply by product of capitalist societies, but of class societies.

Yes, and why would there still be classes after a socialist revolution? If there are still classes, then by the very definition of socialism, you have not had a socialist revolution.

Only once classes, not capitalism has disappeared, can there be talk of the abolition of the state.

Again, there wouldn't be any classes after a socialist revolution.


Any revolution is inherently an authoritarian act, read my sig.

True, but you play dumb when you pretend that you don't know we make the libertarian/authoritarian argument over a POST- revolutionary society.

[Let's Get Free]

It`s not that anarchy isn`t desirable (seeing as how it would function identically to communism, ie: stateless and classless) it`s simply that your ideas on how to get to said society, are utopian.

I can't imagine any anarchists here thinking we can wave a magic wand and abolish the state. It is the struggle and education leading up to and though the revolution which helps in the process of destroying the State, while putting into place popular organs to conduct civil life, and economic coordination.
Radical, revolutionary change doesn't happen overnight. It must be the end result of decades of "mass work", education and struggle.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, and why would there still be classes after a socialist revolution? If there are still classes, then by the very definition of socialism, you have not had a socialist revolution.

I never claimed we would. The socialist revolution doesn`t begin with the abolishment of classes, they cannot be abolished overnight, only a raving idealist would think so, but with the seizing of state power by the proletariat.


Again, there wouldn't be any classes after a socialist revolution.

I addressed that above.


True, but you play dumb when you pretend that you don't know we make the libertarian/authoritarian argument over a POST- revolutionary society.

It`s still meaningless. The only issue which matters, is class rule.

[Art Vandelay]

I can't imagine any anarchists here thinking we can wave a magic wand and abolish the state. It is the struggle and education leading up to and though the revolution which helps in the process of destroying the State, while putting into place popular organs to conduct civil life, economic coordination
Radical, revolutionary change doesn't happen overnight. It must be the end result of decades of "mass work", education and struggle.

No you just think classes can be abolished overnight. :rolleyes: And a socialist revolution happens in one day. We kick the bourgeois out of their positions of power, the state disappears, and the bourgeoisie are gone. Unless you plan on murdering a good chunk of the population, classes won`t disappear over night. That`s why the proletariat must exert it`s dictatorship.

[Let's Get Free]

I never claimed we would. The socialist revolution doesn`t begin with the abolishment of classes, they cannot be abolished overnight, only a raving idealist would think so, but with the seizing of state power by the proletariat.

But why would the proletariat, being in a position to seize state power, allow themselves to continue to be bossed around and exploited by the capitalists? To talk of the proletariat "seizing state power" must therefore logically entail that state permitting the bourgeoisie to exist as a class, without which it makes no sense whatsoever to talk of that state being a "proletarian state" since the working class as a class can only exist as a class in relation to the capitalist class.

[The Jay]

It`s still meaningless. The only issue which matters, is class rule.

That is not true. Class rule - that of the proletariat - is only a tool towards the elimination of classes.

[Art Vandelay]

But why would the proletariat, being in a position to seize state power, allow themselves to continue to be bossed around and exploited by the capitalists?

Uhh they don`t....that`s the whole point of the DotP.


To talk of the proletariat "seizing state power" must therefore logically entail that state permitting the bourgeoisie to exist as a class, without which it makes no sense whatsoever to talk of that state being a "proletarian state" since the working class as a class can only exist as a class in relation to the capitalist class.

Bahaha so pretty much what your arguing (I hope, for your sake, unintentionally) is that it is impossible for the proletariat to seize state power, because they only exist in relation to the bourgeois state.

[Art Vandelay]

That is not true. Class rule - that of the proletariat - is only a tool towards the elimination of classes.

I don`t fetishize democracy sorry.

[Comrade Jandar]

I think there may be some disagreement on what moment we acutally categorize as the "revolution." For me I would consider the revolution to be the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in other words the workers organized as a ruling class. The dichotomy of libertarian and authoritarian is false because without the context of class its really meaningless and completely subjective. To the proletariat, revolution is liberating, to the bourgeois it is a tyrannical, oppressive act. Even if the context of class is used when talking talking about this dichotomy you're basically admitting that its not about authoritarian and libertarian but about class interests.

[The Jay]

I don`t fetishize democracy sorry.

Would you care to make a statement relevant to anything I said instead of being a sarcastic, strawmanning ass? I did not mention democracy once in this thread.

[Let's Get Free]

Uhh they don`t....that`s the whole point of the DotP.



Bahaha so pretty much what your arguing (I hope, for your sake, unintentionally) is that it is impossible for the proletariat to seize state power, because they only exist in relation to the bourgeois state.

Simple question. If you think abolishing the state immediately is "idealistic" and you envisage a prolonged period during which the proletariat is the ruling class, why on earth do you imagine that the proletariat - the exploited class in capitalism - would want to remain exploited for one second longer after it had captured state power? Why?

According to you, the new state will be bullying the capitalists—the exploiters who live by robbing the working class. But if the workers can dominate the capitalists with a state, why allow them to continue exploiting and robbing the workers? Why not immediately dispossess the parasitic minority? Once the capitalists have been stripped of their power to exploit workers economically there will be no need to control them with a "proletarian state:" there will be a classless society without the need for a body of class rule.

[Art Vandelay]

Would you care to make a statement relevant to anything I said instead of being a sarcastic, strawmanning ass? I did not mention democracy once in this thread.

I assumed that was what you were referring to, if it wasn`t, what did you mean by the statement I quoted?

[Art Vandelay]

Simple question. If you think abolishing the state immediately is "idealistic" and you envisage a prolonged period during which the proletariat is the ruling class, why on earth do you imagine that the proletariat - the exploited class in capitalism - would want to remain exploited for one second longer after it had captured state power? Why?

I'm sorry, but you've made it quite clear you have no idea what you're talking about; you have no conception of what the dictatorship of the proletariat is and for that reason I don't feel the need to waste anymore time of my time on this. I understand fully anarchist theory, I was one for a long time, if you can't even have a simply enough grasp on Marxism to understand that the proletariat is not the exploited class during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, then I don't know what to say.


According to you, the new state will be bullying the capitalists—the exploiters who live by robbing the working class. But if the workers can dominate the capitalists with a state, why allow them to continue exploiting and robbing the workers? Why not immediately dispossess the parasitic minority? Once the capitalists have been stripped of their power to exploit workers economically there will be no need to control them with a "proletarian state:" there will be a classless society without the need for a body of class rule.

Are the bourgeoisie and proletariat the only two classes in existence? No.

[The Jay]

I assumed that was what you were referring to, if it wasn`t, what did you mean by the statement I quoted?


You made the sweeping generalization that the only thing that mattered was class rule, a generalization that would require many qualifications and clarifications to even be considered true on its own.

I was pointing out that the end goal of any socialist is the abolition of classes, not class hegemony.

[Art Vandelay]

You made the sweeping generalization that the only thing that mattered was class rule, a generalization that would require many qualifications and clarifications to even be considered true on its own.

I was pointing out that the end goal of any socialist is the abolition of classes, not class hegemony.

Well undoubtedly that is true, but the poletarain class has the historic duty of liberating humanity, it is this epochs progressive class; therefor it's hegemony and class rule is the only way towards a classless society.

[Let's Get Free]

I'm sorry, but you've made it quite clear you have no idea what you're talking about; you have no conception of what the dictatorship of the proletariat is and for that reason I don't feel the need to waste anymore time of my time on this. I understand fully anarchist theory, I was one for a long time, if you can't even have a simply enough grasp on Marxism to understand that the proletariat is not the exploited class during the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, then I don't know what to say.


It's funny that no one who promotes a "workers state" has ever satisfactorily answered that question before. The very existence of the proletariat signifies its existence as an exploited class, an economic category of capitalism.

To talk of the proletariat "having its own state " against the bourgeoisie must therefore mean that the state is allowing the bourgeoisie to exist as a class, without which it makes no sense whatsoever to talk of that state being a "workers state" since the working class as a class can only exist as a class in relation to the capitalist class. As Marx said wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa. They mutually condition each other. An exploited class must imply an exploiting class and what defines the proletariat is the fact it is the exploited class in capitalism

So the "workers state" insofar as it can exist must, in the final analysis, defer to the interests of the bourgeoisie in the sense that it must allow the bourgeosie, in continuing to exist as a class, to continue to exploit the working class. It may attempt to moderate that exploitation, but it cannot remove the fact of working class exploitation without rendering the whole idea of a "workers state" completely incoherent and untenable. If there is no working class exploitation there can be no working class and therefore there can be no so called "workers state"

[Art Vandelay]

I'll respond tmro, that was a better response than I was thinking, but I don't want to type up a huge response on my iPod.

[The Jay]

Well undoubtedly that is true, but the poletarain class has the historic duty of liberating humanity, it is this epochs progressive class; therefor it's hegemony and class rule is the only way towards a classless society.

Saying that is different from what you said before.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It`s still meaningless. The only issue which matters, is class rule.
I disagree. Simply overthrowing the capitalist class and replacing it with the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't enough. There's an almost magical belief that once we have working class rule, everything is solved, and the question of authoritarian vs. libertarian is irrelevant. I don't believe that's the case, and the question of what form a socialist society will take is very important, and no amount of handwaving it away will change that.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But I think there is enough opposition between them that they you need to be either a 'Marxist' or an 'Anarchist', it's pretty much impossible to be both.
Perhaps what's needed is a conciliation of the best the two streams of thought have to offer. Marxism's continuing value is as a tool of analysis providing a way of seeing through and critically assessing the economic power relations our society takes for granted, and in encouraging speculation about alternatives. I don't see that as being incompatible with a libertarian vision of socialist society.

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps what's needed is a conciliation of the best the two streams of thought have to offer. Marxism's continuing value is as a tool of analysis providing a way of seeing through and critically assessing the economic power relations our society takes for granted, and in encouraging speculation about alternatives. I don't see that as being incompatible with a libertarian vision of socialist society.

Socialist society is inherently "libertarian" if you need to use that term.

[Let's Get Free]

Perhaps what's needed is a conciliation of the best the two streams of thought have to offer. Marxism's continuing value is as a tool of analysis providing a way of seeing through and critically assessing the economic power relations our society takes for granted, and in encouraging speculation about alternatives. I don't see that as being incompatible with a libertarian vision of socialist society.

The more constructive way to revolutionary struggle, in my opinion, should be some combination of Council Communism and anarcho-communist Platformism in the sphere of political organizing, and anarcho-syndicalism as regards post-revolutionary organization of the economy. I think that may be much better than both partyist vanguardism of Leninists and the anti-organization of some insurrectionists and autonomists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Socialist society is inherently "libertarian" if you need to use that term.
I can show plenty of examples of societies that claimed to be socialist (and are still upheld by many on this board as socialist) that were anything but libertarian.

[Art Vandelay]

I can show plenty of examples of societies that claimed to be socialist (and are still upheld by many on this board as socialist) that were anything but libertarian.

Socialism has never existed anywhere on this planet, so their full of shit. It sounds like you're talking about M-L's.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Socialism has never existed anywhere on this planet, so their full of shit. It sounds like you're talking about M-L's.
Yes, but if you admit that socialism has never existed, how can you confidently state that "socialist society is inherently 'libertarian'"?

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, but if you admit that socialism has never existed, how can you confidently state that "socialist society is inherently 'libertarian'"?

Because socialism is a stateless and classless society, one of free producers.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Because socialism is a stateless and classless society, one of free producers.
Yes, and the state will magically wither away and leave us with such a society.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, and the state will magically wither away and leave us with such a society.

The state doesn't magically wither away, it wither's away once the material conditions which give rise to it, have disappeared. I'm a materialist after all.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The state doesn't magically wither away, it wither's away once the material conditions which give rise to it, have disappeared. I'm a materialist after all.
So am I, which is why I think that in advanced capitalism where the productive forces are highly developed, the state and the capitalist class can be and should be abolished at the same time. No "withering away."

[Blake's Baby]

OK; revolution breaks out in Belgium, and in Mexico, and only in these two places at the moment.

In Mexico, the workers, predominantly influenced by anarcho-syndicalism, abolish the bourgeoisie and the state simultaneously, and declare a federation of free communes. In Belgium, under the influence of Marxism, the workers declare the DotP and seize state power. What happens in the two countries in the period before the revolution spreads elsewhere?

In Belgium, the proletariat organses to defend its borders and guarantee production and rationing to the population, while preventing the ex-bourgeoisie organising to overthrow the revolution. Property is collectivised and rationing introduced by the workers' councils to cope with shortages. Militias are organised under the control of the workers' councils, army units that have defected to the workers are democratised (ranks abolished, soldiers' councils administer the units which prepare to resisit invasion from Germany, France, UK etc). In order to co-ordinate economic and social activites beyond the purely local level a higher tier of delegate councils is formed to manage railways, water, power supply, healthcare etc. This is 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

What happens in Mexico? Is it not exactly the same thing? If it is, then the state hasn't been abolished, because the society I just described in Belgium is a state, just a one under the control of the working class. If it's not the same, what's to stop the USA and Mexico's other neighbours invading? How do the trains run, how do the hospitals work, how are the power supply and the water & sewerage system administered, who decides who gets what food?

The revolution is not a national process. One country can't pass from the hands of the bourgeoisie into the hands of the workers then magically remove itself from capitalism. A state that ceases to exist is merely a magnet to draw power from surrounding areas to it. Until Germany and France and the UK are not able to invade Belgium, Belgium cannot be abolished. Until Belgium doesn't need to trade with essentially hostile capitalist powers (who are also looking to make a quick buck) Belgium cannot be abolished. How then is it possible to abolish Mexico?

One of the flaws of an anarchist conception of the state is, paradoxically, a huge concession to nationalism, indeed, to the theory of socialism in one country. A 'free territory' does not stop being a state just because, locally, the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, because external to this area the bourgeoisie still exists, capitalism still exists, property still exists, classes still exist, states still exist. The 'free territory' must relate to the external world as a state; it must act as a state, and a thing that acts as a state, is a state. To believe that by force of will some revolutionary workers can in some corner of the globe establish a 'free territory' that is a little detatched bit of socialism, when the material factors for the establishment of socialism don't exist (ie property, classes and states still exist) is as much a falacy as any proponent of 'actually existing socialism' has ever made.

In esence, the theory of the immediate abolition of the state in the local area implies that the Bolsheviks or the Russian working class in general could have established socialism in Russia had they only followed a different policy, no matter what happened in the rest of the world. No need for a revolution in Germany or America, any country can have a revolution whenever it likes because it can insulate itself from the rest of the world. Isn't this the Trotskyist 'crisis of leadership' too? It's all the fault of the people who put the 'wrong policy' into place? It's not a question of 'policy', it's a question of material conditions. Until the working class has seized power everywhere, the abolition of the state and capitalism is not possible because the working class isn't in control of capitalism and the state - just some capitalism and some states. And that's a bit like curing blood poisoning in someone's arm, but not in the rest of their body. To believe that it's possible to establish a free socialist territory surrounded by hostile capitalist powers goes beyond idealism into fantasy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Whether one abolishes the state immediately or declares a dictatorship of the proletariat, both are going to run into trouble if the revolution is confined to one or two countries.

[Blake's Baby]

Whether one abolishes the state immediately or declares a dictatorship of the proletariat, both are going to run into trouble if the revolution is confined to one or two countries.

Yes, do you think I'm arguing any different? The proposition is that the revolution breaks out, and is successful at overthrowing the state in Belgium and Mexico first (that's why i wrote 'at the moment'). Whether the rest of the world will follow suit is not the question; I'm trying to get at what is the course of action for the revolutionary working class in the short term, and in an isolated territory.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, do you think I'm arguing any different?
Not at all. Just restating what you said in a much shorter form. If I gave a different impression, that wasn't my intent.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Not anymore than Capital, no. The state is a social relationship of particular qualitative aspects, it will not be destroyed because people 'decide to get rid of it' or people decide 'to replace it', it will be destroyed through a protracted insurrectionary process of ever-increasing intensity which replaces all existing social relationships with communist ones and robs the capital-relation and the state-relation of their oxygen. I don't think what you say requires a break with anarchism (however nebulous that concept may be at times).

This is like the greatest thing I've read on RevLeft. I always think to myself (without reading the thread entirely mind you) that people switch from Anarchism to Marxism for superficial reasons. Not saying anyone here does but every reason and or excuse I come about just seems silly. I'll read a little bit more and respond more, just wanted to say that.


The state doesn't magically wither away, it wither's away once the material conditions which give rise to it, have disappeared. I'm a materialist after all.

Point being?

[Hermes]

In Belgium, the proletariat organses to defend its borders and guarantee production and rationing to the population, while preventing the ex-bourgeoisie organising to overthrow the revolution. Property is collectivised and rationing introduced by the workers' councils to cope with shortages. Militias are organised under the control of the workers' councils, army units that have defected to the workers are democratised (ranks abolished, soldiers' councils administer the units which prepare to resisit invasion from Germany, France, UK etc). In order to co-ordinate economic and social activites beyond the purely local level a higher tier of delegate councils is formed to manage railways, water, power supply, healthcare etc. This is 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

What happens in Mexico? Is it not exactly the same thing? If it is, then the state hasn't been abolished, because the society I just described in Belgium is a state, just a one under the control of the working class. If it's not the same, what's to stop the USA and Mexico's other neighbours invading? How do the trains run, how do the hospitals work, how are the power supply and the water & sewerage system administered, who decides who gets what food?

This is probably a stupid question that means I'm missing the point, but what exactly is stopping Belgium's neighbors from invading in this scenario? Is it because they haven't renounced their identity as a state, or is it because they have an organized militia?

If it's the former, hasn't recent history shown that the conception of Westphalian sovereignty has faded away? I really don't think Belgium's neighbors would sit back and allow unknown factors seize control of the state (presenting an active threat to their own internal security).

If it's the latter, I'm not really seeing how that would make a difference either. It's pretty easy to say, theoretically, that an organized militia will protect from invasion by Germany/France/UK/etc, but in reality, they would probably still be trounced.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't see how Mexico would be any less secure than Belgium. The people still have the ability to organize and defend themselves, and I think it would be equally ineffective in both cases. Again though, only my opinion, and I'm probably missing the point.

[Conscript]

It's all the fault of the people who put the 'wrong policy' into place?Even marx left room for the arbitrary power of men in his materialism. Material conditions set inclinations for people, but they are just that. We are not determinists.

There were a few things that could've been done differently that while not necessarily turning the tables when it comes to the international revolution, could yet provoke massive change. For example, can you imagine Stalin using the comintern to safeguard soviet national interests like it did if there existed a revolutionary spain, china, or even germany alongside it? Can you imagine him adopting the bourgeois popular front if the working class in germany united and halted nazi advances? How about a more honest handling of the spanish civil war? Or no stalinist blunders in China?

A political revolution in the USSR and the communist party could have resulted in a some significant changes in history. After all, churchill regarded stalin as someone he could work with, and trotsky as an 'ogre of europe'. That should say something.

[Blake's Baby]

This is probably a stupid question that means I'm missing the point, but what exactly is stopping Belgium's neighbors from invading in this scenario? Is it because they haven't renounced their identity as a state, or is it because they have an organized militia?

If it's the former, hasn't recent history shown that the conception of Westphalian sovereignty has faded away? I really don't think Belgium's neighbors would sit back and allow unknown factors seize control of the state (presenting an active threat to their own internal security)...

It's not a stupid question, but you have missed the point. Which must be because I'm not explaining what the point is.

As well as militias, I mentioned defecting army units in particular because in the scenario I outlined, it's inconceivable that Belgium's neighbours wouldn't try to attack it, and militia units with no support will only be able to do so much against the regular armies (and air forces, navies, special forces etc) of Belgium's neighbours.

However, I'm also assuming that if workers in Belgium and Mexico have revolted to the point of overthrowing their governments, then there must also be massive unrest in germany, France, the UK, the USA... just that these movements have not (yet?) overthrown their governments. Thus, Germany, the US etc will not exactly be free to crush the Belgian and Mexican revolutions with impunity. As in the 'Intervention' after the October revolution, morale among the occupying troops, and sentiment in the invading countries, would limit the capacities of Interventionist governments somewhat. No point for the bourgeoisie invading Belgium to stop a revolution there if it means the revolution triumphs here.


...If it's the latter, I'm not really seeing how that would make a difference either. It's pretty easy to say, theoretically, that an organized militia will protect from invasion by Germany/France/UK/etc, but in reality, they would probably still be trounced...

Absolutely, if it's a militia army from one comparatively small state fighting the full military power of a much larger neighbour, the militia will not last long (I specifically picked Mexico and Belgium because both have much larger, well-armed neighbours who might be expected to intervene). The 'best' that could be acheived is some long drawn out Afghan-style insurgency war, which is not any solution. But I did specifically mention defecting miliray units - let's say for the sake of the example that at least some units with high-tech military stuff go over to the revolution, so that the war isn't completely asymetrical.





...I guess what I'm saying is I don't see how Mexico would be any less secure than Belgium. The people still have the ability to organize and defend themselves, and I think it would be equally ineffective in both cases. Again though, only my opinion, and I'm probably missing the point.

Well, I suppose I'd better get to the point.

The point is not whether it would be effective. I don't think the revolution can beat the state in a head-on military confrontation. I wasn't claiming it could, but I put the part in about defecting military units to mitigate againt the idea that a revolutionary Belgium would be over-run by the French army in 2 days. If it were just Belgium on its own, I really think that would happen. But a revolution in Belgium makes no sense to me if it's not also accompanied by revolutionary situations in Germany, Britain, France, Netherlands etc. There is no 'Belgian revolution' only a world revolution that happens to go a little faster in Belgium at one particular point.

The point was to contrast what Mexico and Belgium did. The revolutionary workers in Belgium organise a military of sorts, institute rationing, establishe workers control over the country, and the workers' councils are the means for doing this.

Workers in Mexico do exactly the same thing. But in Belgium, because the Belgian workers are Marxists, they call this this the 'Belgian Council Republic' and regard it as a state. They have taken state power, and organised the former state of Belgium. In Mexico, they call it the 'Free Territory of the People of Mexico' and do not see it as a state, even though they have a military, have organised production, etc.

So, are Belgium and Mexico states at this point or not? One calls itself a state, one doesn't, but they are in the same position. It cannot be the case that one is a state and one is not a state. They are either both states, or neither is a state. Which is it? That's what I'm trying to get at.




Even marx left room for the arbitrary power of men in his materialism. Material conditions set inclinations for people, but they are just that. We are not determinists.

There were a few things that could've been done differently that while not necessarily turning the tables when it comes to the international revolution, could yet provoke massive change. For example, can you imagine Stalin using the comintern to safeguard soviet national interests like it did if there existed a revolutionary spain, china, or even germany alongside it? Can you imagine him adopting the bourgeois popular front if the working class in germany united and halted nazi advances? How about a more honest handling of the spanish civil war? Or no stalinist blunders in China?

A political revolution in the USSR and the communist party could have resulted in a some significant changes in history. After all, churchill regarded stalin as someone he could work with, and trotsky as an 'ogre of europe'. That should say something.

If a revolutionary Spain, Germany or China existed alongside a revolutionary Russia then the world revolution would be moving forwards - that's more than 'provoking massive change', that's 'turning the tables' so that the revolution is on the offensive. What we a talking about surely is a situation when the world revolution is moving backwards - the counter-revolution is winning both at home and abroad.

My thesis is that there are two things we can look at - the revolution as it unfolds in Russia, and from the Russian point of view (it's legitimate to take the Russian point of view, they went further than any other country) the revolution 'in the rest of the world'.

The revolution in Russia reached a high point in about 1918. From then on, though there were certainly progressive things that happened, the revolution increasingly battled the counter-revolution, both in the shape of the White and Interventionist forces, and in the increasing bureaucratisation and state control of the Bolsheviks state machine. The way the Bolsheviks dealt with this was the 'policy' that we're criticising; you're right that people make history, but I'm right that the circumstances in which they do it are not of their chosing. International capital of necessity re-asserted itself in the shape of brutal counter-revolution, whatever the will of the actors involved. Neither Lenin nor Trotsky could wish away international capital.

The revolutionary tide outside Russia turned about 1921. Externally, in the rest of the world, the revolution lagged behind so the turning point from the revolution having the upper hand to the revolution going on the defensive lagged behind too. But the whole point here is that if things had happened in a different way, if the external realities of the revolution in Russia had been different, that would have changed the internal realities too - no matter what 'bad policy' the revolution inside Russia would have been renewed by the revolution outside Russia.

By the time Stalin assumed command of the SU the revolution was dead internally, and practically dead externally. The last spark of the revolutionary wave was extinguished, in my estimation, in Shanghai under the guns of the KMT in 1927. Yes, you can say Trotsky was right and Stalin made mistakes. He didn't. Russia needed a KMT government to fullfil its foreign policy objectives. It got one. It didn't a revolutionary situation in China at that point any more than it needed one in Spain in the 1930s when really it wanted a moderate socialist ally in France. Revolution for China or Spain was not on Moscow's agenda. Even if Trotsky had been in control in the 1920s and '30s - what then? The USSR would still have been surrounded by hostile powers, the very fact that Churchill, the Webbs etc - even Hitler - thought Stalin was 'someone we can work with' while Trotsky was a dangerous lunatic surely demonstrates that had Trotsky been First Secretary (or whatever) the SU would have been even more embattled, forced to trade on even less favourable terms, even more forced to turn inward. Even if the 'correct policy' had been applied in China - what then? Instead of an ally to help with the imperialist ambitions of the Russian state, there would have been a much more vicious civil war going on which the SU would have had to become directly involved in.

By this point, the SU had ceased to be a revolutionary state and become a reactionary one, and that has little to do with the Trotsky/Stalin conflict and more to do with the mistakes of Lenin and Trotsky between 1918-23. Certainly, mistakes were made by Trotsky and Lenin (and Luxemburg and Leibknecht and Radek and Kun and Bukharin and many others) that led ultimately to the crushing of the revolution in Germany and Hungary - had it not been crushed between 1919 and 1921, things would undoubtedly have been very different, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Still more has it to do with the entire world situation in that period. The will (and the policy) of the actors in the revolution in Russia had in the end little to do with the failure of such diverse events as the general strikes in Winnipeg and Seattle, the crushing of 'Red Clydeside' in 1919 etc.

[Hermes]

No, that's my fault, I probably should have realized that was your point, considering what the thread is about. But, with that in mind,


What happens in Mexico? Is it not exactly the same thing? If it is, then the state hasn't been abolished, because the society I just described in Belgium is a state, just a one under the control of the working class. If it's not the same, what's to stop the USA and Mexico's other neighbours invading? How do the trains run, how do the hospitals work, how are the power supply and the water & sewerage system administered, who decides who gets what food?

Couldn't this be done locally, without the state? It doesn't really do anything to stop the USA or their other neighbors from invading.

I guess I don't understand why you assume that, in Mexico, it would still be a state. In all likelihood it would still be viewed as such by the USA and their neighbors, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

[agnixie]

Point being?

Materialism here stands more for dialectics, i.e. everything goes linearly towards the glorious end point. That is if I remember why I disliked Kautsky properly (linear conception of history, pseudo-mystical Hegelian nonsense masquerading as materialism - dialectics are possibly the single weakest thing involved in traditional left narratives of history)


Couldn't this be done locally, without the state? It doesn't really do anything to stop the USA or their other neighbors from invading.


Similarly, the marxist people's republic of Belgium will last about five days once France and Germany decide to get rid of it, unless the revolution spreads, so the hypothetical is wholly pointless. It also seemingly uses an understanding of the state which seems fairly odd, both as an anthropologist and as an anarchist communist. The state is a production and an inherent part of class society, with the preservation of class and the privileges and property it rests on as its main goal, whether under feudalism, capitalism or any other category that's not strictly primitive communism, there's no non-class society with a state historically, period. And I honestly don't think anything in the 20th century happened to prove otherwise.

The idea that anarchist communism is based on no organization because it doesn't rely on the state, based on an understanding of the state that seems to be based around liberal understandings of it, seems rather mismatched.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Couldn't this be done locally, without the state? It doesn't really do anything to stop the USA or their other neighbors from invading...

It's not important as to the statehood of revolutionary Mexico whether or not the US invades. But defence of revolutionary Mexico means that there is some organisation doing the defending.


...
I guess I don't understand why you assume that, in Mexico, it would still be a state. In all likelihood it would still be viewed as such by the USA and their neighbors, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Would it be a state in Belgium? If Belgium is a state after the revolution, then Mexico is a state after the revolution, whether or not it calls itself a state.

An organisation that militarily defends a territory from internal and external enemies, and organises a framework in which production and distribution take place, while at the same time having particular property relations which in tern define a class system, is a state, because those are the defining characteristics of a state. So both revolutionary Belgium and revolutionary Mexico are states in this case.

[Hermes]

An organisation that militarily defends a territory from internal and external enemies, and organises a framework in which production and distribution take place, while at the same time having particular property relations which in tern define a class system, is a state, because those are the defining characteristics of a state. So both revolutionary Belgium and revolutionary Mexico are states in this case.

The part I bolded is what I disagree with. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, wouldn't such be abolished, assuming the revolution was successful?

The first part, I'm not entirely sure about. If it were specific territory they were defending, perhaps, but what if they're simply defending themselves? I mean, the USA could claim sovereignty over the territory of Mexico, and the cities/communes/etc could attack those who came simply under self-defense, couldn't they? Without claiming that they were defending their sovereignty as a state?

Sorry if this is just protracting a misunderstanding that's already clear to you. I'm just having a bit of trouble with it, I guess.

--

As to the second part of what I was saying, about defence,


It's not important as to the statehood of revolutionary Mexico whether or not the US invades. But defence of revolutionary Mexico means that there is some organisation doing the defending.

there isn't anything inherently hierarchical in organization, is there? I mean, Anarchism isn't really against organization, from what I understand.

[agnixie]

An organisation that militarily defends a territory from internal and external enemies, and organises a framework in which production and distribution take place, while at the same time having particular property relations which in tern define a class system, is a state, because those are the defining characteristics of a state. So both revolutionary Belgium and revolutionary Mexico are states in this case.

Pre-state societies also did defending, so that's not a particularly strong argument.

[Art Vandelay]

Point being?

My point hun, was that he was wrong in characterizing my position as being that the state will just magically wither away; there are very specific material conditions which give rise to the state, and certain material conditions which will bring about it's demise.

[Let's Get Free]

My point hun, was that he was wrong in characterizing my position as being that the state will just magically wither away; there are very specific material conditions which give rise to the state, and certain material conditions which will bring about it's demise.

How will it "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this happens?

[Blake's Baby]

The part I bolded is what I disagree with. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, wouldn't such be abolished, assuming the revolution was successful?...

Define 'revolution', define 'successful', define 'abolished'...

The 'revolution' isn't 'successful' and property isn't 'abolished' until the revolution is successful and property abolished everywhere. You can't have socialism in one country. Socialism must be worldwide. As long as property exists, classes exist, as long as classes exist the state exists; in the revolutionary territory, classes haven't been done away with - the workers' councils are, as the name suggests, councls of the working class, so the class system exists; this must in turn rest on property existing, and in turn also implies that a state exists, a state being a manifestation of a class sytem.

Property has not been abolished in the revolutionary territory, it's just been collectivised - the populations inside and outside the collective have different relationships to the property both inside and outside the collective; thus, these peoplehave different relationships to the means of production. Even if class distinctions (but not at the moment actual classes) are abolished inside the 'free territory' the inhabitants relate to other property, outside the territory, differently; so there is still property. The inhabitants of the free territory thus have a specific relationship to property, so they're still a class.

So, no, property relations have been changed but not abolished. The militia and defected regular army of the free territory are defending a form of property - that is locally-collectivised property - and thus the organisation that oversees that qualifies as a state under Engels' definition - 'men armed in defence of property relations'. The fact that these property relations can be summed up as 'local exclusive collective' (in that they have been collectivised inside a community (local) but not to outsiders, the workers' councils of the free territory won't say to the invading American army 'sure, come in and use our factories and airbases' (so they are exclusive), but those inside should be able to use them fereely, so they are collective) doesn't change the point, that they are specific relations to a property form, and therefore the abolition of property on which the abolition of classes and ultimately the abolition of the state depend has not taken place.




...
The first part, I'm not entirely sure about. If it were specific territory they were defending, perhaps, but what if they're simply defending themselves? I mean, the USA could claim sovereignty over the territory of Mexico, and the cities/communes/etc could attack those who came simply under self-defense, couldn't they? Without claiming that they were defending their sovereignty as a state?

Sorry if this is just protracting a misunderstanding that's already clear to you. I'm just having a bit of trouble with it, I guess...

This is my point. They could 'pretend' that they weren't a state. They could even believe they weren't a state. But that doesn't mean that they're not. If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely to be a duck. An organisation that defends a territory (as the militia, and regular army defector,s and any groups charged with investigating counter-revolutionary activity, all of which groups are under the control of the workers' councils do) and organises production and distribution in that territory (as the workers' councils do pretty directly) then it's a state even if it doesn't see itself as such, in Mexico just as in Belgium.




...As to the second part of what I was saying, about defence,



there isn't anything inherently hierarchical in organization, is there? I mean, Anarchism isn't really against organization, from what I understand.


Anarchism is very much in favour of organisation. I'm not sure as a general point that's particularly relevent, what I'm trying to get at is what forms of organisation would constitute a state.




Pre-state societies also did defending, so that's not a particularly strong argument.

Care to share any evidence for that?



How will it "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this happens?

It will 'wither away' when the material conditions to sustain it no longer exist. Engels was thinking of plants when he wrote that - if you kill the roots (= change material conditions) then the plant will die. He could have said 'the state is a disease, to destroy it, it is necessary to treat the causes not the symptoms'.

The state is a consequence of a class system which is a consequence of property relations. So the abolition of property is the precondition of the abolition (or withering away, or disappearance, or dying or whatever) of the state. But you can't kill the state without attacking poperty and therefore class relations. You can prune a plant but unless you uproot it it's going to come back, you can give someone a cough-sweet but it won't cure their cough, just help relieve the symptoms.

You can change the material factors; you can abolish property - but only if you control property. You must first seize it. Otherwise, all we'd have to do is announce that we're living in communism, and we are. In order to abolish it, we (as the working class) must first take control of it. During the process of taking control, the property must still exist, as property. Only when the working class has control of all property can property be abolished. Otherwise we're trying to abolish something with no means of doing so - 'abolition' is just some words that have no material basis.

Only when property (I sttress again, all property) is abolished will there be an end to the class system; and only when the class system is ended will the state 'wither away', the symptom will disappear because the material basis for its existence (its roots) will no longer exist.

[agnixie]

Care to share any evidence for that?



The iroquois confederacy's wars, for one. And no they weren't a state, they were a relatively egalitarian chiefdom. The state is the formalization of class society.

[hetz]

It's pretty much common sense that pre-state tribes defended or tried to defend themselves against raids from other tribes.
There is evidence for such massacres between warring tribes that happened more than 6 thousand years ago.

[Hermes]

Define 'revolution', define 'successful', define 'abolished'...

The 'revolution' isn't 'successful' and property isn't 'abolished' until the revolution is successful and property abolished everywhere. You can't have socialism in one country. Socialism must be worldwide. As long as property exists, classes exist, as long as classes exist the state exists; in the revolutionary territory, classes haven't been done away with - the workers' councils are, as the name suggests, councls of the working class, so the class system exists; this must in turn rest on property existing, and in turn also implies that a state exists, a state being a manifestation of a class sytem.

Property has not been abolished in the revolutionary territory, it's just been collectivised - the populations inside and outside the collective have different relationships to the property both inside and outside the collective; thus, these peoplehave different relationships to the means of production. Even if class distinctions (but not at the moment actual classes) are abolished inside the 'free territory' the inhabitants relate to other property, outside the territory, differently; so there is still property. The inhabitants of the free territory thus have a specific relationship to property, so they're still a class.

So, no, property relations have been changed but not abolished. The militia and defected regular army of the free territory are defending a form of property - that is locally-collectivised property - and thus the organisation that oversees that qualifies as a state under Engels' definition - 'men armed in defence of property relations'. The fact that these property relations can be summed up as 'local exclusive collective' (in that they have been collectivised inside a community (local) but not to outsiders, the workers' councils of the free territory won't say to the invading American army 'sure, come in and use our factories and airbases' (so they are exclusive), but those inside should be able to use them fereely, so they are collective) doesn't change the point, that they are specific relations to a property form, and therefore the abolition of property on which the abolition of classes and ultimately the abolition of the state depend has not taken place.

Okay, I understand the mistake I was making, I think. Could you, either here or through a PM (since I understand that this is becoming incredibly tangential) explain the difference between collectivized property and the lack of property relations? Or are you saying that they're the same, but they can't be 'truly' abolished without removing the 'Other' of capitalist property relations? I guess I'm not entirely understanding why you couldn't temporarily, abolish some property without having control of all property.


This is my point. They could 'pretend' that they weren't a state. They could even believe they weren't a state. But that doesn't mean that they're not. If it looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's likely to be a duck. An organisation that defends a territory (as the militia, and regular army defector,s and any groups charged with investigating counter-revolutionary activity, all of which groups are under the control of the workers' councils do) and organises production and distribution in that territory (as the workers' councils do pretty directly) then it's a state even if it doesn't see itself as such, in Mexico just as in Belgium.This is something I'm still having a little trouble with. What if they aren't defending territory, or property relations? What if they are only defending themselves, or their own personal sovereignty (i.e. not their sovereignty as a state, but their sovereignty as individuals)? Like the others have said, I'm fairly sure defense of territory existed before states, but I understand somewhat the difference of defense of certain property relations.


Anarchism is very much in favour of organisation. I'm not sure as a general point that's particularly relevent, what I'm trying to get at is what forms of organisation would constitute a state.Okay, I see. The only reason I brought it up was because you seemed to imply strongly that any kind of organized defense would constitute statehood. Apologies.

--

Again, thanks for taking time to debate with my ignorance. I often have ideas such as these but are too afraid to bring them up, etc, so I never learn.

[Art Vandelay]

How will it "whither away"?

The functions that it carries out will no longer be necessary, as society becomes one of free producers.


Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors,

Exactly and unless you think socialist revolution happens in a day (which would mean that a new mode of production could be produced out of thin air), or that it begins or ends with the seizure of state power, then I do not see what is so hard to comprehend.


do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this happens?

Yes the material factors begin to change in accordance with the further development of the productive forces under proletarian class rule.

[Zederbaum]

Materialism here stands more for dialectics, i.e. everything goes linearly towards the glorious end point. That is if I remember why I disliked Kautsky properly (linear conception of history, pseudo-mystical Hegelian nonsense masquerading as materialism - dialectics are possibly the single weakest thing involved in traditional left narratives of history)
Kautsky is probably one of the least Hegelian Marxists, a trait which makes him eminently readable to later generations. He was a Darwinian before he was a Marxist and retained that pro-scientific mentality throughout his life. There really isn't the remotest hint of anything mystical in his work.

I wouldn't put his understanding history as being a crude linear one. That is not to say that he doesn't attempt to trace patterns in history, but then I don't think there is anything wrong or unscientific in that. History is just a damn hard science.

[Let's Get Free]

The functions that it carries out will no longer be necessary, as society becomes one of free producers.

For a state, any state, to voluntarily give up political power, would require that state bureaucracy to be made up of people of superhuman moral qualities.



Exactly and unless you think socialist revolution happens in a day (which would mean that a new mode of production could be produced out of thin air), or that it begins or ends with the seizure of state power, then I do not see what is so hard to comprehend.


The capture of political power by a revolutionary proletariat must signify and entail the immediate abolition of the wage labor and capital relation, and therefore, the state, since the state is an instrument of class rule. There can be no fudging this issue. To prolong that relationship is to allow capitalism to continue and, in consequence, to accede to the needs and interests of capital as against wage labor. There is no other way in which capitalism can be run in but in the interests of capital

[Comrade Jandar]

It's absolutely pointless to argue with anarchists over the state as they have a different definition of what that is. By the way, calling the state something else like "commune" or "egalitarian association of producers" doesn't change that the fact it is a state. I'm fairly sure that the more advanced anarchists would end up establishing "the dictatorship of the proletariat" without even realizing it.

"After overthrowing the yoke of the capitalists, should the workers "lay down their arms", or use them against the capitalists in order to crush their resistance? But what is the systematic use of arms by any class against another if not a "transient form" of state?" -Lenin

[Blake's Baby]

The iroquois confederacy's wars, for one. And no they weren't a state, they were a relatively egalitarian chiefdom. The state is the formalization of class society.

'Relatively' is such a relativitsic word - 'relatively egalitarian' in the context of class systems means 'yes it has a class system, but quite a flat one'. It's a class system.

'chiefdom'... implies that were 'chiefs', and other (probably more) 'non-chiefs'. It's a class system.

So, the Iroquois Confederacy, as you've just described it was a class system. And what doo class systems make? That's right - states. Even sometimes 'relatively egalitarian' ones.



It's pretty much common sense that pre-state tribes defended or tried to defend themselves against raids from other tribes.
There is evidence for such massacres between warring tribes that happened more than 6 thousand years ago.

Sorry, I don't trust appeals to 'common sense', especially not in archaeology.

'Common sense' knows it's 'natural' that men dominate women. 'Common sense' knows the Sun goes round the Earth. 'Common sense' knows that the Earth is flat, rain is god pissing in a sieve, and winter is caused by a sad woman whose daughter ate a pomegranite.

Care to cite the evidence for 'warring tribes' from 'more than 6 thousand years ago'? And then prove these tribes weren't what I'd regard as states?

There's a massive thread somewhere called something like 'the origins of slavery' where we argue all of this to death, over something like 12 pages. Or maybe it just seemed like 12 pages.




Okay, I understand the mistake I was making, I think. Could you, either here or through a PM (since I understand that this is becoming incredibly tangential) explain the difference between collectivized property and the lack of property relations? Or are you saying that they're the same, but they can't be 'truly' abolished without removing the 'Other' of capitalist property relations? I guess I'm not entirely understanding why you couldn't temporarily, abolish some property without having control of all property...

The world population is 7 billion or thereabouts. Let's say 70 million (1%) of that population lives in a 'free territory' - DR Congo, let's say, that's about 70 million.

In that 'free territory' all property has been collectivised. Has property been 'abolished'? Only in very specific ways. All property might be useable by anyone in DR Congo. But if, let's say, some soldiers from Angola came into DR Congo, would they also be able to use it, to make ammunition to shoot 'Free Congolese'? No. If some Japanese businessmen came to DR Congo, could they use the property, for instance to run a car factory? No.

So the property exists, and has different rules for different categories of people, so that this functions exactly as a class system functions. There is an 'in' class permitted to use the property and an 'out' class not permitted to use the property. The property is not communal, it is just collectivised - inside the collective, which is 1% of the planet. The 'out' group, who are not permitted to use the property, is 99% of the planet.

Likewise, though the 'free territory' has declared the abolition of property, if the inhabitants of Free Congo go over into Angola and try to use property there (food, land. tools, plant, electricity, gas, water) they get shot. There are different rules again depending on who you are. The groups of people, with different relationships to property, are effectively different classes.


...This is something I'm still having a little trouble with. What if they aren't defending territory, or property relations? What if they are only defending themselves, or their own personal sovereignty (i.e. not their sovereignty as a state, but their sovereignty as individuals)? Like the others have said, I'm fairly sure defense of territory existed before states, but I understand somewhat the difference of defense of certain property relations...

So are they 'defending themselves', or are they 'defending territory', or are they 'defending other people's claim to territory'? The second and third of these are back to property relations again. People are merely defending themselves then they aren't either a 'free territory' or 'free people of the territory formally known as...'. I have many times defended myself physically from attack without ever having become a state - but then again, neither am I an anarchist free teritory.

A militia made up of individuals isn't a militia. An army which is not a collective organ is not an army. If 'individual sovereignty' was what was at issue, people would just carry guns and shoot anyone who got too close. The farmers around the borders would be as likely to shoot the 'Free Territory Militia', or each other, as the invading Angolans. I can't see how the idea of 'defending individual autonomy' would work there. the Angolans would just walk in.

Anarchism is a collective endeavour. Communism is a collective endeavour. We are social beings, we do things relating to other people. We build societies together. When we band together to fulfill our common objectives, forms of social organisation emerge.


...Okay, I see. The only reason I brought it up was because you seemed to imply strongly that any kind of organized defense would constitute statehood. Apologies...

Yeah, I think it pretty much does. If you organise with other humans in a place to physically defend that place from people from the 'out' group, and/or problem individuals and/or subgroups in the 'in' group, and you organise production and distribution in that place (production for the war effort, for instance, rationing to ensure equal distribution of foodstuffs, for instance), then yes you're a state. Other forms of organisation are available; organising with your partner tht one of you will cook and the other wash up does not make you a state. Not all organisation = a state, nor does all organisation mean hierarchy. But organising military resitance, and managing production and distribution, or the framework in which production and distribution take place, means you're a state, because that's what a state does. If you do the job of a state, you're a state, even if you don't call yourself one.



...
Again, thanks for taking time to debate with my ignorance. I often have ideas such as these but are too afraid to bring them up, etc, so I never learn.

It's a pleasure; I'm always happy to help in the learning process. The confrontation of idea will hopefully to greater understanding for all of us. Please don't be afraid to ask questions; the worst that can happen is that someone calls you an idiot, which isn't pleasant sure but you know it's because they haven't got a good answer for you. The best that can happen is that you, and whoever might try to help you find an answer, and anyone else reading, might come aware with a better understanding of what you were asking about, and that's got to be a good thing.



For a state, any state, to voluntarily give up political power, would require that state bureaucracy to be made up of people of superhuman moral qualities...

States aren't conscious entities and therefore don't have a will to excercise.

If the conditions that nourish a state are done away with, there can be no state. They don't exist through an excercise of will (of their own, or anyone else's) otherwise you could abolish them by wishing.




...
The capture of political power by a revolutionary proletariat must signify and entail the immediate abolition of the wage labor and capital relation, and therefore, the state, since the state is an instrument of class rule. There can be no fudging this issue. To prolong that relationship is to allow capitalism to continue and, in consequence, to accede to the needs and interests of capital as against wage labor. There is no other way in which capitalism can be run in but in the interests of capital

Right. You and 1% of the world's population sieze control 1.6% of the land area and 0.4% of the world's total capital wealth, and 'abolish wage labour and the capital relation', then go to bed secure in the knowledge that the state will disappear by morning.

The next day, Angolan soldiers acting on behalf of the 99.6% of the world's capital wealth you didn't abolish, and the 99% of the population of the world not in your 'in' group, rouse you gently with their automatic weapons and put you at gunpoint in the back of a truck.

Until the working class controls property and the state, it cannot abolish property and the state. Otherwise, you could just announce now on RevLeft that we're living in communism. The working class needs to take over. Not take over in one house or one street or one city or one county or one country or one continent, it needs to take over all states, everywhere, it needs to collectivise all property, everywhere, and then it can destroy the state and property relations. To smash something, it must first have it.

But it can't take over everywhere at once. The question is, what does it do in the meantime, between the first siezure of power, and the defeat of the last enclave of the old order? It can't abolish what it doean't control, and it doesn't control all property, it doesn't control all states. So, it can't abolish them. It remains a working class, it remains locked in society which is divided into competing groups, it remains a property-based system, it remains in a state.

[Guardia Rossa]

there was a thing a year ago and a bunch of people got banned for dumb reasons.

I was just digging for Platformism.

You dig?

(Not my best joke ever)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I was just digging for Platformism.

You dig?

(Not my best joke ever)
The last post in this thread was in 2012. That's your best joke, methinks. :grin:

[newdayrising]

As has happened with many others on this forum my politics have evolved. I've been moving away from anarchism for quite a while now but I think I've reached the point of no return. I now consider myself a Marxist and have recently been reading a lot of Bordiga. Proletarian Dictarorship and Class Party has to be one of clearest, yet edifying texts I've read in a while. What are the other staple texts of Bordiga?

I'd say the best introduction to Bordiga for beginners would be Loren Goldner's classic "Communism Is The Material Human Comunity - Amadeo Bordiga Today" (https://libcom.org/library/communism-is-the-material-human-community-amadeo-bordiga-today)

From this text you can go on and read the important texts mentioned there. The Democratic Principle is a good read for his critique of democracy, Doctrine Of The Body Possessed By The Devil for state capitalism and The Legend Of The Piave for the echological thing.

I'm no serious scholar on Bordiga, but these were favorites of mine when I discovered his work and helped me understand a lot of important things.

[newdayrising]

Damn, I only noticed now that this topic was from 2012...

[Guardia Rossa]

Damn, I only noticed now that this topic was from 2012...

Really sorry for that, I just had to dig this out:


there was a thing a year ago and a bunch of people got banned for dumb reasons.

In 2012...

Post Scriptum: Accordingly to my metaphysical calculations in 2019 all the Bordigists will be banned for some reason.

[newdayrising]

Who are the Bordigists exactly? The only hardcore "Bordigist" ("s because as far as I know he wasn't a member of an organization) I remember from here was Remus Bleys who seems to have vanished. Maybe he followed Cammatte's route and ran to the hills.

[Os Cangaceiros]

this is an old thread, I'm gonna close it.