Bakuninism and Marxism

[Bostana]

So I don't know too much about the anarchist Bakunin. So I want to solve two questions in one thread.
1.)A little background on Bakunin and his theories.
2.) What were the key differences between Bakunin and Marx.
3.) I understand that Bakunin reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, so what was his plans for after the revolution if not to install the dictatorship until the universal revolution.

[The Idler]

Marx, Bakunin, and the question of authoritarianism - David Adam ... (http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism)

[TheRedAnarchist23]

2.) What were the key differences between Bakunin and Marx.

The easy way to put it is that Marx was authoritarian, and Bakunin was not.


3.) I understand that Bakunin reject the dictatorship of the proletariat, so what was his plans for after the revolution if not to install the dictatorship until the universal revolution.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has a state, therefore it goes against anarchist theory. Instead of having a "proletarian state", which is considered impossible by anarchists, you have workers organising themselves without a state. That is why anarchists want social revolution, not just any revolution, it must be done by a big number of people who want a deep change in society.

[Brutus]

Bakunin proposes that we ignore the material conditions that led to the creation of the state, and just abolish it, therefore taking away the proletariats means to defend itself.

[Per Levy]

The easy way to put it is that Marx was authoritarian, and Bakunin was not.

bullshit, and also way to go to totally ignore idlers post, here a quote from the libcom article he posts:


Historically, Bakunin’s criticism of Marx’s “authoritarian” aims has tended to overshadow Marx’s critique of Bakunin’s “authoritarian” aims. This is in large part due to the fact that mainstream anarchism and Marxism have been polarized over a myth—that of Marx’s authoritarian statism—which they both share.


The dictatorship of the proletariat has a state, therefore it goes against anarchist theory. Instead of having a "proletarian state", which is considered impossible by anarchists, you have workers organising themselves without a state.

so anarchists want a dictatorship of the proletariat, tdop mean nothing else than the rule of the proletariat.


That is why anarchists want social revolution, not just any revolution, it must be done by a big number of people who want a deep change in society.

unlike commies who dont want a social revolution? hello.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Marx and Engels wrote a bit on their differences with Bakunin. Those texts can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm

Most notable, I think, are these two texts:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm This one is probably a good defense against the whole authoritarian name-calling.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/bakunin/index.htm

[Bostana]

The easy way to put it is that Marx was authoritarian, and Bakunin was not.

Please, elaborate

[TheRedAnarchist23]

bullshit, and also way to go to totally ignore idlers post, here a quote from the libcom article he posts:

What makes you think what I wrote came out of a bull's ass? And what makes you think I ignored his post?


so anarchists want a dictatorship of the proletariat, tdop mean nothing else than the rule of the proletariat.

That is not what I read in the Communist Manifesto:


Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.


unlike commies who dont want a social revolution? hello.

I never said anything about communists. He asked about an anarchist, I gave him an answer.
You are looking for a fight, but you are not going to find it here.

[TheEmancipator]

I believe Bakuninists also give more importance to emancipatory politics and revolution (Catechism of a Revolutionary is worth a read - you'll find it both hilarious, inspiring and scarily true) and its place in historical process towards a stateless, classless society whereas Marxists tend to be ferociously analytical with regards to class warfare and dialectical materialism, and therefore tend to give importance to the workers' struggle rather than situational struggles (Oppressor vs Oppressed).

Bakunin I do not believe was a materialist (correct me if I'm wrong) and was rather a Left Hegelian idealist (not in the pejorative sense).

That's all from my ignorant self really, but it's worth highlighting that Marxists call Anarchists idealist romanticists and Anarchists call Marxists religious pseudo-scientists :grin: Otherwise they get on just fine!

[l'Enfermé]

The Neo-Bakuninism group, handed over to me per DRF's last edict before his ban, might be of interest.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1099

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Please, elaborate

Marx defended that there had to be a workers state in the phase known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. All states are inherently authoritarian and opressive towards the working classes.
Bakunin defended the state had to be abolished in order to end opression and inequality. If the state is used, the social injustices that are associated with it continue to exist.
To conclude, Marx is an authoritarian because he wants to use a state, Bakunin is not because he does not want to use a state.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I believe Neo-Bakuninists also give more importance to emancipatory politics and revolution (Catechism of a Revolutionary is worth a read - you'll find it both hilarious, inspiring and scarily true) and its place in historical process towards a stateless, classless society

Anarchists are way more interesting than marxists. Someone should travel back in time and tell the Marx that he does not need to be dreadfuly boring while doing his analysis. The anarchist writers are much more interesting.


whereas Marxists tend to be ferociously analytical with regards to class warfare and dialectical materialism, and therefore tend to give importance to the workers' struggle rather than situational struggles (Oppressor vs Oppressed).

In other words, marxists are incredibly boring.


Bakunin I do not believe was a materialist (correct me if I'm wrong) and was rather a Left Hegelian idealist (not in the pejorative sense).

I think he was a materialist. To think one cannot be a materialist if one is not a marxist is wrong. Just compare Bakunin to Proudhon, and you will have your answer.


That's all from my ignorant self really, but it's worth highlighting that Marxists call Anarchists idealist romanticists and Anarchists call Marxists religious pseudo-scientists :grin: Otherwise they get on just fine!

More or less. I prefer to call them authoritarians.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The easy way to put it is that Marx was authoritarian, and Bakunin was not.

And here TRA23 proves that the easy way is, more often than not, the wrong way.
What Marx did was acknowledge the fact that force, or authority if you will, was needed for a the proletariat to succeed. The Bakuninist, and you, call this authoritarian. What is so authoritarian about the majority using apeverything that is necessary for liberating themselves from exploitation is beyond me.
As Marx notes: "It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means".


The dictatorship of the proletariat has a state, therefore it goes against anarchist theory. Instead of having a "proletarian state", which is considered impossible by anarchists, you have workers organising themselves without a state. That is why anarchists want social revolution, not just any revolution, it must be done by a big number of people who want a deep change in society.

Unlike the Marxists? Marxists don't want social revolution? Marxists don't want a big number of people. Let me go back to one of the most famous slogans the Marxists have ever used: Proletarians of all countries, unite!
Maybe you can enlighten me how this is meant as anything else but the change being done by a large number of people.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the only form in which the proletariat can achieve liberation. If that is against anarchist theory this only means that the anarchists are against liberation and are nothing but servants of reaction.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Anarchists are way more interesting than marxists. Someone should travel back in time and tell the Marx that he does not need to be dreadfuly boring while doing his analysis. The anarchist writers are much more interesting.

Yawn


In other words, marxists are incredibly boring.

Yawn


More or less. I prefer to call them authoritarians.

Yawn

Ugh you are so boring. You have not offered a single critique, you only call things boring or authoritarian. Show us why that is so, little anarchist. Your name-calling only shows your own lack of knowledge.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

And here TRA23 proves that the easy way is, more often than not, the wrong way.

It was incredibly simple, wasn't it?


What Marx did was acknowledge the fact that force, or authority if you will, was needed for a the proletariat to succeed.

Force is necessary for almost every action in daily life, to defend a life free of authority is to go towards extreme individualism. Relations of authority must be voluntary, not forced. Authority will exist as long as societies exist, but forced authority can be ended.


What is so authoritarian about the majority using everything that is necessary for liberating themselves from exploitation is beyond me.

The problem is that maintaining the state, while you can more easily organise without it, is to maintain the social injustices connected to it. We must end all social injustices, not just the ones that we think are more important.


As Marx notes: "It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means".

In that case, unless he uses "governmental" as a metaphor, Marx was wrong.
Forcing a deep change in society, because there is no other way to do it, does not require the use of a government. All it takes is people united.


Unlike the Marxists? Marxists don't want social revolution?

I have already answered to this. I was not excluding the marxists, I only said the anarchists, because Bakunin was an anarchist.


The dictatorship of the proletariat is the only form in which the proletariat can achieve liberation.

The use of a state might garantee you victory, but it is to sacrifice liberty and equality for it. If you sacrifice those, even if the revolution succeeds, you will have achieved nothing.


If that is against anarchist theory this only means that the anarchists are against liberation and are nothing but servants of reaction.

That is what Engels said, because he did not understand the anarchist ways. He probably never bothered to study anarchism, and just decided to atribute bad names to it.

[Art Vandelay]

TRA please stop regurgitating your rhetoric and read the article posted; it might go a long way in changing people's perception of you. Here are just a couple highlights from the article:


Getting back to Bakunin’s role in the International, it is well known that Marx complained of the continued existence of the secret Alliance.


Whereas Bakunin tended to identify freedom with natural laws and spontaneity, and thus emphasized the creation of secret groupings of revolutionaries to incite the latent instincts of the masses, Marx emphasized the necessity for the emergence of communist consciousness on a mass scale, which only comes from workers exercising for themselves the creative organizing capacities denied to them in capitalist daily life.


Bakunin had advocated more authority for the General Council before he advocated a General Council without any authority. Marx and Engels referred to Bakunin’s change of position on different occasions as evidence that “the sect [the Alliance] had not donned its anti-authoritarian mask” until its hopes of taking over the General Council were destroyed.


Bakunin:I subordinate from now on all my activities, public and private, literary, political, official, professional, and social to the supreme directives that I receive from the committees of this organization.

To see such “vows” coming from the pen of the great paladin of individual liberty and freedom should at least raise an eyebrow. It is not the only one of Bakunin’s calls for a distinctly authoritarian revolutionary organization.


Some of Bakunin’s criticisms of Marx are truly bizarre. Bakunin believed that “doctrinaire revolutionaries” like Marx and Engels think “that thought precedes life, that abstract theory precedes social practice, that sociology must therefore be the point of departure for social upheavals and reconstructions,” and therefore come to the conclusion “that since thought, theory, and science, at least for the present, are the property of a very few individuals, those few must be the directors of social life.”59 After quoting at length Bakunin’s charges that Marx was using the First International to impose on the world a “government invested with dictatorial powers,” Daniel Guerin comments, “No doubt Bakunin was distorting the thoughts of Marx quite severely in attributing to him such a universally authoritarian concept, but the experience of the Third International has since shown that the danger of which he warned did eventually materialize.”60 This is a curious justification for Bakunin’s criticism: because people have done authoritarian things in Marx’s name, Bakunin’s elaborate straw-man argument becomes retroactively vindicated.


Marx’s opposition to authoritarian methods of organization reflects his long-standing belief in the importance of workers’ democracy. This was thus the basis for his rejection of Bakunin’s brand of vanguardism. As we have seen, Marx considered Bakunin’s emphasis on a tightly knit revolutionary general staff to be misguided. Far from being a consistent critic of authoritarianism, Bakunin mixed his elaborate praise for abstract liberty with an authoritarian organizational outlook.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It was incredibly simple, wasn't it?
And incredibly stupid.



Force is necessary for almost every action in daily life, to defend a life free of authority is to go towards extreme individualism. Relations of authority must be voluntary, not forced. Authority will exist as long as societies exist, but forced authority can be ended.

The authority of the proletariat is voluntary. Maybe not for the bourgeoisie. But what else do you want? Kindly asking the bourgeoisie if we can perhaps change society? Good luck with that!



The problem is that maintaining the state, while you can more easily organise without it, is to maintain the social injustices connected to it. We must end all social injustices, not just the ones that we think are more important.

The organisation takes the form of a state. There are no magical social injustices connected to the state. The state is there because the oppressed take power and use it to transform society, if that is not ending social injustice then I don't know what is.



In that case, unless he uses "governmental" as a metaphor, Marx was wrong.
Forcing a deep change in society, because there is no other way to do it, does not require the use of a government. All it takes is people united.

Oh so when the people are united society will magically transform. If only we are friendly to each other! My god, your politics sounds more like My Little Pony episodes than serious political theory.



The use of a state might garantee you victory, but it is to sacrifice liberty and equality for it. If you sacrifice those, even if the revolution succeeds, you will have achieved nothing.

What liberty? What equality? If there is no liberty and equality in bourgeois society there is nothing that was sacrificed. No, on the contrary. The use a state is needed to achieve liberty and equality, or in grown-up terms; abolishing class-society.



That is what Engels said, because he did not understand the anarchist ways. He probably never bothered to study anarchism, and just decided to atribute bad names to it.

He had worked with anarchists in an organization. He knew much more than you ever will about marxism because you just call it boring, Engels had a critique before he came to the conclusion that anarchists serve reaction.

[Tim Cornelis]

Bakunin proposes that we ignore the material conditions that led to the creation of the state, and just abolish it, therefore taking away the proletariats means to defend itself.

Technically the state this did not arose out of material conditions per se, but the social conditions, namely class antagonisms, that prevailed as a result of the material conditions. Hence, Bakunin did not ignore the material conditions as they do not enter the equation. And it does not follow from Bakunin's rhetorical or semantical difference regarding the definition of a state that this withholds the proletarian's means of defence. Bakunin certainly did not object the use of violence to defend the revolution, and hence the means of defence of the proletariat was not taken away.


Marx defended that there had to be a workers state in the phase known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. All states are inherently authoritarian and opressive towards the working classes.
Bakunin defended the state had to be abolished in order to end opression and inequality. If the state is used, the social injustices that are associated with it continue to exist.
To conclude, Marx is an authoritarian because he wants to use a state, Bakunin is not because he does not want to use a state.

Self-managed soviets and self-governed communes that deploy violence against the (former) bourgeoisie would be considered a state by Marxists. How is this oppressive against workers?




He had worked with anarchists in an organization. He knew much more than you ever will about marxism because you just call it boring, Engels had a critique before he came to the conclusion that anarchists serve reaction.

How do anarchists serve reaction? I don't recall Engels ever making that claim, nor Marx.

[Art Vandelay]

How do anarchists serve reaction? I don't recall Engels ever making that claim, nor Marx.

I'll let those who you addressed, respond to your other claims, but as far as this one goes:


Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction. - Engels; On Authority; 1872.

[Brutus]

They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions
Yup. Communists don't want social revolution

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

How do anarchists serve reaction? I don't recall Engels ever making that claim, nor Marx.

The anti-authoritarian anarchists like TRA23 certainely do.
Actually Engels said it in an article on Authority:
"Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

If you read the polemics and articles Marx and Engels wrote on anarchists you definitely get the feeling the considered them that.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'll let those who you addressed, respond to your other claims, but as far as this one goes:

Ah my bad, you responded before me.

[Art Vandelay]

Ah my bad, you responded before me.

Engel's 'On Authority' was a direct response to Bakunin's 1871 article 'What is Authority' where he makes his famous claim that when it comes to boots, he defers to the authority of the boot maker. Both articles are short and give a good overview of the two sides arguments.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Engel's 'On Authority' was a direct response to Bakunin's 1871 article 'What is Authority' where he makes his famous claim that when it comes to boots, he defers to the authority of the boot maker. Both articles are short and give a good overview of the two sides arguments.

Yeah, I, like, know.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

The authority of the proletariat is voluntary. Maybe not for the bourgeoisie. But what else do you want? Kindly asking the bourgeoisie if we can perhaps change society? Good luck with that!

I am not a pacifist. It is a good question to ask about anarchism: Must we opress others in order to reach liberty?
The Liberty I speak of is Anarchy. We have an ultimate goal which will liberate all humanity. Our goal is not to not violate the freedom of others, it is to reach Anarchy, Liberty. Any who stand against our way to Liberty are opressors, and must either move, or be moved.
The conclusion we can take from this is that anarchism sees only one Liberty - Anarchy - which is the ultimate goal. To violate someone's rights in order to reach Anarchy does not go against anarchist theory, because there is only one Liberty.


The organisation takes the form of a state.

Marx refered "governemntal", does this mean that state would be similar to the states of today's bourgeois dictatorship?


There are no magical social injustices connected to the state.

They are hardly magical. The state maintains inequality and opression, which are social injustices.


The state is there because the oppressed take power and use it to transform society, if that is not ending social injustice then I don't know what is.

The state cannot do that. It can only work for the ruling classes, never for the working classes.
Even if it could be used by the working classes, it would be the other way around: it would be the state using the working classes to opress the ruling classes. Even if that was not the case, the working classes do not need the state to reach Liberty.


Oh so when the people are united society will magically transform. If only we are friendly to each other! My god, your politics sounds more like My Little Pony episodes than serious political theory.

You have associated magic to me so many times that I begin to think I am a wizard!
What makes you think organising without the use of a state is the same as doing nothing and waiting for change to happen?
It is like you think the state means action.


What liberty? What equality? If there is no liberty and equality in bourgeois society there is nothing that was sacrificed.

You have missunderstood me. I was refering to the liberties won after social revolution.


He had worked with anarchists in an organization. He knew much more than you ever will about marxism because you just call it boring, Engels had a critique before he came to the conclusion that anarchists serve reaction.

Then Engels' conclusion was wrong.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

TRA please stop regurgitating your rhetoric and read the article posted; it might go a long way in changing people's perception of you. Here are just a couple highlights from the article:

It seems like Bakunin was a hypocrite.
I have never actualy read much of Bakunin.


The anti-authoritarian anarchists like TRA23 certainely do.

You think I am a liberal! You considered I thought that there are freedoms in capitalist society! You think I am a pacifist! You think I beleive in innaction to achieve Anarchy!

Many things you think about me are wrong. You should stop seeing me as a liberal.

Maybe I am horrible at expressing myself in english, and make everyone think I am a liberal, when I am truly not.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Self-managed soviets and self-governed communes that deploy violence against the (former) bourgeoisie would be considered a state by Marxists. How is this oppressive against workers?

Marxists use horrible definitions of state. Nobody else uses that definition, only the marxists! It is extremely hard to explain to someone that the marxist definition of state is not the one everyone else uses!

The marxist definition of state is not compatible with the anarchist definition of state, because, by the marxist definition, anarchists are statists.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Marx refered "governemntal", does this mean that state would be similar to the states of today's bourgeois dictatorship?

I think his use of governmental was wrong, but anyways no it would be a proletarian dictatorship which is nothing like a bourgeois dictatorship since it relies on the rule of the majority.


They are hardly magical. The state maintains inequality and opression, which are social injustices.

The bourgeois state does, the proletarian state fights against the former ruling class to destroy inequality and oppression.



The state cannot do that. It can only work for the ruling classes, never for the working classes.

The working class would be the ruling class in the proletarian dictatorship, as the term implies.


Even if it could be used by the working classes, it would be the other way around: it would be the state using the working classes to opress the ruling classes. Even if that was not the case, the working classes do not need the state to reach Liberty.

The proletarian state is different from the bourgeois state. The proletarian state is constructed in a way that make the proletariat able to rule.


You have associated magic to me so many times that I begin to think I am a wizard!
What makes you think organising without the use of a state is the same as doing nothing and waiting for change to happen?
It is like you think the state means action.

The state is needed to retain state-power, so not doing that is indeed doing nothing because you would not supress counter-revolutionary elements.


You have missunderstood me. I was refering to the liberties won after social revolution.

After the social-revolution, that is when classes are gone, the state would disappear so your argument falls flat because there wouldn't be a state to take away liberty.


Then Engels' conclusion was wrong.

Prove it.

[Art Vandelay]

It seems like Bakunin was a hypocrite.
I have never actualy read much of Bakunin.

Dear god, so then why the fuck are you running around this thread, pretending like you know what you are talking about and claiming Bakunin was an anti-authoritarian when (a) you didn't read the article posted (b) you haven't ever even read much Bakunin and (c) you just admitted to his authoritarian ways.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Dear god, so then why the fuck are you running around this thread, pretending like you know what you are talking about and claiming Bakunin was an anti-authoritarian when (a) you didn't read the article posted (b) you haven't ever even read much Bakunin and (c) you just admitted to his authoritarian ways.

I am just here for the discussion.

This whole discussion is based around the marxist definition of state, which I refuse to use.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

You think I am a liberal! You considered I thought that there are freedoms in capitalist society! You think I am a pacifist! You think I beleive in innaction to achieve Anarchy!

Many things you think about me are wrong. You should stop seeing me as a liberal.

Maybe I am horrible at expressing myself in english, and make everyone think I am a liberal, when I am truly not.

If it talks like a liberal and it walks like a liberal it might as well be a liberal.

Sure I can see there being a language barrier but really it seems a bit of a cop-out since you make bold claims and then when you are proven wrong you say this.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I am just here for the discussion.

This whole discussion is based around the marxist definition of state, which I refuse to use.

What is that definition and why do you refuse it?
I am getting the feeling you do not know actually what the definition of the state is fir marxists.

[Art Vandelay]

I am just here for the discussion.

This whole discussion is based around the marxist definition of state, which I refuse to use.

No its not and you've clearly still not read the article. Regardless of whether or not you consider Bakunin an anti-statist is irrelevant. The reason Marx called him an authoritarian was due to his conspiratorial ways and his own conception of a vanguard. This has nothing to do with the Marxist conception of the state. Instead of actually engaging with other people's arguments (which one has to do before they're even capable of having a discussion, so I don't really agree that is what you are here for) you simply continually regurgitate this anti-statist rhetoric. Which is all you post, rhetoric. Seriously, actually listen to others arguments, engage with them, or else just stop spreading your confusion. Bostana had a legitimate question about Bakunin and Marx, and while others tried to point him towards resources that could help him understand this historical fallout of the two, you simply continually makes posts asserting Bakunin to be some anti-authoritarian, when its already been demonstrated he wasn't and you even admit to having not read much Bakunin. So how could you even know?

[Bostana]

Well, while Bakunin makes a good point on how the proletarian state can be taken advantage of, but we can't simply abolish it with one swift move of the hand. As marx said we must take steps to achieve this.

I'm going to start reading Bakunin any books recommended?

[Art Vandelay]

Well, while Bakunin makes a good point on how the proletarian state can be taken advantage of, but we can't simply abolish it with one swift move of the hand. As marx said we must take steps to achieve this.

I'm going to start reading Bakunin any books recommended?

Bakunin is largely irrelevant in modern anarchism, so if you want to read any of his works, just understand its largely from the perspective of historical curiosity. I can remember liking 'God and the State' when I was an anarchist. But in all honesty, I would have a very negative view of it now. If you want to read some anarchist literature, there is alot better stuff out there.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I think his use of governmental was wrong, but anyways no it would be a proletarian dictatorship which is nothing like a bourgeois dictatorship since it relies on the rule of the majority.

How does that work?


The proletarian state is different from the bourgeois state. The proletarian state is constructed in a way that make the proletariat able to rule.

The bourgeois states are composed of minorities, and are given great power with the goal of maintaining the capitalist system. A proletarian state must not be composed of a minority with great power, because that would result in the death of the revolution, as seen in the USSR. It would have to be a state composed of a majority with power distributed amongst many.


The state is needed to retain state-power, so not doing that is indeed doing nothing because you would not supress counter-revolutionary elements.

???
One does not need a state in order to kill a fascist. In the same way, one does not need a state in order to collectivise.


After the social-revolution, that is when classes are gone, the state would disappear so your argument falls flat because there wouldn't be a state to take away liberty.

Your state must be really special in order to be able to be controlled by the proletariat and disapear when the proletariat does not need it anymore.


Prove it.

If it served the reaction it would not fight for the revolution and emancipation of the proletariat. Unless we are double agents!

[Blake's Baby]

What is that definition and why do you refuse it?
I am getting the feeling you do not know actually what the definition of the state is fir marxists.

Oh, RA23 knows what the Marxist definition of the state is. He just refuses to accept it because using a Marxist definition of the state, Anarchists are statists, and using an Anarchist definition Marxists are not statists.

So he uses an Anarchist definition when talking about Anarchists ('they're not statists!') and a Marxist definition when talking about Marxists ('they're statists!'). Even when the Marxists and Anarchists are talking about the same thing, ie the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The bourgeois states are composed of minorities, and are given great power with the goal of maintaining the capitalist system. A proletarian state must not be composed of a minority with great power, because that would result in the death of the revolution, as seen in the USSR. It would have to be a state composed of a majority with power distributed amongst many.

I'd pretty much agree with you on that,


???
One does not need a state in order to kill a fascist. In the same way, one does not need a state in order to collectivise.


Why not?


Your state must be really special in order to be able to be controlled by the proletariat and disapear when the proletariat does not need it anymore.

Well, the proletariat would cease to be existing after the social revolution because classes have disappeared. The state being a tool of class-oppression would disappear without classes to oppress.



If it served the reaction it would not fight for the revolution and emancipation of the proletariat. Unless we are double agents!

Stalinists say they are fighting for revolution, they serve reaction.
So anarchists don't serve reaction because you say so? That is no argument!
You might say so but the actions are not in favour of revolution or emancipation.

[Brutus]

The state is a tool for the ruling class to oppress its class enemies with. It's not some evil, sentient being intent on oppressing all workers.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I'd pretty much agree with you on that,


So your definition of state supports both authoritarian and non-authoritarian forms of organisation?


Why not?

If a man has the will and a weapon in his hands, he will kill a fascist wether there is a state or not.


Well, the proletariat would cease to be existing after the social revolution because classes have disappeared. The state being a tool of class-oppression would disappear without classes to oppress.

In that case the proletariat is the state. It would make way more sense if seen that way. The proletariat has no more reasons to fight, therefore it stops organising to do so.


Stalinists say they are fighting for revolution, they serve reaction.
So anarchists don't serve reaction because you say so? That is no argument!
You might say so but the actions are not in favour of revolution or emancipation.

I would not say the stalinists serve the reaction, but their actions lead to the victory of the reaction. They serve the reaction without even knowing it.

You are right, it is no argument. Anarchists will fight together with the communists against the reaction until the communists create an authoritarian state. At that point the anarchists will fight both the reaction and the communists, because in our point of view, any who use an authoritarian state are part of the reaction and must be fought against.


Oh, RA23 knows what the Marxist definition of the state is. He just refuses to accept it because using a Marxist definition of the state, Anarchists are statists, and using an Anarchist definition Marxists are not statists.

So he uses an Anarchist definition when talking about Anarchists ('they're not statists!') and a Marxist definition when talking about Marxists ('they're statists!'). Even when the Marxists and Anarchists are talking about the same thing, ie the dictatorship of the proletariat.

You have the answers! From now on it is post #37 that explains everything!

The only thing wrong with it is you forgot the T in the abreviation of my username: TRA23.

[Brutus]

But post #37 is BB proving your hypocrisy/stupidity

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

So your definition of state supports both authoritarian and non-authoritarian forms of organisation?

Yes authoritarian towards the bourgeoisie and non-authoritarian, because it is rule by, the proletariat.


If a man has the will and a weapon in his hands, he will kill a fascist wether there is a state or not.

Ok.


In that case the proletariat is the state. It would make way more sense if seen that way. The proletariat has no more reasons to fight, therefore it stops organising to do so.

Yeah they are the state in a sense, but until class-society is gone the state is needed, when it's gone it will cease to exist.


I would not say the stalinists serve the reaction, but their actions lead to the victory of the reaction. They serve the reaction without even knowing it.

Same for anarchists.


I think it is quite funny you think a post showing how your way of argumenting is wrong is the truth.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

But post #37 is BB proving your hypocrisy/stupidity

It is not wrong to see things as they are.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

It is not wrong to see things as they are.

Ok so you are a hypocrite. Well that is nice to know.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I think it is quite funny you think a post showing how your way of argumenting is wrong is the truth.

Of course my way of argumenting is wrong!
I have known the marxist definition of state for ages. I refuse to use it because it is not compatible with anarchism.
If I did not refuse to use the marxist definition of state, there would be almost no arguments.

You still have to explain to me why your state is non-authoritarian and the stalinist state is authoritarian.

[Fionnagáin]

Oh, RA23 knows what the Marxist definition of the state is. He just refuses to accept it because using a Marxist definition of the state, Anarchists are statists, and using an Anarchist definition Marxists are not statists.
As if there is such a thing as "the" Marxist definition of the state? As if even Marx himself ever presented us with a coherent, developed theory of the state, or applied such a theory consistently across his work?


Engel's 'On Authority' was a direct response to Bakunin's 1871 article 'What is Authority' where he makes his famous claim that when it comes to boots, he defers to the authority of the boot maker. Both articles are short and give a good overview of the two sides arguments.
"On Authority" is not a robust text. At one point in the text Engels observes that the authority of the state is nothing compared to the authority of the factory clock, true in itself, but then allows his argument to roll smugly to a halt, as if this were somehow a defence of the state, and not an argument for the abolition of the factory!

One can argue against the anarchist fetish for "decentralisation". But to assume that centralisation necessarily takes the form it does in capitalism, and consequentially produces the same systems of authority, that these are both natural and inevitable consequences of a given level of technological development - there is no other word for that but "bourgeois".


The state is a tool for the ruling class to oppress its class enemies with. It's not some evil, sentient being intent on oppressing all workers.
I'm not so sure. I think there's an argument that the state-complex participates in the class struggle as a diffuse but ultimately coherent agent, and that its role in this struggle is the use of co-option and coercion to reproduce the worker-as-worker. Which is to say that, literally, the state is an evil, sentiment being intent on oppressing all workers. I prefer my phrasing, of course, a little less cartoonish, but there's not a world between them.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

First of all, let's look at this from a materialist perspective.

Comrade Walrus said that the proletarian state is voluntary for proletarians. This is not true, during a civil war the Boshelvics used conscription, (I can cite Trotsky's military writings if needed) to replenish their ranks because if they didn't the Russian Civil War would have been lost. Additionally they "forced" War Communism on the working class as a means of winning the war. Had they not done this, the war would have been lost. So yes there will be a need for force to maintain production during a civil war period. The point is however, that the majority of the proletariat are exersizing this force, as opposed to a bourgeois minority.

Second, I don't buy the notion that the proletarian state is just the working class being violent towards the bourgeois. We live in the modern world, and the modern world has things like this:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRDdpcdx7DtECmNE9yEl0XD7p_GzZB_8 U3okzYE5Of1SEMzRVB0aQ

And this:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQLmPdEBo6CCy4aBeHCz6hy_H-3thPMbBwuYOR7RXwumiPN4poPw

So when the working class liberates a country, it's first task will be the production of technology for modern warfare. This means taking prisoners of war from the reactionary military, forcing them to manufacture these weapons of war, by torture if they do not do it voluntarily, and organizing a proletarian military force to defend the proletarian dictatorship and give the rest of the working class of the world these new weapons in their fight against capitalism.

So no, a relationship to the means of production doesn't mean that the working class magically attains the ability to destroy the military might of reaction with it's mere willpower, because that is an idealist conception of class.

What the point of the proletarian state is, that these state activities are indeed inherently oppressive, but that the class being oppressed is the bourgeois, and that the state is run with the direct democracy of the working class, where the majority of the working class has hold over the means of political and economic government.


Also I'll add this as an edit because it doesn't merit it's own reply:


As if there is such a thing as "the" Marxist definition of the state? As if even Marx himself ever presented us with a coherent, developed theory of the state, or applied such a theory consistently across his work?
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously, do you know Anything about Marxism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

*by torture if they do not do it voluntarily,

What's up with you and such barbaric practices? First lynching, now torture... :(

[Os Cangaceiros]

Political minoritarian sects violently forcing their ideological hubris down the throats of their "constituents" has a great track record of success for creating tolerable standards of living, so I don't know what could go wrong. Dragging your ass off to a factory for 10+ hours a day, lest you be arrested and tortured for being a "social parasite", doesn't that sound like the epitome of a great future and working class empowerment?

[Bostana]

This means taking prisoners of war from the reactionary military, forcing them to manufacture these weapons of war, by torture if they do not do it voluntarily]

Holy Hell :blink:

Thats a little messed up

[Art Vandelay]

As if there is such a thing as "the" Marxist definition of the state? As if even Marx himself ever presented us with a coherent, developed theory of the state, or applied such a theory consistently across his work?

Marxism isn't merely the teachings of Marx, but also the advancements made my later Marxists as well.


"On Authority" is not a robust text.

Which is why I made the comment that it is merely a short example of the two sides in the argument.


One can argue against the anarchist fetish for "decentralisation".

Which I have criticized in the past, just as I've criticized many Marxists fetish of centralization.


But to assume that centralisation necessarily takes the form it does in capitalism, and consequentially produces the same systems of authority, that these are both natural and inevitable consequences of a given level of technological development - there is no other word for that but "bourgeois".

I haven't seen one person make that argument though, so I don't see how this is relevant.

[svenne]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously, do you know Anything about Marxism?

I'd love if you could point out where Marx (and/or Engels) puts forward a definition of the state that they use everytime they refer to the state. It seems that you've found something a lot of people has missed. Maybe you have that book Marx was thinking about writing, about the state, when he was finished with Capital? If that's the case, i really want a copy. Cheers!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Bronco]

Bakunin I do not believe was a materialist (correct me if I'm wrong) and was rather a Left Hegelian idealist (not in the pejorative sense).


"Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history."

- God and the State, chapter 1, first paragraph

[Bronco]

Well, while Bakunin makes a good point on how the proletarian state can be taken advantage of, but we can't simply abolish it with one swift move of the hand. As marx said we must take steps to achieve this.

I'm going to start reading Bakunin any books recommended?

'God and the State' is his best known work but it's not that comprehensive and was originally intended as part of a greater work which he never got round to finishing. A couple of other pieces I'd recommend are 'The Capitalist System' (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/capstate.html) which is basic but very solid critque of capitalism, and 'Marxism, Freedom and the State' (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/index.htm) which is his account of the split between himself and Marx and where he saw the fundamental differences to lie. It's been ages since I read any Bakunin but I remember those two as being pretty good when I was first getting to grips with anarchism

[Brutus]

What's up with you and such barbaric practices? First lynching, now torture... :(

I suppose we could ask them really nicely...

[Fionnagáin]

Marxism isn't merely the teachings of Marx, but also the advancements made my later Marxists as well.
Okay, firstly? Talking about the "teachings of Marx" makes you sound like a weirdo. Guy was a philosopher and theorist, not a guru.

Second, I don't really see what this proves one way or the other. The grand sweep of Marxist theorists produces even less agreement on a theory of state than you'll find with Marx.


Which is why I made the comment that it is merely a short example of the two sides in the argument.
Yes, and I think it is a very poor one.


I haven't seen one person make that argument though, so I don't see how this is relevant.
Engels, in "On Authority". Would be the obvious.



:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Seriously, do you know Anything about Marxism?
Where do you think I've gone wrong?


I suppose we could ask them really nicely...
It would certainly be preferably to barbarism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But post #37 is BB proving your hypocrisy/stupidityAs a note to everyone (because it's not just Odysseus) please don't call people "stupid" - particularly in learning.

There's a linguistic trick people can use which is less polarizing and personal: "that argument is stupid" or "you're a hypocrite" rather than "you are stupid for making X argument". Even then it could be put in a more productive way, but this being the internet and all just a little moderation of tone would be good step.

[Luís Henrique]

The easy way to put it is that Marx was authoritarian, and Bakunin was not.

And the correct way to put it is that Bakunin was authoritarian, wanting a dictatorship of his clique, while Marx was not.


We must bring forth anarchy, and in the midst of the popular tempest, we must be the invisible pilots guiding the Revolution, not by any kind of overt power but by the collective dictatorship of all our allies, a dictatorship without tricks, without official titles, without official rights, and therefore all the more powerful, as it does not carry the trappings of power. This is the only dictatorship I will accept, but in order to act, it must first be created, it must be prepared and organized in advance, for it will not come into being by itself, neither by discussions, nor by theoretical disputations, nor by mass propaganda meetings...

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

"Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history."

- God and the State, chapter 1, first paragraph


Yes, but Bakunin seems to suggest in relation to Marx that Marx is a materialist much more than he is and that he based his thought on more than just economics.

"As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is, incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical observations... He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right" - Bakuni after meeting Marx.


Basically, my question to you is : despite Bakunin's admission that Marx's materialism is true, is Bakunin's ideology really materialist? Catchism of a Revolutionary, which is supposedly written by both him and the other Russian romanticist, Netchaiev, is not a piece of material analysis. Does that make it invalid?

[Fionnagáin]

And the correct way to put it is that Bakunin was authoritarian, wanting a dictatorship of his clique, while Marx was not.
"Also stupid, but in a different way" is not the same thing as "correct".

[Fourth Internationalist]

I suppose we could ask them really nicely...

Yeah, because the answer is either torture or pacifism. Nothing in between, no, of course not...

[Art Vandelay]

Okay, firstly? Talking about the "teachings of Marx" makes you sound like a weirdo. Guy was a philosopher and theorist, not a guru.

Heh fair enough, probably wasn't the best phrase to use, that being said, I'm far from one who simply takes Marx's word as gospel.


Second, I don't really see what this proves one way or the other. The grand sweep of Marxist theorists produces even less agreement on a theory of state than you'll find with Marx.

That's simply false. Lenin wrote an entire text on it for example. Regardless the general Marxist conception of the state is that it is an institution through which a class exerts its hegemony.


Yes, and I think it is a very poor one.

Commenting that Engel's 'On Authority' and Bakunin's 'What is Authority' are short overviews of the two sides of the argument, is a very poor comment? Whatever, since that couldn't be further from the case, unless you seem to know what these two people thought, better then themselves.


Engels, in "On Authority". Would be the obvious.

Except that he doesn't make that argument whatsoever.

[Ret]

Regarding Adam's article previously linked to; for a very different Marxist interpretation of the clash in the First International, one arguably much more even-handed, see;
http://libcom.org/library/bakunin-marx-split-1st-international-franz-mehring

[Fionnagáin]

That's simply false. Lenin wrote an entire text on it for example. Regardless the general Marxist conception of the state is that it is an institution through which a class exerts its hegemony.
But that isn't a theory. That isn't even a definition. What that is, is a loose and extremely partial description.


Commenting that Engel's 'On Authority' and Bakunin's 'What is Authority' are short overviews of the two sides of the argument, is a very poor comment? Whatever, since that couldn't be further from the case, unless you seem to know what these two people thought, better then themselves.
The examples given are poor, and the comment is poor as a result. Those are sub-par texts by long-dead writers, so can't be expected to stand as representative of contemporary debate.


Except that he doesn't make that argument whatsoever.
I believe he does. There's a few token calls for "democracy" and majority rule and all the rest of it, sure enough, but you can find that in any co-op; socialism it is not. His argument that even with the abolition of the social division of labour a technical division of labour entails the reproduction of authoritarian modes of social organisation, but this assumes that a technical division of labour is not itself social, is not premised upon a certain social division of labour, while any really serious examination of the capitalist production process conducted over the twentieth century has found just that. It's a bourgeois view, plain and simple.

[Brutus]

Yeah, because the answer is either torture or pacifism. Nothing in between, no, of course not...

YABM isn't claiming all counter revolutionaries should be tortured. They are saying that, if necessary, then we will torture.

[Fionnagáin]

YABM isn't claiming all counter revolutionaries should be tortured. They are saying that, if necessary, then we will torture.
He's saying that torture should be used as a form of industrial discipline. Something hardly captured by your euphemistic "if necessary".

[Bronco]

Yes, but Bakunin seems to suggest in relation to Marx that Marx is a materialist much more than he is and that he based his thought on more than just economics.

"As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is, incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical observations... He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right" - Bakuni after meeting Marx.


Basically, my question to you is : despite Bakunin's admission that Marx's materialism is true, is Bakunin's ideology really materialist? Catchism of a Revolutionary, which is supposedly written by both him and the other Russian romanticist, Netchaiev, is not a piece of material analysis. Does that make it invalid?

That quote is more Bakunin renouncing the idealism of his youth if anything, it also shows that for all the animosity they might have held towards each other Bakunin always did have a huge amount of respect for Marx and agreed with a lot of his thought. It is by no means certain that Bakunin co-authored 'Catechism of a Revolutionary', in fact Bakunin wrote to Nechayev in 1870 (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchists/bakunin/writings/nechayev_secret_disagree.html) denouncing him

Bakunin was a materialist, but he did not believe that that obliged him to treat the course of history with indifference. In the first chapter of 'Marxism, Freedom and the State' (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/ch02.htm)he describes his own materialism:


We, who are Materialists and Determinists, just as much as Marx himself, we also recognize the inevitable linking of economic and political facts in history. We recognize, indeed, the necessity, the inevitable character of all events that happen, but we do not bow before them indifferently and above all we are very careful about praising them when, by their nature, they show themselves in flagrant opposition to the supreme end of history to the thoroughly human ideal that is to be found under more or less obvious forms, in the instincts, the aspirations of the people and under all the religious symbols of all epochs, because it is inherent in the human race, the most social of all the races of animals on earth. Thus this ideal, to-day better understood than ever, can be summed up in the words: It is the triumph of humanity, it is the conquest and accomplishment of the full freedom and full development, material, intellectual and moral, of every individual, by the absolutely free and spontaneous organization of economic and social solidarity as completely as possible between all human beings living on the earth

So anything that went against that ideal or prevented its realisation, though it might have been inevitable and a result of material conditions, he still condemned and thought we should acknowledge its detrimental impact on humanity, and he gives a few examples to that effect.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with Bakunin and it's true that as several people have said he isn't particularly relevant today in terms of anarchist theory, but I do think we should acknowledge the role he played in shaping the anarchist movement and anarchist thought in the 19th century, his ideas might not have stood the test of time as well as Marx's but he's still well worth reading imo

[RebelDog]

Bakunin's theory that 'workers states' would be another tyranny is, to quote Chomsky: 'one of the few far reaching predictions in the social sciences that really came true.'

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think some anarchists subconsciously dislike Marxism for its cold, analytic, scientific (one might say boring :rolleyes:) style, as opposed to that of the anarchists which is much more poetic. Outraged at themselves over being moved by style over substance, they go on to a state of denial and just rage against Marx without bothering to wrestle with the content and context of the Marx Bakunin debate.

Or at least, that seems to be whats going on in this thread.

[Fionnagáin]

Bakunin's theory that 'workers states' would be another tyranny is, to quote Chomsky: 'one of the few far reaching predictions in the social sciences that really came true.'
Only superficially. What Bakunin imagined and what actually occurred are two very different things- if only because what Marx imagined and what actually occurred are two very different things. Neither of them predicted the soviets, or saw how soviet power could dissolve into party-dictatorship.

And that's why this whole re-tread of "Marx vs. Bakunin" is basically ridiculous: neither of them provide a sufficient account of the last hundred and thirty years of class struggle, of the revolt and revolutions that followed their deaths, so why attempt to find that in their work? Whatever insights they have should be taken for what they are, not reconstructed as some prophetic truth that, like Nostradamus, needed the right sort of hindsight to be recognised.


I think some anarchists subconsciously dislike Marxism for its cold, analytic, scientific (one might say boring :rolleyes:) style, as opposed to that of the anarchists which is much more poetic. Outraged at themselves over being moved by style over substance, they go on to a state of denial and just rage against Marx without bothering to wrestle with the content and context of the Marx Bakunin debate.

Or at least, that seems to be whats going on in this thread.
Eh, I've read plenty of poetic Marxists and plenty of analytical anarchists. You might say that Marxists don't make a fetish of poetic language, as many anarchists do, and that anarchists don't make a fetish of analytical language, as many Marxists do, but that's hardly the same thing.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I think some anarchists subconsciously dislike Marxism for its cold, analytic, scientific (one might say boring :rolleyes:) style, as opposed to that of the anarchists which is much more poetic. Outraged at themselves over being moved by style over substance, they go on to a state of denial and just rage against Marx without bothering to wrestle with the content and context of the Marx Bakunin debate.

Or at least, that seems to be whats going on in this thread.

Well, that's just bullshit.
If one person wrote quitw poetic it was Marx.
Volume One of Capital includes quotations from Balzac, Cervantes, Dante, Goethe, Homer and Sophocles, whom Marx gave in their original tongues. References to many other poets, dramatists and novelists can be found in his critique of political economy. Hell there is even a book written about Marx' literary reading and the influences of it on his writing (http://www.amazon.com/Karl-Marx-World-Literature-Second/dp/1844677109). Now the difference is that he uses it to describe dense theory and analyses.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Well, that jus bullshit.
If one person wrote quitw poetic it was Marx.
Volume One of Capital includes quotations from Balzac, Cervantes, Dante, Goethe, Homer and Sophocles, whom Marx gave in their original tongues. References to many other poets, dramatists and novelists can be found in his critique of political economy. Hell there is even a book written about Marx' literary reading and the influences of it on his writing (http://www.amazon.com/Karl-Marx-World-Literature-Second/dp/1844677109). Now the difference is that he uses it to describe dense theory and analyses.

Don't get me wrong, Marx is poetic, but perhaps not the Marx or Marxist theory which some people read and read about. I don't think any of the three volumes of Das Kapital are really a good example of Marx's literary poetics either. Sure, it's good analysis, but it's definitely the driest work of his I've come across. I was only speaking of perception, and people forget Marx's poetics and reduce his writing some simplistic cliche.

[Art Vandelay]

But that isn't a theory. That isn't even a definition. What that is, is a loose and extremely partial description.

I don't consider it a loose description what so ever, partial, for sure. Then again generally when people are trying to concisely describe an extremely complex institution, such as the state, the description will be partial. Then again this thread wasn't about what constitutes, in totality, a state.


The examples given are poor, and the comment is poor as a result. Those are sub-par texts by long-dead writers, so can't be expected to stand as representative of contemporary debate.

But this isn't a contemporary debate, the OP started this thread to specifically talk about the Marx/Bakunin conflict, so what are you on about.


I believe he does. There's a few token calls for "democracy" and majority rule and all the rest of it, sure enough, but you can find that in any co-op; socialism it is not. His argument that even with the abolition of the social division of labour a technical division of labour entails the reproduction of authoritarian modes of social organisation, but this assumes that a technical division of labour is not itself social, is not premised upon a certain social division of labour, while any really serious examination of the capitalist production process conducted over the twentieth century has found just that. It's a bourgeois view, plain and simple.

You're entire point however, is based on the premise that a state is necessarily an 'authoritarian' institution. Something I disagree with, as the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy is a false one. It serves to muddle the issue, not enlighten.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And that's why this whole re-tread of "Marx vs. Bakunin" is basically ridiculous: neither of them provide a sufficient account of the last hundred and thirty years of class struggle, of the revolt and revolutions that followed their deaths, so why attempt to find that in their work? Whatever insights they have should be taken for what they are, not reconstructed as some prophetic truth that, like Nostradamus, needed the right sort of hindsight to be recognised.

It isn't ridiculous, because one key aspect of their differences not discussed in this thread shows the hypocrisy of those saying that one side takes its man as "prophetic."

Here, of course, I am referring to contemporaries who share Bakunin's views on strategy.

[Geiseric]

The workers state didn't "lead" to a party dictatorship; the isolation, famine, civil war, and embargo did. Big difference, one that I'm surprised Noam Chomsky, a guy with a good grasp on history, hasn't understood.

[TheEmancipator]

The workers state didn't "lead" to a party dictatorship; the isolation, famine, civil war, and embargo did. Big difference, one that I'm surprised Noam Chomsky, a guy with a good grasp on history, hasn't understood.

The opportunists who took power are not blameless either.

[RebelDog]

The workers state didn't "lead" to a party dictatorship; the isolation, famine, civil war, and embargo did. Big difference, one that I'm surprised Noam Chomsky, a guy with a good grasp on history, hasn't understood.

You clearly haven't studied much Chomsky, or history.

[PhoenixAsh]

Bakunin played his, important, role in Anarchist history. And what most seem to forget is that Marx and Bakunin influenced each other and were actually quite admiring of each other. At least for the larger part.

The main difference between Marx and Bakunin lies in the rejection of the DOTP by the latter. Saying that the DOTP according to Marx would lead to vanguardism trying to implement and enforce its vision and party interests onto the proletariat (including...also contrary to marxism...lumpenproletariat) rather than the proletariat enforcing its vision and interests on society. What Bakunin more or less stated was that a vanguardist party would have its own ideals & interestst and those would be substuituted for actual class interests. Creating a new elite in society.

BUT both Marx and Bakunin agreed on the fact that after the revolution the goal was a society without the institution of government. The argument to the contrary is non sensical and untrue.

There are also a lot of differences into finer details like strategy...and who does and does not belong in the revolutionary class....and how a revolution should look and should be organised.

[PhoenixAsh]

All that said. Bakunin was an anti-semite and a conspiracy nut....with his secret society/army thingy. ;)1

[Geiseric]

You clearly haven't studied much Chomsky, or history.

I've heard his speeches, right out of his mouth, where he incorrectly claims that "Leninism" which isn't actually a thing in the first place; always will lead to a dictatorship.

[Geiseric]

The opportunists who took power are not blameless either.

As in the entire state bureaucracy? Some view the degeneration as impossible to avoid with the economic problems the fSU faced due to the revolution not spreading.

[PhoenixAsh]

I've heard his speeches, right out of his mouth, where he incorrectly claims that "Leninism which isn't actually a thing in the first place; always will lead to a dictatorship.

I am curious...what do you mean Leninism is not a thing? I was under the impression that Leninism is an interpretation of and expansion on Marxism. And I am definately under the impression that Leninism will always degenerate into dictatorship and hierarchical elitism. For something fhat isn't a thing....it sure had a huge impact. But maybe I misunderstood you

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I am curious...what do you mean Leninism is not a thing? I was under the impression that Leninism is an interpretation of and expansion on Marxism. And I am definately under the impression that Leninism will always degenerate into dictatorship and hierarchical elitism. For something fhat isn't a thing....it sure had a huge impact. But maybe I misunderstood you

Well there isn't much new Lenin added to marxist theory.
Imperialism often gets named, but there was much discussion about that before he wrote his book. Hell, the title of the book ('A Popular Outline') indicates that it was not really new.
Lenin used the word 'vanguard party' maybe twice in his entire collection of works, so that isn't it either.
'Democratic Centralism' as a term he used after the Mensheviks started using it and it was never really an important thing (Lars Lih wrote an excellent article about that (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/957/democratic-centralism-fortunes-of-a-formula))

Lenin himself almost always said that what he was saying was nothing new, but that his opponents forgot and distorted the lessons of the past and theories of Marx. Especially in the years leading up to the revolution, so 1914 till 1917, quite often he says, in various ways: 'I am just saying what everybody else was saying. This was the educated Marxist consensus which is now being betrayed.'
Something which earlier mentioned historian Lars Lih calls "agressive unoriginality".

I have a hard time finding anything new in Lenin.
But maybe you can educate me, what was so new in Lenin's writings that is so original that it deserves its own tendency called Leninism?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

For one thing, for Marx it seems like the Communist party is lead by the Proletariat into power and is basically the machine of the Proletariat running society. For Lenin, the Proletariat wasn't sufficiently well organized, large enough or well educated enough to manage society and so the Communist party needed to lead the Proletariat in a certain sense. This is perhaps why Leninism is more problematic than what Marx envisioned - Marx thought that the Proletariat would liberate itself through founding and empowering the Communist Party, whereas for Lenin the Vanguard party had to take over society somewhat on its own.

At least, that seems to be where Lenin takes his notion of the vanguard. Then again, I haven't read much of Marx's theory of how the radical political party would work, so maybe Lenin is closer to the original Marx than this reading suggests, but it does seem like Lenin is quicker to say that the party should really lead the working class because the radicalized working class is too weak alone to take power.

Bakunin, I think, was focusing on the fact that if there is a state, there is some kind of alienation and loss of accountability. A state is inherently less accountable to those outside of the state. The problem for Marxists is that is a kind of fetishization of the "State", seeing it as different from any other institution. For Marx, the State is a response to historical pressures, and the only way of overcoming those pressures is to create a new State which tries to overcome them. It is the eventual overthrow of the State which Bakunin, Marx and Lenin all seem to agree with, but for Bakunin you cannot have an "interim" state doing the job.

[TheEmancipator]

As in the entire state bureaucracy? Some view the degeneration as impossible to avoid with the economic problems the fSU faced due to the revolution not spreading.

I meant opportunists as in the figureheads of the Bolshevik revolution who seized power and concentrated it in the hands of the few instead of the proletariat and peasantry.

The supposed "vanguard" became a joke, a new artificial class that simply replaced the bourgeoisie as owners of capital. The management of non-urban areas in Russia at the time was akin to feudal, warlord society. Bullies with the party's backing, essentially, in exchange for tribute.

The reason the revolution did not spread is because it never succeeded in the first place. While Lenin was busy theorizing and openly terrorising western Russia, he failed to stop brutal warlords posing as allies of the Party ruthlessly exploiting Russia economically. Then he fell in love with himself of course, like all dictators and Russia became another 1-man tyranny. The state bureaucracy was the last of the USSR's problems IMO. Nor was the "spread of the revolution" some kind of excuse for becoming a state capitalist imperialist nation.

Now if we had a Bakuninist revolution, no doubt urban areas would turn into something more similar to the Paris Communes while the peasantry would emancipate themselves from feudalistic conditions and collectivize the goods by themselves instead of at the end of a gunpoint. While this would mean Russia would be defenseless, I do not buy this idea that somehow Lenin and Stalin's economic models and military nous helped the USSR defeat Nazi Germany. the Wermacht never stood a chance the minute they tried to invade geographic Russia.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well there isn't much new Lenin added to marxist theory.
Imperialism often gets named, but there was much discussion about that before he wrote his book. Hell, the title of the book ('A Popular Outline') indicates that it was not really new.
Lenin used the word 'vanguard party' maybe twice in his entire collection of works, so that isn't it either.
'Democratic Centralism' as a term he used after the Mensheviks started using it and it was never really an important thing (Lars Lih wrote an excellent article about that (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/957/democratic-centralism-fortunes-of-a-formula))

Lenin himself almost always said that what he was saying was nothing new, but that his opponents forgot and distorted the lessons of the past and theories of Marx. Especially in the years leading up to the revolution, so 1914 till 1917, quite often he says, in various ways: 'I am just saying what everybody else was saying. This was the educated Marxist consensus which is now being betrayed.'
Something which earlier mentioned historian Lars Lih calls "agressive unoriginality".

I have a hard time finding anything new in Lenin.
But maybe you can educate me, what was so new in Lenin's writings that is so original that it deserves its own tendency called Leninism?

Except for the fact that the comintern and international specifically gave that label to the specific interpretation of Marx by Lenin and the additions and changes he made. Which should be enough of a hint that it is definately different from Marxism itself...otherwise it would still be called Marxism and not Marxism-Leninism.

Lenin departed from the position that capitalism was the root cause of inequality and identified imperialism as the bigger threat....contradicting Marx per necessity...

Where Leninism also differs from Marxism is the emphasize on Vanguardism as a practical means to gain power...as indeed SCM explained in his post....through revolutionary cadres. More specifically through the use of terror and oppression directed NOT by the proletariat but by the revolutionary cadres. In fact....the vanguard party according to Lenin should preferably NOT be run by workers at all...

So yeah...there is your difference. Pretty big ones by the way.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Except for the fact that the comintern and international specifically gave that label to the specific interpretation of Marx by Lenin and the additions and changes he made. Which should be enough of a hint that it is definately different from Marxism itself...otherwise it would still be called Marxism and not Marxism-Leninism.

Marxism-Leninism as a tendency came to be after his death.


Lenin departed from the position that capitalism was the root cause of inequality and identified imperialism as the bigger threat....contradicting Marx per necessity...

No he didn't. He saw imperialism as a stage of capitalist economics.
But if you want to go by the "imperialism is just invading other countries"-standard, read any writing during the first world war and he would ridicule people who thought that you could stop the war without destroying its root cause, capitalism.


Where Leninism also differs from Marxism is the emphasize on Vanguardism as a practical means to gain power...as indeed SCM explained in his post....through revolutionary cadres. More specifically through the use of terror and oppression directed NOT by the proletariat but by the revolutionary cadres. In fact....the vanguard party according to Lenin should preferably NOT be run by workers at all...

Where does he say that?


So yeah...there is your difference. Pretty big ones by the way.

Well if anything you make up in your pretty mind is seen as a difference, yeah you're right. However these things can only be found in your mind, not in Lenin.

[redfist.]

That is not what I read in the Communist Manifesto:



I started a thread on the 10 planks of Communism a while back, and was told that the 10 planks were not representative of Marx's later views, and that they were part of an infantile stage, and were outdated. Unfortunately, I cannot link to the thread, but you can find it on my profile.

[Art Vandelay]

I meant opportunists as in the figureheads of the Bolshevik revolution who seized power and concentrated it in the hands of the few instead of the proletariat and peasantry.

The fact that you think that power should have been consolidated into both the hands of the proletariat and peasantry, says alot about your politics. The peasantry is a generally reactionary class, which needed to be temporarily bought off, not empowered.


The reason the revolution did not spread is because it never succeeded in the first place.

This is just absurd, to be quite honest. I didn't realize that the Russian Revolution, didn't actually happen. I mean if you are arguing that it didn't create socialism, then okay, you'd be right, in that sense no one outside of M-L's think it 'succeeded.' The Russian Revolution was indeed a great tragedy, however the idea that it didn't 'succeed' as much as possible, given the material conditions, is ludicrous. The Russian Revolution was the most radical break with traditional property relations that the world has ever seen.


While Lenin was busy theorizing and openly terrorising western Russia, he failed to stop brutal warlords posing as allies of the Party ruthlessly exploiting Russia economically. Then he fell in love with himself of course, like all dictators and Russia became another 1-man tyranny.

Blah blah blah, what nonsense. You've quite clearly never really read the history of the revolution. The idea that Lenin was some dictator, simply flies in the face of the facts; Lenin was outvoted numerous times in the party, he didn't just always get what he wanted, like you seem to imply. As far as the terror goes, yeah the Bolsheviks terrorized enemies of the revolution; which is of the utmost necessity during social upheavals.

[TheEmancipator]

The fact that you think that power should have been consolidated into both the hands of the proletariat and peasantry, says alot about your politics.

What, that I am not a M-L substitutionist? That I actually believe that oppressed classes can emancipate and educate themselves?


The peasantry is a generally reactionary class, which needed to be temporarily bought off, not empowered.

Yes, so the Bolshevik solution to this was to shoot the peasantry up if they dissented instead of showing them how collectivization works. Not that they attempted any kind of collectivization in most parts of rural Russia. For them collectivization was nothing short of theft.




This is just absurd, to be quite honest. I didn't realize that the Russian Revolution, didn't actually happen. I mean if you are arguing that it didn't create socialism, then okay, you'd be right, in that sense no one outside of M-L's think it 'succeeded.' The Russian Revolution was indeed a great tragedy, however the idea that it didn't 'succeed' as much as possible, given the material conditions, is ludicrous. The Russian Revolution was the most radical break with traditional property relations that the world has ever seen.

The Russian Revolution was not a success. It ultimately replaced one Tsar with another, and the material conditions actually went back to a feudal, warlord type society in some parts of Russia. The industrialization of the country was inevitable. The only plus point about it was the social conditions that improved (free education, etc.). Otherwise all the improvements that M-Ls usually list about the Revolution would've happened in a liberal society as well.



Blah blah blah, what nonsense. You've quite clearly never really read the history of the revolution. The idea that Lenin was some dictator, simply flies in the face of the facts; Lenin was outvoted numerous times in the party, he didn't just always get what he wanted, like you seem to imply. As far as the terror goes, yeah the Bolsheviks terrorized enemies of the revolution; which is of the utmost necessity during social upheavals.

He did not just terrorise enemies of the revolution, he terrorised people who rightly questioned the role of the Bolsheviks and how his "collectivization" process was working.

As for your claim he is not a dictator, I think you need to put away the rose tinted spectacles. The way Stalin simply inherited his position like a King and consolidated the 1-man dictatorship within the party suggest to me that Lenin was no saint either. The only reason he is excused of his authoritarian ways is because he was busy fighting a civil war. Otherwise, if you look at successful implementations of socialism (anarchist catalonia, commune de Paris) I see no "cult of the leader", no 1-man tyranny, no concentrated power. Which brings us back to what Marxists can and should learn from Bakunin.

[Brutus]

Lenin was elected by the 2nd all Russian congress of soviets.

[TheEmancipator]

Lenin was elected by the 2nd all Russian congress of soviets.

Hitler had more proportional votes than he did. Just because you are elected does not mean you have to consolidate and centralise power around yourself.

[Brutus]

Hitler had more proportional votes than he did. Just because you are elected does not mean you have to consolidate and centralise power around yourself.

Touché.
Did Lenin have total control in his party and Russia? Did Lenin purge political opponents and silence opposition?

[TheEmancipator]

Touché.
Did Lenin have total control in his party and Russia?

No, but he made sure that the party eventually had control over most of Russia. This was a big mistake. The party started endorsing and reinforcing so called "party members" in rural areas who were warlords demanding tribute from villagers. The centralised utopia Lenin was creating in Russia led to a total dehumanisation of the rural populace, who were just seen as pawns to reinforce the centralised state. They ad their own brand of state capitalism in urban areas, and feudalism in rural areas.


Did Lenin purge political opponents and silence opposition?Almost certainly (what do you think this is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheka), except he is possibly excused by the fact that he was in a war time situation.

[Brutus]

He only arrested mensheviks and the remaining SRs that didn't ally with the Bolsheviks when they tried to kill him.
One time Bukharin was arguing against persecuting anarchists and they bombed the building he was speaking in- smart.

These 'leftists' were counter Revolutonaries, so they were killed- plain and simple

[TheEmancipator]

He only arrested mensheviks and the remaining SRs that didn't ally with the Bolsheviks when they tried to kill him.
One time Bukharin was arguing against persecuting anarchists and they bombed the building he was speaking in- smart.

Mensheviks, anarchists, and those who did not ally with Bolshies...

Otherwise, he was a kind, tolerant leftist open to new revolutionary ideas right?

I've got to be honest, I love Lenin the theorist, the pragmatist, the revolutionary and political agitator, but like Hitler he was a victim of what capitalists call Peter's Principle. He could not manage such power, and he rose into a hierarchy above a position he could handle.

To deny Lenin's responsibility for the murder of thousands of perfectly legitimate revolutionaries, as well as innocent people is absurd.


These 'leftists' were counter Revolutonaries, so they were killed- plain and simple

Yep, and to this day all our tendencies accuse each-other of pseudo-leftism and counter-revolutionary behaviour...

...some things never change...

[Blake's Baby]

I started a thread on the 10 planks of Communism a while back, and was told that the 10 planks were not representative of Marx's later views, and that they were part of an infantile stage, and were outdated. Unfortunately, I cannot link to the thread, but you can find it on my profile.

To be accurate, you were told that the demands in the 10 planks had become irrelevant by the 1880s and Marx and Engels abandoned them as specific necessary measures, because capitalism had already accomplished them.

[Geiseric]

Mensheviks, anarchists, and those who did not ally with Bolshies...

Otherwise, he was a kind, tolerant leftist open to new revolutionary ideas right?

I've got to be honest, I love Lenin the theorist, the pragmatist, the revolutionary and political agitator, but like Hitler he was a victim of what capitalists call Peter's Principle. He could not manage such power, and he rose into a hierarchy above a position he could handle.

To deny Lenin's responsibility for the murder of thousands of perfectly legitimate revolutionaries, as well as innocent people is absurd.



Yep, and to this day all our tendencies accuse each-other of pseudo-leftism and counter-revolutionary behaviour...

...some things never change...
The alternative was half of moscow and petrograd being lynched ny tthe whites. Most of the purges of revolutionaries who were consistently against the world war and czar happened during stalin.

[Geiseric]

I am curious...what do you mean Leninism is not a thing? I was under the impression that Leninism is an interpretation of and expansion on Marxism. And I am definately under the impression that Leninism will always degenerate into dictatorship and hierarchical elitism. For something fhat isn't a thing....it sure had a huge impact. But maybe I misunderstood you

No Leninism is a slur Martov coined. He wasn't any different than marx or engels albeit being more successful.

[Fionnagáin]

No Leninism is a slur Martov coined. He wasn't any different than marx or engels albeit being more successful.
He wasn't any different than two people with significantly divergent viewpoints. That's quite a feat.

[TheEmancipator]

The alternative was half of moscow and petrograd being lynched ny tthe whites. Most of the purges of revolutionaries who were consistently against the world war and czar happened during stalin.

The role of "red czar" was well and truly implement by comrade Vladimir. Besides, there is no denying the role of the Party and its inner politics is not something the Russian people (and later the USSR) deserved to deal with. This was a popular revolution that was done by more than one faction. The Bolsheviks who seized centralised power had no legitimacy to rule over Russia whatsoever. The centralised power should have (and did for a while) incorporated all factions of the revolution.

Interestingly enough, most revolutionary factions that weren't Bolshevik (such as the SR and anarchist factions) were not interested in seeing white russians plunder moscow and petrograd. They also weren't interested in seeing Bolsheviks micromanaging them. I see no problem with that.

[PhoenixAsh]

Marxism-Leninism as a tendency came to be after his death.

And this is relevant how?



No he didn't. He saw imperialism as a stage of capitalist economics.
But if you want to go by the "imperialism is just invading other countries"-standard, read any writing during the first world war and he would ridicule people who thought that you could stop the war without destroying its root cause, capitalism.

He saw imperialism as the highest stage of capitalist economics and as a the most immediate threat to the working class. In fact he thought this because unlike what Marx thought...the contemporary situation was that workers in the most "developed" countries were not flocking towards revolutionary sentiment....but were instead complacent. Lenin explained this because of imperialism...which enabled the elite to grant the workers certain privileges through exploiting other countries. Which explains why Marx thought a revolution would take place in advanced capitalist structures....and Lenin didn't.

Rather than the spontaneous class conscious workers would develop according to Marx....Lenin theorized that since this wasn't happening (because of the privileges through imperialism) the class conscious needed to be instilled through the party leadership and party elite....providing leadership to the proletariat. Which is pretty much most of his writing when it comes to strategy before, during and after the revolution.


Now....even in outlook both are radically different...which you should know...having of course read both Marx and Lenin....Marx is economic supremacy over politics and Lenin is political supremacy over economics.



Well if anything you make up in your pretty mind is seen as a difference, yeah you're right. However these things can only be found in your mind, not in Lenin.

Yessss....well you could act all condescending....but it would pretty much help if you actually read and understand Marx and Lenin before you do so.

Lenin is a very specific interpretation of Marxism. In such a fashion that it changed and adapts certain aspects of Marxism.

Now...I would suggest that you go re-read Marx and Lenin. Because you neither understood either of them nor have you grasped the differences.

[PhoenixAsh]

No Leninism is a slur Martov coined. He wasn't any different than marx or engels albeit being more successful.

right...that is BS.

Stalin used the term after Lenin's death....which...depending on which Markov you mean...is earlier.

...incidentally...he used the term to differentiate between Classical Marxism and Bolshevist praxis.

[Geiseric]

right...that is BS.

Stalin used the term after Lenin's death....which...depending on which Markov you mean...is earlier.

...incidentally...he used the term to differentiate between Classical Marxism and Bolshevist praxis.

What is different between classical marxism and bolshevism? both of them are completely rooted in supporting mass democracy. The people who tried to shut down the soviets including those SoB SR's and Mensheviks deserved to be shut out of political office, seeing as they weren't voted for by the working class. Maybe not killed but at the time they objectively supported the white army to crush the soviets in Moscow. Marx would of used authority as much as Lenin.

[Geiseric]

The role of "red czar" was well and truly implement by comrade Vladimir. Besides, there is no denying the role of the Party and its inner politics is not something the Russian people (and later the USSR) deserved to deal with. This was a popular revolution that was done by more than one faction. The Bolsheviks who seized centralised power had no legitimacy to rule over Russia whatsoever. The centralised power should have (and did for a while) incorporated all factions of the revolution.

Interestingly enough, most revolutionary factions that weren't Bolshevik (such as the SR and anarchist factions) were not interested in seeing white russians plunder moscow and petrograd. They also weren't interested in seeing Bolsheviks micromanaging them. I see no problem with that.

The red czar? Read a book, Lenin was dead by the point when he could of possibly profiteered off the degeneration like many bolsheviks did. he was VOTED IN by direct democracy to the soviets; which were all controlled by universal suffrage. Get it through your thick skull.

Would you of voted for the SR's or Mensheviks who ordered the Savage division to march in Petrograd? because that's literally what Kerensky did.

[PhoenixAsh]

well...since we are starting name calling in a learning thread. Which I am pretty sure is not the role of the learning forum.

But make no mistake....the cheka....from its earliest conception...was brutal, indiscriminate and more often than not used against workers and ordinary people....and especially the revolutionary left. Murder, summary executions, torture, rape etc. All committed in the name of Bolshevism and all perverting the revolution.

It was totally without any official oversight. It was never obstructed by the party leadership. And it was all done after a decree by Lenin himself.

THAT was the truth about your so called workers revolution. So the "direct democracy" which only a few could practice...so...not so very direct democracy...voted somebody in who had no regard for human life and fucked the workers by repressing them when they disobeyed the party leadership and decrees.....you know....by actually protesting the abysmal working conditions in the so called socialist state.

The revolution was a failure. An utter failure...and imo the actual counter revolutionaries were the bolsheviks.

[Fionnagáin]

What is different between classical marxism and bolshevism? both of them are completely rooted in supporting mass democracy. The people who tried to shut down the soviets including those SoB SR's and Mensheviks deserved to be shut out of political office, seeing as they weren't voted for by the working class. Maybe not killed but at the time they objectively supported the white army to crush the soviets in Moscow. Marx would of used authority as much as Lenin.
You're going to have to find me the bit where Marx advocates using the military to break up strikes, a policy which Lenin adopted without apology.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The red czar? Read a book, Lenin was dead by the point when he could of possibly profiteered off the degeneration like many bolsheviks did. he was VOTED IN by direct democracy to the soviets; which were all controlled by universal suffrage. Get it through your thick skull.

Would you of voted for the SR's or Mensheviks who ordered the Savage division to march in Petrograd? because that's literally what Kerensky did.

Consider this a verbal warning for the emboldened. This is the learning forum, please refrain from name calling in the future.

[PhoenixAsh]

What is different between classical marxism and bolshevism? both of them are completely rooted in supporting mass democracy. The people who tried to shut down the soviets including those SoB SR's and Mensheviks deserved to be shut out of political office, seeing as they weren't voted for by the working class. Maybe not killed but at the time they objectively supported the white army to crush the soviets in Moscow. Marx would of used authority as much as Lenin.

As I explained above. And you can add that Lenin stated that the state needed to be strengthened rather than wither away. That the state would dissolve only at a very slow pace. Lenin also stated that the revolution should be led by a vanguard party which in turn was led by a cadre of professional revolutionaries rather than workers....who would lead the workers.

Rather than what you claim....direct democracy...democratic centralism was used by Lenin...by the way...

[TheEmancipator]

The red czar? Read a book, Lenin was dead by the point when he could of possibly profiteered off the degeneration like many bolsheviks did. he was VOTED IN by direct democracy to the soviets; which were all controlled by universal suffrage. Get it through your thick skull.

I've already answered the point about Lenin being elected (although not by universal suffrage as you so claim; representative democracy is an oxymoron, as the bourgeois politicians we currently posess in the West demonstrate so aptly) by invoking Godwin's Law. Please read the thread.


Would you of voted for the SR's or Mensheviks who ordered the Savage division to march in Petrograd? because that's literally what Kerensky did.

You but I would've respected them for what they are : important to the Revolution, and just as valid. I certainly would not have voted for ambitious, power-hungry Bolsheviks who had their interests at heart more than the working classes.

[PhoenixAsh]

Comrade Walrus should read "what is to be done" where Lenin directly contrasts with Marxs position that only the working class can develop class conscious by itself:


Class political consciousness can be brought to the workers only from without, that is, only from outside of the economic struggle, from outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers


The spontaneous working class movement by itself is able to create (and inevitably creates) only trade unionism, and working class trade unionist politics are precisely working class bourgeois politics

In other words...Lenin opposed and contrasted with Marxes opinion of self emancipation.

In "what is to be done" and other works Lenin goes on to state that the vanguard should be led by professional revlutionaries which should be composed of the intelligentsia. Which....you might realize IF you know your history..were at that period in time NOT the working class but members of the bourgeoise. People in fact with a background like Dzerzhinsky.

of course we could debate the meaning of Lenin's words when he said that Democracy in the USSR was in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one man. (as I am very sure has been done on this page before)...but I am pretty much curious how somebody could even conceive of arguing this being compatible with Marx's thoughts.

And lets not forget Lenin's defense of nationalisation...something which Marx would reject. Lenin's view on the topic are pretty much described in Left Wing Childishness.


But hey....whatever is in my pretty mind....right Walrus? Might do you some good to not neg rep me with insults...and instead spend your time actually reading books instead of being something you obviously know nothing about.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

What is to be done was a polemic against economism.
The only thing he is saying that political consciousness can not come from economic struggle but from political struggle.

If you want to forget every context though and call that "understanding Lenin" than I'm sure as hell am illiterate in Lenin.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Uhm he saw imperialism as a stage in the development of capitalism, yes. This does not mean that he wants to go back a stage because it was a "danger" but that he wanted to destroy capitalism.
In fact Lenin thought that imperialism made the revolution in Europe become more likely. While he did say that imperialism permitted the creation of a relatively 'labour aristocracy' (phrase borrowed from Engels) that provided the foundation for opportunist tendencies within the working-class movement. Looking at how almost all European worker parties had betrayed socialism and followed the bourgeoisie, I wouldn't say it was untrue. However you'd be completely wrong by thinking that he meant that workers weren't exploited anymore, on the contrary, he saw that what made possibly this buying off of sections of the movement was nothing less than shameless exploitation and that these sections of the movement where wrong by mistaking these temporary advantages for a sustainable trend and model.

Lenin saw the need the need for a global strategy for the weak links in the capitalist system. However he never abandoned the view that the key for world revolution lay in the hands of western Europe and north-America. Which can be seen in the hopes placed on Germany for revolution.

In fact Marx didn't fetishize spontaneity. He worked and critiqued programmes, was the leading member of the Communist League and First International, wrote the manifesto , Engels had a big role in the SPD, etc, etc.

Professional revolutionaries has a very elitist sound. However the point was not to see the party-members as someone who we defer to because they know what's best but more as a worker knowing his trade well. In any event, there is a connotation of professionalism which Lenin was seeking to bring out, as when we say, ‘Let’s be professional about this, comrades’. Lenin is not using ‘professionalism’ to argue for less democracy and more elitism, but to combat what he saw as sloppy amateurism in the Russian movement.
He did not say that workers could not obtain proper class-consciousness, that only intellectuals make good revolutionaries, that only professional revolutionaries should be party members, that the party should be a tightly-knit conspiratorial elite and - in this book anyway - he did not advocate a high level of centralisation or discipline. What he did say was that the party has a job - to get the message out and to organise. And if we do a good job of it then the workers will respond and be interested, and so will the people more generally. Bring it, and they will come!

I think 'What is to be done?' should not be judged as the party programme or as the outline of Lenin's political thought, but rather as what it was; a polemical text where the question of organizing within czarist Russia was discussed.

Now, I think saying to each other that we don't understand or haven't read Marx and Lenin ir rather unproductive so maybe it's better if we both cut the insults down.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be accurate, you were told that the demands in the 10 planks had become irrelevant by the 1880s and Marx and Engels abandoned them as specific necessary measures, because capitalism had already accomplished them.

Whoever said that was wrong, don't you think? :confused:

[Art Vandelay]

What, that I am not a M-L substitutionist? That I actually believe that oppressed classes can emancipate and educate themselves?

I'm not a M-L either and don't appreciate being lumped in with an ideology I view as entirely bourgeois in origin. That the oppressed classes can emancipate themselves? Sounds like were in agreement; the emancipation of the working class, must be the act of the working class themselves. The Bolsheviks were not only a majority in the soviets, but were also a mass party composed of hundred's of thousands of proletarian communists. The resulting dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, was not due to 'Lenin' or 'Trotsky', despite them playing a major role, but was due to the self organization of the working class.


Yes, so the Bolshevik solution to this was to shoot the peasantry up if they dissented instead of showing them how collectivization works. Not that they attempted any kind of collectivization in most parts of rural Russia. For them collectivization was nothing short of theft.

Making huge generalizations with a broad stroke, is never going to lead to a proper materialist analysis.


The Russian Revolution was not a success. It ultimately replaced one Tsar with another, and the material conditions actually went back to a feudal, warlord type society in some parts of Russia. The industrialization of the country was inevitable. The only plus point about it was the social conditions that improved (free education, etc.). Otherwise all the improvements that M-Ls usually list about the Revolution would've happened in a liberal society as well.

Yes the Bolshevik revolution, ultimately degenerated into some twisted and new type of capitalist society. What exactly it was, I can't entirely say as I haven't done enough research on it. What is a fact, is that it was the most radical break with traditional property relations that the world has ever seen. I view it similar to the French revolution of 1789. Also drop the red Tsar stuff, you sound like a deranged liberal shouting totalitarianism at the top of your lungs.


He did not just terrorise enemies of the revolution, he terrorised people who rightly questioned the role of the Bolsheviks and how his "collectivization" process was working.

Proof?


As for your claim he is not a dictator, I think you need to put away the rose tinted spectacles. The way Stalin simply inherited his position like a King and consolidated the 1-man dictatorship within the party suggest to me that Lenin was no saint either. The only reason he is excused of his authoritarian ways is because he was busy fighting a civil war. Otherwise, if you look at successful implementations of socialism (anarchist catalonia, commune de Paris) I see no "cult of the leader", no 1-man tyranny, no concentrated power. Which brings us back to what Marxists can and should learn from Bakunin.

Stalin became the defacto head of the Russian state, which means Lenin 'was no saint either,' and socialism (since he is apparently a supporter of socialism in one country) existed in both the Paris Commune and anarchist Catalonia). Another stunning example of Armchair Philosopher's exemplary logic. :rolleyes:

[Bostana]

http://i.qkme.me/36blub.jpg

From Bakunin and Marx to the Bolshevist party being Authoritarian before Stalin.

Is this where we are now?

[Brutus]

http://i.qkme.me/36blub.jpg

From Bakunin and Marx to the Bolshevist party being Authoritarian before Stalin.

Is this where we are now?

Pretty much.

[TheEmancipator]

I'm not a M-L either and don't appreciate being lumped in with an ideology I view as entirely bourgeois in origin. That the oppressed classes can emancipate themselves? Sounds like were in agreement; the emancipation of the working class, must be the act of the working class themselves. The Bolsheviks were not only a majority in the soviets, but were also a mass party composed of hundred's of thousands of proletarian communists.

Represented by a corrupt elite in the big cities, composed mainly of bourgeois or soon to be bourgeois ambitious careerists : the Bolsheviks. The numerous factions outside of cities and even in some of the remote ones that actually helped with the emancipation of the working class.



The resulting dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, was not due to 'Lenin' or 'Trotsky', despite them playing a major role, but was due to the self organization of the working class.What dictatorship of the proletariat? This is a substitionist regime posing as socialist.


Making huge generalizations with a broad stroke, is never going to lead to a proper materialist analysis. So you have nothing to contradict my claims, apart from the fact it is a generalisation? Are you denying the existence of such acts?


Yes the Bolshevik revolution, ultimately degenerated into some twisted and new type of capitalist society. What exactly it was, I can't entirely say as I haven't done enough research on it. What is a fact, is that it was the most radical break with traditional property relations that the world has ever seen. I view it similar to the French revolution of 1789. Also drop the red Tsar stuff, you sound like a deranged liberal shouting totalitarianism at the top of your lungs. I never said the Russian Revolution was a bad thing to happen, I said it wasn't a success. And surely as a materialist analyst that you so proclaim to be you would see that the property relations in rural parts of Russia resembled quasi-warlordism. That's OK though, because their actions were endorsed by the Soviets. Have you read Victor Serge, or is he another deranged liberal screaming totalitarianism?




Proof?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror#Peasants

I provided the link to the Cheka, one of the most disgusting organisations to come out of the RR.

So so far you've played the generalisation/off topic card, the "I'm a materialist herp derp" card, the liberal card, and now the source card. What else have you got up your sleeve?


Stalin became the defacto head of the Russian state, which means Lenin 'was no saint either,'Usually when someone inherits too much power it means the bloke before him had too much power.


and socialism (since he is apparently a supporter of socialism in one country) existed in both the Paris Commune and anarchist Catalonia).That is the closest we have ever got to communism, yes.


Another stunning example of Armchair Philosopher's exemplary logic. Here's something to cheer you up :

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gifhttp://t.qkme.me/3qsfk5.jpg

[Brutus]

Could we please get back on topic! Lenin can go on another thread

[Blake's Baby]

Whoever said that was wrong, don't you think? :confused:

Of course not. From the 1872 introduction to the German edition (bold is mine):

"The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm). That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated."

The 'revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II' are precisely the '10 planks'.

However, I'm not sure this is much more 'on topic' (ie contrasting Bakunin and Marx) than arguing about Lenin.

[Red Joe]

it's worth highlighting that Marxists call Anarchists idealist romanticists and Anarchists call Marxists religious pseudo-scientists :grin: Otherwise they get on just fine!

true enough in both cases.

[PhoenixAsh]

What is to be done was a polemic against economism.
The only thing he is saying that political consciousness can not come from economic struggle but from political struggle.

And this is where he differs with Marx. Marx took an economist position stating that the economic situation is directly responsible for creating class consciousnes and politics is an expression of the economic situation. Lenin looks at it from the opposite angle.



Uhm he saw imperialism as a stage in the development of capitalism, yes. This does not mean that he wants to go back a stage because it was a "danger" but that he wanted to destroy capitalism.
In fact Lenin thought that imperialism made the revolution in Europe become more likely.

I never said Lenin did not want to destroy capitalism...though I think Lenins politics are responsible for centralised state capitalism.

Lenin thought the revolution would be more likely in countries with no or little imperialist possibilities and potential and saw the colonies and opressed coutries as far more likely to develop a revolutionary spirit.

In order to instill class consciousnes and break the existing complacency the first thing was to combat imperialism as the highest stade of capitalism.



While he did say that imperialism permitted the creation of a relatively 'labour aristocracy' (phrase borrowed from Engels) that provided the foundation for opportunist tendencies within the working-class movement. Looking at how almost all European worker parties had betrayed socialism and followed the bourgeoisie, I wouldn't say it was untrue. However you'd be completely wrong by thinking that he meant that workers weren't exploited anymore, on the contrary, he saw that what made possibly this buying off of sections of the movement was nothing less than shameless exploitation and that these sections of the movement where wrong by mistaking these temporary advantages for a sustainable trend and model.

Again....I never said he didn't say workers weren't exploited anymore. What he said is that imperialism was responsible for the cmplacancy or the working class and that the relative privileges awarded them was the cause of the lack of revolutionary potential and spontaneous class consciousness.



Lenin saw the need the need for a global strategy for the weak links in the capitalist system. However he never abandoned the view that the key for world revolution lay in the hands of western Europe and north-America. Which can be seen in the hopes placed on Germany for revolution.

Yes. But it wasn't a coincidence he mentioned Germany....especially in the light of the imperialism debate. Though Germany did have imperialist aspirations Germany was one of the few European countries that lost out on the struggle for territory....having no or extremely little colonial and imperialist power. Which is one of the root causes for WWI.



In fact Marx didn't fetishize spontaneity. He worked and critiqued programmes, was the leading member of the Communist League and First International, wrote the manifesto , Engels had a big role in the SPD, etc, etc.


Yes. But they worked across tendencies. Maybe not agreeing and maybe combatting them in argument...but unlike Lenin they did not seek to emophasize one tendency at the expense of others.



Professional revolutionaries has a very elitist sound. However the point was not to see the party-members as someone who we defer to because they know what's best but more as a worker knowing his trade well.

The point of communism is workers self control. The problem with providing elitists...more often than not in those days members of the aristocracy and bourgeoise tends to take the emancipation out of the working class.

The eventual effect and line of reasoning the Bolsheviks followed...in creating the Cheka for example...comes down to repressing the wants and needs of the working class in order to fascilitate the party interest.



In any event, there is a connotation of professionalism which Lenin was seeking to bring out, as when we say, ‘Let’s be professional about this, comrades’. Lenin is not using ‘professionalism’ to argue for less democracy and more elitism, but to combat what he saw as sloppy amateurism in the Russian movement.

I think he was definately showing a complete lack of trust in the working class as a movement

Professionalism is in his terms and vision a little more than "being professional". He stated intelectuals should lead the party. Which is condescending.



He did not say that workers could not obtain proper class-consciousness, that only intellectuals make good revolutionaries, that only professional revolutionaries should be party members, that the party should be a tightly-knit conspiratorial elite and - in this book anyway - he did not advocate a high level of centralisation or discipline. What he did say was that the party has a job - to get the message out and to organise. And if we do a good job of it then the workers will respond and be interested, and so will the people more generally. Bring it, and they will come!

Lenin and the Bolsheviks were a huge fan of sloganism. Using slogans to rouse the people. They were not very active in organising people to gain class consciousness. Especially during the revolution where they used force and threats to whip the working class in line.



I think 'What is to be done?' should not be judged as the party programme or as the outline of Lenin's political thought, but rather as what it was; a polemical text where the question of organizing within czarist Russia was discussed.

I agree...but what I also think...and that is how I used it here. Is that it is a very interesting insight in Lenins thoughts and reasoning.



Now, I think saying to each other that we don't understand or haven't read Marx and Lenin ir rather unproductive so maybe it's better if we both cut the insults down.

I agree

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

And this is where he differs with Marx. Marx took an economist position stating that the economic situation is directly responsible for creating class consciousnes and politics is an expression of the economic situation. Lenin looks at it from the opposite angle.

Economism is merely the idea that economic struggle is enough.
While both Marx and Lenin acknowledged that the class-struggle must be not merely an econmic struggle, higher wages etc, but a political struggle.




I never said Lenin did not want to destroy capitalism...though I think Lenins politics are responsible for centralised state capitalism.

Lenin thought the revolution would be more likely in countries with no or little imperialist possibilities and potential and saw the colonies and opressed coutries as far more likely to develop a revolutionary spirit.

In order to instill class consciousnes and break the existing complacency the first thing was to combat imperialism as the highest stade of capitalism.

No, he saw imperialism as a stage in capitalist development. He did not attack imperialism to go back to a previous stage. For example from the text 'Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution':
"The bourgeoisie makes it its business to promote trusts, drive women and children into the factories, subject them to corruption and suffering, condemn them to extreme poverty. We do not “demand” such development, we do not “support” it. We fight it. But how do we fight? We explain that trusts and the employment of women in industry are progressive. We do not want a return to the handicraft system, pre-monopoly capitalism, domestic drudgery for women. Forward through the trusts, etc., and beyond them to socialism!"




Again....I never said he didn't say workers weren't exploited anymore. What he said is that imperialism was responsible for the cmplacancy or the working class and that the relative privileges awarded them was the cause of the lack of revolutionary potential and spontaneous class consciousness.

That seems strange because if there was any country with where imperialism was weak then it would've been Russia. You on the other hand say that he wanted an elite because he didn't think spontaneous consciousness was enough. Now you say only in the developed countries this was the case for him but if there was one thing Russia wasn't it was developed.



Yes. But it wasn't a coincidence he mentioned Germany....especially in the light of the imperialism debate. Though Germany did have imperialist aspirations Germany was one of the few European countries that lost out on the struggle for territory....having no or extremely little colonial and imperialist power. Which is one of the root causes for WWI.

Ok.



Yes. But they worked across tendencies. Maybe not agreeing and maybe combatting them in argument...but unlike Lenin they did not seek to emophasize one tendency at the expense of others.

Lenin worked with other tendencies though. In the Russian Social-Democratic party, the Bolshevik party wasn't its own party so it still worked together with the Mensheviks to some extent. In the second international, where there were various tendencies. In the Zimmerwald movement, true he wanted to exclude the parties who supported war-credits but I can't blame him, he worked together with various tendencies. Even in his faction in the Zimmerwald movement, the Zimmerwald left, there were various tendencies. He critiqued the things he opposed, but so did Marx and Engels, and everyone else on the left who wants to defend his views. I don't see the big fuss.



The point of communism is workers self control. The problem with providing elitists...more often than not in those days members of the aristocracy and bourgeoise tends to take the emancipation out of the working class.

The eventual effect and line of reasoning the Bolsheviks followed...in creating the Cheka for example...comes down to repressing the wants and needs of the working class in order to fascilitate the party interest.

Yeah I would agree that there were major flaws and weaknesses in a movement that had to be built in czarism and in an isolated country.



I think he was definately showing a complete lack of trust in the working class as a movement

Professionalism is in his terms and vision a little more than "being professional". He stated intelectuals should lead the party. Which is condescending.

He, throughout his works, spoke of the historical mission of the working class. He saw the working class as the class to lead the peasantry to destroy czarism and achieve political freedom and the class to lead the socialist revolution.
I don't see him having lack of faith in the working class at all.




I agree...but what I also think...and that is how I used it here. Is that it is a very interesting insight in Lenins thoughts and reasoning.

Well, I don't. In a few years it was largely forgotten. It didn't appear as a recommended text in Bukharin's ABC, Lenin never mentioned it after 1907.
Sure it can be interesting, if you know the context which is largely forgotten, but to see it as the authorative text on bolshevism and Lenin's thought, which also developed in the 15 years between the appearing of the text and the revolution.
I think 'To the Rural Poor' is a much more interesting text from the same time.




I agree

Splendid.

[Geiseric]

Of course not. From the 1872 introduction to the German edition (bold is mine):

"The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm). That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated."

The 'revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II' are precisely the '10 planks'.

However, I'm not sure this is much more 'on topic' (ie contrasting Bakunin and Marx) than arguing about Lenin.

Way to ignore literally the next few lines!

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Looks like Marx supported Education; he must of been a reformist.

[Blake's Baby]

Way to ignore literally the next few lines!
...

Way to miss the point entirely.

Marx & Engels specifically say that the 10 planks have become antiquated because of developments in capitalism (and concomitant developments in the proletariat) which is what I said earlier. So, you agree with me.

[Fionnagáin]

Way to ignore literally the next few lines!

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Looks like Marx supported Education; he must of been a reformist.
In 1848, that's certainly arguable. He still occupied an awkward position between communism and social Jacobinism- something which he never entirely overcame, even in his most advanced work- and his attempts to design a program reflect that confusion. There's still a pronounced uncertainty as to where democratic and socialised capitalism ends and communism begins, a confusion stemming from both his own theoretical immaturity and the immaturity of the workers' movement.

[Geiseric]

In 1848, that's certainly arguable. He still occupied an awkward position between communism and social Jacobinism- something which he never entirely overcame, even in his most advanced work- and his attempts to design a program reflect that confusion. There's still a pronounced uncertainty as to where democratic and socialised capitalism ends and communism begins, a confusion stemming from both his own theoretical immaturity and the immaturity of the workers' movement.

Social jacobinism? I've never heard that before. There is no such thing as socialized capitalism! Capital seizes to be a capitalist entity once its profits or surplus; the end product, goes to public not private use. An example of this is social security to an extent.
You're telling me that social security and a minimum wage is the result of capitalists trying to pacify the working class; which to an extent is true, but these things were struggled for at first by the working class itself.

[Blake's Baby]

A lot of things were struggled for by the working class. The French Republic. Is that socialism? No, it's capitalism. A long time ago, when capitalism was still fightng feudalism, the working class struggled for a lot developments in capitalism.

[The Douche]

Social jacobinism? I've never heard that before. There is no such thing as socialized capitalism! Capital seizes to be a capitalist entity once its profits or surplus; the end product, goes to public not private use. An example of this is social security to an extent.
You're telling me that social security and a minimum wage is the result of capitalists trying to pacify the working class; which to an extent is true, but these things were struggled for at first by the working class itself.

Ugh. Talk about having a corpse in your mouth...

Production for public use is totally within the sphere of capital.

[Fionnagáin]

Social jacobinism? I've never heard that before.
It refers to those forms of left-wing, petty bourgeois and working class Jacobinism that called for a "democratic and social republic", combining classical Jacobin democratic republicanism with calls for workers' rights, employment, welfare, and so on.


There is no such thing as socialized capitalism! Capital seizes to be a capitalist entity once its profits or surplus; the end product, goes to public not private use. An example of this is social security to an extent.
I don't think this is a very useful analytical framework. It assumes a distinction of "private" and "public" goods, which is really just how bourgeois ideology distinguishes between the reproduction of particular capitals and the reproduction of the capitalist social relation in general. Neither are more or less capitalist than the other.


You're telling me that social security and a minimum wage is the result of capitalists trying to pacify the working class; which to an extent is true, but these things were struggled for at first by the working class itself.
I don't really know where or how you're inferring this, because I didn't mean to imply it. (As the "autonomist" tag implies, I tend to look at welfare, labour laws, etc. in terms of the wage-relation, which naturally presumes class struggle to have a preeminent role.)

[Geiseric]

Ugh. Talk about having a corpse in your mouth...

Production for public use is totally within the sphere of capital.

No it isn't, you can't profit of it since the only way it could happen is by mass actions, and since it would be publicly owned.

[Fionnagáin]

How do you propose to distinguish between property which is public, and that which is merely state-owned?

[The Douche]

No it isn't, you can't profit of it since the only way it could happen is by mass actions, and since it would be publicly owned.

Dude, capital isn't some theory in a book, its a real, existing organism that can change and adapt to suit its needs.

Do you think social security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc is socialism? Are you saying that socialism exists in the US alongside capitalism, executed by the bourgeois state?

[The Douche]

How do you propose to distinguish between property which is public, and that which is merely state-owned?

The state is the public, everything in the state, nothing outside the state.:rolleyes:

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I'm finding more and more that if you want a better idea of someone (ie, Marx, or Bakunin, Lenin or Goldman) you're better off reading their works / ideas and accounts of their lives than asking via threads on here because (apart from a few exceptions) it just devolves into a tendency war instead of providing sources and links for further reading etc.