Why I rejected Leninism, and why Anarchism makes sense...

[bootleg42]

Long story short. When I was young, I was a Leninist. A few years passed, and now I'm Anarchist.

The reason is simple....Anarchism is democracy. I've learned that the elites worldwide fear ONE THING and one thing only........democracy. They know that if real democracy exists (not republics with public relations firms, etc) the population would use their voting power to undermine the rich, and we would move ever so closer to a just society.

Also I actually read Lenin. He was a tyrant. He didn't like democracy because he thought the population was stupid. No coincidence, elites worldwide don't like democracy, and many don't like it for the exact same reasons.

But even as an Anarchist, I also work for re-form WHILE ALSO trying to build a real democratic society. I fight to maintain Social Security. I fight to get workers better wages or more benefits. I work to protect schools from being privatized, etc.

Just my two cents.

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

“Pure democracy” is the mendacious phrase of a liberal who wants to fool the workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which takes the place of feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which takes the place of bourgeois democracy.

[...]

Proletarian democracy, of which Soviet government is one of the forms, has brought a development and expansion of democracy unprecedented in the world, for the vast majority of the population, for the exploited and working people. To write a whole pamphlet about democracy, as Kautsky did, in which two pages are devoted to dictatorship and dozens to “pure democracy,” and fail to notice this fact, means completely distorting the subject in liberal fashion.

[...]

Proletarian democracy is a million times more democratic than any bourgeois democracy; Soviet power is a million times more democratic than the most democratic bourgeois republic.


The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (= a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.

[...]

This shows more clearly than anything else the turn from bourgeois to proletarian democracy, from the democracy of the oppressors to that of the oppressed classes, from the state as a "special force" for the suppression of a particular class to the suppression of the oppressors by the general force of the majority of the people--the workers and the peasants.

Lenin hated democracy. Yeah.

Also, I don't think there is such thing as 'Leninism'. He was just a Marxist who analysed the Russian situation. To do that, and to some extension, he analysed capitalism of his time.

[ind_com]

Lenin hated democracy. Yeah.

Also, I don't think there is such thing as 'Leninism'. He was just a Marxist who analysed the Russian situation. To do that, and to some extension, he analysed capitalism of his time.

What about his works on party-structure, insurrection, revolutionary-war and economic policies?

[Kalinin's Facial Hair]

What about his works on party-structure, insurrection, revolutionary-war and economic policies?

Some would argue that the notion of a vanguard was already in the Manifesto and that (following Lars Lih, maybe? Just a guess, I have no access to his book) democratic centralism is not so different from German Social-Democracy's own structure.

Economic policies were a result from the concrete analysis of the Russian/Soviet situation, as were the others.

I mean, afaik, he did not come up with theories such as PPW, or the Mass Line, which are additions, something really new.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The reason is simple....Anarchism is democracy.

No because the dotp, a workers' state, is a democracy.


Also I actually read Lenin. He was a tyrant.The Soviet government did become bureaucratic and authoritarian, but Lenin was not a tyrant.


He didn't like democracy because he thought the population was stupid. There was no democracy because of the Civil War and constant fear of counter-revolution. An unjustified reason for a lack of democracy yes but it was not simply because he thought people were stupid.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The reason is simple....Anarchism is democracy. I've learned that the elites worldwide fear ONE THING and one thing only........democracy. They know that if real democracy exists (not republics with public relations firms, etc) the population would use their voting power to undermine the rich, and we would move ever so closer to a just society.

Lot of rhetoric above, no real substance. Anarchism is not "democracy". You can't pin down anarchism as just one thing. Class struggle, internationalism, "freedom", "equality", "solidarity", and a lot more goes into anarchism.


Also I actually read Lenin.

I'm guessing from the next couple things you say you actually haven't read Lenin.


He was a tyrant.

How so? Obviously when the Bolsheviks came to power there wasn't a "flowering of freedom" but this had much more to do with the fact 14 different imperialist powers invaded Russia with the goal of destroying the Bolshevik state, counter-revolutionary sabotage culminating into civil war, famine, etc. etc. etc. Obviously things such as war communism and the Cheka weren't something the revolutionaries were looking forward too, but they were inevitable within the material conditions present in Russia at the time. This can be seen by the fact that even the anarchists in the Ukraine under Makhno had there own secret police and intelligence agency similar to that of the Cheka.


He didn't like democracy because he thought the population was stupid.

You're the one making the claim. Prove it. I don't recall Lenin saying "Democracy sucks because people are dumb" in The State and Revolution, What Is To Be Done, and his other writings. Rather, I remember him calling for the rule of the exploited against the exploiters. The revolution did start to degenerate before the end of Lenin's rule and eventually did solidify the capitalist degeneration with Stalinist rule, but that has much more to do with the failure of the revolution to spread than Lenin supposedly thinking people suck.


But even as an Anarchist, I also work for re-form WHILE ALSO trying to build a real democratic society. I fight to maintain Social Security. I fight to get workers better wages or more benefits. I work to protect schools from being privatized, etc.

So you're a non-revolutionary anarchist? You fight for social democracy and welfare capitalism in the short run, which is nothing more than another form of capitalism. Nothing revolutionary about it. Most anarchists would disagree with you on this point completely.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

No because the dotp, a workers' state, is a democracy.

Well, actually...anarchism is democracy too, but in a more direct way, i guess. The DotP-democracy is still democracy till the doorstep. After that it is the chosen ones' voice and choice (and therefore no demcracy anymore, since democracy means "rule of the people" and states are always directly ruled by a few).

Still, i think it is not fair to claim democracy to anarchism alone.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So you're a non-revolutionary anarchist? You fight for social democracy and welfare capitalism in the short run, which is nothing more than another form of capitalism. Nothing revolutionary about it. Most anarchists would disagree with you on this point completely.

I think he meant that he supports revolutionary anarchism but also supports reforms that temporarily help the working class within capitalism.


Well, actually...anarchism is democracy too, but in a more direct way, i guess. The DotP-democracy is still democracy till the doorstep. After that it is the chosen ones' voice and choice (and therefore no demcracy anymore, since democracy means "rule of the people" and states are always directly ruled by a few).

Then by that definition Marxists don't want a state.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

No because the dotp, a workers' state, is a democracy.

I disagree with the idea that the proletarian dictatorship is a democracy, even a workers' democracy. I think the proletarian dictatorship is exactly that, a dictatorship. It's not the dictatorship of one man, but the dictatorship of a large section of the population, the working-class. The bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, etc. should and would be excluded from the decision-making process under the dotp by the way the soviets, party, etc. and other organs of working class rule operate naturally. Democracy is the rule of the people, all people, and consequently all classes. Democracy is not possible in a society stratified and divided by classes. Such terms as "workers' democracy" seem to be a contradiction then.

Democracy, as in the idea that the majority is right, isn't that great of a decision-making tool either. Continuous debate will bring about the best decision. Democracy is a good tool for quick or rapid decision making but debating a subject as long as needed will bring about the best choice.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

The DotP-democracy is still democracy till the doorstep. After that it is the chosen ones' voice and choice (and therefore no demcracy anymore, since democracy means "rule of the people" and states are always directly ruled by a few).

This is not true. The Marxist conception of the proletarian dictatorship has always placed great emphasis on the direct participation or the proletariat within the state apparatus, not the rule of a few individuals.

[Brutus]

'All power to the soviets' is totally undemocratic

[Fourth Internationalist]

I disagree with the idea that the proletarian dictatorship is a democracy, even a workers' democracy. I think the proletarian dictatorship is exactly that, a dictatorship. It's not the dictatorship of one man, but the dictatorship of a large section of the population, the working-class. The bourgeoisie, petit-bourgeoisie, etc. should and would be excluded from the decision-making process under the dotp by the way the soviets, party, etc. and other organs of working class rule operate naturally. Democracy is the rule of the people, all people, and consequently all classes. Democracy is not possible in a society stratified and divided by classes. Such terms as "workers' democracy" seem to be a contradiction then.

Democracy, as in the idea that the majority is right, isn't that great of a decision-making tool either. Continuous debate will bring about the best decision. Democracy is a good tool for quick or rapid decision making but debating a subject as long as needed will bring about the best choice.

I disagree with the idea that democracy is the rule of all people. Even in communism, people will lock up murderers, rapists, etc. and they will not have any power or total freedom. In any case, the dotp is the rule of the majority of the people, and hopefully it will have rights to protect minorities (ie capitalist supporting workers) from severe oppression.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I disagree with the idea that democracy is the rule of all people.

In the etymological sense, Democracy means the power of all people.


Even in communism, people will lock up murderers, rapists, etc. and they will not have any power or total freedom.

Murderers and rapists would be excluded from decision-making and power in any society. That is not a valid argument.


In any case, the dotp is the rule of the majority of the people, and hopefully it will have rights to protect minorities (ie capitalist supporting workers) from severe oppression.

Capitalists cannot support workers, they can only exploit them. All capitalists will be suppressed and, eventually, abolished, under the proletarian dictatorship.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Murderers and rapists would be excluded from decision-making and power in any society. That is not a valid argument. Yes, thus not all people have power, making no society a democracy. Thus, I dislike that definition of democracy.


Capitalists cannot support workers, they can only exploit them. All capitalists will be suppressed and, eventually, abolished, under the proletarian dictatorship.I'm referring to workers who still support capitalism (like the majority of people today). I don't like the idea of having a literal dictatorship of the majority oppress them. I'm not saying we don't let them do anything physical to harm the dotp, but I say let them speak their minds in an open and democratic environment. It'd be easier to "convert" them so to say that way rather than forcing the majority view on them. In time, they will turn.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Yes, thus not all people have power, making no society a democracy. Thus, I dislike that definition of democracy.

You've taken the obvious exception to the rule as the main premise of your argument. Just because you don't like such a definition does not mean it doesn't exist.


I'm referring to workers who still support capitalism (like the majority of people today). I don't like the idea of having a literal dictatorship of the majority oppress them. I'm not saying we don't let them do anything physical to harm the dotp, but I say let them speak their minds in an open and democratic environment. It'd be easier to "convert" them so to say that way rather than forcing the majority view on them. In time, they will turn.

I don't like the somewhat quasi-religious tone of "they will eventually convert" but yeah I agree with what you're saying.

[Lucretia]

Also I actually read Lenin. He was a tyrant. He didn't like democracy because he thought the population was stupid. No coincidence, elites worldwide don't like democracy, and many don't like it for the exact same reasons.

Hmmm. One wonders which texts of Lenin you found him saying this in. It sounds more like a stereotype than any kind of informed opinion.

[BIXX]

I personally just don't support the vanguard policy. I think it is flawed. However I do not believe Lenin ever said democracy was a bad idea because people were stupid. I am not positive, but that just wouldn't make sense.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You've taken the obvious exception to the rule as the main premise of your argument. Just because you don't like such a definition does not mean it doesn't exist.

So does that mean we can only have democracy when 100% of the people agree with the system? In democracy, the majority rules but the rights of the minorities are still protected to an extent. Also, if that is an exception, why is the dotp not?


I don't like the somewhat quasi-religious tone of "they will eventually convert" but yeah I agree with what you're saying.

Yeah that's why I put convert in quotation marks.

[Skyhilist]

Then by that definition Marxists don't want a state.

Anarchists and libertarian Marxists tend to have different definitions on what constitutes a state.

You can basically believe everything an anarchist does, but still believe in a state if you're a Marxist who just defines the state as an organ of class rule.

At some points it gets down to whether or not you recognize the state's existence determines what tendency you are, even if your beliefs are pretty much identical otherwise. It's really divisive, honestly.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So does that mean we can only have democracy when 100% of the people agree with the system? In democracy, the majority rules but the rights of the minorities are still protected to an extent. Also, if that is an exception, why is the dotp not?
.

And that is one of the reasons why the entire concept of "democracy" is useless; it's a vague amorphous thing that you ascribe properties you think ideal to; we wonder, then, how should we define democracy? A tyranny by majority would be a democracy, with no protection whatever for the minority opinion, would it not? You seem to base this assumption of "protecting the minority" on the legalist U.S. "Democracy".

But the point is, the decision cannot only be taken by the majority, or even simply the majority of the working class; but a near unanimous decision would have to be worked out through debate and discussion and wide participation and so-on-so-forth, especially as regarded more important questions; one cannot leave it at cheap impulse, populism and some fleeting trend, it must vibrate through the walls of all society. Not to mention that our current conceptualisation of democracy is too mired in the current era, and it differs too from the original use of the term.

Thus we should reject "democracy", as it is a meaningless term, an abstract and pointless liberal proclamation without any real basis.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So does that mean we can only have democracy when 100% of the people agree with the system?

What are you even talking about?


In democracy, the majority rules but the rights of the minorities are still protected to an extent.

No, democracy is the majority is right. The majority choice is the option taken, no matter if there are "minority rights", etc. Obviously, the majority is not always correct. Of course, if a decision needs to be made quickly, democratic decision making would be utilized. Otherwise, as I stated before, extended debate is the best option.


Also, if that is an exception, why is the dotp not?

Again, what are you even talking about now? I was saying that rapists, etc. were the obvious exception to the rule, as there are always exceptions whether big or small to the rule, and so your argument is not a valid argument. I have no idea what you are talking about here though.

[Skyhilist]

Also, of course there was perfect democracy for all workers under the USSR.

Just ask the workers who lived in Free Territory ;)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Also, of course there was perfect democracy for all workers under the USSR.

Just ask the workers who lived in Free Territory ;)

And ask those workers about the Kontrrazvedka.

[Skyhilist]

And ask those workers about the Kontrrazvedka.

Red herring. Whether or not their was bureaucracy under Makhno doesn't change whether or not the workers had democracy under the USSR's coercion.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Red herring. Whether or not their was bureaucracy under Makhno doesn't change whether or not the workers had democracy under the USSR's coercion.

I was claiming that Makhno's Free Territory wasn't as "free" as anarchists claim and that certain things, such as a secret police, were inevitable formations due to material conditions. I said nothing about "democracy in the USSR".

[Skyhilist]

I was claiming that Makhno's Free Territory wasn't as "free" as anarchists claim and that certain things, such as a secret police, were inevitable formations due to material conditions. I said nothing about "democracy in the USSR".

So this was a response to what, then? I don't recall claiming that Free Territory was the crowning achievement of freedom (although it seems that Makhno's army was at least somewhat decentralized) and I'm not a Makhnovian either... so I'm not really sure how that criticism is relevant to a discussion on whether the workers had democracy under the USSR.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So this was a response to what, then? I don't recall claiming that Free Territory was the crowning achievement of freedom (although it seems that Makhno's army was at least somewhat decentralized) and I'm not a Makhnovian either... so I'm not really sure how that criticism is relevant to a discussion on whether the workers had democracy under the USSR.

You said:


Also, of course there was perfect democracy for all workers under the USSR.

Just ask the workers who lived in Free Territory ;)

I took this as you saying that those living in the Free Territories had a "perfect democracy". Therefore, I responded by saying:


And ask those workers about the Kontrrazvedka.

I said this because the Kontrrazvedka were basically the Makhnovist Cheka, and wanted to make this point to show that, not only did those living in the Free Territories not live in some freedom-loving paradise but that such organizations were necessitated by material conditions.

[Skyhilist]

I took this as you saying that those living in the Free Territories had a "perfect democracy".

Miscommunication then, I probably should've been clearer. I was alluding to the lack of choice they had to follow the USSR's brand of a socialist vision and subsequently lack of actual democracy. My statement wasn't to say that they were perfect when they were independent or were the pinnacle of democracy (although I do think they were better off, personally).

[Fourth Internationalist]

What are you even talking about?

Well if someone disagrees with the system, then they obviously are not ruling.


Again, what are you even talking about now? I was saying that rapists, etc. were the obvious exception to the rule, as there are always exceptions whether big or small to the rule, and so your argument is not a valid argument. I have no idea what you are talking about here though.

I'm saying that if the case with rapists and murderers are exceptions, why would the dotp not be an exception? Basically I'm asking why is that an exception and how are you determining such exceptions.

[Comrade #138672]

They know that if real democracy exists (not republics with public relations firms, etc) the population would use their voting power to undermine the rich, and we would move ever so closer to a just society.If...

How to get there without democracy in the first place?

There can be no democracy with rich (bourgeois) and poor (working class) people. Obviously, the former, as long as it is allowed to exist as a class, will always undermine the latter. It is a contradiction.

[Le Socialiste]

words.

So you've what, popped in to tell us you're cured? It'd be nice if you could contribute something to your own thread that isn't simply a poor analysis of 'Leninism' and democracy. Come on, engage the posters who've commented here. Don't drop in after 3-4 years of being absent just to create a thread you have no intention of following up on.

People like this really have a tendency to rub me the wrong way. :glare:

[Dear Leader]

Since when does extended debate exclude democracy, or since when does 70% majority instead of 51% make it not democracy?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I think we have a hit and run scenario.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Then by that definition Marxists don't want a state.
That'd be great, but alas...


This is not true. The Marxist conception of the proletarian dictatorship has always placed great emphasis on the direct participation or the proletariat within the state apparatus, not the rule of a few individuals.

So...we all agree then that leadership by Lenin, Stalin and the likes is in no way democracy and Marxism?

But seriously, when you say that, do you realise that what you are saying means that Lenin's USSR is in no way a democracy (don't even get me started on Stalin). Why? Leadership of a few, rule of a few, just seems the same to me.

Im not gonna continue a discussion already rollin' in another thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-perceptions-anarchism-t180764/index1.html) here.

[Sotionov]

To throw in my two cents, too.

Lenin was democratic as much as today's political system is democratic.

Democratic means that it's the people who rule, that is- there is no group of people rulling over the majority of the people, whereas today's capitalist system and Leninist system are just elective oligarchies, not democracies.

Democracy = classless society, any kind of oligarchy = class society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So...we all agree then that leadership by Lenin, Stalin and the likes is in no way democracy and Marxism?

I, personally, agree. The USSR even under Lenin became beaurocratic. It just became more so under Stalin.


But seriously, when you say that, do you realise that what you are saying means that Lenin's USSR is in no way a democracy (don't even get me started on Stalin).

Yes that is what I am saying.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

So...we all agree then that leadership by Lenin, Stalin and the likes is in no way democracy and Marxism?

Marxism is not a mode of production or a way to organize society, but a scientific paradigm. I take it you meant communism. In which case, I agree that neither Lenin nor Stalin were democratic or ran a communist society. I do think, however, the Bolshevik state was a true proletarian dictatorship during it's conception and early years, eventually degenerating towards the end of Lenin's life and solidifying the degeneration with Stalinist rule. As I stated before, I do not consider the proletariat organizing itself as the ruling class a democracy in any sort of way, nor does this bother me.


But seriously, when you say that, do you realise that what you are saying means that Lenin's USSR is in no way a democracy (don't even get me started on Stalin).

And that's absolutely fine. I'm not a Stalinist nor a democrat as I have made clear from my other posts.


Why? Leadership of a few, rule of a few, just seems the same to me.

Yes, because slogans such as "All Power To The Soviets" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/18.htm) is really elitist.


Democracy is the rule of the majority. As long as the will of the majority was not clear, as long as it was possible to make it out to be unclear, at least with a grain of plausibility, the people were offered a counter-revolutionary bourgeois government disguised as "democratic." But this delay could not last long. During the several months that have passed since February 27 the will of the majority of the workers and peasants, of the overwhelming majority of the country’s population, has become clear in more than a general sense. Their will has found expression in mass organisations—the Soviet’s of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies.

How, then, can anyone oppose the transfer of all power in the state to the Soviets? Such opposition means nothing but renouncing democracy! It means no more no less than imposing on the people a government which admittedly can neither come into being nor hold its ground democratically, i.e., as a result of truly free, truly popular elections.

I seems you don't really understand the factors taking place within the revolution in Russia, why the revolution degenerated into Stalinist counter-revolution, and why internationalism and the spreading of the revolution is so important. It seems for you it's easier to blame the failure of the revolution on the "authoritarianism" of Lenin without properly understanding why Lenin took certain measures and how the forces that influenced such measures lead to the degeneration of the revolution. If the revolution were to spread and succeed in Germany, etc. the Bolsheviks would look very different than how we understand them.

[Dave B]

But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship.

It can be exercised only by a vanguard……...

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm


When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party …[of the 1%, over the 99%]…and, as you have heard, a united socialist front is proposed, we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position because it is the party that has won……..
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/aug/05.htm


Do people who work in factories join the ruling dictatorial party?

“No.”




Very often the word “workers” is taken to mean the factory proletariat. But it does not mean that at all. During the war people who were by no means proletarians went into the factories; they went into the factories to dodge the war. Are the social and economic conditions in our country today such as to induce real proletarians to go into the factories?

No.

It would be true according to Marx; but Marx did not write about Russia; he wrote about capitalism as a whole, beginning with the fifteenth century. It held true over a period of six hundred years, but it is not true for present-day Russia. Very often those who go into the factories are not proletarians; they are casual elements of every description.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm

So it was a dictatorship of the 1% who didn’t work in factories.


Quelle surprise!

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I seems you don't really understand the factors taking place within the revolution in Russia, why the revolution degenerated into Stalinist counter-revolution, and why internationalism and the spreading of the revolution is so important. It seems for you it's easier to blame the failure of the revolution on the "authoritarianism" of Lenin without properly understanding why Lenin took certain measures and how the forces that influenced such measures lead to the degeneration of the revolution. If the revolution were to spread and succeed in Germany, etc. the Bolsheviks would look very different than how we understand them.

It is not so much a complaint about why Lenin did what he did. It is more a complaint against any form of authority. Apparently society was not ready or willing to comply with "The Party".

From the piece you quoted from Lenin, i can derive nothing else but a complaint against any form of authority. What happend with the man? From that quote he seems sincere about abolishing the state in any form.

[Old Bolshie]

So...we all agree then that leadership by Lenin, Stalin and the likes is in no way democracy and Marxism?


It depends of your concept of democracy. If you mean a parliament with some bourgeoisie parties it was really no way a democracy.

Lenin's leadership was by no means similar to Stalin's and the likes.


I, personally, agree. The USSR even under Lenin became beaurocratic. It just became more so under Stalin.


Lenin himself recognized the over-bureaucratization of the soviet state and expressed his own concern about it.

The bureaucracy of the soviet state was inherited from the tzarist state which according to Lenin was the soviet state but slightly anointed with soviet oil.

"It is said that a united state apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance come from? Did it not come from the same Russian apparatus, which, as I pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over from Tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?"


"There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed until we could say, that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now, we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the state apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."


(Works, vol. 36, page 605)


"Our state apparatus is so deplorable, not to say wretched, that we must first think very carefully how to combat its defects, bearing in mind that these defects are rooted in the past, which, although it has been overthrown, has not yet been overcome, not yet reached the stage of a culture that has receded into the past."


(Works, vol. 33, page 487)

[#FF0000]

The reason is simple....Anarchism is democracy.

Not so fast, there.


Democracy is a lie, it is oppression and is in reality, oligarchy; that is, government by the few to the advantage of a privileged class. But we can still fight it in the name of freedom and equality, unlike those who have replaced it or want to replace it with something worse.


We are not democrats for, among other reasons, democracy sooner or later leads to war and dictatorship. Just as we are not supporters of dictatorships, among other things, because dictatorship arouses a desire for democracy, provokes a return to democracy, and thus tends to perpetuate a vicious circle in which human society oscillates between open and brutal tyranny and a the and lying freedom.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

It depends of your concept of democracy. If you mean a parliament with some bourgeoisie parties it was really no way a democracy.

Lenin's leadership was by no means similar to Stalin's and the likes.


And i never said it was. My point stands, though. At the end his (Lenin's) party was authoritarian, even if it was but a little.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I think some comrades are confusing the class basis of rule (e.g., D of the P) with a form of rule (e.g., democracy). Lenin and many other Marxists have written about the way reformists and liberals talk about "democracy" as if it existed in outer space with no class content. I don't think "democracy" is a meaningless term -- but it is also not a magical term. The Ancient Greeks had a democracy, but it was based on slave labor.

The aims of Leninists and Anarchists are ostensibly similar, if not identical. As a Leninist, I think the Anarchists are deluded in their thoughts on how to get to a classless stateless society. There is going to be a transitional period between capitalism and communism. It begins with the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Brutus]

"For one thing, ours is not actually a workers’ state but a workers’ and peasants’ state. [...] (Bukharin, in the back: “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?”) Comrade Bukharin back there may well shout “What kind of state? A workers’ and peasants’ state?” I shall not stop to answer him. Anyone who has a mind to should recall the recent Congress of Soviets, [...]. But that is not all. Our Party Programme—a document which [Bukharin] the author of the ABC of Communism knows very well—shows that ours is a workers’ state with a bureacratic twist to it." (Lenin, 1920)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm

[Old Bolshie]

And i never said it was. My point stands, though. At the end his (Lenin's) party was authoritarian, even if it was but a little.

If you are referring to one party ruling you need to look at the circumstances which led to it..

Mensheviks and SR's who were committed to the Provisional Government rejected the October Revolution, walked out of the Soviets and supported the White Army.

Left SR's supported the October Revolution, joined the soviet government and held high positions within CHEKA before they attempted to overthrow the Bolsheviks by force with Western support. Those who didn't agree with the party option joined the Bolsheviks.

[Delenda Carthago]

All I can say is that in Greece there is a (medium) wave of older(above 25 years old) anarchists leaving anarchism or at least collaborate with leninists on their fronts for the last 2 years. Personally I know more than 15 people that I knew back in my anarchist days that I have found on KKE or at least on PAME syndicalist front. And there are as many going towards ANTARSYA. Needless to say that even the proletarian autonomy, which is marxist tendecy, is growing(not as much, but there is a movement over there too, specially with the "antifa").

And the reason, at least to me, is simple: the lack of answers. Greece is under the crisis for more than 4 years and the anarchist milieu has not produced a single analyse for the reasons that lead us here. It has not become the forefront on a single working class struggle. It is not irrelevant that the biggest demo they have throwed was about an evacuation of a squat(Villa Amalias), while at the same time in other demos that were about other struggles like strikes etc. they had even 1/10 of the people they had in the VA demo. It is also worth mentioning that "Rocinante", the anarchosyndicalist organisation, still counts something like... 50 people in the whole country.

So, apart from all the good intentions that many people in that milieu might have, rioting and having fights against the nazis every now and then simply seems to be not enough.

And of course there are many other issues, like the extreme use of violence against many social groups, or the fact that 1/2 anarchists last year voted for SYRIZA, but I think these are just a reflection of the main issue that I described above, so I m not gonna get into it.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

There is going to be a transitional period between capitalism and communism. It begins with the dictatorship of the proletariat.
And that's where we differ. I (as an anarchist) believe there should be no transitional period. It tends to lead to situations like the USSR and China.



If you are referring to one party ruling you need to look at the circumstances which led to it..

Mensheviks and SR's who were committed to the Provisional Government rejected the October Revolution, walked out of the Soviets and supported the White Army.

Left SR's supported the October Revolution, joined the soviet government and held high positions within CHEKA before they attempted to overthrow the Bolsheviks by force with Western support. Those who didn't agree with the party option joined the Bolsheviks.
Doesn't matter how it became corrupted. In the end it was authoritarian, that's what matters.Again, apparently the people weren't okay with the circumstances. Forcing them will only lead to revolt. If you don't have support of the people, your plan will never sustain. As was obvious with the USSR.

[Theophys]

The OP bases his entire argument on the basis of democracy. Freedom and democracy are not two things in a package that must always be sought after. Freedom leads to destructive anarchy by allowing various opposition and contradictions to collide with each other leading to conflict and war. Democracy, something which Anarcho-Communists base everything upon, is nullified by Arrow's impossibility theory, the Condorcet paradox, public choice theory, the numerous concepts on the faults and problems of collective decision-making, and the simple statement that "the most popular decision is not always the best decision".


And that's where we differ. I (as an anarchist) believe there should be no transitional period. It tends to lead to situations like the USSR and China.
Yeah, because you obviously have super-productivity, super-abundance, infinite resources, and full automation directly after Capitalism. No. See the debate on the question of an "according to need" communist system, a gift economy, as the one Anarcho-Communists support and its impossibility here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/eliminating-scarcity-luxury-t180805/index.html?t=180805). The thing is, since we have finite resources on Earth then we inevitably need to ration resources and an "according to need" system would thus be impossible lest you want to rip out of every single crust of Earth leaving nothing but molten lava in its place. Anarcho-Communists, as well as many Utopian Communists, also take for granted that what we have today due to Capitalism would exist in their system as a given. The thing is, what we have due to Capitalism today is DUE TO CAPITALISM, due to super-exploitation of Third World labor, inequality of income, the existence of markets, competition, commodity production and production for profit, Capitalist investments, pricing mechanisms, price signals, etc. etc. These people want to do away with all of those which give rise to the results of Capitalism, i.e. the current levels of productivity, production, abundance, machinery, and technology whilst SOMEHOW keeping the results.


Doesn't matter how it became corrupted. In the end it was authoritarian, that's what matters.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is inevitable if the victors during a revolution or war wish to secure their power.

See my texts here on the matter of authority:

Violent Revolution vs Pacifist Revolution:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18897

The Transition to Communism: Anarchism Vs Leninism:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18896


Again, apparently the people weren't okay with the circumstances. Forcing them will only lead to revolt. If you don't have support of the people, your plan will never sustain. As was obvious with the USSR.
It is not a question of support, but a question of the ability to prevent mass organization through force or supplying their needs. Governments never have 100% support, any percent of opposition can trigger a revolution give the proper catalyst. Your Anarcho-Communism cannot, either, have full public support and is much more liable to open conflict and opposition than the USSR.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

And that's where we differ. I (as an anarchist) believe there should be no transitional period. It tends to lead to situations like the USSR and China.



Doesn't matter how it became corrupted. In the end it was authoritarian, that's what matters.Again, apparently the people weren't okay with the circumstances. Forcing them will only lead to revolt. If you don't have support of the people, your plan will never sustain. As was obvious with the USSR.
Yeah, no transitional period -- that's a plan :rolleyes:. As for the "corrupt," and "authoritarian," aspects of the Bolsheviks, these things are not, as you suggest, binary. And it matters a fuck of a lot, how it became "corrupted." It is important to learn from mistakes. But you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And at least in China and the USSR capitalism was overthrown. In your plan, you don't even get that far.

[Fourth Internationalist]

And at least in China and the USSR capitalism was overthrown. In your plan, you don't even get that far.

China and the USSR all had State Capitalism. Even if you believe they had some form of non-capitalism or state socialism, it shouldn't be a part of history that you're celebrating as a victory, let alone over anarchism that hasn't produced something as horrific as Stalin's USSR, etc.


Lenin himself recognized the over-bureaucratization of the soviet state and expressed his own concern about it.

The bureaucracy of the soviet state was inherited from the tzarist state which according to Lenin was the soviet state but slightly anointed with soviet oil.

Concerned, yes. Did anything? Not much.

[ComradeOm]

Concerned, yes. Did anything? Not much.And if he had somehow clambered from his wheelchair and completely reshaped the Soviet state (as if that were possible) I'm sure that you'd be the first to scream 'dictator'

[Deity]

I can't believe I'm seeing communists say that "there is absolutely nothing wrong with authoritarianism". I understand the belief in a need for a SLIGHT transition period, but I would never condone an authoritarian regime.

[Old Bolshie]

Concerned, yes. Did anything? Not much.

Recognizing the existence of the problem is the first step to solve it. One man alone can't change an entire state apparatus as it's obvious. Lenin alone didn't have the power or the time to do it. As he said:

"the state apparatus we call ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us; it is a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch and there has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the past five years without the help of other countries and because we have been "busy" most of the time with military engagements and the fight against famine."

It must be remembered that Lenin suffered the first stroke in May, 1922 when the Civil War was still in its final stage and the famine was still widespread.


Doesn't matter how it became corrupted. In the end it was authoritarian, that's what matters.

It actually matters to understand why it became authoritarian. You can't just throw labels like "corrupted" or "authoritarian" without looking at the circumstances surrounding it. All those political forces tried to overthrow the Bolsheviks in an authoritarian manner one way or another so it's perfectly natural that the Bolsheviks ended up authoritarians as well.


Again, apparently the people weren't okay with the circumstances. Forcing them will only lead to revolt. If you don't have support of the people, your plan will never sustain. As was obvious with the USSR.

The people weren't okay with the World War, the Civil War, the foreign intervention and the famine. If the Bolsheviks didn't have the support of the population who had it? The Whites? I guess the outcome of the Civil War showed very well what side the majority of the people sided on.

[Fourth Internationalist]

And if he had somehow clambered from his wheelchair and completely reshaped the Soviet state (as if that were possible)

Where did I say this? Sure, I expected him not help the growing beaurocracy, but I never expected him to at the end of his life to alone change the Soviet system. Do you have anything to say that doesn't involve making absurd claims about what I think he should have done?


I'm sure that you'd be the first to scream 'dictator'

No, if in fact he alone had reshaped the Soviet Union into a workers' democracy overnight as you think I expected him to do, I would be calling him the Messiah of socialism, not a dictator. I do not even believe he was even a dictator in terms of what he actually did, let alone if he theoretically democratised the Soviet Union. Any other absurd things you'd like to claim I believe?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Recognizing the existence of the problem is the first step to solve it. One man alone can't change an entire state apparatus as it's obvious. Lenin alone didn't have the power or the time to do it.

Where did I say I expected him alone to democratise the Soviet Union? Why are you claiming to know what I would have wanted him to do?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

China and the USSR all had State Capitalism. Even if you believe they had some form of non-capitalism or state socialism, it shouldn't be a part of history that you're celebrating as a victory, let alone over anarchism that hasn't produced something as horrific as Stalin's USSR, etc.



Concerned, yes. Did anything? Not much.
The world's first successful proletarian revolution? Nothing to celebrate? I respectfully say up yours, comrade. Anarchism has not produced anything. Shall we discuss the Spanish Civil War? Well, not now and not here. There have been precious few victories these past 150 years -- so we should celebrate the revolution and learn from the process of degeneration into Stalinism. It is either ignorance or anti-communism that would lead you to make such a comment.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The world's first successful proletarian revolution? Nothing to celebrate? I respectfully say up yours, comrade.

I said I was referring to the Soviet Union after the revolution during Stalin. Do you think that the USSR in that time was an actual workers' state? Also, stop being such a child with the insults. It's petty.


Anarchism has not produced anything. Shall we discuss the Spanish Civil War? Well, not now and not here. When people point out how "communism fails", do they point to 1930's Spain or 1930's Russia?


There have been precious few victories these past 150 years -- so we should celebrate the revolution and learn from the process of degeneration into Stalinism. Agreed.


It is either ignorance or anti-communism that would lead you to make such a comment.Yes, bring up accusations of anti-communism. I haven't seen that before on RevLeft :rolleyes:

[Old Bolshie]

Where did I say I expected him alone to democratise the Soviet Union? Why are you claiming to know what I would have wanted him to do?

Because you said that he didn't do anything and I was telling you that he couldn't do anything about it alone even if he wanted.

[ComradeOm]

Where did I say this? Sure, I expected him not help the growing beaurocracy, but I never expected him to at the end of his life to alone change the Soviet systemAt the end of his life Lenin realised that the Soviet state apparatus was woefully inadequate and speculated (advocated, actually) that it would take years of reform, and a complete overhaul in mentality, to correct. This is placed in the context of the revolution and, indeed, imperialism. But this isn't enough for you, right?

What more do you want? No mistakes to be made in the first place? To arise from his death bed and take a broom to the Soviet state apparatus? Widely publicising anti-bureaucratic campaigns (of which were many)?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Because you said that he didn't do anything and I was telling you that he couldn't do anything about it alone even if he wanted.

He didn't do anything much to stop the growing bureaucracy. But when does that mean I wanted him to solely transform Soviet society? Plus, there were numerous others within the Bolsheviks that were trying to reduce the bureaucracy, yet Lenin didn't try to help their cause and even opposed them greatly. Yes, I think he should have supported the anti-bureaucrats. But no, I would never expect anyone to single-handedly change any society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

At the end of his life Lenin realised that the Soviet state apparatus was woefully inadequate and speculated (advocated, actually) that it would take years of reform, and a complete overhaul in mentality, to correct. This is placed in the context of the revolution and, indeed, imperialism. But this isn't enough for you, right?

Enough for me to what? To think Lenin didn't help the bureaucracy? He did so whether or not he regretted his actions later.


What more do you want? No mistakes to be made in the first place? I would never expect that, but I would have hoped some of his actions hadn't been done. Why is that so bad?


To arise from his death bed and take a broom to the Soviet state apparatus? Do you have any actual substance to add to this conversation or just more absurd claims?


Widely publicising anti-bureaucratic campaigns (of which were many)?I personally am quite fond of the Workers' Opposition. So yes, supporting them would of course been an impossible ideal. But saying they were incompatable with the Communist Party, were counter-revolutionary, and actively seeking their end along with other communist opposition was a mistake.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I said I was referring to the Soviet Union after the revolution during Stalin. Do you think that the USSR in that time was an actual workers' state? Also, stop being such a child with the insults. It's petty.
When people point out how "communism fails", do they point to 1930's Spain or 1930's Russia?

Agreed.

Yes, bring up accusations of anti-communism. I haven't seen that before on RevLeft :rolleyes:
Hmmm, it was much milder than what I originally thought of. I do think the USSR in the 1930s was a workers' state, albeit one where political power had been completely usurped by Stalin and his clique.

I don't really care about "people" who prate about the "failure" of communism. I was referring to the Anarchists, which probably led the majority of workers in Spain at the time of the civil war, and their role. I'm not sure I even understand your point here.

Decrying the USSR as merely a nasty episode is, in my opinion, anti-communist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't really care about "people" who prate about the "failure" of communism. I was referring to the Anarchists, which probably led the majority of workers in Spain at the time of the civil war, and their role. I'm not sure I even understand your point here.

It was a point against your statement, "Anarchism has not produced anything. Shall we discuss the Spanish Civil War?" Neither soviet socialism nor anarchism have produced a socialist society that is around today. While the USSR's nominal socialist system existed for much longer than any anarchist's, it is one of the biggest reasons to date that people are critical of socialism. However, anarchism's failure in the Spanish Civil War is not one of those reasons.



Decrying the USSR as merely a nasty episode is, in my opinion, anti-communist.

If the USSR is an example of communism, or the way towards communism, then I am a proud anti-communist communist.

[Old Bolshie]

He didn't do anything much to stop the growing bureaucracy. But when does that mean I wanted him to solely transform Soviet society? Plus, there were numerous others within the Bolsheviks that were trying to reduce the bureaucracy, yet Lenin didn't try to help their cause and even opposed them greatly. Yes, I think he should have supported the anti-bureaucrats. But no, I would never expect anyone to single-handedly change any society.

I am not sure who are you referring as anti-bureaucrats within the Bolsheviks but Lenin took anti-bureaucratic stances on multiple occasions as the Trade Unions issue and the creation of RABKRIN despite its failure.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

How can a philosophy be democracy?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

If the USSR is an example of communism, or the way towards communism, then I am a proud anti-communist communist.

What I believe was the point Lev was trying to make was that rejecting it wholesomely is anti-communist because it is just unbelievably daft. You cannot learn from history if you just say it was "just a nasty episode" and do not study and try to understand what happened and why.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I am not sure who are you referring as anti-bureaucrats within the Bolsheviks but Lenin took anti-bureaucratic stances on multiple occasions as the Trade Unions issue and the creation of RABKRIN despite its failure.

Sometimes yes, but not nearly enough to stop it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

What I believe was the point Lev was trying to make was that rejecting it wholesomely is anti-communist because it is just unbelievably daft. You cannot learn from history if you just say it was "just a nasty episode" and do not study and try to understand what happened and why.

I am not against understanding what caused it to become such a nasty episode. Why do people always put words into my mouth?

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the etymological sense, Democracy means the power of all people.Yes and it's a word that we get from people who created democracy for themselves while enslaving their neighbors.

I think generally saying, "proletarian or worker's democracy" gets at both the "class dictatorship" side and democratic nature of decision-making within that class framework.

Lenin did talk about "overcoming democracy" though if I remember correctly from State and Revolution. In a sense he was anti-democratic, he ultimately wanted communism, where such decision-making wasn't even necessary and things could be done as needed in an ad-hoc or mutual sort of way.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

So i finally decided to say fuck you to the Leninist/Stalinist/Bolshevik lot of you. Just keep saying i'm wrong, without adding decent arguments and without knowing what anarchism stands for.

You obviously don't know jack!

I'm outta here.

[#FF0000]

So i finally decided to say fuck you to the Leninist/Stalinist/Bolshevik lot of you. Just keep saying i'm wrong, without adding decent arguments and without knowing what anarchism stands for.

You obviously don't know jack!

I'm outta here.

cool

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

So i finally decided to say fuck you to the Leninist/Stalinist/Bolshevik lot of you. Just keep saying i'm wrong, without adding decent arguments and without knowing what anarchism stands for.

You obviously don't know jack!

I'm outta here.
And not a moment too soon. Ciao bambino.

[Brutus]

He didn't do anything much to stop the growing bureaucracy. But when does that mean I wanted him to solely transform Soviet society? Plus, there were numerous others within the Bolsheviks that were trying to reduce the bureaucracy, yet Lenin didn't try to help their cause and even opposed them greatly. Yes, I think he should have supported the anti-bureaucrats. But no, I would never expect anyone to single-handedly change any society.

Actually Ismail sent me a PDF about Lenin's fight against the bureaucracy, well it mainly focuses on Lenin- Stalin and Trotsky too.
I could send it you if you like?

[Brutus]

So i finally decided to say fuck you to the Leninist/Stalinist/Bolshevik lot of you. Just keep saying i'm wrong, without adding decent arguments and without knowing what anarchism stands for.

You obviously don't know jack!

I'm outta here.

Byesies!

[Fourth Internationalist]

Actually Ismail sent me a PDF about Lenin's fight against the bureaucracy, well it mainly focuses on Lenin- Stalin and Trotsky too.
I could send it you if you like?

He did do a little, yes, he was still a great socialist leader, but not enough imo to help Soviet Russia. Yes, that'd be great.

[Fourth Internationalist]

So i finally decided to say fuck you to the Leninist/Stalinist/Bolshevik lot of you. Just keep saying i'm wrong, without adding decent arguments and without knowing what anarchism stands for.

You obviously don't know jack!

I'm outta here.

Why not tell them what anarchism is before spewing insults like a child?

[Brutus]

He did do a little, yes, he was still a great socialist leader, but not enough imo to help Soviet Russia. Yes, that'd be great.

PM me your email

[Lucretia]

In fairness to this "User Name" fellow, it's not as though he and his fellow anarchists will ever lead a force capable of having a proletarian revolution, so it really doesn't matter much that if they hypothetically did, their rejection of a transitional period from capitalism to socialism would result in a complete lack of preparedness regarding how to organize the economy after it has come into the hands of the new state -- oh, wait, I mean "public authority" (anarchists are opposed to states, remember?). It's not as though it will have any opponents, either within or outside of the territory over which the new "public authority" has acquired power, that would require production to continue to be diverted to areas that do not meet human needs, like a military, for example. It will be like the movie V for Vendetta, and everybody will watch some instructional video about how terrible and oppressive society has become, and as a result will become revolutionary socialist cadre capable of leaping straight into a fully communist society. Yes, everybody in the world, all at once. It would most certainly be interesting to see how anarchists would respond to a situation that differs from this Hollywood vision, but sadly there never has been and never will be an "anarchist revolution," so the question is purely an academic one.

As for the claims about Lenin supposedly not fighting bureaucracy, anybody who has engaged on even a superficial level with the body of Lenin's work after October should be aware that this is pure nonsense. This seems to be just another case where a statement is deemed not to be true not because the person has looked into it and determined it not to be true, but because it doesn't jibe with the person's ideological preconceptions. Rather than doing the reasonable thing, and adjust the ideological preconceptions, we all know how revlefters love to try to adjust reality instead in order to cling to their beloved identities.

[Fourth Internationalist]

In fairness to this "User Name" fellow, it's not as though he and his fellow anarchists will ever lead a force capable of having a proletarian revolution, so it really doesn't matter much that if they hypothetically did, their rejection of a transitional period from capitalism to socialism would result in a complete lack of preparedness regarding how to organize the economy after it has come into the hands of the new state -- oh, wait, I mean "public authority" (anarchists are opposed to states, remember?). It's not as though it will have any opponents, either within or outside of the territory over which the new "public authority" has acquired power, that would require production to continue to be diverted to areas that do not meet human needs, like a military, for example. It will be like the movie V for Vendetta, and everybody all at once will take the happy revolution pill, and become revolutionary socialist cadre capable of leaping straight into a fully communist society.

I havent identified as an anarchist for a few weeks (I dont consider myself as any particular tendency right now). Plus, you dont really know much about anarchism for someone who seems to be so against it. Still, if you just want to make absurd strawmen claims about anarchism and whine in a childish manner about how it's not ever going to be a revolutionary force, etc., keep on talking.

[Lucretia]

I havent identified as an anarchist for a few weeks (I dont consider myself as any particular tendency right now). Plus, you dont really know much about anarchism for someone who seems to be so against it. Still, if you just want to make strawmen about anarchism and whine in an absurd childish manner about how it's not ever going to be a revolutionary force, etc., keep on talking.

I am not making strawmen about anarchists. I have constructed a scenario in conformity with their two basic premises: 1) They oppose states as such in all their forms, and as a result 2) oppose the idea of a transitional society between capitalism and socialism, which would evolve under the auspices of a workers' state.

I agree that both of these propositions are ridiculous (as is the idea that any tendency upholding these propositions, who can be so incredibly wrong about such basic issues, is a serious contender for leading a revolution). However, keep in mind that they're not my propositions; they are the the propositions of anarchists. Feel free to show how either of these is a caricature or strawman of anarchism.

Anarchists, in my view, are well meaning people. I just find them not to be particularly well informed about theory, and are often reflexively protesting dominant bourgeois norms within the very framework of those norms. Or as the well-known Marxist cultural theorist Raymond Williams once wrote, "Every dominant culture produces its own forms of counter-culture" (reciting from memory, so a couple of the words may be different). It is in those forms that anarchism comfortably resides, not as a threat but as a logical reflection of bourgeois society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I am not making strawmen about anarchists.

Magical pills turning everyone a communist at once is a strawman, and quite an absurd one. I shall make a full response tomorrow, it is extremely difficult to write all this on tapatalk and it's 12:45 am.

[Lucretia]

Magical pills turning everyone a communist at once is a strawman, and quite an absurd one. I shall make a full response tomorrow, it is extremely difficult to write all this on tapatalk and it's 12:45 am.

It's the logical playing out of what would be required to have a revolution that fits their two premises. Whether by a magic pill or subliminal messaging or a special socialist serum or the most effective 30-second ad spot of all time or some other instantaneous solution, their model cannot contend with the reality of uneven consciousness within society more broadly, and within the working class in particular, as a result of their forfeiting the means by which such unevenness can be addressed and a transition can occur. Instead, it's full capitalism to full communism in the blink of an eye, with no transition or corresponding state. If magic pills sound silly, it's only because the entire framework is silly.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It's the logical playing out of what would be required to have a revolution that fits their two premises. Whether by a magic pill or subliminal messaging or a special socialist serum or the most effective 30-second ad spot of all time or some other instantaneous solution, their model cannot contend with the reality of uneven consciousness within society more broadly, and within the working class in particular, as a result of their forfeiting the means by which such unevenness can be addressed and a transition can occur. Instead, it's full capitalism to full communism in the blink of an eye, with no transition or corresponding state. If magic pills sound silly, it's only because the entire framework is silly.

Except that is not true. By the Marxist definition of the state, many anarchists would be in favour of a transitional state (ie a federated soviet system). They don't consider it a state, while Marxists do, because both use different definition. While it's true that anarchists do not want a transitional state, they see the state as "an organisation of all the lawmaking (http://libcom.org/tags/legal) and law enforcing (http://libcom.org/tags/military) institutions within a specific territory" and "an organisation controlled and run by a small minority of people." (libcom). However, a "proper" dotp should not be run by a minority but by all proletarians. They still expect a transitional period (one could argue they have set up some such as in revolutionary Spain) no anarchist thinks communism will occur in the blink of an eye, let alone by "a magic pill or subliminal messaging or a special socialist serum or the most effective 30-second ad spot of all time"

[Lucretia]

Except that is not true. By the Marxist definition of the state, many anarchists would be in favour of a transitional state (ie a federated soviet system). They don't consider it a state, while Marxists do, because both use different definition. While it's true that anarchists do not want a transitional state, they see the state as "an organisation of all the lawmaking (http://libcom.org/tags/legal) and law enforcing (http://libcom.org/tags/military) institutions within a specific territory" and "an organisation controlled and run by a small minority of people." (libcom). However, a "proper" dotp should not be run by a minority but by all proletarians. They still expect a transitional period (one could argue they have set up some such as in revolutionary Spain) no anarchist thinks communism will occur in the blink of an eye, let alone by "a magic pill or subliminal messaging or a special socialist serum or the most effective 30-second ad spot of all time"

The definition of a state presented by you is not a materialist one at all. What defines a state is not the moralizing distinction of whether "many" or "few" run it, whether it is a baaaaad, naughty public authority, or a good-guy happy public authority. States are defined by the function they play in a society in relation to the means of production, and states by their very nature are institutions of coercion originating from control over material resources and designed to upholding the rule of that group which exercises control over those resources. The attempt to try to single out a dictatorship of the proletariat as not a state just because it is drawn from majority control over the means of production, and is used to oppress a minority, is completely arbitrary and has no analytical purpose other than to express a moralizing opinion about it and states in general. Like so much anarchist theorizing. If you actually can think of a real analytical purpose in making this distinction, I'd like to hear it.

But let's set aside set aside that semantic argument over what to call a state, and focus on your other point -- that anarchists do not in fact believe that we will instantly move from full capitalism to full communism. The argument here seems to be a concession that there will be a transitional period between capitalism and communism. I'm happy to see that your representation of anarchism is now beginning to resemble traditional Bolshevism. What, according to anarchists, will the nature of this transitional period be? Why is a transitional period necessary?

[Fourth Internationalist]

The definition of a state presented by you is not a materialist one at all. What defines a state is not the moralizing distinction of whether "many" or "few" run it, whether it is a baaaaad, naughty public authority, or a good-guy happy public authority.

Well that's why I put "(libcom)" right next to it to let you know. It's not my definition of the state I'm giving you.


States are defined by the function they play in a society in relation to the means of production, and states by their very nature are institutions of coercion originating from control over material resources and designed to upholding the rule of that group which exercises control over those resources.

Most people don't have that view of the nature of the state, only Marxists.


The attempt to try to single out a dictatorship of the proletariat as not a state just because it is drawn from majority control over the means of production, and is used to oppress a minority, is completely arbitrary and has no analytical purpose other than to express a moralizing opinion about it and states in general. Like so much anarchist theorizing. If you actually can think of a real analytical purpose in making this distinction, I'd like to hear it.

But why does it matter whether they call it a state or not? There is no universal agreement on what constitutes a state nor how do define it.


But let's set aside set aside that semantic argument over what to call a state, and focus on your other point -- that anarchists do not in fact believe that we will instantly move from full capitalism to full communism. The argument here seems to be a concession that there will be a transitional period between capitalism and communism. I'm happy to see that your representation of anarchism is now beginning to resemble traditional Bolshevism. What, according to anarchists, will the nature of this transitional period be? Why is a transitional period necessary?

I'm not sure what the nature of this transitional state will be, let alone what all anarchists think it will be. However, a system of federated soviets is a common one I here often. Is the second question to me, or about what anarchists think?

[Lucretia]

Well that's why I put "(libcom)" right next to it to let you know. It's not my definition of the state I'm giving you.


Most people don't have that view of the nature of the state, only Marxists.


But why does it matter whether they call it a state or not? There is no universal agreement on what constitutes a state nor how do define it.

Determining whether an entity is a state matters a hell of a lot because it relates to the question of what a state is, the circumstances that necessitate a state, how a state functions, and most importantly -- the circumstances under which a state can cease to be a state.

Instead of answering these questions from a materialist perspective, anarchists choose to answer them from a moralizing perspective. A state consists of bad things, and the rule of workers is good, so therefore the DotP is not a state. Because such an analysis is not derived at all from a materialist understanding of state authority, it fails to account -- as I have repeatedly stated -- the role a state authority will necessarily have during a transition period between capitalism and socialism.


I'm not sure what the nature of this transitional state will be, let alone what all anarchists think it will be. However, a system of federated soviets is a common one I here often. Is the second question to me, or about what anarchists think?We are debating your claims as to what anarchists do and do not think. You attempted to defend anarchists from the accusation that they, either explicitly or implicitly, endorse the idea of leaping straight from capitalism to socialism/communism. In my view, the only wait to reject such utopian thinking of instantaneous transitions is to allow for the fact that value, commodities, and workers' incomplete control over and management of production will continue to be necessary for some period after a workers' revolution, during which there will be a transition from those capitalist forms and to communism. If you concede that, you must also concede that some other entity besides workers' total control and management will be necessary, as the society transitions to full popular management under communism.

But how can this be the case without a state, a specialized institution of coercion derived from control over productive resources, and not just some "public authority" that doesn't require coercion because it is 100% completely democratic and revered by everyone in society? It isn't possible. And to claim it is possible to leap from states to no states, without a withering process during a transitional period is just more anarchist moralizing and utopianism.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Instead of answering these questions from a materialist perspective, anarchists choose to answer them from a moralizing perspective. A state consists of bad things, and the rule of workers is good, so therefore the DotP is not a state. Because such an analysis is not derived at all from a materialist understanding of state authority, it fails to account -- as I have repeatedly stated -- the role a state authority will necessarily have during a transition period between capitalism and socialism.

No one is saying that.

"All states have the same basic functions in that they are an organisation of all the lawmaking (http://libcom.org/tags/legal) and law enforcing (http://libcom.org/tags/military) institutions within a specific territory. And, most importantly, it is an organisation controlled and run by a small minority of people." (libcom)

That's hardly "a state consists of bad things, and the rule of workers is good, so therefore the DotP is not a state."


... And if you concede that, you must also concede that some other entity besides workers' total control and management will be necessary, as the society transitions to full popular management under communism.

Yes, and many anarchists view this transitional system as a non-state (by their definition) federated soviet system.


But how can this be the case without a state, a specialized institution of coercion derived from control over productive resources?

Except, as I have shown you, that is not their view of what the state consists of, therefore, being opposed to the state by their definition is not opposition to this.

It's like say we have a word with two definitions, state in this case, but 'gay' is another common one I can think of right now (1. happy 2. homosexual). Now, take a person from the 1700's, and a modern conservative Christian. Now, the first one says everyone should be gay, but the latter is horrified. Clearly the disagree, right? In reality, they don't. (1700's man is probably homophobic too). Why? Because they're both using what they think the definition is, but it is different even though it's in the same wrapper ('gay'). In many cases, it is the same with Marxists and anarchists about 'the state'. It's a bit of a rough analogy especially to put into words but I hope you can see what I mean here.

[Lucretia]

No one is saying that.

"All states have the same basic functions in that they are an organisation of all the lawmaking (http://libcom.org/tags/legal) and law enforcing (http://libcom.org/tags/military) institutions within a specific territory. And, most importantly, it is an organisation controlled and run by a small minority of people." (libcom)

That's hardly "a state consists of bad things, and the rule of workers is good, so therefore the DotP is not a state."

To the contrary, the definition you keep citing is precisely saying that. On what other basis does the definition insist on a distinction between public authorities run by the majority not being states, while those run by "a small minority" being states? You've yet to answer this question, and cannot do so. The only conceivable reason I can see for taking institutions that are similar in every single way in relation to the means of production, except that one rests on proletarian economic hegemony and the other on the hegemony of exploiting classes, and to claim that one is a state and the other not, is that the state is not being defined in any kind of materialist way, but purely in moralizing terms about the good and bad purposes of the public authority under question.

If you do see some analytical purchase to this distinction, please feel free to mention it in your follow-up. Somehow, though, I suspect that you won't.


Yes, and many anarchists view this transitional system as a non-state (by their definition) federated soviet system.

Except, as I have shown you, that is not their view of what the state consists of, therefore, being opposed to the state by their definition is not opposition to this.If you want to claim that anarchists are completely on board with a transitional period between capitalism and socialism, in which for some period of time there will continue to exist commodities, value, and markets -- as well as a bureaucratic apparatus specializing in coercion and the use of the the threat of violence to ensure compliance -- then fine. The only difference between this vision and the traditional Leninist one is purely one of semantics, with anarchists childishly quibbling over terminology by claiming that public authority resting on majority control over the means of production cannot possibly be considered a state, for the purely moralizing reason I alluded to above.

But I think you and I both know that anarchists are not closet Leninists. They reject the idea that a public authority or state will be necessary in a transition period sometimes to coerce segments of the working class by virtue of the role the state will continue to have to play, presiding as it does over an economy that is still not fully planned and under popular self-management, because it is still transitioning to socialism. THIS is my point about not having a materialist definition of the state. If you have an economy that is still overwhelmingly capitalist in form, because it has just emerged from a fully capitalist society, it doesn't matter that the workers have control over it through a public authority staffed by the leaders of their revolution. It will still require a state with some bureaucracy, quite a bit of centralization, etc., even as it no longer functions for the purpose of ensuring the continuing rule of an exploiting class. It is conceivable that there might even be brief episodes where, by virtue of the difficulties of transitioning to socialism in a context where market forces are still fostering forms of bourgeois individualism, and where surrounding hostile states might with a segment of backward workers most susceptible to bourgeois ideas, that such a state - staffed by a vanguard of leaders forged in revolutionary struggle - may be forced to take action against the wishes of the majority of workers who are unwittingly acting against their own collective long-term economic self-interests.

Anarchists refuse to entertain this prospect. They don't take seriously real revolution or the real, concrete kinds of strategising necessary to pull one off. They instead use revolution -- like "state" -- in these highly moralizing ways. And you can see it in all their crap about "power corrupting," and criticisms of Lenin being a terrible person, not fighting bureaucracy at all, selfishly lusting for power by monopolizing his control over the party, etc. This indicates that - no - their understanding of states and the transition is very different than the semantic quibble you seem to want to narrow it down to. The root of their disagreement is in the need for a vanguard, which is part and parcel of their rejection of the variegated levels of consciousness within the working class, which is not only a failure to account for the material roots of workers' consciousness (how under capitalism a massive material structure of bourgeois intellectual hegemony is designed to thwart workers' arriving at revolutionary socialist consciousness), but also plays out in their understanding of revolution and the kind of public authority necessary to lead one to a successful socialist conclusion.

As for your analogy, I won't be engaging in it, because then I'd have to get into a really long and excruciating argument with you about the role of dialectics, abstraction, etc., in the formulation of social-scientific definitions. And I have been on this forum long enough to know when such a discussion would be a complete waste of time.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Why not tell them what anarchism is before spewing insults like a child?

I only tried that for half the thread, so no i'm not gonna anymore. Read it back, it's right there.

[The Feral Underclass]

None of you know what you're talking about.

[helot]

None of you know what you're talking about.

Standard marxists for you. Im sure you've seen the "critiques" of anarchism by the AWL, SWP etc. They're hilarious. It makes me think that most get their information on anarchism from some absurd polemics as opposed to from anarchists.


Of course this doesn't mean there aren't marxists with a better understanding or that anarchists dont do the same thing.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

None of you know what you're talking about.

At least they flesh out what they are talking about, unlike monsieur ominous one-liner argument here.

[Brutus]

None of you know what you're talking about.

Please enlighten us commies

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

The state is considered to be a compulsory political organisation with a centralised government. This centralised government exists purely because it has a monopoly of force backed by created laws in order to legitimise that force, as well as other institutions that prop up the mentality of accepting the legitimacy of force (think ISA).

Now in order to change the way the system is currently organised, one ought to undo the messages imposed upon us by the state. This requires changes to take place in every walk of life as bourgeois liberal democracy has its roots in everything; our language, the architecture of our cities, the manner in which you go to work and the way your thoughts are constructed based on the surrounding environment, all of this is designed to (either overtly or subtly, for example the law and police contrasted with the planning of city centres).

If we are to make changes in these various areas of life, these changes cannot be organised centrally on the basis that what works in one area may not work in another. Experiences are different for every person, in every environment even though they share basic foundations and so it would be more effective if the far left tolerated the different groups under it's wing while removing any ideologies that threaten it's unity. No that doesn't mean purges, I'm not advocating authoritarian methods. Instead it means a complete re-analysis of old ideas and the only way this can be done is if we all chip in and take the view that ideas are not property. Ideas ought not be based on, owned by or limited by a person in their abstract form (e.g. Marxist-Leninism is based on the ideas of Marx, Engels and Lenin). Instead, it would be wise to remove labels associated to people and replace them with labels that represent an action (not a goal). Anarchism is one such label that has been derived from the opposition of formal, irrational hierarchy. That doesn't mean that Anarchism is exempt from being scrutinised however as it's various sub-categories are now no longer relevant to the current generations, the contemporary period. Change is required in the the theory and the label itself as Anarchism has been appropriated by the media, the public understand it to be an aggressive, chaotic philosophy. Some of it's tactics are outdated, or lack the flexibility required to insert themselves into a country's thought stream (the UK for example lacks a significant Anarchist presence).

I've only touched on Anarchism because it's the philosophy that I have the most understanding of currently, but even this can be misunderstood by some. I would like to say that just because one expresses a point of view doesn't mean that they automatically belong the category from where that point of view came from. It's another flaw which exists in people's thinking, people attack others with 'sectarian' intent simply because those 'others' aren't compatible. The bourgeoisie don't give a damn whether their ideas differ or not because it all results in them maintaining power. Why should we human beings have this urge to belong to an ideology, a tendency, a club for the purpose of making change? Ideas are tool for change and ought to be treated as such.

[The Feral Underclass]

At least they flesh out what they are talking about, unlike monsieur ominous one-liner argument here.

Are you prepared to accept you're wrong? If you don't have that ability then why should I flesh out my argument? Nine times out of ten, these pages long arguments, because they're not really debates, all boil down to one simple objective: Being right.


Please enlighten us commies

The problem is, I don't think you want to be enlightened. I think you just want to be right. I've been around this forum for a decade. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that trying to enlighten someone who has no interest in being enlightened is a colossal waste of my time.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Are you prepared to accept you're wrong? If you don't have that ability then why should I flesh out my argument? Nine times out of ten, these pages long arguments, because they're not really debates, all boil down to one simple objective: Being right.

Please look at what you just wrote:


None of you know what you're talking about.

The only person who is avoiding debate in favour of 'being right' in this thread is you, with this pretentious unexplanatory one-liner. When I perused you about it, you just responded with more pretentious shit about there being 'no point to expanding your reasoning'. Even in terms of a more balanced debate what you're saying is insanely hypocritical. It's basically this:
You are all completely wrong and clueless. I am not going to debate or expand upon why I think this is the case because you won't actually argue against it anyway.
In other words, you have no argument at the current moment while at the same time accusing other members of being clueless and not arguing with adequate reasoning.

And just for the record, I have not participated in this thread at all up until this point, and was enjoying looking at what people had to say before the predictable 'Har de har, you're all wrong, bye worms' line appeared, so I don't know who it is you're posing the 'accept that you're wrong' bit at.

[Brutus]

The problem is, I don't think you want to be enlightened
False

I think you just want to be right.
True

[The Feral Underclass]

Please look at what you just wrote:



The only person who is avoiding debate in favour of 'being right' in this thread is you, with this pretentious unexplanatory one-liner. When I perused you about it, you just responded with more pretentious shit about there being 'no point to expanding your reasoning'. Even in terms of a more balanced debate what you're saying is insanely hypocritical. It's basically this:
You are all completely wrong and clueless. I am not going to debate or expand upon why I think this is the case because you won't actually argue against it anyway.
In other words, you have no argument at the current moment while at the same time accusing other members of being clueless and not arguing with adequate reasoning.

And just for the record, I have not participated in this thread at all up until this point, and was enjoying looking at what people had to say before the predictable 'Har de har, you're all wrong, bye worms' line appeared, so I don't know who it is you're posing the 'accept that you're wrong' bit at.



False


True
:lol:

Thank you for proving my point so spectacularly.

[Brutus]

:lol:

Thank you for proving my point so spectacularly.

Surely to be enlightened would be a step on the right path, therefore they're not mutually exclusive.

[Captain Ahab]

Come on TAT the point with arguing with people online is not to convince your opponent but the audience or in this case the lurkers. I'd really like to see your 2 cents on this.

[Lucretia]

For those who are interested where The Anarchist Tension stands on these issues, feel free to consult this lengthy exchange we had a number of months back about Leninism and anarchism: http://www.revleft.com/vb/leninism-wake-occupy-t179591/index2.html

[The Feral Underclass]

For those who are interested where The Anarchist Tension stands on these issues, feel free to consult this lengthy exchange we had a number of months back about Leninism and anarchism: http://www.revleft.com/vb/leninism-wake-occupy-t179591/index2.html

Yes, if you want to see Lucretia repeat himself lots.

[Lucretia]

Yes, if you want to see Lucretia repeat himself lots.

You can find quite a bit of repetition in Marx's texts, too. Repetition is necessary when one is confronted repeatedly with the same erroneous and foolish ideas.

[The Feral Underclass]

You can find quite a bit of repetition in Marx's texts, too. Repetition is necessary when one is confronted repeatedly with the same erroneous and foolish ideas.

Except, of course, you didn't actually address my ideas, you just kept repeating yourself.

Nevertheless, I have responded to you.

[Lucretia]

Except, of course, you didn't actually address my ideas, you just kept repeating yourself.

Nevertheless, I have responded to you.

There is a certain point beyond which there are declining returns on invested time in discussion, TAT. We passed that point some time back. Our respective positions are laid out, and readers can judge for themselves whether I am addressing your points, whether you are addressing mine, etc. Because contrary to your pearls of wisdom, I really don't like repeating myself.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is a certain point beyond which there are declining returns on invested time in discussion, TAT. We passed that point some time back. Our respective positions are laid out, and readers can judge for themselves whether I am addressing your points, whether you are addressing mine, etc. Because contrary to your pearls of wisdom, I really don't like repeating myself.

Suit yourself.

[Noa Rodman]

I stumbled on an apparently popular Lenin quote from The Unknown Lenin: From the Secret Archive (ed. Richard Pipes, 1996):

"Why should we bother to reply to Kautsky? He would reply to us, and we would have to reply to his reply. There's no end to that. It would be quite enough for us to announce that Kautsky is a traitor to the working class, and everyone will understand everything."

Does anyone have this book? Amazon gives a view of the index, which shows that Kautsky's name is mentioned in a footnote on page 41 (on Erfurt programme) (in 'Remarks at Central Committee Meeting 15 November 1917' ). So I have doubts about this Lenin quote (the quote comes from Newsweek,16 Sep 1996, p.100; George Will). Would be interesting though if it is true, when Lenin write this and to whom.

[The Feral Underclass]

Lenin hated democracy. Yeah.

Also, I don't think there is such thing as 'Leninism'. He was just a Marxist who analysed the Russian situation. To do that, and to some extension, he analysed capitalism of his time.

You've set up a false dichotomy. Some anarchists might argue that Lenin hated democracy, but really the argument isn't about Lenin's emotional feelings towards governance, or even about what he said and wrote on the subject, it's about what he did in practice.

[V.Vendetta]

Alright, I just want to address some of the questions about how Anarchists view the state and the transition period.

I would define the state as a centralized apparatus of organized violence that claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given geographical area. This is pretty much the most precise definition I can think of, and all states in history would meet this definition. A state, as such, can only be ruled by a minority; its whole structure exists as such to suppress the majority with force. If we accept this definition of the state, there can be no such thing as a "workers state", because if the whole working class composed the state, that would be the majority of society, and it would no longer be a state.

So what about a transitional period? Obviously we won't have communism the day after a revolution, and the revolution does need defending. Anarchists support horizontal networks and federations of self-managed associations as an alternative social structure to the state. Such a confederation of communities would be a "public authority" in a sense, but it would not be a state. As far as defense, anarchists support arming the entire working population and organizing voluntary and confederated militias under the 'authority' of the confederated communities.

The transitional reorganization of the economy will be handled by the free coordination of producers and consumers councils, and will likely involve some form of remuneration according to labor. ParEcon is a decent attempt at visualizing such a transitional economy. When the workers in a given area expropriate their workplaces and put them under their own control, these new workplaces will coordinate with the revolutionary communities to manage production and distribution. We would like to see federations of self-managed workplaces working together with federations of self-managed communities, resulting in a decentralized, democratic system of economic planning.

The idea that Anarchists think we can jump straight to full blown communism overnight is ridiculous. Anarchists have long recognized the need for an organized and efficient revolutionary transition to communism. We simply believe that this whole process must be done by the masses of workers themselves through free associations, and we will forever oppose any elite that tries to prop itself up as some central authority over the working class.

Think of Anarchism as real socialism, without all the bullshit.