My complaints about State Socialism and Anarchism

[G4b3n]

I consider myself to be a libertarian socialist (as my primary concern is the liberty of working people whether in a bourgeois or post revolutionary context). My criticism of state socialism includes all typical anarchist analysis of Marxism-Leninism. The vanguard party asserts itself into the position of an exploitative class entity, the proletarian state ends up as a player in the game of world capitalism and eventually rejects legitimate efforts for the liberation of workers world wide, the worker is still subjected to the will of his leaders, etc.

My concerns about anarchism, as advocated by the likes of Mikhail Bakunin apply mainly to defense of the proletariat during and after a revolution. How will we go about about ensuring that the revolution remains free of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois influence?

Assuming that legitimate power is in the hands of decentralized worker's institution e.g, syndicates, soviets, committees, or whatever. Will this sort of autonomous production be sufficient in meeting the needs of humanity as the slavery based systems of capitalism and sate socialism are?

Perhaps someone could turn me on to a strand of left Marxism that sufficiently addresses these issues, as I am a rather naturally dialectical thinker to begin with, yet I feel that Marxism confuses the desirable with the inevitable and politically lays the ground work for tyranny such as "Stalinism" which it philosophically rejects. Or maybe one of my fellow anarchists can calm my worries with a detailed theoretical revolutionary analysis.

[tuwix]

How will we go about about ensuring that the revolution remains free of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois influence?


Direct democracy ist a solution to your problem. Nobody is able to buy a half votes of world population.

[G4b3n]

Direct democracy ist a solution to your problem. Nobody is able to buy a half votes of world population.

That is nothing tangible that stops the bourgeoisie from seizing power during the revolution. Also, even theoretically, the petite bourgeoisie is quite massive, more so today than the days of Lenin.

[BIXX]

I consider myself to be a libertarian socialist (as my primary concern is the liberty of working people whether in a bourgeois or post revolutionary context). My criticism of state socialism includes all typical anarchist analysis of Marxism-Leninism. The vanguard party asserts itself into the position of an exploitative class entity, the proletarian state ends up as a player in the game of world capitalism and eventually rejects legitimate efforts for the liberation of workers world wide, the worker is still subjected to the will of his leaders, etc.

Keep in mind there is a difference between leaders and rulers.


My concerns about anarchism, as advocated by the likes of Mikhail Bakunin apply mainly to defense of the proletariat during and after a revolution. How will we go about about ensuring that the revolution remains free of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois influence?

Well, during a revolution (this goes for all tendencies) it would be up to us to educate the workers and fight for worker rights. But if we seem less convincing than the capitalists then we have already lost. This task is especially difficult due to the fact that capitalism has so firmly lodged itself inside the minds of the masses.

Also, if the bourgeoisie or petite-bourgeoisie attempt to gain power during a revolution via violent means, we just fight them.


Assuming that legitimate power is in the hands of decentralized worker's institution e.g, syndicates, soviets, committees, or whatever. Will this sort of autonomous production be sufficient in meeting the needs of humanity as the slavery based systems of capitalism and sate socialism are?

I trust that it would be able to, seeing as everyone will be working to their ability.

Also, your question here is implying that capitalism is working to sustain the needs of humanity in any meaningful way, which is obvious nonsense.


Perhaps someone could turn me on to a strand of left Marxism that sufficiently addresses these issues, as I am a rather naturally dialectical thinker to begin with, yet I feel that Marxism confuses the desirable with the inevitable and politically lays the ground work for tyranny such as "Stalinism" which it philosophically rejects. Or maybe one of my fellow anarchists can calm my worries with a detailed theoretical revolutionary analysis.


Honestly I'd need to have a more in depth discussion with you if you want help from me. If I have questions I tend to PM people who seem to be knowledgable in the area, I'd recommend the same.

[Skyhilist]

Here's the way I look at it. In order to have a successful revolution in my opinion, you need a class conscious majority. If we have a class conscious majority who are willing to fight, then it's obvious that we're capable of victory, and will be obvious toots revolutionaries. So if a class conscious majority knows they can win, they're unlikely to settle for lesser bourgeois concessions that grant them nowhere near as much freedom as a revolutionary victory does, making it hard to the bourgeois to deradicalize a class conscious majority. With the majority of the people, the odds favor is by shear numbers. If the bourgeois try to retake The means of production after we seize it, we will just fight them, and win because we will outnumber them in any successful revolution. If you don't have this class conscious majority to begin with the. In my opinion the odds of successful revolution are low. Perhaps if this anarchist viewpoint isn't satisfactory for you you'd prefer Marxism DeLeonism or council communism maybe? Or perhaps you'd even be interested in Tiqqun, which deals a lot with insurrectionary tactics.

[G4b3n]

Keep in mind there is a difference between leaders and rulers.

That doesn't make any anarchist criticisms of state socialism any less relevant.




Well, during a revolution (this goes for all tendencies) it would be up to us to educate the workers and fight for worker rights. But if we seem less convincing than the capitalists then we have already lost. This task is especially difficult due to the fact that capitalism has so firmly lodged itself inside the minds of the masses.

Also, if the bourgeoisie or petite-bourgeoisie attempt to gain power during a revolution via violent means, we just fight them.

Yes but would you consider vangaurdism as advocated for by the MLs to be more revolutionary efficient in terms of practicality? Or do you think anarchist established institutions can ensure an "ideologically pure" revolution in the absence of the authoritarians?




I trust that it would be able to, seeing as everyone will be working to their ability.

Also, your question here is implying that capitalism is working to sustain the needs of humanity in any meaningful way, which is obvious nonsense.


But do you really believe that people would work to the best of their ability? I am more than aware of all the mainstream theoretical arguments for this, so no need to inform me.

Do not accuse me of being a capitalist apologist. I was not stating that capitalism is working to meet the needs of humanity or that the needs of humanity was a goal of capitalism. I was stating that just like state socialism, capitalism can support the survival of the vast majority of the working class, that much is objectively obvious.



Honestly I'd need to have a more in depth discussion with you if you want help from me. If I have questions I tend to PM people who seem to be knowledgable in the area, I'd recommend the same.

I will start doing that.

[BIXX]

That doesn't make any anarchist criticisms of state socialism any less relevant.

Yeah, I would just make you that you say ruler instead of leader as people often use that as a way to say you're wrong (and they'd be correct if you use leaders). So when you're making a critique, remember that anarchists oppose rulers, not leaders.


Yes but would you consider vangaurdism as advocated for by the MLs to be more revolutionary efficient in terms of practicality? Or do you think anarchist established institutions can ensure an "ideologically pure" revolution in the absence of the authoritarians?

I think that a revolution can happen based on an anarchist ideology, and I personally believe that it would lead to the only successful revolution, free from oppression.

I disagree with a vanguard party, but not a vanguard. The vanguard alone is just the most knowledgable section of an oppressed section of humanity in regards to their oppression. So every single anarchist, socialist, etc... Is part of the vanguard.


But do you really believe that people would work to the best of their ability? I am more than aware of all the mainstream theoretical arguments for this, so no need to inform me.

Well, even if they does not work to the best of their ability (which I cannot prove that they will or will not, but I believe they will) it would still be everyone that was working. So seeing as today most people don't work to the best of our ability, we'd just have a lot more people doing that, which would still be better.


Do not accuse me of being a capitalist apologist. I was not stating that capitalism is working to meet the needs of humanity or that the needs of humanity was a goal of capitalism. I was stating that just like state socialism, capitalism can support the survival of the vast majority of the working class, that much is objectively obvious.

I was not accusing you, comrade, it's mainly a choice of wording problem. If you aren't careful with your words some people will tear your statements apart, even though you could have been correct with a minor slip in your words.

Now, regarding capitalism meeting the needs of the vast majority of the working class, I would argue that it does not, cause of the huge amount of work that is done in sweatshops, and that many people cannot survive due to this and it has limited a huge amount of workers' ability to live.

[G4b3n]

Yeah, I would just make you that you say ruler instead of leader as people often use that as a way to say you're wrong (and they'd be correct if you use leaders). So when you're making a critique, remember that anarchists oppose rulers, not leaders.



I think that a revolution can happen based on an anarchist ideology, and I personally believe that it would lead to the only successful revolution, free from oppression.

I disagree with a vanguard party, but not a vanguard. The vanguard alone is just the most knowledgable section of an oppressed section of humanity in regards to their oppression. So every single anarchist, socialist, etc... Is part of the vanguard.



Well, even if they does not work to the best of their ability (which I cannot prove that they will or will not, but I believe they will) it would still be everyone that was working. So seeing as today most people don't work to the best of our ability, we'd just have a lot more people doing that, which would still be better.



I was not accusing you, comrade, it's mainly a choice of wording problem. If you aren't careful with your words some people will tear your statements apart, even though you could have been correct with a minor slip in your words.

Now, regarding capitalism meeting the needs of the vast majority of the working class, I would argue that it does not, cause of the huge amount of work that is done in sweatshops, and that many people cannot survive due to this and it has limited a huge amount of workers' ability to live.

I Apologize, political terminology is by no means the language of clarity. I would have to agree with vangaurdism in that sense, yet I still see a scramble for power in the absence of a vanguard party depending upon the conditions leading up to the revolution (established institutions, people of influence, etc). However, I oppose the idea of the vanguard party for obvious authoritarian reasons. It is a bit of a paradox in my view really, I am still pondering for some sort of theoretical solution.

As an anarchist, I do not oppose leaders, but I think they should be under scrutiny as authority in any sense is to always be questioned and constantly examined.

[BIXX]

I Apologize, political terminology is by no means the language of clarity. I would have to agree with vangaurdism in that sense, yet I still see a scramble for power in the absence of a vanguard party depending upon the conditions leading up to the revolution (established institutions, people of influence, etc). However, I oppose the idea of the vanguard party for obvious authoritarian reasons. It is a bit of a paradox in my view really, I am still pondering for some sort of theoretical solution.

As an anarchist, I do not oppose leaders, but I think they should be under scrutiny as authority in any sense is to always be questioned and constantly examined.

As for the italics, this is no surprise to any of us, cause we all get confused sometimes.

As for the bold, I believe the theoretical solution is simply educating the masses, and do what Kropotkin advocates, which is simply deny the authoritarians any power. They can't force it upon us if they have no people who grant them legitimacy.

Your last paragraph is correct on every level.

[Sotionov]

My concerns about anarchism, as advocated by the likes of Mikhail Bakunin apply mainly to defense of the proletariat during and after a revolution. How will we go about about ensuring that the revolution remains free of bourgeois or petty-bourgeois influence?
Sorry, but there is no such thing as "petty-bourgeois" in anarchist thought, and I agree with that kind of thought. Workers that own the means of production they use are not any "bourgeois", big or small, if they don't oppress or exploit anyone. According to anarchism, there are two classes- the laborer class and the ruling class that oppresses and exploits them.

Defense of the revolution according to anarchist thought is to be done by anarchist (voluntary, non-hierarchical) millitias of the working people.

[G4b3n]

Sorry, but there is no such thing as "petty-bourgeois" in anarchist thought, and I agree with that kind of thought. Workers that own the means of production they use are not any "bourgeois", big or small, if they don't oppress or exploit anyone. According to anarchism, there are two classes- the laborer class and the ruling class that oppresses and exploits them.

Defense of the revolution according to anarchist thought is to be done by anarchist (voluntary, non-hierarchical) millitias of the working people.

I do not agree with all anarchist thought. There are clearly different classes within the bourgeoisie. Whether or not you feel these class differences are of any theoretical importance is relevant to you as a socialist.

[RedLenin]

Any revolution requires revolutionary leadership. Look at Egypt today. The masses of Egyptian people rose up heroically and insurrection, twice now, and deposed the ruling regime. But due to a lack of conscious revolutionary socialist leadership, the same essential state apparatus is in tact, and the ruling class still has a pretty firm grip on power.

In fact, Anarchists themselves have played the role of revolutionary leadership, in Spain for example. That's all a "vanguard party" is, an organization of revolutionaries with a clear revolutionary program to get us from capitalism to socialism. The role of the party is not to lord itself over the masses or to institutionalize itself as the dictatorial head of a workers state. Its purpose is to act as a leading force of ideas to guide the working class to the realization of socialism and the success of the revolution. In fact, in a workers state, I believe all working class parties should be allowed to fully participate in government.

Now this is my main problem with Anarchism. Anarchists are absolutely opposed to state power, and I sympathise with this. I hate the state, I really do. However, the whole world working class is not going to arise all at the same time and destroy capitalism over the whole earth. A global revolution is going to develop very unevenly, with some countries going socialist, others staying capitalist, others going fascist, etc.

Say the American government is smashed and the American ruling class expropriated. How on earth could the now-victorious American working class defend itself, when it is situated in a world of hostile capitalist states hell-bent on the annihilation of the new American system? Not to mention the fact that the American ruling class will use terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and all other forces at its disposal to destroy all revolutionary gains. How can the workers defend the revolution without coordinating military force under the authority of the revolutionary workers institutions? They must do this, but this kind of system is, by definition, a state. A federated structure of interlocking workers councils, with a monopoly on military force for the purpose of revolutionary defense, is a state. Pragmatism makes the Anarchist idea of not establishing such a state ludicris. If such an Anarchist idea was put into practice it would mean the defeat of the revolution.

A revolution can not leave open a power vacuume, otherwise the power will be seized by reactionaries. This is what happened in Spain, where the Anarchists could have officially seized power, declaring all power to be in the hands of the communes and workers councils there, and subordinating revolutionary militia to these institutions. That they didn't do this proves the absurdity of Anarchism as a realistic approach to revolution.

The state will wither away as violent resistance dies down and the former capitalist class becomes integrated into the working class. Then the workers state (directly democratic and accountable to the base at all times) cease to have a repressive function (which characterizes states) and takes on purely administrative functions. But we must understand that this kind of revolution will be terribly violent and we will face prolonged periods of civil war and foreign aggression. It make take a whole generation before this violent reaction is finally defeated.

The key to preventing the growth of a parasitic state beaurocracy is democracy. Election of all delegates with the right of instant recall by the electors, payment of no more than an average workers wage, etc. Real revolutionary Marxists advocate a democratic state controlled by the masses of workers themselves, in defense of the revolution, until such a time as resistance wanes to the point where the concentration of military force is no longer necessary, and public institutions take on administrative, rather than repressive, functions.

[Sotionov]

Any revolution requires revolutionary leadership.
Not to explain, a picture says a thousand words:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/993052_10200881996427892_599257044_n.jpg


The role of the party is not to lord itself over the masses or to institutionalize itself as the dictatorial head of a workers state. Its purpose is to act as a leading force of ideas to guide the working class to the realization of socialism and the success of the revolution. In fact, in a workers state, I believe all working class parties should be allowed to fully participate in government.If the role of the party is not to lord itself over the masses/ be a head of state - how can then parties constitute the government? The correct answer is- establish a direct democracy where there is no government, that is- the working people themselves are a mass government.


Say the American government is smashed and the American ruling class expropriated. How on earth could the now-victorious American working class defend itself, when it is situated in a world of hostile capitalist states hell-bent on the annihilation of the new American system?Expropriating the ruling class includes taking control of police and military weaponry and machinery by the democraticaly (/horizontaly) organized working people.


How can the workers defend the revolution without coordinating military force under the authority of the revolutionary workers institutions? They must do this, but this kind of system is, by definition, a state.If it's horizontal in it's organization, anarchist don't consider it a state. Especially being that anarchists also want such organization to be voluntary (in the sense of- if you're not oppressing or exploiting anyone, you don't have to participate in any of our political or economic activity and we will not bother you). I personally am not an anarchist, and do favor an existence of a horizontaly organized state, or as one comrade here called "semi-state", being that it will differ in structure from any state that was ever in existence, being organized in the manner of an anarchist non-state system.


A revolution can not leave open a power vacuume, otherwise the power will be seized by reactionaries. This is what happened in Spain, where the Anarchists could have officially seized power, declaring all power to be in the hands of the communes and workers councils there, and subordinating revolutionary militia to these institutions. That they didn't do this proves the absurdity of Anarchism as a realistic approach to revolution.You don't seem to know what happened in Spain. Workers did organize directly democratic councils in factories, farms and communities, and organized the economical and political life in accordance with anarcho-communist principles (or somewhere anarcho-collectivist), and there was a non-hierarchical workers millitia to defend such communities from fascist (and bolshevik) attacks.


Then the workers state (directly democratic and accountable to the base at all times) Directly democratic organization means that there is no division into the base and the top, because if there is any "top" in a system, no matter if it's elected and recallable, that makes that system not a democracy, but an (elective) oligarchy. (The only real democracy is direct democracy and a) Democracy, logicaly, is not direct if the people do not have at all times direct power (enacted by horizontal organization and plebiscites) but instead delegate it to someone.