What was Free Territory Ukraine like?

[Gritz Hill]

I am an anarchro-syndicalist with Ukrainian decent. The main development anarchy I almost consider utopian and would want to be repeated is what happened in Revolutionary Catalonia. I only recntly leanred about Nestor Makno and I agree with most of his speeches he said to the pesents of Ukraine. However whenever I try to look for how dailry life was like in anarchist Ukraine, all I see is shit about Makno. I want to know what it was like. Was there a free press? Did the anarchist society still have police? Did this society work well economically/socially and environmentally? Was it as good as Revolutionary Catalonia?

[Sasha]

It was a civil warzone, but the massive popular support the makhnovits gathered shows it was def a lot better than what they had or the alternatives.

[Geiseric]

The makhnovists received support from the peasantry, most working class people supported the soviets, although it is interesting that most of makhnovchinas leaders were working class. Makhno's army (possibly under their own decision) participated in pogroms, his right hand man was actually executed by makhno for it eventually. So like the red army in the stalin era there were some ulterior motives with the makhnovchina due to a lack of democratic control.

[TheEmancipator]

The makhnovists received support from the peasantry, most working class people supported the soviets, although it is interesting that most of makhnovchinas leaders were working class. Makhno's army (possibly under their own decision) participated in pogroms, his right hand man was actually executed by makhno for it eventually. So like the red army in the stalin era there were some ulterior motives with the makhnovchina due to a lack of democratic control.

Source? It is my understanding that most were quite supportive of the idea of a free state rather than being subjugated by Bolshevik Russia. Sure, they implemented similar reforms to the soviets (effectively making them soviets), but I don't think they lobbied for a union to Russia.

EDIT : I assume this is what you meant by "The Soviets".

[Fourth Internationalist]

I heard that it was quite authoritarian and centralised despite it's anarchism, though I'm not sure how true it was. As others have said, it was a civil war zone.

[Sasha]

While there was a "secret police" of sorts and the black army had a military hirarchy officers where voted in and out. The accusation of participation in pogroms has been debunked as red army propaganda ages ago.
While principally about Makhno the book "anarchys kozaks" has a lot of stuff on the everyday life in the free territory too..

[Manar]

While there was a "secret police" of sorts and the black army had a military hirarchy officers where voted in and out. The accusation of participation in pogroms has been debunked as red army propaganda ages ago.
While principally about Makhno the book "anarchys kozaks" has a lot of stuff on the everyday life in the free territory too..
Makhno had veto power over the "elections" at the beginning, and eventually that joke of a system was put an end and officers were appointed by Makhno and his underlings. I don't know what you mean by "secret police of sorts" because Makhno basically built his own version of the Cheka, based on the Bolshevik original.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Free Territory consisted of an array of unions, village committees, soviets, free labour societies, communes, and commissions that managed various aspects of society, filling the vacuum of governance. Land was expropriated and put at the disposal of the peasants, whom were said to practice self-management. Peasants and workers formed communes and management was said to be elected and accountable.
The soviets stood above the communes and unions and its task was to execute the decisions taken by these organs. Soviets usually had chairmen. Political parties were not allowed to implement their party programme in these soviets unless workers accepted each point independently. The Bolsheviks and their apologists wrongly interpreted this to mean parties were banned.

Agrarian communes were said to operate as follows:


The bulk of these agrarian communes were made up of peasants;
some contained peasants and workers alike. They were founded primarily
on the basis of equality and solidarity between their members. Everyone,
men and women alike, worked in concert with a clear conscience
whether they toiled in the fields or were employed in domestic duties.
Cooking was communal. So was the refectory. But the urge of
one of the members to prepare his own meal for himself and his children,
or to take part in the communal preparation of meals and then take
it home with him met with no opposition. Each individual, or even an
entire group was free to make what provision it chose for his food, provided
always that all of the other commune members had prior notification
so that the steps required by these changes might be implemented
in the kitchens and in the larders.
There was an equal obligation upon all members to rise early
and set promptly to work with the oxen, horses or other domestic tasks.
Each one had the right to absent himself, whenever he so desired,
but he had to warn his nearest workmate so that the latter might
stand in for him during his absence. This applied to working days. On
rest days (Sundays) members would absent themselves on a rota basis.
The work schedule was worked out at meetings in which everyone
participated; consequently they then knew precisely what was to be done.

...

Each commune comprised about ten families and included 100,
200 or 300 members in all. By decision of the regional congress of
agrarian communes, each one received a normal allotment of land—
which is to say as much land as its members could cultivate—located in
the immediate neighbourhood. In addition, they received the livestock
and farm implements which already existed on these estates.

Makhno, The Russian Revolution

A while ago I found a 'rate' determining the amount of delegates per participants in the soviets, then by looking at the number of deputies attending these congresses, one could dubiously deduct that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 workers, peasants, and soldiers participated in these soviets and other organs (of the 7,000,000 residents). However, I forgot where I read this.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Kontrrazvedka was not a secret police force, it was a counter-espionage and intelligence unit. There was a military and civilian (political) sections within the Kontrrazvedka, and some members of the civilian section engaged in some dodgy political assassinations, but was eventually disbanded by the general committee of the revolutionary army because of that fact.

You can read this book on them, Kontrrazvedka: The story of the Makhnovist intelligence service. (http://libcom.org/history/kontrrazvedka-story-makhnovist-intelligence-service-vyacheslav-azarov)

On general history of the Makhnovachina, Peter Arshinov's book, History of the Makhnovist Movement (http://libcom.org/history/history-makhnovist-movement-1918-1921-peter-arshinov) is quite useful.

[The Feral Underclass]

Makhno had veto power over the "elections" at the beginning, and eventually that joke of a system was put an end and officers were appointed by Makhno and his underlings. I don't know what you mean by "secret police of sorts" because Makhno basically built his own version of the Cheka, based on the Bolshevik original.

None of that is accurate.

[Homo Songun]

The Kontrrazvedka was not a secret police force, it was a counter-espionage and intelligence unit. There was a military and civilian (political) sections within the Kontrrazvedka, and some members of the civilian section engaged in some dodgy political assassinations, but was eventually disbanded by the general committee of the revolutionary army because of that fact.
Given your sympathies, I suppose you can be forgiven for making the highly unbelievable distinctions above. In the first place, there is no secret police force that has ever existed whose mandate did not include intelligence gathering and counter-espionage. In the second place, according to the dictionary "secret police" and "political police" are basically tautological, and with good reason.

..then again, I don't understand how laws and social coercion of any type can exist without government by another name, so there's that :lol:


You can read this book on them, Kontrrazvedka: The story of the Makhnovist intelligence service. (http://libcom.org/history/kontrrazvedka-story-makhnovist-intelligence-service-vyacheslav-azarov)
Interesting link!

[The Feral Underclass]

Given your sympathies, I suppose you can be forgiven for making the highly unbelievable distinctions above. In the first place, there is no secret police force that has ever existed whose mandate did not include intelligence gathering and counter-espionage.

But there are countless examples of counter-espionage and intelligence units that are not also police forces...

The police is a repressive tool designed specifically to maintain order, protect private property, prevent and investigate crimes. The Kontrrazvedka was not designed to do that.


In the second place, according to the dictionary "secret police" and "political police" are basically tautological, and with good reason.

Except the political section of the Kontrrazvedka wasn't a police force.


..then again, I don't understand how laws and social coercion of any type can exist without government by another name, so there's that :lol:

Well exactly.

[rebelsdarklaughter]

I would suggest reading "History of the Makhnovist Movement" by Arshinov. It was written in 1923, not too long after the actual events, by someone who actually took part.

[Sotionov]

1 Who was Nestor Makhno? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app1)
2 Why was the movement named after Makhno? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app2)
3 Why was Makhno called "Batko"? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app3)
4 Can you give a short overview of the Makhnovist movement? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app4)
5 How were the Makhnovists organised? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app5)
6 Did the Makhnovists have a constructive social programme? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app6)
7 Did they apply their ideas in practice? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app7)
8 Weren't the Makhnovists just Kulaks? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app8)
9 Were the Makhnovists anti-Semitic and pogromists? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app9)
10 Did the Makhnovists hate the city and city workers? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app10)
11 Were the Makhnovists nationalists? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app11)
12 Did the Makhnovists support the Whites? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app12)
13 What was the relationship of the Bolsheviks to the movement? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app13)
14 How did the Makhnovists and Bolsheviks differ? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app14)
15 How do the modern followers of Bolshevism slander the Makhnovists? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app15)
16 What lessons can be learned from the Makhnovists? (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append46.html#app16)

[MarxSchmarx]

While principally about Makhno the book "anarchys kozaks" has a lot of stuff on the everyday life in the free territory too..

I am curious if you read that in translation or in the original. have been told by people who read the original French version, that the English translation was quite lame. Did you read this in French? Or a translated version (e.g. did you read this in Dutch or English)?

[Sasha]

English, but ages ago...

[Geiseric]

Source? It is my understanding that most were quite supportive of the idea of a free state rather than being subjugated by Bolshevik Russia. Sure, they implemented similar reforms to the soviets (effectively making them soviets), but I don't think they lobbied for a union to Russia.

EDIT : I assume this is what you meant by "The Soviets".

Makhnovchina =/= the soviets of ukraine. They were different organizations entirely. And "bolshevik russia" wasn't even ethnic chauvanist at this point, nor did they have any goals to oppress anybody in Ukraine.

[TheEmancipator]

Makhnovchina =/= the soviets of ukraine. They were different organizations entirely. And "bolshevik russia" wasn't even ethnic chauvanist at this point, nor did they have any goals to oppress anybody in Ukraine.

Then why were they trying to subjugate Ukraine when it was already going through a revolutionary process? Why did Makhno insist on defending Free Territory (from both White and Red Russians)?

[rebelsdarklaughter]

Then why were they trying to subjugate Ukraine when it was already going through a revolutionary process? Why did Makhno insist on defending Free Territory (from both White and Red Russians)?

Because the Soviets knew that they would need the agricultural resources of Ukraine and a buffer zone between them and Europe?

[Luís Henrique]

Then why were they trying to subjugate Ukraine when it was already going through a revolutionary process? Why did Makhno insist on defending Free Territory (from both White and Red Russians)?

Because socialism in one province is so much better than socialism in one country?

Seriously, whatever can be said for or against Makhno and his government, it was not, and could not be, a communist society. All the limitations and problems that apply for the Soviet Union also apply, with more reason, to the Free Territory.

Luís Henrique

[TheEmancipator]

Because socialism in one province is so much better than socialism in one country?

Seriously, whatever can be said for or against Makhno and his government, it was not, and could not be, a communist society. All the limitations and problems that apply for the Soviet Union also apply, with more reason, to the Free Territory.

Luís Henrique


But the makhnovite excuse was the same as the Bolsheviks : "we had a war to win". Except the makhnovites didn't engage in irredentism, but rather the defence of their province from nationalist forces.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because socialism in one province is so much better than socialism in one country?

Seriously, whatever can be said for or against Makhno and his government, it was not, and could not be, a communist society. All the limitations and problems that apply for the Soviet Union also apply, with more reason, to the Free Territory.

Luís Henrique

But surely the point is not that it could be a communist society, but that it began a process that could move towards communism in spite of the fact it rejected the Bolshevik model organising, which included bourgeois state power.

[Geiseric]

But surely the point is not that it could be a communist society, but that it began a process that could move towards communism in spite of the fact it rejected the Bolshevik model organising, which included bourgeois state power.

Makhno did not abandon state power. Youre living in a fantasy if you think that's true.

[Luís Henrique]

Makhno did not abandon state power.

And this was not his fault, nor an actual option.

Luís Henrique

[rebelsdarklaughter]

Makhno did not abandon state power. Youre living in a fantasy if you think that's true.

Which is why he wrote an essay called The Struggle Against the State.

[BIXX]

I would like to learn about two things: the quality of life in the Free Territory, as well as the military effectiveness/organization there.

Any responses would be helpful. It would be great if someone knew of any shorter articles that I could look at, as well as some books?

[Gritz Hill]

Thanks for the book suggestion rebelsdarklaughter. I think that if I learned from someone who experienced Free Territory and if I do research after to see if he contradicted himself then it would easier to find a "less biased" answer.

[The Feral Underclass]

Makhno did not abandon state power. Youre living in a fantasy if you think that's true.

You have no knowledge of what you're talking about.

[Art Vandelay]

You have no knowledge of what you're talking about.

He's actually spot on and Luis's secondary comment helps to elucidate the point rather well. It is not fair to criticize Mahkno on the grounds that a state existed in the Ukranian 'free territory' since it was no more feasible to create statelessness there, than it would of been to successfully 'build socialism in one country.' It simply comes down to material conditions. The state will exist, until the material conditions which necessitate its existence are no longer present. It is really as simple as that. The state is a tool of class suppression, ie: the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony; it will exist as long as classes exist and classes will exist until the proletariat succeeds in its historical task of abolishing itself as a class, thereby surpassing the capitalist mode of production and destroying all socio-economic classes with it. Its really a pity that alot of the better anarchists on this site, fall into the same idealist nonsense that the Stalinists do. States cannot be willed out of existence and federated social organization is not synonymous with statelessness. As Engels put it in his work 'On Authority,' it would appear that the anti-statists 'demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed.' Hell, even anarchist historian Paul Avrich was open about the statism and some of the less palatable aspects of the free territory:


The Second [Makhnoite Regional] Congress, meeting on February 12, 1919, voted in favor of ‘voluntary mobilization,' which in reality meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were required to serve when called up. The delegates also elected a Regional Military Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers, and Insurgents to carry out the decisions of the periodic congresses. The new councils encouraged the election of ‘free' soviets in the towns and villages—that is, soviets from which members of political parties were excluded. Although Makhno's aim in setting up these bodies was to do away with political authority, the Military Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Gulyai-Polye.

Like the Military Revolutionary Council, the Insurgent Army of the Ukraine, as the Makhnovist forces were called, was in theory subject to the supervision of the Regional Congresses. In practice, however, the reins of authority rested with Makhno and his staff. Despite his efforts to avoid anything that smacked of regimentation, Makhno appointed his key officers (the rest were elected by the men themselves) and subjected his troops to the stern military discipline traditional among the Cossack legions of the nearby Zaporozhian region.

So the criticism of Mahkno isn't premised on his statism (at least principled political criticism isn't), since statelessness was simply not a possibility. What I personally find most confusing about the black army is how anyone could possibly think that allowing the peasantry into revolutionary organizations, until they become an overwhelming demographic majority, is in any way a viable revolutionary strategy.

[The Feral Underclass]

He's actually spot on

In order for it to be possible that someone does not abandon state power, one has to wield it in the first place. So no, he is not "spot on."

Also, please reference your sources. I have no way of commenting on that quote without knowing its source.


The state will exist, until the material conditions which necessitate its existence are no longer present. It is really as simple as that.

The state is a tool for maintaining capitalism. If you aim to maintain the state then you reproduce capitalist social relations.


The state is a tool of class suppression, ie: the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony

The argument that the working class must seize state institutions in order to assert its hegemony is an ahistorical assertion.


Its really a pity that alot of the better anarchists on this site, fall into the same idealist nonsense that the Stalinists do

You don't know what idealism is. I would avoid using words you don't understand.


As Engels put it in his work 'On Authority'

Engels's pamphlet was predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism.


'it would appear that the anti-statists 'demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed.'

The social conditions that give rise to the state will no longer exist when the working has control of the means of production. Unless by "social conditions" he means something other than the economic, material basis of society.

[Art Vandelay]

In order for it to be possible that someone does not abandon state power, one has to wield it in the first place. So no, he is not "spot on."

Well this statement is premised on the idea that state power was destroyed in the Ukraine. I've stated why I don't think this is the case and you've simply chopped up my post and not really added much commentary of substance, so I don't really feel like spending the time to type up more nuanced comments.


Also, please reference your sources. I have no way of commenting on that quote without knowing its source.

Its from this book: http://www.akpress.org/anarchistportraits.html


The state is a tool for maintaining capitalism. If you aim to maintain the state then you reproduce capitalist social relations.

The state isn't a tool for maintaining capitalism, that's far too vague of claim. The state isn't an institution which has a mind of its own, can act independently of the class which is in possession of it. I really don't understand this weird conception of the state as an entity which can turn on its possessors, its never happened. I don't see any historic examples of statea 'turning on' the bourgeoisie, or acting independently of its interests. What gives rise to the state, is precisely class antagonisms; which is why talking about its destruction, before the material conditions which necessitate its existence disappear, is idealist.


The argument that the working class must seize state institutions in order to assert its hegemony is an ahistorical assertion.

I don't really know how to respond to this, all you've done is flippantly dismiss me.


You don't know what idealism is. I would avoid using words you don't understand.

I'm not even going to comment on this.


Engels's pamphlet was predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism.

I agree that a portion of his argument in the article is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding, although I kinda enjoy the rhetoric. I was an anarchist for a couple years and while I'm certainly no authority on the subject, I feel a have a rudimentary, if not working, grasp on some anarchist theory. The part I quoted however, I consider quite pertinent. So can you elaborate on why that particular point I quoted, is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism?


The social conditions that give rise to the state will no longer exist when the working has control of the means of production. Unless by "social conditions" he means something other than the economic, material basis of society.

I'm not exactly sure what your argument here is and there is certainly alot to unpack/discuss around that topic, but its just going to be a waste of time if you're going to be condescending.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well this statement is premised on the idea that state power was destroyed in the Ukraine.

No it isn't. It is premised on the false notion that Makhno wielded state power.


I've stated why I don't think this is the case and you've simply chopped up my post and not really added much commentary of substance, so I don't really feel like spending the time to type up more nuanced comments.

What more is there to say? In order for someone to be able to not abandon state power, one has to wield it in the first place.


The state isn't a tool for maintaining capitalism

Yes it is.


that's far too vague of claim.

It's not vague at all. It's a very specific claim. The state came about in order to defend and manage bourgeois dominance over the economy.


The state isn't an institution which has a mind of its own, can act independently of the class which is in possession of it. I really don't understand this weird conception of the state as an entity which can turn on its possessors, its never happened.

No one is claiming that a state has a "mind of its own." What I am positing is that the state is a specific tool of capitalism. If you maintain the state, you maintain the social relations inherent within it.


I don't see any historic examples of state 'turning on' the bourgeoisie, or acting independently of its interests. What gives rise to the state, is precisely class antagonisms

Class antagonism is the tension between bourgeois dominance of the economy and proletarian interests. The state exists to maintain bourgeois dominance of the economy and defend it from proletarian interests. That is precisely what I said.


which is why talking about its destruction, before the material conditions which necessitate its existence disappear, is idealist.

The material conditions that necessitate its existence are those in which a minority control the means of production. When the working class control the means of production, those material conditions will no longer exist.


I don't really know how to respond to this, all you've done is flippantly dismiss me.

What is flippant about what I said? Your statement was ahistorical. That is the assertion I am making to you.


The part I quoted however, I consider quite pertinent. So can you elaborate on why that particular point I quoted, is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism?

Because Engles assumes that the "demand" (and the whole of anarchism) is based on the idea that anarchists reject authority.


I'm not exactly sure what your argument here is and there is certainly alot to unpack/discuss around that topic

Your claim is that the state is necessary until the social conditions that give rise to it no longer exist. What I am saying is that the social conditions will no longer exist when the working class has control of the means of production.

The state exists in order to protect and manage private property and maintain bourgeois dominance over the economy. When the proletariat have seized control of the means of production, bourgeois dominance will no longer exist, since private property will now be in common and the economy will no longer be in their hands.

Class antagonism no longer exists, since the interests of the proletariat have been realised. All that is left is to defend our gains and repress the remaining counter-revolutionaries.

[Art Vandelay]

No it isn't. It is premised on the false notion that Makhno wielded state power.

Statelessness cannot exist, within the confines of borders and surrounded by hostile states; once again decentralized/federated social organization is not synonymous with statelessness. I've already provided a quote from an anarchist historian detailing some aspects of the government in the Ukrainian 'free territory.' You then asked for the source, which I provided and then you've gone on to once again simply state your claims in short sentences without anything to back them up, while ignoring my arguments.


It's not vague at all. It's a very specific claim. The state came about in order to defend and manage bourgeois dominance over the economy.

The bourgeois state certainly did, but that is such an obvious claim and doesn't really relate to what were talking about. Just as the bourgeois state came about to protect bourgeois dominance over the economy and to overthrow feudalism, so to did all past historical states. That is the reality of the class struggle and there are numerous historical examples to showcase it. Just as the bourgeoisie smashed the feudal state and erected its own to protect its interests, so to will the proletariat smash the bourgeois state and replace it with a proletarian 'semi-state' (Engels) to protect its class interests. And its class interests are the destruction of class society, the destruction of all states, etc...in the same way that a class (the proletariat) is the moving force behind the movement to abolish all classes, so to is the state (the proletarian semi-state) is the institution through which all states will be abolished.


No one is claiming that a state has a "mind of its own." What I am positing is that the state is a specific tool of capitalism. If you maintain the state, you maintain the social relations inherent within it.

Class antagonism is the tension between bourgeois dominance of the economy and proletarian interests. The state exists to maintain bourgeois dominance of the economy and defend it from proletarian interests. That is precisely what I said.

Who wants to maintain the state? Since the Paris Commune, Marxists have been saying that the proletariat cannot seize the bourgeois state and wield it for its own interests, rather it must be smashed. Also the state isn't a specific tool of capitalism, I don't even know how anyone could possibly make that claim. The state predates capitalism, it arose with class society. The bourgeois state maintains the social relations inherent within capitalism, but states don't act independently of the class which wields it.


The material conditions that necessitate its existence are those in which a minority control the means of production. When the working class control the means of production, those material conditions will no longer exist.

That is simply not the case, it flies in the face of the historical evidence which showcases that the state arose with the development of class society; it is a byproduct of class society, which is why it will exist (whether we like it or not) until the capitalist mode of production have been overcome on a global scale.


What is flippant about what I said? Your statement was ahistorical. That is the assertion I am making to you.

You've been flippant this whole exchange, either by chopping up my posts and picking and choosing which parts to respond to, or by dismissing my comments by claiming I'm ignorant. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering by this point. I've had plenty of really good discussions with anarchists on this site, some of which have forced me to reconsider my positions on things, which I am grateful for, but its clear you're not interested in discussions like that. You bring nothing to the table other than your usual attitude and only about half of what your posting in response to me, has any content.


Because Engles assumes that the "demand" (and the whole of anarchism) is based on the idea that anarchists reject authority.

That doesn't relate to the quote in question at all. I've already stated that Engels did not have a proper conception of anarchist theory, although in his defense most of the better anarchists came after his death. What I quoted however, was pertinent to the discussion and unrelated to Engels misconception. If its such a bullshit argument, then just refute it, instead of continually dismissing it.


Your claim is that the state is necessary until the social conditions that give rise to it no longer exist. What I am saying is that the social conditions will no longer exist when the working class has control of the means of production.

Which is why you clearly have no understanding of the material conditions which bring about states in the first place. The state isn't a by product of capitalism, but of class society. The working class seizing control of the means of production, in an isolated area, does not mean they surpass the capitalist mode of production. I mean unless the world revolution was simultaneous, this isolated area would be forced to sustain itself in complete autarky, which is impossible. It would therefor be forced to exchange resources with other countries, thus opening itself back up to the global capitalist market.


The state exists in order to protect and manage private property and maintain bourgeois dominance over the economy. When the proletariat have seized control of the means of production, bourgeois dominance will no longer exist, since private property will now be in common and the economy will no longer be in their hands.

I don't disagree with anything you've said in this part.


Class antagonism no longer exists, since the interests of the proletariat have been realised. All that is left is to defend our gains and repress the remaining counter-revolutionaries.

Do you honestly not see the irony here? In the first sentence you say that class antagonisms will no longer exist, then in the second say all we need to do is repress the counter-revolutionaries. There are a number of contradictions in your conception of the revolutionary transition from capitalist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

You've been flippant this whole exchange, either by chopping up my posts and picking and choosing which parts to respond to, or by dismissing my comments by claiming I'm ignorant. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering by this point. I've had plenty of really good discussions with anarchists on this site, some of which have forced me to reconsider my positions on things, which I am grateful for, but its clear you're not interested in discussions like that. You bring nothing to the table other than your usual attitude and only about half of what your posting in response to me, has any content.

If you want my respect, I suggest you not refer to me as a "jerk." You can't go around the board bad mouthing me and then expect me to be engaging. Do you think if you'd treated someone in real life the way you treat me on here they would want to have anything to do with you? You're a sanctimonious, whining little hypocrite who is perfectly comfortable dishing it out but then descends into a mental spiral of insecurities when he receives the same treatment.

Also, I don't identify as an anarchist, so I don't know why you keep comparing me with people who do, as if it would matter even if I was one.


Do you honestly not see the irony here?

No. Class antagonism exists when there is tension between bourgeois dominance of the economy and proletarian interests. When the working class control the economy there no longer exists a bourgeoisie, simply counter-revolutionaries. Class antagonism doesn't exist simply because a group of people want to assert themselves. That's not what class antagonism is.


There are a number of contradictions in your conception of the revolutionary transition from capitalist society.

Which is ironic considering the fact you vehemently disagreed and agreed with an exact same point I made in my post.

[Art Vandelay]

If you want my respect, I suggest you not refer to me as a "jerk." You can't go around the board bad mouthing me and then expect me to be engaging. Do you think if you'd treated someone in real life the way you treat me on here they would want to have anything to do with you? You're a sanctimonious, whining little hypocrite who is perfectly comfortable dishing it out but then descends into a mental spiral of insecurities when he receives the same treatment.

I really don't care if you respect me or not Tat, but for the record I do think its kinda acting like a 'jerk' to be fairly insulting to someone, simply cause you have a political disagreement, when they're going through a hard time and think its ironic that your lecturing me on the way I treat people. Anyway if you're not interested in discussing the topic there isn't really much reason for this exchange to continue.


Also, I don't identify as an anarchist, so I don't know why you keep comparing me with people who do, as if it would matter even if I was one.

Because we're talking about the Ukranian free territory and your name is the anarchist tension, but fair enough.


No. Class antagonism exists when there is tension between bourgeois dominance of the economy and proletarian interests. When the working class control the economy there no longer exists a bourgeoisie, simply counter-revolutionaries. Class antagonism doesn't exist simply because a group of people want to assert themselves. That's not what class antagonism is.

Well this is actually an interesting point, but I don't agree with your conclusion. The bourgeoisie doesn't simply cease to represent and struggle for bourgeois class interests after the proletariat seizes control of the means of production. Yes, they technically cease to carry out their economic role in society, but their consciousness doesn't change instantly. Not to mention the peasantry, or petite bourgeoisie. Calling them simply counter-revolutionaries seems somewhat vague, since they will not be a homogeneous grouping. And while they've ceased to carry out their economic functions within any given territory that the proletariat has seized control of the means of production, the international bourgeoisie is still engaged in class struggle with the new workers state or free territory.


Which is ironic considering the fact you vehemently disagreed and agreed with an exact same point I made in my post.

I don't think I have.

[The Feral Underclass]

I really don't care if you respect me or not Tat, but for the record I do think it is kinda its kinda acting like a 'jerk' to be fairly insulting to someone, simply cause you have a political disagreement, when they're going through a hard time and think its ironic that your lecturing me on the way I treat people.

There are some people on here who are so insecure with themselves that they can turn anything into an insult. Being pointed and certain about what you believe and defending yourself from petty emotional blackmail is not the definition of insulting. I am not under any obligation to moderate my views just because someone claims they are upset. My advice, whether you heed it or not, is for people, including yourself, to try and spend more time learning how to be a useful political militant and less time discussing your feelings.

It is unfortunate if you find my manner displeasing, but I am sick and tired of being painted as a bad person simply because people like you don't have the emotional ability to deal with someone who is honest, open and rigorous in the defence of their beliefs. I am constantly beset by users on this board who simply can't handle having people be terse with them and have their feelings hurt just because I don't couch my arguments in flowery sentiments and saccharine appeals for friendship. It is staggering how easy it is for people to find offence in things.


The bourgeoisie doesn't simply cease to represent and struggle for bourgeois class interests after the proletariat seizes control of the means of production.

The "bourgeoisie" is a class relation, not a group of people. Since industrialists et al no longer control the means of production they are no longer the bourgeoisie; they have no ability to have "class interests" since they aren't a "class" any more. They may try and have a political and economic claim, i.e. to maintain their political authority and wealth, but that isn't what a class antagonism is.


Yes, they technically cease to carry out their economic role in society, but their consciousness doesn't change instantly.

So? If they cease to carry out their economic role in society, they cease to be the bourgeoisie.


Not to mention the peasantry, or petite bourgeoisie. Calling them simply counter-revolutionaries seems somewhat vague, since they'll be a homogeneous grouping.

There is only one interest in history and that is of the proletariat to abolish itself. There exists no other interests. Any attempt by others to re-assert political or economic power or maintain past relations are counter-revolutionaries.


And while they've ceased to carry out their economic functions within any given territory that the proletariat has seized control of the means of production, the international bourgeoisie is still engaged in class struggle with the new workers state or free territory.

They cannot be engaged in class struggle if they are not a class.


I don't think I have.

Imagine my surprise.

[Five Year Plan]

The "bourgeoisie" is a class relation, not a group of people. Since industrialists et al no longer control the means of production they are no longer the bourgeoisie; they have no ability to have "class interests" since they aren't a "class" any more. They may try and have a political and economic claim, i.e. to maintain their political authority and wealth, but that isn't what a class antagonism is.

...

They cannot be engaged in class struggle if they are not a class.

I think this understanding of class struggle as "struggle between already formed classes" is too narrow, and can actually lead to the flawed idea that as soon as the bourgeoisie in a particular territory is dispossessed of property that socialism exists. To my knowledge, not even Stalinists, who at times seem to enjoy slapping the socialist label on as many social formations as possible, go that far.

Class struggle is better thought of as struggle relating to class antagonisms, even if those antagonisms have not yet crystallized into fully formed classes who (as exploiting classes do) seek to reproduce those same antagonisms through the currently existing economic and political power they have. This also helps explain the formation of classes in the transition from primitive communism to a society with fully formed classes. The transformation didn't happen overnight. It happened as a result of mounting tensions, and accompanying struggles, brought on by the development of productive forces in a given context of scarcity clashing with the existing egalitarian production relations.

Insofar as struggle over control of the use of the means of production occurs in a given territory, whether it be by discontented former members of the bourgeoisie or by pressure exerted on a workers' state by international forces, you are going to have some degree of bureaucratization in the management of the means of production, and therefore class processes or antagonisms at work. In a society with a highly advanced division of labor, these class antagonisms will take the form of value relations and capitalist processes realized through the workers' state bureaucracy (though without a fully formed capitalist class).

That's my take on it, anyway.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think this understanding of class struggle as "struggle between already formed classes" is too narrow, and can actually lead to the flawed idea that as soon as the bourgeoisie in a particular territory is dispossessed of property that socialism exists. To my knowledge, not even Stalinists, who at times seem to enjoy slapping the socialist label on as many social formations as possible, go that far.

Certainly, some people run the risk of making that error, but nevertheless, class is defined as a relationship with the means of production. If you no longer have a relationship to the means of production you can no longer claim to be a class. Not in any legitimate, organised sense.


Class struggle is better thought of as struggle relating to class antagonisms, even if those antagonisms have not yet crystallized into fully formed classes who (as exploiting classes do) seek to reproduce those same antagonisms through the currently existing economic and political power they have. This also helps explain the formation of classes in the transition from primitive communism to a society with fully formed classes. The transformation didn't happen overnight. It happened as a result of mounting tensions, and accompanying struggles, brought on by the development of productive forces in a given context of scarcity clashing with the existing egalitarian production relations.

I appreciate this to be true, but when the proletariat's historical role begins, there no longer exists tensions and struggles between classes in the way there were struggles between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. Those antagonisms and tensions exist because of historical interests, not because of reactionary political objectives. The historical role of the proletariat is fundamentally different to the role of the bourgeoisie in the French revolution, for example. The role of the proletariat is, in a sense, to end history.

While I fully accept there will be ongoing conflict and that the establishment of communism isn't just something that appears, I reject the notion of any historical interests other than for the proletariat to abolish itself. Those that surround the proletariat and attempt to re-establish an old period of history are nothing more than reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. And nothing more.


Insofar as struggle over control of the use of the means of production occurs in a given territory, whether it be by discontented former members of the bourgeoisie or by pressure exerted on a workers' state by international forces, you are going to have some degree of bureaucratization in the management of the means of production, and therefore class processes or antagonisms at work. In a society with a highly advanced division of labor, these class antagonisms will take the form of value relations and capitalist processes realized through the workers' state bureaucracy (though without a fully formed capitalist class).

I don't accept the premise that a workers' state can exist. You either have a state, which is bourgeois in nature, or you have proletarian self-management. The management of the means of production cannot be coupled with centralised political authority. It is a marriage that will, and has always, ended in catastrophic disaster.

[Five Year Plan]

I appreciate this to be true, but when the proletariat's historical role begins, there no longer exists tensions and struggles between classes in the way there were struggles between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. Those antagonisms and tensions exist because of historical interests, not because of reactionary political objectives. The historical role of the proletariat is fundamentally different to the role of the bourgeoisie in the French revolution, for example. The role of the proletariat is, in a sense, to end history.

I am not really sure what you mean by "when the proletariat's historical role begins, there no longer exists tensions and struggles between classes in the way there were struggles between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy." The historical mission of the proletariat, the abolition of all class distinctions (not just classes, but all class processes) is certainly different than the mission of all previous classes, but as you admit this mission is only realized after considerable struggle, even after the bourgeoisie is dispossessed of control over the means of production. I would classify the result of these continuing tensions class struggle, not because the bourgeoisie continues to exist as a class, but because a subset of the population (perhaps even including some members of the working class) is struggling to re-establish a class.


While I fully accept there will be ongoing conflict and that the establishment of communism isn't just something that appears, I reject the notion of any historical interests other than for the proletariat to abolish itself. Those that surround the proletariat and attempt to re-establish an old period of history are nothing more than reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. And nothing more.Class interests have a long-term dimension, and then an immediate short-term dimension. Without acknowledging this, it becomes impossible to understand the tremendous hold that reformist ideologies have on members of the working class. That attraction is based on the granting of immediate benefits through a bourgeois state to the working-class as a way of derailing their understanding of the state an instrument of class suppression and concomitant long-term interest in overturning the economic system that creates that state. As I have said in the thread on Sawant, this is a form of turning workers' immediate gains against them for the long-term benefit of the bourgeoisie.

There is also the issue of racial division and how, while all workers suffer from racism in the sense that racial divisions prevent the working class from uniting into a revolutionary force and fulfilling their long-term class interests, white workers tend to benefit economically, under the narrow and warped rules of capitalism, from the way they are treated in comparison to the way black workers are.

So while I doubt you'd get any disagreement on this forum about your rejection of "the notion of any historical interests other than for the proletariat to abolish itself," history requires that we understand why the workers have yet to fulfill their historical mission, and why so many of them at the present moment express no interest in doing so. This requires that we think of interests as not something that is just historically given and obvious to everybody, but rather has multiple dimensions, both short and long term, that can deflect workers ideologically from carrying out that mission.

It is this complexity of interests as mediated through ideology that makes Leninist forms of political organizing so essential. Leninism is in part built around the acknowledgment of the uneven and variegated nature of working class consciousness, where some workers get the long-term goal very early on, and others don't arrive at the big picture until much later, perhaps not until a revolutionary situation is at hand. An organized and, to some extent, centralized democratic workers' party is necessary to struggle for hegemony because hegemony does not emerge automatically from workers' objective long-term interests in overturning capitalism.


I don't accept the premise that a workers' state can exist. You either have a state, which is bourgeois in nature, or you have proletarian self-management. The management of the means of production cannot be coupled with centralised political authority. It is a marriage that will, and has always, ended in catastrophic disaster.I am interested in discussing this issue with you, but based on what I have read already about your understanding of the need for coercion carried out by workers in a transition period, I get the sense that our disagreement might consist more in semantic disagreements than anything deeply substantive.

Still, I wonder, in the case of workers suppressing former members of the bourgeoisie who are arming and organizing to try to re-appropriate the means of production with minority support among the working class, would you characterize the activity of the apparatus used by the revolutionary workers to prevent this counter-revolution from occurring as "bourgeois"? On what basis would you consider the state bourgeois then? Or is it the case that you think the state would act to suppress the well-organized, highly coordinated, internationally backed, and intensely centralized counter-revolutionary army on the basis of a self-managed federation appropriate to a mode of existence that will only exist, in my view, under communism and not during a transition period to it?

[The Feral Underclass]

I wanted to reply to this today but my internet isn't working and I'm not going to attempt to do it from my phone. It'll have to wait I'm afraid. My apologies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not really sure what you mean by "when the proletariat's historical role begins, there no longer exists tensions and struggles between classes in the way there were struggles between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy."

The proletariat's historical role is to abolish itself. When it has begun that process the conditions in which class antagonisms exist, in the way that the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy had class antagonism, begin to disappear. In other words, class antagonisms exist as a consequence of competing interests between two existing classes. Class being based upon a relationship to the means of production.

When the bourgeoisie are dislodged from their control of the means of production, they loose their class form.


The historical mission of the proletariat, the abolition of all class distinctions (not just classes, but all class processes) is certainly different than the mission of all previous classes, but as you admit this mission is only realized after considerable struggle, even after the bourgeoisie is dispossessed of control over the means of production. I would classify the result of these continuing tensions class struggle, not because the bourgeoisie continues to exist as a class, but because a subset of the population (perhaps even including some members of the working class) is struggling to re-establish a class.

I can accept that as a group of people with previous class interests their attempts to reassert themselves could be defined as class struggle, but they are not class antagonism. And there is a fundamental difference in those distinctions.


Class interests have a long-term dimension, and then an immediate short-term dimension. Without acknowledging this, it becomes impossible to understand the tremendous hold that reformist ideologies have on members of the working class. That attraction is based on the granting of immediate benefits through a bourgeois state to the working-class as a way of derailing their understanding of the state an instrument of class suppression and concomitant long-term interest in overturning the economic system that creates that state. As I have said in the thread on Sawant, this is a form of turning workers' immediate gains against them for the long-term benefit of the bourgeoisie.

There is also the issue of racial division and how, while all workers suffer from racism in the sense that racial divisions prevent the working class from uniting into a revolutionary force and fulfilling their long-term class interests, white workers tend to benefit economically, under the narrow and warped rules of capitalism, from the way they are treated in comparison to the way black workers are.

So while I doubt you'd get any disagreement on this forum about your rejection of "the notion of any historical interests other than for the proletariat to abolish itself," history requires that we understand why the workers have yet to fulfill their historical mission, and why so many of them at the present moment express no interest in doing so. This requires that we think of interests as not something that is just historically given and obvious to everybody, but rather has multiple dimensions, both short and long term, that can deflect workers ideologically from carrying out that mission.

But notwithstanding, do the individual or group interests of capitalists constitute class interests? They're not a class, are they? They are just a group of humans. Can a group of humans who are not a class have class interests? Can class antagonism exist when one group is no longer a class and the other group is abolishing itself as a class?

I can accept that within this there are interests and antagonisms, but I reject the notion that they are class interests and class antagonisms. The former bourgeoisie no longer have a stake in the the economic life of the world, they simply believe they do.


It is this complexity of interests as mediated through ideology that makes Leninist forms of political organizing so essential. Leninism is in part built around the acknowledgment of the uneven and variegated nature of working class consciousness, where some workers get the long-term goal very early on, and others don't arrive at the big picture until much later, perhaps not until a revolutionary situation is at hand.

A revolutionary situation cannot be at hand if there is not a majority of workers who are conscious of themselves as such.

The problem here is that Leninism is perfectly comfortable with a scenario in which Leninists seize power. That is precisely why the state (being a bourgeois institution for specific minority rule) is so necessary for them. Taking your argument, it is logical that a state should be employed because of these described tensions within the proletariat. It is necessary for a minority to rule, that is why the state is so perfect.

But this conception of revolution is not revolution. It is Blanquism by another name.


An organized and, to some extent, centralized democratic workers' party is necessary to struggle for hegemony because hegemony does not emerge automatically from workers' objective long-term interests in overturning capitalism.

Class consciousness arrives as a result of struggle. The means of production cannot be seized unless the proletariat is conscious of itself, and if they cannot be seized consciously, it is not a revolution.

Form over content. Substitutionism. These are the lessons of Leninism and it is these lessons that many of you have still not learned from. The class is the only important factor in this equation. Without them, there is nothing.


I am interested in discussing this issue with you, but based on what I have read already about your understanding of the need for coercion carried out by workers in a transition period, I get the sense that our disagreement might consist more in semantic disagreements than anything deeply substantive.

Our disagreement will be based on many things, from your conception of political organising, the role of the class and the state. I think they will be more substantive than you think.


Still, I wonder, in the case of workers suppressing former members of the bourgeoisie who are arming and organizing to try to re-appropriate the means of production with minority support among the working class, would you characterize the activity of the apparatus used by the revolutionary workers to prevent this counter-revolution from occurring as "bourgeois"?

No.


On what basis would you consider the state bourgeois then?

It is an apparatus used specifically to defend the interests of minority rule. That is why it is structured the way it is structured.


Or is it the case that you think the state would act to suppress the well-organized, highly coordinated, internationally backed, and intensely centralized counter-revolutionary army on the basis of a self-managed federation appropriate to a mode of existence that will only exist, in my view, under communism and not during a transition period to it?

The way you have phrased your question makes the meaning lost on me. I'm sorry, you'll have to re-phrase the question.