Anarchism and Communism

[achille1]

Within every group there remains a conflict with ideals. In terms of Anarchism and Communism, it's the dividing factor that split up Spain, destroyed the idea of unity in Athens, and turned supporters of the Bolsheviks into disillusioned activists. So why? Personally, I feel that the biggest differences in the two are the varying ideas of government and the split between collectivists and individualists. If I am wrong, and I assume I am, what's truly keeping these similar ideologies from unifying?

[Kingfish]

Both desire societies without class or hierarchy (ie communism) they only disagree on how to reach this outcome. Marxists (and their offshoots) believe that a proletariat state must be constructed to ensure this transition (by protecting the revolution from external and internal threats), anarchists believe that the state is inherently corrupting coercive and must be destroyed immediately before the transition to communism can be made.

This is the key divide is what keeps them from unifying.

The following deal with this fairly well (and without being too heavy)

State and revolution By Lenin
Chapter II of the Communist Manifesto
Anarchy - Errico Malatesta

[Jimmie Higgins]

Within every group there remains a conflict with ideals. In terms of Anarchism and Communism, it's the dividing factor that split up Spain, destroyed the idea of unity in Athens, and turned supporters of the Bolsheviks into disillusioned activists. So why? Personally, I feel that the biggest differences in the two are the varying ideas of government and the split between collectivists and individualists. If I am wrong, and I assume I am, what's truly keeping these similar ideologies from unifying?

There are differences but they haven't prevented at least a level of practical unity or synthesis (in relation to actual movements) in the past and probably not in the future.

There are things that divide anarchists and marxists, but they aren't totally constant or consistant and there are things that divide some anarchists from other anarchists and marxists from other marxists.

In Russia, many anarchists and non-bolshevik marxists ended up supporting the bolsheviks and even joined that party for a time. In Spain, the divide IMO was not anarchist vs. marxist, but revolutionaries vs. middle class forces, which ended up being represented by the Communist Party in Spain that ended up enforcing property rights, evicting worker-occupations, and then attacking the political groups supporting the revolution both anarchist and revolutionary marxist (such as the POUM).

In general, I think you could say that one of the more consistant dividing points is the concept of a transition or "dictatorship of the proletariet". But even then some anarchists totally reject any kind of transition under worker's power, whereas others basically do support worker's power and a transition, but conceptualize that as part of the revolution. Some marxists claim to support socialism, but their concept of it is rule for workers, not "worker's power". So it's important not to paint things in too broad of a brush.

I'd say there isn't a split between revolutionary marxists and anarchists on the question of "collectivism". As a marxist I see "collective struggle" and working class collective power as the path to freeing up the potential for true induviduality to flourish on a vast scale... how can anyone be an induvidual when we have to spend the best years of their lives selling their labor to people who can tell them how fast to work, what to do, and even how to dress and act?

[achille1]

In terms of constructing a proletariat state, I feel like anarchists around the world have already started communities, not "states," by joining collectives and showing that people can do just fine without their government. In these situations, individualism and collectivism truly coincide with each other because there are some interesting individuals taking part in those collectives.

[Ace High]

I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive at all. I mean I am pretty anti authority and I would consider myself an anarchist who uses Marxism like an algorithm to solve society's problems. But I would never be opposed to setting up a socialist central government. For instance, I tend to support Cuba's government even though I don't really like alot of their authoritarian policies. The only time I draw the line is when people start dying like in the USSR and China.

[G4b3n]

Marxists wish to seize the state and transform it into a tool of the working class as opposed to a tool of the bourgeoisie, the state is said to eventually wither away after the progressive forces of history are set in motion.
Anarchist reject this notion and wish to abolish the state during the time of revolution. Some anarchism is individualistic in nature (but never capitalistic) though it is usually thought to be more of a communal system.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marxists wish to seize the state and transform it into a tool of the working class as opposed to a tool of the bourgeoisie, the state is said to eventually wither away after the progressive forces of history are set in motion.
Well, revolutionary Marxists of Bolshevik, left-com, tradditions, and the later Marx and Engels themselves have argued for the smashing of the capitalist state (military, courts, parlements) and replacing that with the dotp, which basically means establishing a kind of formal worker's power (by workers, for or over). Some anarchists have views which agree with or overlap with this conception, while some totally reject this.

Though many other strains of socialists and even Marxists (reformists and stalinists, to put it bluntly) have thought that workers could wield the existing state or put some new people at the head of it and change the color of the flag. There have undoubtedly been some anarchists who agree, but they would be sort of odd. Anarchism has been more consistent - if sometimes tragically overly-dogmatic - on not viewing the existing state as a possible tool that can be used for workers.

[G4b3n]

Well, revolutionary Marxists of Bolshevik, left-com, tradditions, and the later Marx and Engels themselves have argued for the smashing of the capitalist state (military, courts, parlements) and replacing that with the dotp, which basically means establishing a kind of formal worker's power (by workers, for or over). Some anarchists have views which agree with or overlap with this conception, while some totally reject this.

Though many other strains of socialists and even Marxists (reformists and stalinists, to put it bluntly) have thought that workers could wield the existing state or put some new people at the head of it and change the color of the flag. There have undoubtedly been some anarchists who agree, but they would be sort of odd. Anarchism has been more consistent - if sometimes tragically overly-dogmatic - on not viewing the existing state as a possible tool that can be used for workers.

I was just generalizing, smashing the capitalist state and then transforming it into the dotp isn't much different from what I stated in the original post, it just depends on what sort of Marxism you are dealing with.

Anarchists do overwhelmingly reject the notion that the state can be used to aid the proletariat during the time of revolution and for good reason I believe.

[Sotionov]

There are differences but they haven't prevented at least a level of practical unity or synthesis (in relation to actual movements) in the past and probably not in the future.
Exactly why the previous revolutions failed- the anarchists trusted leninist, and they took advantade of that and destroyed any attempt and organization wanting to attempt to build socialism (a society without oppression and exploitation).

[BIXX]

Exactly why the previous revolutions failed- the anarchists trusted leninist, and they took advantade of that and destroyed any attempt and organization wanting to attempt to build socialism (a society without oppression and exploitation).

The Leninists or the anarchists? I take it you mean the Leninists but I'm not positive...

[Jimmie Higgins]

Exactly why the previous revolutions failed- the anarchists trusted leninist, and they took advantade of that and destroyed any attempt and organization wanting to attempt to build socialism (a society without oppression and exploitation).No. And I don't even know where to begin with that.

I guess generally I'd say that this seems to imply that people with the right ideas make or break a revolution. I just don't buy that sort of framework; social forces make revolutions, ideas might help or hinder that (and are important), but are not the determining factor. Having good navigation skills might help someone sail safely through a storm, but the ship (in this analogy: independant class forces) needs to be sound, conditions must be right, and there also needs to be some luck.

In Russia in the working class, anarchism was just not a major factor, so there's little application here; supporting or not supporting the Bolsheviks would not have really altered the course of the Revolution. The revolutionary-on-revolutionary betrayals were as much within the Bolsheviks as without. In Spain where anarco-syndicalists were the main vanguard, it's not a case of the revolutionaries trusting the "Leninists" as it was a failure to side with independant class power, rather than Popular Front Unity which soon meant unity with the middle-class dominated coutner-revolutionary CP who then betrayed syndicalists, revolutionary workers, and Leninists, not because of Leninism, but because they sided with the European powers against the working class. To get Britian and France to support USSR efforts against fascist states, the USSR wanted to prove it was not as much of a threat to the European order (i.e. privite property) as the fascists were a threat to social stability; so they tried to restore bourgois "order" in Spain while fighting the fascist armies... as if it was not the normal order in Spain which gave rise to both working class uprisings and Fascism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I was just generalizing, smashing the capitalist state and then transforming it into the dotp isn't much different from what I stated in the original post, it just depends on what sort of Marxism you are dealing with.Sure, this is very contested historically among various marxist tendencies and tradditions. I side with the arguments from "State and Revolution" that the anarchists are correct that the bourgois state can not be used by workers to re-shape society and must be smashed otherwise you will end up with a Pinnochette (because you left the military in tact) or worse.

Where I disagree with many anrchists is that smashing the state negates bourgois relations and power in society or automatically leads to socialist/communist sorts of relations. I think there needs to be a mass and democratic working-class counter-power that takes the social space of the old state. This could be worker's councils or in Spain it was - in de-facto form - the union networks and radical militias and urban committees of workers and the peasant co-ops. The Popular Front had no real power during the revolution and it was the radical networks that armed people to defend cities, set up distribution and transportation for people and so on - "worker's power" or a "worker's state".


Anarchists do overwhelmingly reject the notion that the state can be used to aid the proletariat during the time of revolution and for good reason I believe.Except when they do. And Spain is a good example of that. Because some of the forces rejected the idea that their networks were in effect a "worker's state" capable of rallying pesants and even some anti-fascist middle class elements behind the power and leadership of the radical workers, they instead tailed and then joined the Popular Front out of "necissity" against the Fascists even thought the Popular Front had been useless and accomodating to Franco.

[The Feral Underclass]

Except when they do. And Spain is a good example of that. Because some of the forces rejected the idea that their networks were in effect a "worker's state" capable of rallying pesants and even some anti-fascist middle class elements behind the power and leadership of the radical workers, they instead tailed and then joined the Popular Front out of "necissity" against the Fascists even thought the Popular Front had been useless and accomodating to Franco.

An overwhelming number of anarchists didn't join the Popular Front government and they certainly didn't think it could be used to aid a revolution. The CNT leadership joined the government because they believed it necessary to stop fascism, and it was to the shock and anger of the FoD and CNT-FAI rank-and-file members. It was also something largely opposed by the international anarchist movement.

It should also be noted that the result of such collaboration was the consolidation of authoritarian communists and attacks on anarchist collectives and militias. The lessons we can learn from this (as anarchists) is that it is necessary to stick to our ideas. What we saw in Spain was that the anarchists weren't anarchist enough.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It should also be noted that the result of such collaboration was the consolidation of authoritarian communists and attacks on anarchist collectives and militias. The lessons we can learn from this (as anarchists) is that it is necessary to stick to our ideas. What we saw in Spain was that the anarchists weren't anarchist enough.In general I agree here, though I personally don't know if I would want to criticize Spanish revolutionaries for not being "revolutionary enough" considering that for any mistakes or failings, they did have a revolutionary orientation that probably represents - along with the Russian revolution and German revolutions - a high point for that era of revolutionary organization and practice. We're looking back in heinseight and so some things are clearer and we can see alternatives like IMO Friends of Derrutti or various other Marxists and Anarchists that could have possibly helped organize an independant course for the workers and pesants, but it's likely very hard to do this in the middle of civil war/revolution.

On the issue of anarchist principles though - I think many, even in the leadership, were quite strong in that regard and like the Bolsheviks they represented a revolutionary wave that had learned some lessons about the dangers of (2nd international) reformism (and unlike the 1917 Bolsheviks, had the negative examples of the failure of the Russian Revolution and the smashing of the German revolution to learn from). There were issues of an internal CNT beurocracy and so on, but I think on the whole, it wasn't like they just went reformist and rejected principles, they actually seem to have gone back and forth on these issues while holding onto the principle and only rejecting this on grounds of practical necissity - rejecting politics and then arguing they had no choice and needed to ally with this or that faction, and then rejecting cooperation, and then hitting another impasse and supporting it again.

In fact I think some of this came out of their particular interpretation of anarchist principles: I think they essentially believed that they could build up the working class and rural commune networks and essentially negate the state because it would be irrelevant. To a certain extent they could do this and we see them accomplishing this in the series of mass strikes and so on that were able to end pre-Franco governments. But then with the Fancoist attack on the one side and the Popular Front on the other, the principle of "not taking power" disoriented them and they supported the Popular Front possibly because they thought if we push back Franco and return to "normal" then they could easily go back to negating the state.

As an FAI delegate said: "We could have remained alone, imposed our absolute will, declared the Generalidad null and void, and imposed the true power of the people in its place, but we did not believe in dictatorship when it was being exercised against us, and we did not want it when we could exercise it ourselves only at the expense of others. The Generalidad would remain in force with President Companys at its head, and the popular forces would organize themselves into militias to carry on the struggle for the liberation of Spain."

So rejecting the anarchist priciple of smashing the state is contradicorally justified with the principle of not wanting to establish a DotP. Either way they went, they were in a position where they would have to break with anarchist principles, why they went the way they did is most likely due to probablem of the leadership and beurocratic-pulls etc, but to go another route, the Derrutti route, to go the route of overthrowing the Popular Front and establishing the existing radical networks as a "worker's state" would have also broken with their conception of anarchist priciples.

[darkblues]

db

[ckaihatsu]

[W]ith the F[r]ancoist attack on the one side and the Popular Front on the other, the principle of "not taking power" disoriented them and they supported the Popular Front possibly because they thought if we push back Franco and return to "normal" then they could easily go back to negating the state.

As an FAI delegate said: "We could have remained alone, imposed our absolute will, declared the Generalidad null and void, and imposed the true power of the people in its place, but we did not believe in dictatorship when it was being exercised against us, and we did not want it when we could exercise it ourselves only at the expense of others. The Generalidad would remain in force with President Companys at its head, and the popular forces would organize themselves into militias to carry on the struggle for the liberation of Spain."

So rejecting the anarchist priciple of smashing the state is contradicorally justified with the principle of not wanting to establish a DotP. Either way they went, they were in a position where they would have to break with anarchist principles, why they went the way they did is most likely due to probablem of the leadership and beurocratic-pulls etc, but to go another route, the Derrutti route, to go the route of overthrowing the Popular Front and establishing the existing radical networks as a "worker's state" would have also broken with their conception of anarchist priciples.


This is a crucial point -- that when actual political power and momentum is at stake there's really no way to retain a power *vacuum*, as the anarchist line effectively advocates. What *would* be called for at such a point is political *decisiveness*, rather than an idealistic, wishful-thinking position of "Let's let everything co-exist at the same time."

[The Feral Underclass]

that when actual political power and momentum is at stake there's really no way to retain a power *vacuum*, as the anarchist line effectively advocates.

This argument is predicated on the idea that a state is the only form of political power.


rather than an idealistic, wishful-thinking position of "Let's let everything co-exist at the same time."

Any anarchist who thinks that has fundamental flaws in their understanding of anarchism. The CNT-FAI leadership notwithstanding, I don't know of any anarchist who thinks we should "co-exist" with the state.

[Sotionov]

No. And I don't even know where to begin with that.
Maybe from fact that state-capitalists destroyed (or contributed to the destruction of) the socialist societies in Ukraine and Spain, after being trusted by the socialist forces (anarchist mostly, but also left-Esers in Russia and libertarian marxists in Spain), and the fact that they persecuted genuine socialist wherever they had the power to do so.

If the revolution is to succeed, the working people movement has to clearly acknowledge the non-revolutionary (and anti-revolutionary) character of any idea that advocates hierarchical organization of people.

[helot]

This is a crucial point -- that when actual political power and momentum is at stake there's really no way to retain a power *vacuum*, as the anarchist line effectively advocates.

Except that's just not true is it? Even a cursory glance at what anarchists say shows that anarchists seek the workers forming their own organs to take control of all necessary functions in society.

You would do well knowing what you're talking about before making any such claims.

[NGNM85]

There is no difference. Anarchists ARE communists, literally speaking. What, I believe, the OP is trying to ascertain is the difference between Anarchism and Marxism. Suffice to say; a comprehensive answer to this question would probably make; 'Ulysses' look like a pamphlet. Personally; I would say that, if by; 'Marxism', we mean the thought of Karl Marx,
the two are totally compatible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe from fact that state-capitalists destroyed (or contributed to the destruction of) the socialist societies in Ukraine and Spain, after being trusted by the socialist forces (anarchist mostly, but also left-Esers in Russia and libertarian marxists in Spain), and the fact that they persecuted genuine socialist wherever they had the power to do so.apples and oranges in these examples first of all. The cp in Spain was thoroughly counter-revolutionary and actively sought to restore property and dismantle the worker's power there. In Russia the example I think you are using is of a breakdown between rural and urban revolutionaries.


If the revolution is to succeed, the working people movement has to clearly acknowledge the non-revolutionary (and anti-revolutionary) character of any idea that advocates hierarchical organization of people.hierarchy is too abstract to be useful IMO. Capitalism, in the neoliberal era esp. has shown it can be diffuse and yet still chain us... It doesn't mean capital is weaker if a big firm is broken up and spread out among a bunch of smaller parts.

Hierarchy and top-down organizing for workers is inefficient at best, but it is not the root of the problem in Russia IMO... That root is an actual lack of worker's power. The Comintern and cp's didn't become counter revolutionary BECAUSE they became top-down, I think they became increasingly top-down because there was a set of interests at the top which had detached from the worker's movement and revolution and pushed for their own. To go from denouncing liberals to supporting peace with hitler and then supporting liberals in a war against hitler, requires a lack of debate (hence anyone who disagreed was a trot-fascist-anarchist plotter) and ridged following of some party line created in Moscow.

Hierarchy is just a way of organizing... The question is organizing what? If it's the self-emancipation of workers, then a top-down hierarchy of an eliete is basically an impossible tool for that. But if a worker's militia as part of a mass worker's revolution decided that some level of hierarchy was needed for some specific purpose, i don't think it would automatically mean that they somehow just became counter-revolutionary.

That's why I conceptualize the divide as not "authoritarian" v "anti-authoritarian" or "hierarchy vs. horizontal" but socialism from above vs. socialism from below. I think we sometimes fetishize forms over content and to me the content is mass working class power, exactly how workers organize that may carry depending on circumstances etc.

[ckaihatsu]

This is a crucial point -- that when actual political power and momentum is at stake there's really no way to retain a power *vacuum*, as the anarchist line effectively advocates.





This argument is predicated on the idea that a state is the only form of political power.


But the effective sidelining of the state during revolutionary upheaval necessarily brings about the question of what kind of power is to succeed it -- JH's critique was that the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War didn't hold a hard-enough revolutionary line to distinguish their politics as the 'new world order', so-to-speak:





In fact I think some of this [political accommodation] came out of their [Spanish revolutionaries'] particular interpretation of anarchist principles: I think they essentially believed that they could build up the working class and rural commune networks and essentially negate the state because it would be irrelevant. To a certain extent they could do this and we see them accomplishing this in the series of mass strikes and so on that were able to end pre-Franco governments. But then with the Fancoist attack on the one side and the Popular Front on the other, the principle of "not taking power" disoriented them and they supported the Popular Front possibly because they thought if we push back Franco and return to "normal" then they could easily go back to negating the state.


---





This is a crucial point -- that when actual political power and momentum is at stake there's really no way to retain a power *vacuum*, as the anarchist line effectively advocates.





Except that's just not true is it? Even a cursory glance at what anarchists say shows that anarchists seek the workers forming their own organs to take control of all necessary functions in society.

You would do well knowing what you're talking about before making any such claims.


I don't claim to have ever done life and/or politics as an anarchist, but I will say that I *understand* enough to make the critique that the state apparatus has to at least be *grappled* with -- and also dismembered -- before it can be said to no longer pose a threat.

If JH is correct in noting





the [anarchist] principle of "not taking power"


...then that political principle is *problematic*, and really would *not suffice* for any period of revolutionary upheaval and beyond.





What *would* be called for at such a point is political *decisiveness*, rather than an idealistic, wishful-thinking position of "Let's let everything co-exist at the same time."





Any anarchist who thinks that has fundamental flaws in their understanding of anarchism.


Fair enough.





The CNT-FAI leadership notwithstanding, I don't know of any anarchist who thinks we should "co-exist" with the state.


The *historical* lesson remains in front of us, though -- would an anarchist principle of 'not taking power' be in effect, precipitating a turn-to and reliance-on a *coalition* form of authority (the Popular Front), instead of turning to full-blown soviets -- ?





[W]ith the Fancoist attack on the one side and the Popular Front on the other, the principle of "not taking power" disoriented them and they supported the Popular Front possibly because they thought if we push back Franco and return to "normal" then they could easily go back to negating the state.

[The Feral Underclass]

But the effective sidelining of the state during revolutionary upheaval necessarily brings about the question of what kind of power is to succeed it

Of the proletariat acting in its own interest.


JH's critique was that the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War didn't hold a hard-enough revolutionary line to distinguish their politics as the 'new world order', so-to-speak:

Some anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.


The *historical* lesson remains in front of us, though -- would an anarchist principle of 'not taking power' be in effect, precipitating a turn-to and reliance-on a *coalition* form of authority (the Popular Front), instead of turning to full-blown soviets -- ?

Firstly, anarchist opposition to the state isn't about principle, it's about recognising the state isn't a tool that can be used to create communism. Secondly, this question is once again predicated on the notion that "smashing the state" is the same as "not taking power."

Political power, i.e. the force to organsie and administrate society can only be effectively used to create communism if it is exercised directly by the working class in a decentralised way. The concentration of political power into a state will inevitably lead to the collapse of a revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

Of the proletariat acting in its own interest.


Sure, but perhaps more-to-the-point is in what *form* will that proletarian power take while the state apparatus still exists, undergoing rapid decay -- ?

It sounds like the line here is that "The remnants of the bourgeois state can just be ignored while self-liberated proletarian forces do their own thing while likewise being ignored."

This naturalistic, evolutionary conception of revolution is just too misguided, though. The state's organizational composition will *not* just "take the hint" and go away quietly -- the state would be in 'survival mode' at that point and would put forth all-out efforts to neutralize and discredit its rival, much like it does on any given day these days, anyway.





Some anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.


Noted.





Firstly, anarchist opposition to the state isn't about principle, it's about recognising the state isn't a tool that can be used to create communism.


Okay.





Secondly, this question is once again predicated on the notion that "smashing the state" is the same as "not taking power."


Okay, I'm open to whatever point you may want to make by elaborating on this.





Political power, i.e. the force to organsie and administrate society can only be effectively used to create communism if it is exercised directly by the working class in a decentralised way. The concentration of political power into a state will inevitably lead to the collapse of a revolution.


Perhaps, for the sake of clarification, what's needed here is the notion of the vanguard becoming like an 'anti-state', if this is a valid conception. I don't see anything about Trotskyism itself being power-hungry, or that its adherents all give a wink when they talk about 'dissolving the state'.

It's neither beyond human nature nor unreasonable to say that workers could 'take on' the state apparatus, and even use it if necessary, temporarily, to put down the counter-revolution.

Here's from my standing statement on vanguardism:





I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

[Sotionov]

hierarchy is too abstract to be useful IMO. Capitalism, in the neoliberal era esp. has shown it can be diffuse and yet still chain us... It doesn't mean capital is weaker if a big firm is broken up and spread out among a bunch of smaller parts.
Which has nothing to do with hierarchy, being that a big firm can be non-hierarchical. An entire state-wide organization can be non-hierarchical, ever heard of referendums?


That root is an actual lack of worker's powerWhich is lacking if there are any leaders above them.


The Comintern and cp's didn't become counter revolutionary BECAUSE they became top-downThen I'd say you're wrong.


I think they became increasingly top-down because there was a set of interests at the top which had detached from the worker's movement and revolution and pushed for their own.Which is going to happen in every situation where there is a division on "top" and "bottom".


Hierarchy is just a way of organizing... In a reactionary way.


The question is organizing what? If it's the self-emancipation of workers, then a top-down hierarchy of an eliete is basically an impossible tool for that. Any hierachy is impossible for that. "Top-down" and "from-the-bottop-up" are both hierarchies, and both are to be abolshed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sure, but perhaps more-to-the-point is in what *form* will that proletarian power take while the state apparatus still exists, undergoing rapid decay -- ?

The immediate political task of the proletariat is to decentralise political power. That is, to form a federal system of local, regional and industrial councils. Whatever form that may take.


It sounds like the line here is that "The remnants of the bourgeois state can just be ignored while self-liberated proletarian forces do their own thing while likewise being ignored."

On the contrary, the remnants of the bourgeois state must be smashed with brute force.


This naturalistic, evolutionary conception of revolution is just too misguided, though. The state's organizational composition will *not* just "take the hint" and go away quietly -- the state would be in 'survival mode' at that point and would put forth all-out efforts to neutralize and discredit its rival, much like it does on any given day these days, anyway.

And rather than seizing those institutions in some misguided effort to use them for the proletariat, the proletariat must act to force these institutions into non-existence, while at the same time establishing it's own methods of exercising political power that break down capitalist/bourgeois social relations and safe-guard an actual transition to communism.


Noted.

:)


Okay, I'm open to whatever point you may want to make by elaborating on this.

Well we were talking about anarchists wanting to operate in co-existence with the state, which I said was not an anarchist position. You then replied by saying: "would an anarchist principle of 'not taking power' be in effect, precipitating a turn-to and reliance-on a *coalition* form of authority (the Popular Front), instead of turning to full-blown soviets -- ?"

You used the phrase "not taking power" to define our rejection of the state as a "principle." I am trying to unravel this conflation that not existing alongside the state or rather the negation of the state is also a negation of power.


Perhaps, for the sake of clarification, what's needed here is the notion of the vanguard becoming like an 'anti-state', if this is a valid conception. I don't see anything about Trotskyism itself being power-hungry, or that its adherents all give a wink when they talk about 'dissolving the state'.

But the state produces social relations that are antithetical to establishing a communist society. The vanguard is only anti-state if that is what it is.


It's neither beyond human nature nor unreasonable to say that workers could 'take on' the state apparatus, and even use it if necessary, temporarily, to put down the counter-revolution.

But the term "workers" is confused within these ideas because we're not talking about the "workers" as a homogeneous group of people all participating within the administration of political power. What you are talking about is a minority government using the same social relations that legitimate and preserve the bourgeois state on behalf of the workers.

Hierarchy and authority exist as social relations in order to preserve power, not abolish it.


I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

It's not really a question of people "hanging onto power" it is question of understanding what social relationships exist in the first instances that necessitate the continued existence of those social relationships.

If you have centralised political power and use representative democracy as well as hierarchy/authority, then you are reproducing social relationships that exist to preserve that centralised political power.

A state exists to preserve itself, otherwise the execution of centralised political power cannot be realised.


*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

But a state is not just about defeating an enemy, it is about administration, co-ordination, law enforcement, judicial review and international relations etc etc.

If you have maintained social relationships that negate the proletariat from administrating political power directly, free from hierarchy, then how do the proletariat then suddenly produce ways in which to do that?

These social relationships don't just disappear simply because the bad guys no longer exist.

[ckaihatsu]

The immediate political task of the proletariat is to decentralise political power. That is, to form a federal system of local, regional and industrial councils. Whatever form that may take.


While I have "internal" differences with this conception, it's not substantive enough to quibble over -- I've shown as much at the conclusion of this recent thread:


How would a centralised/decentralised economy work/differ?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-centralised-decentralised-t181681/index.html





On the contrary, the remnants of the bourgeois state must be smashed with brute force.


Okay -- I would certainly hope so.





And rather than seizing those institutions in some misguided effort to use them for the proletariat, the proletariat must act to force these institutions into non-existence, while at the same time establishing it's own methods of exercising political power that break down capitalist/bourgeois social relations and safe-guard an actual transition to communism.


Well, as usual with anything anticipatory, we don't have actual real-world conditions in front of us to pick apart -- I accept the *possibility* of your stated scenario being a reality, but I *also* accept that, depending on circumstances, the proletariat *may* have to utilize the decayed bourgeois state as an option, if necessary. (It would probably equate to a radical-reformist 'nationalization', or socialization, of private assets, as a transitional step.)





Well we were talking about anarchists wanting to operate in co-existence with the state, which I said was not an anarchist position. You then replied by saying: "would an anarchist principle of 'not taking power' be in effect, precipitating a turn-to and reliance-on a *coalition* form of authority (the Popular Front), instead of turning to full-blown soviets -- ?"

You used the phrase "not taking power" to define our rejection of the state as a "principle." I am trying to unravel this conflation that not existing alongside the state or rather the negation of the state is also a negation of power.


Okay, acknowledged.





But the state produces social relations that are antithetical to establishing a communist society. The vanguard is only anti-state if that is what it is.


Yup.





It's neither beyond human nature nor unreasonable to say that workers could 'take on' the state apparatus, and even use it if necessary, temporarily, to put down the counter-revolution.






But the term "workers" is confused within these ideas because we're not talking about the "workers" as a homogeneous group of people all participating within the administration of political power.


This is a confusing formulation / statement, since you just stated that:





[T]he state produces social relations that are antithetical to establishing a communist society. The vanguard is only anti-state if that is what it is.


So wouldn't the vanguard -- the leading edge of pro-proletarian political opinion -- by definition be for the best interests of the working class as a whole -- ?

If objective conditions prompted the vanguard to call for a nationalization of all banking, for example, wouldn't that be a valid tactic -- one in which the workers use the existing bourgeois state against itself -- ?





What you are talking about is a minority government using the same social relations that legitimate and preserve the bourgeois state on behalf of the workers.


But if objective real-world social relations between the classes happen to be on a knife-edge, perhaps a seizing and wielding of a state institution would be a good option, one that would *not* legitimate or preserve the bourgeois state.





Hierarchy and authority exist as social relations in order to preserve power, not abolish it.


Well, as JH points out:





hierarchy is too abstract to be useful IMO. Capitalism, in the neoliberal era esp. has shown it can be diffuse and yet still chain us... It doesn't mean capital is weaker if a big firm is broken up and spread out among a bunch of smaller parts.




[I]f a worker's militia as part of a mass worker's revolution decided that some level of hierarchy was needed for some specific purpose, i don't think it would automatically mean that they somehow just became counter-revolutionary.

That's why I conceptualize the divide as not "authoritarian" v "anti-authoritarian" or "hierarchy vs. horizontal" but socialism from above vs. socialism from below. I think we sometimes fetishize forms over content and to me the content is mass working class power, exactly how workers organize that may carry depending on circumstances etc.





It's not really a question of people "hanging onto power" it is question of understanding what social relationships exist in the first instances that necessitate the continued existence of those social relationships.




If you have centralised political power and use representative democracy as well as hierarchy/authority, then you are reproducing social relationships that exist to preserve that centralised political power.

A state exists to preserve itself, otherwise the execution of centralised political power cannot be realised.


I'm sorry, but I just can't agree -- this conception is too much on the side of idealism since it doesn't consider the component of real-world conditions, which may vary widely. Under certain conditions these concerns about state power itself may not necessarily be valid -- thus we can't say that state power has any *inherent*, fixed dynamics, contrary to the anarchist position.





*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.





But a state is not just about defeating an enemy, it is about administration, co-ordination, law enforcement, judicial review and international relations etc etc.


Yes, agreed.





If you have maintained social relationships that negate the proletariat from administrating political power directly, free from hierarchy, then how do the proletariat then suddenly produce ways in which to do that?


So -- to rephrase this -- if the bourgeoisie is preventing the proletariat from exercising direct democracy, how could the proletariat possibly co-opt the bourgeois state power hierarchy when its real aim is to be decentralized -- ?

This is where I respectfully have differences, and would term this as being a fetishization of form -- for decentralization, unconditionally, which is what you're saying.





These social relationships don't just disappear simply because the bad guys no longer exist.


Well, actually, *yes*, the bourgeois content of hegemony *would* disappear once the bourgeoisie has been effectively sidelined, by whatever effective proletarian strategies and tactics.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sure, but perhaps more-to-the-point is in what *form* will that proletarian power take while the state apparatus still exists, undergoing rapid decay -- ?

It sounds like the line here is that "The remnants of the bourgeois state can just be ignored while self-liberated proletarian forces do their own thing while likewise being ignored."

This naturalistic, evolutionary conception of revolution is just too misguided, though. The state's organizational composition will *not* just "take the hint" and go away quietly -- the state would be in 'survival mode' at that point and would put forth all-out efforts to neutralize and discredit its rival, much like it does on any given day these days, anyway.

Right and I think Spain shows this well - the Spanish movement had become very strong before the Popular Front came to power and was able to "crash" various attempts at repressing workers through rather amazing mass actions. So this put the rulers in an impasse: in order to modernize Spain they had to crush worker and rural resistance, but attempts to do this resulted in uprisings bringing in more liberal forces, but then those forces had to prove to the eliete that they could do a better job of maintaining order and would have to turn around and repress the workers movement.

So what is a capitalist national class to do in this situation, they aren't going to roll over and let rural and industry profits sink, international investment move elsewhere, etc? Well outright murder of those in your way is an option that Germany put on the table and so a large chunk of the bourgoise and rural and colonial eliete backed smashing the worker's movement.

As (I think) Hal Draper said: you can ignore the state, but if you are sucessful the state won't ignore you.

[liberlict]

Within every group there remains a conflict with ideals. In terms of Anarchism and Communism, it's the dividing factor that split up Spain, destroyed the idea of unity in Athens, and turned supporters of the Bolsheviks into disillusioned activists. So why? Personally, I feel that the biggest differences in the two are the varying ideas of government and the split between collectivists and individualists. If I am wrong, and I assume I am, what's truly keeping these similar ideologies from unifying?

I think you are right. Collectivists, (communists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists) think a world collective is possible and desirable. Anarchists see the role of the individual as too immutable to make communism possible. I think the Anarchists are on the right track.

[BIXX]

I think you are right. Collectivists, (communists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists) think a world collective is possible and desirable. Anarchists see the role of the individual as too immutable to make communism possible. I think the Anarchists are on the right track.

Yo, we think communism is possible. You don't mute the individual in communism, in fact, it flourishes.

[The Feral Underclass]

How would a centralised/decentralised economy work/differ?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-centralised-decentralised-t181681/index.html

I did actually provide a response in that thread.

I don't think it is wise to get into a hypothetical over the details of how things will be run in a revolutionary society, since I have no way of knowing how humans will organise a centralised or decentralised economy.

My best guess is that it would be organised in similar ways to how it was in Spain. Production and distribution planning would be organised and co-ordinated at the point of production in accordance with regional requirements.

As for the day-to-day administration, I would have no problem with their being a body of delegates who were responsible for this, providing they didn't have decision making powers and dealt exclusively with the application of delegated decisions.


Well, as usual with anything anticipatory, we don't have actual real-world conditions in front of us to pick apart -- I accept the *possibility* of your stated scenario being a reality, but I *also* accept that, depending on circumstances, the proletariat *may* have to utilize the decayed bourgeois state as an option, if necessary. (It would probably equate to a radical-reformist 'nationalization', or socialization, of private assets, as a transitional step.)

I know this may seem dogmatic, but I do not believe that communism can be created by seizing the state. If the workers "have to" use the state then I think a transition into communism becomes impossible.


This is a confusing formulation / statement, since you just stated that

So wouldn't the vanguard -- the leading edge of pro-proletarian political opinion -- by definition be for the best interests of the working class as a whole -- ?

If a vanguard is simply those workers organised to participate in struggle, to help organise, educate and agitate for communist ideas and methods then I am comfortable with using the word vanguard.

That doesn't seem to be the definition you are using or that other Marxists use. Their definition of a vanguard is a body of workers who seize the bourgeois state to use for it's "own" purpose.


If objective conditions prompted the vanguard to call for a nationalization of all banking, for example, wouldn't that be a valid tactic -- one in which the workers use the existing bourgeois state against itself -- ?

The vanguard is therefore not anti-state.


But if objective real-world social relations between the classes happen to be on a knife-edge, perhaps a seizing and wielding of a state institution would be a good option, one that would *not* legitimate or preserve the bourgeois state.

That's a contradiction. You cannot not preserve the bourgeois state and wield institutions of it at the same time.

The point for anarchists is that the use of these social relations necessarily negates the ability for real workers' liberation.


Well, as JH points out

But Jimmy doesn't understand what I am saying.

What are we talking about here? That is the central question. I am talking about political power. That is: the power to administrate, organise and defend society.

The social relationship I am talking about is that one in which the decision making process is removed from those living the experience of a decision. I.e. some people make decisions and then other people follow those decisions.

I am not talking about a situation within a militia in which a group of workers decide to listen to the orders of someone who is an expert in tactics. I am talking about the structural nature of hierarchy inherent within centralised political power that necessarily negates the ability for people to make direct decisions.


I'm sorry, but I just can't agree -- this conception is too much on the side of idealism since it doesn't consider the component of real-world conditions, which may vary widely. Under certain conditions these concerns about state power itself may not necessarily be valid -- thus we can't say that state power has any *inherent*, fixed dynamics, contrary to the anarchist position.

But this argument is only valid if you claim that there is a conception of the state that is not dependent on hierarchy/authority to preserve centralised political power.


This is where I respectfully have differences, and would term this as being a fetishization of form -- for decentralization, unconditionally, which is what you're saying.

But this form defines the content. It is the objective realities of the state that determine how society looks.

Understanding anarchist objections to the state as a "fetishisation" is based on the fact that Marxists have an incomplete and inadequate analysis of the state.

For anarchists, it's not a question of "fetishising" the state, it is about understanding that the state will not create necessary transitions into communism. We call for decentralisation, unconditionally, because not to do so condemns the revolution to failure.


Well, actually, *yes*, the bourgeois content of hegemony *would* disappear once the bourgeoisie has been effectively sidelined, by whatever effective proletarian strategies and tactics.

Only if the conditions in which the bourgeoisie were sidelined represented/pre-figured the conditions in which these social relationships could not exist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I suppose I'm just echoing much of what has already been said (particularly by TAT and Jimmy), but I think focusing on "Anarchist" and "Communist"/"Marxist" divisions, one ends up missing a lot of the point (unless one is speaking to specific historical examples, and using the labels in a contingent way).
How one defines a state (not to mention a specific state, or a hypothetical/"actually existing" "workers'" state) is pretty crucial point of difference that runs as much through self-identified anarchisms and Marxisms as between them. Similarly, and related, is how one conceives of a post-capitalist socialist/communist economy/mode of production/form of life.
These divisions emerge out of particular historical moments and movements (their class composition, their geo-political situation, etc.) as much as out of any theoretical tradition that its participants might hold up.

"And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language."

That said, I'm going to be a sectarian jerk and say that anybody who believes the state, in the sense of the modern nation state, with its prison-industrial, military-industrial, and medical-industrial characteristics can be put at the service of communist transformation has learned nothing from the 20th century.

[ckaihatsu]

I did actually provide a response in that thread.

I don't think it is wise to get into a hypothetical over the details of how things will be run in a revolutionary society, since I have no way of knowing how humans will organise a centralised or decentralised economy.

My best guess is that it would be organised in similar ways to how it was in Spain. Production and distribution planning would be organised and co-ordinated at the point of production in accordance with regional requirements.

As for the day-to-day administration, I would have no problem with their being a body of delegates who were responsible for this, providing they didn't have decision making powers and dealt exclusively with the application of delegated decisions.


I have no qualms with any of this, though I do have an alternative framework that I developed, as an option for everyone's consideration -- it would eliminate all necessity for any kind of delegated / representational roles.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/nwiupxn8t/)





I know this may seem dogmatic, but I do not believe that communism can be created by seizing the state. If the workers "have to" use the state then I think a transition into communism becomes impossible.


I do respect this concern, and it's a valid one -- certainly simply 'smashing the state' is *preferable* as well.... I just have my doubts that a revolutionary transition would be as smooth as we'd like it to be, and with complication comes messiness, and a resorting to less-than-desirable options for strategies and tactics.





If a vanguard is simply those workers organised to participate in struggle, to help organise, educate and agitate for communist ideas and methods then I am comfortable with using the word vanguard.

That doesn't seem to be the definition you are using or that other Marxists use. Their definition of a vanguard is a body of workers who seize the bourgeois state to use for it's "own" purpose.


I agree that a brute usurping of power, to merely install the next class-based rulership, would *not* be revolutionary -- I just differ with the concern that a revolutionary vanguard would "slip" as such to become that.





If objective conditions prompted the vanguard to call for a nationalization of all banking, for example, wouldn't that be a valid tactic -- one in which the workers use the existing bourgeois state against itself -- ?





The vanguard is therefore not anti-state.


Well, again, your 'principle' (for lack of a better term) precedes you -- it looks like we differ on the degree of flexibility over vanguardist strategies and tactics.





But if objective real-world social relations between the classes happen to be on a knife-edge, perhaps a seizing and wielding of a state institution would be a good option, one that would *not* legitimate or preserve the bourgeois state.





That's a contradiction. You cannot not preserve the bourgeois state and wield institutions of it at the same time.

The point for anarchists is that the use of these social relations necessarily negates the ability for real workers' liberation.


I'm not *advocating* the revolutionary use of bourgeois state institutions -- it's more about that if we know who we are in our politics the methods used to discredit and overthrow bourgeois rule shouldn't matter much. Your trepidation is understandable but it also implies a degree of self-doubt as to our role as revolutionaries.





But Jimmy doesn't understand what I am saying.

What are we talking about here? That is the central question. I am talking about political power. That is: the power to administrate, organise and defend society.

The social relationship I am talking about is that one in which the decision making process is removed from those living the experience of a decision. I.e. some people make decisions and then other people follow those decisions.

I am not talking about a situation within a militia in which a group of workers decide to listen to the orders of someone who is an expert in tactics. I am talking about the structural nature of hierarchy inherent within centralised political power that necessarily negates the ability for people to make direct decisions.


I can only repeat myself at this point -- certainly this concern is understandable, but in a revolutionary period of upheaval the *form* of resistance and collective self-organization may have to be more flexible and adaptable than we'd like. It's "only" a conditional.





If you have centralised political power and use representative democracy as well as hierarchy/authority, then you are reproducing social relationships that exist to preserve that centralised political power.

A state exists to preserve itself, otherwise the execution of centralised political power cannot be realised.





I'm sorry, but I just can't agree -- this conception is too much on the side of idealism since it doesn't consider the component of real-world conditions, which may vary widely. Under certain conditions these concerns about state power itself may not necessarily be valid -- thus we can't say that state power has any *inherent*, fixed dynamics, contrary to the anarchist position.





But this argument is only valid if you claim that there is a conception of the state that is not dependent on hierarchy/authority to preserve centralised political power.


No, of course I agree that the bourgeois state is organized mostly hierarchically -- (though its influence over emergent market conditions is quite limited).

Your position is that hierarchy *equals* ruling-class hegemony -- and that's where I differ. The *form* of proletarian collective organization is not nearly as important and deterministic as the *content* of its politics.

Actually, this is why I won't bicker around the topic / issue of representation, because it's entirely *tangential* to the substance of what's being represented. I'd *prefer* to see an Internet-based system, like RevLeft, where everyone can be self-selecting and participate individually and interactively over all respectively relevant matters of policy, but if some kind of delegation happens to be used I wouldn't argue over that *form* itself, but rather over the *substance* of the issues of the day.





This is where I respectfully have differences, and would term this as being a fetishization of form -- for decentralization, unconditionally, which is what you're saying.





But this form defines the content.


No, no it doesn't -- not *unconditionally*, as you're stating. The 'form' and 'content' of the political arena may have *some* degree of varying correlation, but neither is wholly *deterministic* of the other, as you're maintaining.





It is the objective realities of the state that determine how society looks.


Sure, but we would start to describe the bourgeois state as being *class-based*, *not* that it's simply hierarchical.





Understanding anarchist objections to the state as a "fetishisation" is based on the fact that Marxists have an incomplete and inadequate analysis of the state.


I'll roundly disagree here.





For anarchists, it's not a question of "fetishising" the state, it is about understanding that the state will not create necessary transitions into communism.


Well of course not -- no Marxist is *ever* saying that we would look to the remnants of the bourgeois state as being the foundation for the construction of a new, proletarian order.





We call for decentralisation, unconditionally, because not to do so condemns the revolution to failure.


That's the anarchist line.





Well, actually, *yes*, the bourgeois content of hegemony *would* disappear once the bourgeoisie has been effectively sidelined, by whatever effective proletarian strategies and tactics.





Only if the conditions in which the bourgeoisie were sidelined represented/pre-figured the conditions in which these social relationships could not exist.


*Ideally*, sure, but actual conditions / circumstances might not avail us with this option that you favor.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That said, I'm going to be a sectarian jerk and say that anybody who believes the state, in the sense of the modern nation state, with its prison-industrial, military-industrial, and medical-industrial characteristics can be put at the service of communist transformation has learned nothing from the 20th century.Having a difference of opinion makes no one a sectarian jerk - not automatically anyway :lol:.

[The Feral Underclass]

I have no qualms with any of this, though I do have an alternative framework that I developed, as an option for everyone's consideration -- it would eliminate all necessity for any kind of delegated / representational roles.


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/nwiupxn8t/)

I would have to give this more time than I have, but I thank you for sharing it with me. My only very minor point is that I'm not sure how I feel about labour credits (I would have to understand them more).


I do respect this concern, and it's a valid one -- certainly simply 'smashing the state' is *preferable* as well.... I just have my doubts that a revolutionary transition would be as smooth as we'd like it to be, and with complication comes messiness, and a resorting to less-than-desirable options for strategies and tactics.

The problem with this position is that it is predicated on various unfounded assumptions that themselves are predicated on bourgeois understandings of organisation etc.

Firstly, it is predicated on the assumption that the state creates "smoothness" and secondly it is predicated on the assumption that the state is somehow more equipped that other forms of organisation to deal with issues of political control.

These assumptions, in my view, are themselves predicated on bourgeois ideology about human nature and leadership, that legitimises the state (and, incidentally, are used to discredit anarchists as being "chaotic" and "unorganised") as being order and organisation.

The notion that human beings are unable to organise themselves without hierarchy or centralised authority, because the results would be chaos and disorganisation, is an argument used by the bourgeoisie to rubbish any suggestion that we could exist without their control.

This view resides in the Marxist argument as displayed in your quote above. I suspect it's largely because the workers aren't "advanced" enough and residual ideological phantoms will continue to exist etc etc.


I agree that a brute usurping of power, to merely install the next class-based rulership, would *not* be revolutionary -- I just differ with the concern that a revolutionary vanguard would "slip" as such to become that.

If its objective is to seize the [bourgeois] state and use it for it's own purpose (to crush the bourgeoisie) then it is, as I've said, an inevitable consequence.


Well, again, your 'principle' (for lack of a better term) precedes you -- it looks like we differ on the degree of flexibility over vanguardist strategies and tactics.

Well there's really nothing that can be said to someone who insists they are one thing. For me, if someone is anti-state then they are against its form and use because they recognise it's material/structural dangers.

It's no good saying you are "anti-state" because you envision a world without a state, but then advocate the use of a state that ultimately negates the possibility to create a stateless world.

Ultimately, as Virgin Molotov Cocktail says, "...anybody who believes the state, in the sense of the modern nation state, with its prison-industrial, military-industrial, and medical-industrial characteristics can be put at the service of communist transformation has learned nothing from the 20th century."


I'm not *advocating* the revolutionary use of bourgeois state institutions -- it's more about that if we know who we are in our politics the methods used to discredit and overthrow bourgeois rule shouldn't matter much. Your trepidation is understandable but it also implies a degree of self-doubt as to our role as revolutionaries.

That's an idealist view of this situation. The view of transition into communism cannot be predicated on the belief that just because someone has a belief that this will somehow safeguard the revolution. This idea is the consequence of an incomplete and inadequate definition of the state.

On the issue of the using of the "bourgeois state", I think ultimately that is what you are advocating. A state is a state, they vary only marginally in form in order to manage a nation, but ultimately serve the same function. Whether it is called a bourgeois state or a workers' state, the state is essentially the same thing


I can only repeat myself at this point -- certainly this concern is understandable, but in a revolutionary period of upheaval the *form* of resistance and collective self-organization may have to be more flexible and adaptable than we'd like. It's "only" a conditional.

To add further to my point on this: I accept that flexibility might be required to a certain degree, but the flexibility must always take into account how the form will effect our objectives. If the result of using a certain form is to entrench familiar problems and put our objectives at risk, then the form should be rejected as usable.


Your position is that hierarchy *equals* ruling-class hegemony -- and that's where I differ. The *form* of proletarian collective organization is not nearly as important and deterministic as the *content* of its politics.

But the form has to reflect the content. The nature of what we are trying to achieve requires this to be the case. We are trying to tear down the very fabric of society and rebuild it based on a fundamentally different understanding of pretty much everything.

Therefore the actualised, material structures that we create to achieve that objective have to relate specifically to our ideas, otherwise we are just replicating the same issues that face us now -- as we have seen in history time and time again.


No, no it doesn't -- not *unconditionally*, as you're stating. The 'form' and 'content' of the political arena may have *some* degree of varying correlation, but neither is wholly *deterministic* of the other, as you're maintaining.

You reject the notion of cause-and-effect?

Even if you were to reject my analysis as "wholly deterministic" does this mean that you also reject any possibility that the form would determine the content? I cannot see how maintaining bourgeois social relationships could not affect the ultimately content from reflecting that bourgeois ideology.

How long can you maintain the position: "We don't believe in central authority, but we use central authority!"? At some point you are going to have to ideologically defend central authority in order to legitimise its use, I.e. "it's necessary", "it's vital", "there's no other way." How then does the content revert to "it's redundant", "it isn't wanted", "there is another way"?

For me, your position -- that maintaining certain [negative] forms would have no effect on the content [of ideology] -- is idealism.


Sure, but we would start to describe the bourgeois state as being *class-based*, *not* that it's simply hierarchical.

Okay...


I'll roundly disagree here.

Do you have examples of a complete and adequate Marxist definition of the state?


Well of course not -- no Marxist is *ever* saying that we would look to the remnants of the bourgeois state as being the foundation for the construction of a new, proletarian order.

Lenin would disagree.


That's the anarchist line.

Yes and it's also empirically true.

[ckaihatsu]

I would have to give this more time than I have, but I thank you for sharing it with me. My only very minor point is that I'm not sure how I feel about labour credits (I would have to understand them more).


Well thanks for taking a look at the model, anyway -- feel free to address it in more detail if you think it would be worthwhile.

The labor credits in this method are meant to make plain the reality that all societal benefits are derived from the efforts of labor. Since, in a communist economic context, all assets and resources would be collectivized, it would make no sense to have *any* convertibility between labor effort and material products (contrary to what we're used to, with abstract monetary valuations). The labor credits can *only* be used to effect additional liberated labor, going forward -- all results of all liberated labor would either be for collective infrastructure or would be for the fulfillment of pre-planned consumer-type orders.

(Here's another %*@#&^! gratuitous diagram....)(grin)


[8] communist economy diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/mgmjarrot/8_communist_economy_diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/mgmjarrot/)





I do respect this concern, and it's a valid one -- certainly simply 'smashing the state' is *preferable* as well.... I just have my doubts that a revolutionary transition would be as smooth as we'd like it to be, and with complication comes messiness, and a resorting to less-than-desirable options for strategies and tactics.





The problem with this position is that it is predicated on various unfounded assumptions that themselves are predicated on bourgeois understandings of organisation etc.

Firstly, it is predicated on the assumption that the state creates "smoothness"


No, I'd like to differ here and note that -- only conditionally, according to circumstances -- tentative proletarian control over certain state institutions *may* be more effective as a tactic in the midst of heated struggle than attempting to surmount *all* state institutions in a single stroke. For example, consider singular insurrectionary overtakings of commercial media that we've seen in Greece, etc. -- would we advise revolutionaries to *wait* and *not* take over commercial or state media outlets until we have a "full layout" of whole-seizure planned out and ready to go -- ?





and secondly it is predicated on the assumption that the state is somehow more equipped that other forms of organisation to deal with issues of political control.


As a matter of *empirical* expediency, and not on principle, we can say that, yes, the bourgeois bureaucratic state institutions *do* have an actual presence (to put it mildly) that is already well-known and adhered-to by the public. Again, actual conditions on the ground would either recommend or disabuse notions of co-optation, over a single-stroke superseding.





These assumptions, in my view, are themselves predicated on bourgeois ideology about human nature and leadership,


You're arguing as a matter of principle -- which is fine, of course -- but I'm not addressing the potential piecemeal seizure of state levers as a matter of principle here. Rather my arguments are *only* at the level of tactics, for the sake of possible expediency.





that legitimises the state (and, incidentally, are used to discredit anarchists as being "chaotic" and "unorganised") as being order and organisation.


I happen to mean neither of these.





The notion that human beings are unable to organise themselves without hierarchy or centralised authority, because the results would be chaos and disorganisation, is an argument used by the bourgeoisie to rubbish any suggestion that we could exist without their control.


Acknowledged and agreed on the latter point, though I'll note that hierarchy and centralized authority can be very effective when the element of time is limited -- this is why militaries, in particular, utilize hierarchical structures, to eliminate any potential ambiguities regarding command authority.





This view resides in the Marxist argument as displayed in your quote above. I suspect it's largely because the workers aren't "advanced" enough and residual ideological phantoms will continue to exist etc etc.


No, I don't appreciate your slighting of Marxism here -- it's sectarian and unwarranted.





I agree that a brute usurping of power, to merely install the next class-based rulership, would *not* be revolutionary -- I just differ with the concern that a revolutionary vanguard would "slip" as such to become that.





If its objective is to seize the [bourgeois] state and use it for it's own purpose (to crush the bourgeoisie) then it is, as I've said, an inevitable consequence.


Seizing the bourgeois state in order to dissolve it is a correct approach for the advancement of workers power.





Well, again, your 'principle' (for lack of a better term) precedes you -- it looks like we differ on the degree of flexibility over vanguardist strategies and tactics.





Well there's really nothing that can be said to someone who insists they are one thing. For me, if someone is anti-state then they are against its form and use because they recognise it's material/structural dangers.


I'll readily acknowledge that functional positions over bourgeois institutions carries the *risk* of a 'backfiring', where proletarian intentions and momentum could potentially be undermined, with the co-optation of revolutionary forces by the existing bourgeois state -- I think no one would say that revolution is *risk-free*.





It's no good saying you are "anti-state" because you envision a world without a state, but then advocate the use of a state that ultimately negates the possibility to create a stateless world.

Ultimately, as Virgin Molotov Cocktail says, "...anybody who believes the state, in the sense of the modern nation state, with its prison-industrial, military-industrial, and medical-industrial characteristics can be put at the service of communist transformation has learned nothing from the 20th century."


I wish to make it clear that as a matter of principled politics no Marxist ever advocates "the use of a state [...] to create a stateless world." Please recall this portion:





[N]o Marxist is *ever* saying that we would look to the remnants of the bourgeois state as being the foundation for the construction of a new, proletarian order.





I'm not *advocating* the revolutionary use of bourgeois state institutions -- it's more about that if we know who we are in our politics the methods used to discredit and overthrow bourgeois rule shouldn't matter much. Your trepidation is understandable but it also implies a degree of self-doubt as to our role as revolutionaries.





That's an idealist view of this situation. The view of transition into communism cannot be predicated on the belief that just because someone has a belief that this will somehow safeguard the revolution.


What you erroneously term 'a belief' is more accurately described as a *principle* -- that revolutionary solidarity around explicitly stated principled politics would confer strategic and tactical *flexibility*, even through to the tentative usage of bourgeois state institutions, and to the seizing of the state in order to dissolve it.





This idea is the consequence of an incomplete and inadequate definition of the state.


Again, this is a mischaracterization of Marxist politics. I'll lean on JH again....





side with the arguments from "State and Revolution" that the anarchists are correct that the bourgois state can not be used by workers to re-shape society and must be smashed otherwise you will end up with a Pinnochette (because you left the military in tact) or worse.




[T]he Popular Front [in Spain] had no real power during the revolution and it was the radical networks that armed people to defend cities, set up distribution and transportation for people and so on - "worker's power" or a "worker's state".




[B]ecause some of the forces rejected the idea that their networks were in effect a "worker's state" capable of rallying pesants and even some anti-fascist middle class elements behind the power and leadership of the radical workers, they instead tailed and then joined the Popular Front out of "necissity" against the Fascists even thought the Popular Front had been useless and accomodating to Franco.





I'm not *advocating* the revolutionary use of bourgeois state institutions -- it's more about that if we know who we are in our politics the methods used to discredit and overthrow bourgeois rule shouldn't matter much. Your trepidation is understandable but it also implies a degree of self-doubt as to our role as revolutionaries.





On the issue of the using of the "bourgeois state", I think ultimately that [I]is what you are advocating.


I can only describe my politics with my statements, which is all *anyone* can do -- I'm sorry you're unable to take my statements at face-value.





A state is a state, they vary only marginally in form in order to manage a nation, but ultimately serve the same function. Whether it is called a bourgeois state or a workers' state, the state is essentially the same thing


No, while both 'bourgeois state' and 'workers state' may have the term 'state' in them, the meanings are quite different -- a workers state does not manage any nation, for starters, since the nation-state is a construction and instrument of the bourgeoisie.





To add further to my point on this: I accept that flexibility might be required to a certain degree, but the flexibility must always take into account how the form will effect our objectives. If the result of using a certain form is to entrench familiar problems and put our objectives at risk, then the form should be rejected as usable.


Certainly -- acknowledged. We're limited to speaking in theoreticals here, unless we can also throw in some historical examples and/or hypothetical scenarios. (I *wish* we always could perfectly foresee the actual 'result' of using any given form, *before* actually using it -- !)





But the form has to reflect the content. The nature of what we are trying to achieve requires this to be the case. We are trying to tear down the very fabric of society and rebuild it based on a fundamentally different understanding of pretty much everything.

Therefore the actualised, material structures that we create to achieve that objective have to relate specifically to our ideas, otherwise we are just replicating the same issues that face us now -- as we have seen in history time and time again.


Acknowledged -- I concur.





No, no it doesn't -- not *unconditionally*, as you're stating. The 'form' and 'content' of the political arena may have *some* degree of varying correlation, but neither is wholly *deterministic* of the other, as you're maintaining.





You reject the notion of cause-and-effect?


No, I don't see how you could raise this question -- which is the 'cause' and which is the 'effect' that you're alluding to here, between 'form' and 'content' -- ?





Even if you were to reject my analysis as "wholly deterministic" does this mean that you also reject any possibility that the form would determine the content?


No, I've already explained myself on this:





[T]he 'form' and 'content' of the political arena may have *some* degree of varying correlation, but neither is wholly *deterministic* of the other, as you're maintaining.


So, to clarify: Form does *not* unconditionally determine content.





I cannot see how maintaining bourgeois social relationships could not affect the ultimately content from reflecting that bourgeois ideology.


*No one* here -- nor any Marxist -- is arguing to 'maintain bourgeois social relationships'.





How long can you maintain the position: "We don't believe in central authority, but we use central authority!"?


I, for one -- and the Marxist position, as I understand it -- have *no* problem with centralized authority, unconditionally. The variable of 'what conditions?' then has to be specified -- if the vanguard, as the leading edge of revolutionary opinion, happens to call for a decisive central authority to coordinate global areas of mass production, in the proletarian interest, I would certainly be open to such a proposal.





At some point you are going to have to ideologically defend central authority in order to legitimise its use, I.e. "it's necessary", "it's vital", "there's no other way."


Yes, it could potentially be 'on the table'.





How then does the content revert to "it's redundant", "it isn't wanted", "there is another way"?


It would depend on actual concrete conditions.





For me, your position -- that maintaining certain [negative] forms would have no effect on the content [of ideology] -- is idealism.


I understand, though I disagree with this characterization of yours.





Do you have examples of a complete and adequate Marxist definition of the state?


I'll refer to the excerpts from JH, above, if you would consider that to be sufficient.





[N]o Marxist is *ever* saying that we would look to the remnants of the bourgeois state as being the foundation for the construction of a new, proletarian order.





Lenin would disagree.


You may want to elaborate here.

[The Feral Underclass]

^I suppose I should respond to you at some point.

[ckaihatsu]

^I suppose I should respond to you at some point.


Again:





[I]f you think it would be worthwhile.