Why do anarchists reject the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

[International_Solidarity]

I don't understand why the Anarchists I have talked to are against the dotp. I don't understand this at all. Isn't the idea of organization in Anarchist society basically the dotp, or at least a different version of the dotp?

Intelligent answers will be appreciated, snide comments will not.

[Brutus]

They say that I has the potential to turn into a dictatorship over the proletariat, like what happened in Russia. The whole split originates from Marx's arguments with Bakunin in 1871, so you could read some works relating to that if you're that bothered about it. Or, alternatively, you could just rely on rev left. :)

[Polaris]

They believe that it creates a new ruling class which can become corrupt like any other.

The problem stems from the ambiguity in the term. In the traditional sense, it refers to the control of the state by the workers in order to suppress counter revolution/the bourgeoisie. But it is frequently confused for when a vanguard party/elite takes power; as the argument goes, eventually this party will end up not being directly accountable to the proletariat and so it becomes a run of the mill dictatorship over the proletariat (eg USSR. )

I don't think anarchists are against the first sense. When they say they do not support the DoTP, most are referring to the latter.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

They say that I has the potential to turn into a dictatorship over the proletariat, like what happened in Russia. The whole split originates from Marx's arguments with Bakunin in 1871, so you could read some works relating to that if you're that bothered about it. Or, alternatively, you could just rely on rev left. :)

The Dictatorship over the Proletariat in countries where the workers have already taken political Power, is really only possible there where the countries have not yet advanced economically to produce a majority wage dependent population.

Look at our modern western societies: it's a joke. Everyone is just running to and from their job, looking for something better, trying to make ends meet, total wage enslaved populations. In the advanced capitalist countries there is no more material basis for anything but a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

US Corporations run the show in Congress, which consequently only has a 90% public approval rating. I notice it. Working People I meet everyday are tired of the conditions in society. All it takes is for us Communists to build a united mass party for the workers, with the most advanced and comprehensive proletarian political opposition program, and after a few good political fights and well won class based union battles, resonance for us and our party will be enormous.

Socialism! is the answer and must be the future. The future will heal all current ills in our society, and the only way to the future is through workers struggle for better conditions of work and worker Party based common social activity. "Socialism!" This is in dire need of popular distribution. So many workers independently side with Socialism, yet there is no vehicle that solemnly proclaims to stand completely behind the establishment of the new society! What does Socialism mean? It doesn't matter to define it; as far as the working people are concerned, it means everything. All we need is a Party which can gather all existing political forces proclaiming to be for Socialism, united and hence confident enough to assume its position for Socialism as the only alternative to the existing order of things. Socialism is the answer to all current miserable contradictions within capitalist society. That needs to simply be assumed, not argued for.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't understand why the Anarchists I have talked to are against the dotp. I don't understand this at all. Isn't the idea of organization in Anarchist society basically the dotp, or at least a different version of the dotp?

It depends what you mean by the dictatorship of the proletariat. People have different definitions.

[BIXX]

They believe that it creates a new ruling class which can become corrupt like any other.

The problem stems from the ambiguity in the term. In the traditional sense, it refers to the control of the state by the workers in order to suppress counter revolution/the bourgeoisie. But it is frequently confused for when a vanguard party/elite takes power; as the argument goes, eventually this party will end up not being directly accountable to the proletariat and so it becomes a run of the mill dictatorship over the proletariat (eg USSR. )

I don't think anarchists are against the first sense. When they say they do not support the DoTP, most are referring to the latter.

No, I am referring to both senses when I disagree with the DoTP. The problem here is that it involves using the state rather than immediately abolishing it. I also have issue with the idea of any class ruling over another, because it would really be a reversal of today's power structures, and eventually, it would normalize them and make the proletariat the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie the proletariat. I cannot agree with oppression of any kind. Especially when it is introduced into the system and normalized by the state.

[Polaris]

I also have issue with the idea of any class ruling over another, because it would really be a reversal of today's power structures, and eventually, it would normalize them and make the proletariat the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie the proletariat. I cannot agree with oppression of any kind. Especially when it is introduced into the system and normalized by the state.

No. By definition, the proletariat are working class people and the bourgeoisie are the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production. The bourgeoisie would not magically become the proletariat in a socialist state-- they would be equal to everyone else, instead of being able to exploit them. It appears that you are saying that the bourgeoisie will be oppressed if they have to *gasp* work like everyone else. Oppression is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control." Yes, the bourgeoisie would be under the proletariat's control. No, this would not be cruel or unjust (hopefully). Thus, that would not be oppression. They would not be prevented form leading a normal life, they would just be prevented from exploiting others to their own benefit.

This is like saying that murderers are oppressed once they are prevented from killing people.

[International_Solidarity]

It depends what you mean by the dictatorship of the proletariat. People have different definitions.

Can you give me some examples beyond the definitions that I have?

I was under the impression that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was when the Proletariat(the vast majority) was in power rather than the Bourgeoisie(the vast minority). However, I do know that many wrongly assume that the dotp=vanguardism (as others have posted above). I thought that this first definition was the correct one and the second here is false. Is this incorrect?

[Sotionov]

1. Anarchism isn't really fond of the word proletariat. Classic anarchist thinkers, if they use it (but they tend to use "working class" and "working people" primarily) they define it not according to the ownership of the means of production, as did the marxists, but accoding to oppression (/rulership) and exploitation that it doesn't perpetrate. Therefore anarchists see themselves as a movement of wage-workers, peasants, artisans and of people in general who do not oppress or exploit anyone, against those who want to rule them. Marxists see themselves as a movement of the wage-workers, and there is a latent contempt towards the peasantry and artisans (even if they don't exploit or oppress anyone) and their 'inherent' 'reactionism', but due to their view of class being based on the ownership of the means of production- a majority of marxist have a positive attitute towards politicans, officials (of their own party of course), and AFAIK all accept as proletariat managers/coordinators. All three of those- politicans, officials/bureaucrats and managers/coordinator are seen by anarchists as a type of ruling class, and thus opposed.

So, if the idea the DotP is to be seen as a rule of the wage-workers, anarchists opposse such an idea saying that that just be a rule of wage-workers over the peasatry and artisans, and anarchists opposse any rulership.

2. As for the interpretation that DotP means a "party representing proletariat" taking state power- anarchists agree with the common-sense observation of the proponents of such an interpretation that a class in it's entirety, even in the narrow sence of wage-workers, cannot control a state, but can only do so "trough a party", and they point out the obvious- that if the party is in power, by defintion the ones it is 'representing' are not, but the party is 'in their name'. Obviously anarchist opposse anyone being in any power, in anyone's name.

The only way the workers could control the state was if the state were to radically change it's structure into a non-state-like organization, becoming a directly democratic anti-state, or semi-state. Traditionally anachists see any attempt to enact such a tranformation a waste of time and thus advocate it's straightforward abolition.

3. Anarchists have also traditionally argued that even if the marxist idea of the DotP is not to be interpreted as party power, but some sort of concept where the wage-workers as a whole have power, they say that nevertheless the very idea is in itself meaningless. If the workers are still proletariat (wage-workers), that means that the capitalists have not been expropriated, but are still in their position as capitalists. The only thing that has changed is that proletariat has established a "dictatorship"- meaning that is has power. Being that the point of all anti-capitalism is to abolish the capitalists and expropiate the means of production from them, it is logical that if the workers gain power, there is nothing else for them to do but to enact that expropriation, and thus abolish the capitalists. Now, being that the only act of the DotP needs to do in order to fulfill it's purpose is the act that ends the DotP itself (being that by abolition of capitalism the workers will stop being proletariat, and thereby there can be not DotP), it is a meaningless concept to ponder on, and the act of abolition of capitalism should simply be called the revolution. To think about a lasting condition where the proletariat has power, but the capitalist still have the power over the means of production is also seen as an absurdity, because until they have don't power over the means of production, the workers don't have any real power.

4. Is DotP in any form or interpretation a goal of the anarchists? If we are to define proletariat in tha anarchist way, it still couldn't be said that it is. Anarchists want the general, non-oppressive and non-exploitative populace to be emancipated from anyone trying to rule over it, they don't want it dictating over any minorty, even their former oppressors and exploitators- anarchists want oppressors and exploitators deposed (turned into working people or dead), not being turned into oppressed and exploited. Therefore it is unfit to say that anarchists want any sort of dictatorship. Maybe it could be said that anarchists want a dictatorship of principles of liberty, justice and solidarity, but as I said- anarchists are by defintion oppossed to rule by any man, and therefore cannot want a dictorship of any man or group, whether it's the working people, or the majority, anarchist simply want the end of all dictatorship and of all hierarchy.

[Brutus]

Can you give me some examples beyond the definitions that I have?

I was under the impression that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was when the Proletariat(the vast majority) was in power rather than the Bourgeoisie(the vast minority). However, I do know that many wrongly assume that the dotp=vanguardism (as others have posted above). I thought that this first definition was the correct one and the second here is false. Is this incorrect?

Isn't "vast minority" oxymoronic?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Socialism! is the answer and must be the future. The future will heal all current ills in our society, and the only way to the future is through workers struggle for better conditions of work and worker Party based common social activity. "Socialism!" This is in dire need of popular distribution. So many workers independently side with Socialism, yet there is no vehicle that solemnly proclaims to stand completely behind the establishment of the new society! What does Socialism mean? It doesn't matter to define it; as far as the working people are concerned, it means everything. All we need is a Party which can gather all existing political forces proclaiming to be for Socialism, united and hence confident enough to assume its position for Socialism as the only alternative to the existing order of things. Socialism is the answer to all current miserable contradictions within capitalist society. That needs to simply be assumed, not argued for.

This sounds almost religious. I'm really not sure that many workers do independently side with Socialism. I'm also not sure that Socialism has been verified as the answer to Capitalism, because quite simply, it hasn't been verified as such by the working class, and we haven't really done a very good job in enunciating our views and demonstrating that Socialism is 'the answer'. We do a very good job - and I think even Capitalists would agree with this - of highlighting the various problems of Capitalist society, but fail on two fronts:

1) to demonstrate that the problems of Capitalism are so great that, right now, we would be better off destroying Capitalism than reforming it;

2) That if we were to demonstrate that the problems of Capitalism are so great that we would be better off destroying it, that Socialism would be the logical, and best, alternative.

So I think really it's quite dangerous when you say that we should just 'assume' that Socialism is the answer to ALL the problems/contradictions of Capitalism, since that is precisely the naive, mis-placed arrogance even, the lack of critical thinking or engagement, that leads the working class in a straitjacket towards a situation of Dictatorship over the proletariat.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Isn't "vast majority" oxymoronic?
No but 'vast minority' is.

[BIXX]

No. By definition, the proletariat are working class people and the bourgeoisie are the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production. The bourgeoisie would not magically become the proletariat in a socialist state-- they would be equal to everyone else, instead of being able to exploit them. It appears that you are saying that the bourgeoisie will be oppressed if they have to *gasp* work like everyone else. Oppression is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control." Yes, the bourgeoisie would be under the proletariat's control. No, this would not be cruel or unjust (hopefully). Thus, that would not be oppression. They would not be prevented form leading a normal life, they would just be prevented from exploiting others to their own benefit.

This is like saying that murderers are oppressed once they are prevented from killing people.

The problem here is that with the continued existence of the state (an organ of class antagonism), the rule of the proletariat would lead to a few beginning to rise. The problem here is that they would be able to use the state for their own personal gain rather than for the gain of everyone.

As for the italics, of course I didn't mean that. I don't believe that believe that the DoTP would somehow prevent some previous workers from rising to become some sort of new bourgeoisie. I also fail to see how the DoTP can ensure that it is not a dictatorship over the proletariat Insyead of one by the proletariat.

[Bostana]

I think Bakunin puts it best:

Put any Revolutionary in a position of power and he could become worse than the Tsar
Somewhat of a prophetic sentence.

TAT's blog actually has a good analysis on the idea of the "Worker's State:"

The argument that there can be such a thing as a "workers state" or "working class rule" in the context of centralised political authority, is objectively refuted by the material conditions that the consolidation, centralisation and institutionalisation of an emerging political class, creates. What we have seen emerge is a class of bureaucrats who claim to be managing the workers state in the name of the workers, and in some instances may even have direct democratic structures in place - to begin with. But the historical role of this new bureaucratic class turns into defending the state, which they claim to be doing "for the workers" i.e. there own political authority (which is required of them to defend the revolution), meaning actual workers democracy becomes nominal, to non-existent as the centralised political authority (i.e.the state) cannot reconcile its own existence with the existence of structures which emerge contrary to its own (i.e a transition to a decentralised, classless society) and outside of its control (Kronstadt and the Aragon/Catalonian collectives are a prime example). In an effort to try and control these structures they force them to lose their true revolutionary characteristics and they end up being recuperated by the state.

This contradiction will always exist, no matter how well intentioned Marxist-Leninists may be. Real, actual workers democracy can only be expressed when political authority is decentralised, and directly managed horizontally, and that process has to begin from the moment revolution starts, otherwise if we allow the centralisation of political authority (i.e. a state) we will lose the ability to express true workers freedom, except that mandated by those controlling a structure whose specific role is to defend and perpetuate itself.

To reiterate: the centralisation of political authority I.e a state, requires subordination to it and to the "centre", dominated by a political elite, whether elected or not, whether good intentioned or not (because it matters little what your ideas are in the context of the material conditions you are creating), whose role is to ensure the continued hegemony of the states control i.e. centralised political authority. It's purpose is to maintain a defence of the revolution at all costs. In the process of doing that this bureaucratic minority becomes entrenched within its role, in the course of which, actual expressions of workers power are recuperated, because their divergence cannot exist simultaneously if the state is to maintain and defend itself (for example, the bureaucracy wouldn't allow workers collectives organising areas of land and industry independently of that centralised political authority, or maintaining military militias separate to a centralised army). So, you cannot have the emergence of workers councils in factories and the creation of workers militias that express their own political power if centralised political authority exists, meaning that the two will naturally come into conflict with each other and eventually these separate expressions of workers power [to the state] are either recuperated into the state or smashed...Or we have a second revolution, when we can do what we should have done to begin with.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=22573

[The Feral Underclass]

I would say I have probably developed my analysis a little better than that now, but I suppose that's the essence of my views. Marxists often obfuscate their views by saying "a state can be anything," as Marx's analysis of a state is lacking as well as being neutral (at best) to the historical developments of the state. A state is not just a concept and it is not simply armed people organised to suppress others. It has specific historical and structural characteristics which Marxists ignore.

[Polaris]

The problem here is that with the continued existence of the state (an organ of class antagonism), the rule of the proletariat would lead to a few beginning to rise. The problem here is that they would be able to use the state for their own personal gain rather than for the gain of everyone.

As for the italics, of course I didn't mean that. I don't believe that believe that the DoTP would somehow prevent some previous workers from rising to become some sort of new bourgeoisie. I also fail to see how the DoTP can ensure that it is not a dictatorship over the proletariat Instead of one by the proletariat.

Oops, I just reread my first post. I really don't know what I was thinking when I said that anarchists are ok with
the control of the state by the workers in order to suppress counter revolution/the bourgeoisie. I am just like, did I really type that? My apologies :blushing:
I understand what you are saying with the whole 'power corrupts' argument. I'm not trying to reject that. I'm not even trying to advocate a DoTP, though I am sure I came off like that.

But either way I am still bugged by
and make the proletariat the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie the proletariat. I cannot agree with oppression of any kind.
I thought this meant that the entire proletariat (or ex-proletariat, if you will) would become a non-working class and the (ex-)bourgeoisie would become the entire working class, which seems ridiculous mainly because it would be impossible for the majority of a population to sustain itself on the work of so few. But combined with your most current post and Sotionov's, I think you are saying that the ex-bourgeoisie would end up being oppressed along with sections of the ex-proletariat in the event that a minority of the proletariat use the DoTP for personal gain. Is it, or am I misconstruing? If that is what you mean, then I see what you are saying, but your use of those terms really threw me off. I know Sotionov said
1. Anarchism isn't really fond of the word proletariat. Classic anarchist thinkers, if they use it (but they tend to use "working class" and "working people" primarily) they define it not according to the ownership of the means of production, as did the marxists, but accoding to oppression (/rulership) and exploitation that it doesn't perpetrate. I take it you agree? There is a big difference to me in referring to proletariat in the sense that they are people who are forced to be exploited by the bourgeoisie by means of wage slavery to survive vs the more general 'people who do not oppress/exploit others.' If you were using it in the sense of the latter (along with using bourgeoisie to refer to the class that oppresses), then your argument is sound aside from a bad choice of wording.


In anarchism, doesn't the majority of the population have some sort of power over the minority? To support this, consider there is a dispute over whether an apple tree or a peach tree will be planted in the park. The tree that will ends up being planted will be the one that the majority of the population supports being planted. Of course, I am not saying that this is any form of oppression. It's just a tree. But anyway, if you're still with me, that shows that the part of the population that holds the majority view of a dispute have 'power' over those with the minority view, whether it be because those in the community have a penchant for doing things democratically and voted on it, or because the majority has more manpower and forced the other side into it. (NB this doesn't create an oppressed class because it is unlikely that there will be a distinct group of people that always hold the minority opinion and thus never get anything their way.)

The ex-proletariat would be the majority in an anarchist society and thus would have the ability to 'control' to an extent the ex-bourgeosie (which would be a good thing b/c it would prevent reversion.) So in a sense, that would be DoTP by my standards. But I do realize that DoTP is frequently (ok, mostly) considered to mean that the proletariat would have control over the state, which of course anarchists don't get behind because there would be no state to control. Unless you count that very short period of time where the state is overthrown in the first place; it seems logical to say that to overthrow the state, the proletariat must have had control of it, even for only a millisecond because to destroy something, you have to have the power to destroy it. If the workers had power over the state they would be successful in destroying it, but if they didn't then they would just be standing there saying, "The state has no power anymore. Because I say so."

So I guess what I'm saying is that at some point there has to have been a DoTP for an anarchist society to exist, because you cannot stop something that you do not have the power to stop, if that makes any sense. Also that those holding a majority opinion in an anarchist society have power over those with the minority opinion.

[The Feral Underclass]

I was under the impression that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was when the Proletariat(the vast majority) was in power rather than the Bourgeoisie(the vast minority).

But what does this mean in practice? That's the fundamental question here.


However, I do know that many wrongly assume that the dotp=vanguardism (as others have posted above). I thought that this first definition was the correct one and the second here is false. Is this incorrect?

I don't think that assumption is wrong if we take 20th century history as the guiding example of what a dotp looks like.

[Sasha]

we oppose the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, the dictatorship of clientelism, the dictatorship of the kafkean ineptism, the dictatorship of "the vanguard", the dictatorship of the power hungry and that of the drama-lama's, the dictatorship of the pigs and the dictatorship of nationalism, the dictatorship of state-run capital ...
we didnt change the definition of the DotP beyond all practical use, beyond a concept worthy to support, the ML's and trots did...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, I am referring to both senses when I disagree with the DoTP. The problem here is that it involves using the state rather than immediately abolishing it. I also have issue with the idea of any class ruling over another, because it would really be a reversal of today's power structures, and eventually, it would normalize them and make the proletariat the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie the proletariat. I cannot agree with oppression of any kind. Especially when it is introduced into the system and normalized by the state.

I think at this point we need to understand oppression in a material matter, as the inevitable and natural consequence of history rather than as a moral force. We are not against the oppression of the proletariat because that oppression in of itself is immoral, but that the abolition of this class rule is a necessary step towards the full liberation of humanity and the realization of man's full creative potential, and the fact that we ourselves suffer under such oppression means that we have a vested interest in ending it

So I would say that with this in mind, that with the concept of oppression as a function rather than a problem, I would say that the worker's state ought to utilize this function as effectively as possible to oppress the bourgeois, completely eliminating them from society, so that we may advance the cause of workers revolution.

Hence, I am pro-oppression. Indeed, I would say that in many cases oppression is a historically progressive force and ought to be lauded as such.

[Polaris]

I think at this point we need to understand oppression in a material matter, as the inevitable and natural consequence of history rather than as a moral force.
So it is natural for humans to be cruel and unjust to each other? I guess we might as well just clock in now then, because we clearly have no chance of ever stopping it.
Where have I heard that argument before?


We are not against the oppression of the proletariat because that oppression in of itself is immoral, but that the abolition of this class rule is a necessary step towards the full liberation of humanity and the realization of man's full creative potential, and the fact that we ourselves suffer under such oppression means that we have a vested interest in ending it
So either you don't think that the oppression of the proletariat is immoral or you do think it is immoral, but for some reason do not think that its immorality should be a reason for abolishing it. Either way, why not?


So I would say that with this in mind, that with the concept of oppression as a function rather than a problem, I would say that the worker's state ought to utilize this function as effectively as possible to oppress the bourgeois,
I still don't see why it is not both. You can't just pick and choose qualities of a tool/concept like oppression in order to bend it to your liking.
If the oppression of the proletariat prevents "a necessary step towards the full liberation of humanity and the realization of man's full creative potential," why wouldn't oppression of the bourgeois do the same thing?

[BIXX]

I think at this point we need to understand oppression in a material matter, as the inevitable and natural consequence of history rather than as a moral force. We are not against the oppression of the proletariat because that oppression in of itself is immoral, but that the abolition of this class rule is a necessary step towards the full liberation of humanity and the realization of man's full creative potential, and the fact that we ourselves suffer under such oppression means that we have a vested interest in ending it

Yeah, the problem here is that a dictatorship will likely lead to a society with a minority controlling the ex-bourgeoisie and the ex-workers. So there would not be liberation, only slavery under another name.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick."

[Questionable]

Because anarchism is inherently non-Marxist (and becomes anti-Marxist in times of revolution, as history has shown), they will of course oppose the Marxist route for the liberation of the proletariat from capitalism.

For anarchists the question of history is really a question of power, not of class. They (for the most part) reject a class-materialist view of history, and instead view things in terms of abstract "power." To them there is little difference between the masses, as all are united as 'people' against the 'state.' It makes little difference to them if this state is proletarian or bourgeois in character. History becomes not a question of class versus class, but of power versus powerless, no matter who is wielding the power.

Thus, an anarchist conception of the state will always be different (and opposite) of a Marxist conception of the state. There is no great mystery here; it is to be expected.

[RedMaterialist]

Because they are infantile leftists.

[Sasha]

proletarian state
:lol:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Because they are infantile leftists.

And you can have a verbal warning for that infantile post.

[BIXX]

In anarchism, doesn't the majority of the population have some sort of power over the minority? To support this, consider there is a dispute over whether an apple tree or a peach tree will be planted in the park. The tree that will ends up being planted will be the one that the majority of the population supports being planted. Of course, I am not saying that this is any form of oppression. It's just a tree. But anyway, if you're still with me, that shows that the part of the population that holds the majority view of a dispute have 'power' over those with the minority view, whether it be because those in the community have a penchant for doing things democratically and voted on it, or because the majority has more manpower and forced the other side into it. (NB this doesn't create an oppressed class because it is unlikely that there will be a distinct group of people that always hold the minority opinion and thus never get anything their way.)

The ex-proletariat would be the majority in an anarchist society and thus would have the ability to 'control' to an extent the ex-bourgeosie (which would be a good thing b/c it would prevent reversion.) So in a sense, that would be DoTP by my standards. But I do realize that DoTP is frequently (ok, mostly) considered to mean that the proletariat would have control over the state, which of course anarchists don't get behind because there would be no state to control. Unless you count that very short period of time where the state is overthrown in the first place; it seems logical to say that to overthrow the state, the proletariat must have had control of it, even for only a millisecond because to destroy something, you have to have the power to destroy it. If the workers had power over the state they would be successful in destroying it, but if they didn't then they would just be standing there saying, "The state has no power anymore. Because I say so."

Well, in most cases, a direct vote like that is not required (direct action etc...) but in a case where it is, the majority would have a form of control over the minority. However, the minority (most likely) will not be always the same people, as long as they avoid voting based on alliance (ie. I'll vote for the pear tree if you vote to plant an apple tree at the park near my house) which would be avoided by making certain votes more local than others depending on what they are. But seeing as so much would be based in direct action, there would be few votes.

If that is your conception of the DotP, then by all means I support a DotP. However, if it is in the traditional sense, I don't support it (control of a state).

However, I would like to point something out. You do need power over the state to destroy it, you do not need control over it though.



Because they are infantile leftists.

I thought we banned Akshay!

[The Feral Underclass]

Because anarchism is inherently non-Marxist

How then do you explain the acceptance that Bakunin et al gave to Marx's economic and philosophical ideas? Unless you are claiming that the sum of Marxism is it's piddling definition of a state.


For anarchists the question of history is really a question of power, not of class.

This is just a nonsense statement and has no basis in reality.


Thus, an anarchist conception of the state will always be different (and opposite) of a Marxist conception of the state.

Yes, because a Marxist definition of the state doesn't really exist. Or at the very least is incomplete and inadequate.

[International_Solidarity]

I don't think that assumption is wrong if we take 20th century history as the guiding example of what a dotp looks like.

Many, I included, would argue that none of those states had a dotp. More of a State-Capitalist structure. In 1917-1920 Lenin seems to have gotten close, but 1921 onward I have no doubt in my mind that the USSR was not a dotp. Just look at Stalin's collectivization of the agriculture. There was widespread resistance to the collectivizing and it had to be forced. In a dotp the proletariat would not need to be forced to conform, because they would be in power.

[G4b3n]

we oppose the dictatorship of the bureaucracy, the dictatorship of clientelism, the dictatorship of the kafkean ineptism, the dictatorship of "the vanguard", the dictatorship of the power hungry and that of the drama-lama's, the dictatorship of the pigs and the dictatorship of nationalism, the dictatorship of state-run capital ...
we didnt change the definition of the DotP beyond all practical use, beyond a concept worthy to support, the ML's and trots did...

This is part of the reason why I, being a dialectical materialist, still reject the dotp. Not only has it become impractical do to historical malpractice, but I would argue that material conditions would better suit a decentralized union of autonomous communities.

[G4b3n]

Because anarchism is inherently non-Marxist (and becomes anti-Marxist in times of revolution, as history has shown), they will of course oppose the Marxist route for the liberation of the proletariat from capitalism.

For anarchists the question of history is really a question of power, not of class. They (for the most part) reject a class-materialist view of history, and instead view things in terms of abstract "power." To them there is little difference between the masses, as all are united as 'people' against the 'state.' It makes little difference to them if this state is proletarian or bourgeois in character. History becomes not a question of class versus class, but of power versus powerless, no matter who is wielding the power.

Thus, an anarchist conception of the state will always be different (and opposite) of a Marxist conception of the state. There is no great mystery here; it is to be expected.

You are generalizing, just like all of these petty tendency battles.
I am an anarchist who uses the Marxian analysis of society and its history, it is not contradictory in the bourgeois sense and appears for me to be the most efficient way of putting forth rational theoretical propositions that correspond with material conditions.

Also, there are literally no anarchists who believe that all people are oppressed by the state and should unite against it. That would include "anarcho" capitalists, i.e high school dropouts and unread teenagers.

[Questionable]

How then do you explain the acceptance that Bakunin et al gave to Marx's economic and philosophical ideas? Unless you are claiming that the sum of Marxism is it's piddling definition of a state.Hence why I added "inherently," as it was a very important and formative word in that statement. I'm fully aware that anarchism utilizes a minimal amount of Marxism's economic formulas for its analysis of capitalism, but that does not change the innate nature of the ideology.


Yes, because a Marxist definition of the state doesn't really exist. Or at the very least is incomplete and inadequate.There is a wealth of materials available on the Marxist definition of the state, so I don't really know where this is coming from.

Earlier in the thread your criticized Marxism for not drawing distinctions between states with different characteristics, which is crazy, because I've read a multitude of works that analyze different types of bourgeois states. Hell, even general works like "State and Revolution" mention different kinds of capitalist states, although they don't go into great detail over them.

I mean, obviously the abstract concept of a state is armed people suppressing another group, but I've read many Marxist texts which examine the "specific historical and structural characteristics of states," even if they don't make that their stated goal.

I've never heard a significant Marxist say a state can be "anything." I don't even know what that means.


You are generalizing, just like all of these petty tendency battles.Of course I'm generalizing and expressing my opinion. You and TAT act as if this is a definitive Marxist statement on anarchism.


I am an anarchist who uses the Marxian analysis of society and its history, it is not contradictory in the bourgeois sense and appears for me to be the most efficient way of putting forth rational theoretical propositions that correspond with material conditions.As I said above, I'm aware that some anarchists combine Marxian economics with their analysis. But history has proven that when it comes to practice, anarchists will end up on the opposite side of communists.

[RedMaterialist]

And you can have a verbal warning for that infantile post.

give Lenin a verbal warning. and you can go to hell

[BIXX]

give Lenin a verbal warning. and you can go to hell

Whoa, what pissed you off?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

give Lenin a verbal warning. and you can go to hell

OK, infraction? Infraction.

Don't do this 'go down in a blaze of glory' thing. This is the learning forum, it's bigger than you and me and some petty disciplinary issue. I don't really want new members thinking that learning is a forum for low-wit one liners and sarcasm.

[The Feral Underclass]

give Lenin a verbal warning. and you can go to hell

Fuck authority! What an anarchist you are!

[The Feral Underclass]

OK, infraction? Infraction.

I thought it was customary not to give out infractions to people you were in dispute with. You essentially gave someone an infraction because they were rude to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

Many, I included, would argue that none of those states had a dotp. More of a State-Capitalist structure. In 1917-1920 Lenin seems to have gotten close, but 1921 onward I have no doubt in my mind that the USSR was not a dotp. Just look at Stalin's collectivization of the agriculture. There was widespread resistance to the collectivizing and it had to be forced. In a dotp the proletariat would not need to be forced to conform, because they would be in power.

The objective of anarchists is to ensure that the proletariat manage political power directly and the only way to ensure this is to decentralise political authority. If you want to call that a dictatorship of the proletariat then so be it. It's not so much what you call it, but what it is in a practical sense.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hence why I added "inherently," as it was a very important and formative word in that statement.

The inherent basis of anarchism is Marxist economics and a materialist understanding of history.


I'm fully aware that anarchism utilizes a minimal amount of Marxism's economic formulas for its analysis of capitalism, but that does not change the innate nature of the ideology.

I don't think you are aware at all, to be honest. What does "minimal" even mean? On what basis have you come to the definition of "minimal Marxist economics."

I'm sorry, but you're just talking nonsense. The development of different forms of anarchist communism have come from a fundamental foundation of Marxist economics and a materialist understanding of history. In other words, the core theoretical concepts that Marx put forward.

I am not in any way convinced that you can reasonably argue that Marx's economic and philosophical ideas constitute a "minimal" amount of his views.


There is a wealth of materials available on the Marxist definition of the state, so I don't really know where this is coming from.

By Marx and Engels themselves?


Earlier in the thread your criticized Marxism for not drawing distinctions between states with different characteristics, which is crazy, because I've read a multitude of works that analyze different types of bourgeois states. Hell, even general works like "State and Revolution" mention different kinds of capitalist states, although they don't go into great detail over them.

Please provide links to these "multitude of works," I would be interested to read them.


I mean, obviously the abstract concept of a state is armed people suppressing another group, but I've read many Marxist texts which examine the "specific historical and structural characteristics of states," even if they don't make that their stated goal. I've never heard a significant Marxist say a state can be "anything." I don't even know what that means.

But that is essentially the argument. Providing it takes on the abstract form of being a group of people organised to suppress others, the actual "organised" part is up for debate.

But you are right, Lenin was quite clear about what he thought that "organised" should look like, but I have not seen any serious attempt by Marxists to fully analyse or understand what the means in regards to the stated aim of a transition, i.e. the creation of communism.

There are, of course, various texts by Leninists attempting to simplify State and Revolution or to elaborate on the ideas. Left communists are equally just as lazy when it comes to this kind of thing -- there seems to be this presumptive acceptance that Marx's basic abstract concept is enough to understand the historical and structural basis for the state (specifically in regards to how it relates to creating communist) and that is simply not true.


You and TAT act as if this is a definitive Marxist statement on anarchism.

Wait a minute. You're the so-called Marxist in this thread telling us (anarchists) what anarchism is and is not...


As I said above, I'm aware that some anarchists combine Marxian economics with their analysis.

It's not a question of combining analysis. Anarchism is predicated on Marxist economics!


But history has proven that when it comes to practice, anarchists will end up on the opposite side of communists.

What history has proven is that anarchists should never trust Leninists.

[Questionable]

The inherent basis of anarchism is Marxist economics and a materialist understanding of history.I can't help but feel like you know what I'm trying to say and you're just dancing around the issue.

Yes, as I've admitted multiple times already, anarchism borrows a lot of theory from Marx and Engels. However, anarchism and Marxism are ultimately different ideologies, as manifested by the totally different way in which they carry out their practice.

I mean, you must know what I'm saying. It's the same reason you call yourself an anarchist instead of a plain Marxist. At the risk of being accusatory, I can't help but feel that your main focus here is to try and make me look like a fool by insisting that I don't believe anarchists use Marxian economics. But I do. I just think that's one common characteristic they share and that ultimately the two ideologies are very different.


What does "minimal" even mean?It means that anarchists talk a lot about wage-labor, bourgeoisie and proletarians, accumulation of capital, etc, but ignore a lot of the conclusions Marx derived from these analyses, such as his position on the state. They've also always ended up opposing Marxism in practice.


I am not in any way convinced that you can reasonably argue that Marx's economic and philosophical ideas constitute a "minimal" amount of his views.I'm not. Anarchists can talk about how much they're based in Marxism all they want, but when it comes to carrying out practice they have always followed a totally different line than communists.


By Marx and Engels themselves?Marx and Engels laid down the groundwork for the Marxist conception of the state of course, but a great deal of analysis was obviously done by their descendants. The Soviet revisionists in particular come to mind, a lot of the works they did were actually very good as long as it didn't involve justifying their foreign or domestic policies.


Please provide links to these "multitude of works," I would be interested to read them.I'm not going to sit here and give you every Marxist work on the state ever written because you're too lazy to find them yourself. I can, however, give you a good introduction to the subject written by the Soviet revisionists in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/state (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/stateYou'll)

You'll have to scroll down a bit to see it.


But you are right, Lenin was quite clear about what he thought that "organised" should look like, but I have not seen any serious attempt by Marxists to fully analyse or understand what the means in regards to the stated aim of a transition, i.e. the creation of communism.Then you're not looking for them.


Wait a minute. You're the so-called Marxist in this thread telling us (anarchists) what anarchism is and is not...It's just dumb to accuse me of "generalizing" like that's a bad thing, when it's pretty obvious that I can't cover the entirety of anarchist theory and all its different sub-varieties in a short paragraph.


It's not a question of combining analysis. Anarchism is predicated on Marxist economics!I can't help but be reminded of the Strasserists and other right-wing 'socialists' who utilize Marxian economics as well.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't help but feel like you know what I'm trying to say and you're just dancing around the issue.

Perhaps you should stop being so paranoid then.


Yes, as I've admitted multiple times already, anarchism borrows a lot of theory from Marx and Engels. However, anarchism and Marxism are ultimately different ideologies, as manifested by the totally different way in which they carry out their practice.

The term "borrowed" and "utilizes" implies that anarchist association with Marx's ideas are cursory or superficial. They are not.


I mean, you must know what I'm saying.

Yes, you're saying that anarchism "borrows" and "utilizes" Marxist economics. I am telling you they are inherent to anarchism, which is contrary to the opinion that you expressed...


At the risk of being accusatory, I can't help but feel that your main focus here is to try and make me look like a fool by insisting that I don't believe anarchists use Marxian economics. But I do. I just think that's one common characteristic they share and that ultimately the two ideologies are very different.

I don't need to make you look like a fool.


It means that anarchists talk a lot about wage-labor, bourgeoisie and proletarians, accumulation of capital, etc, but ignore a lot of the conclusions Marx derived from these analyses, such as his position on the state. They've also always ended up opposing Marxism in practice.

What was Marx's position on the state? Explain to me his definitive, all encompassing analysis of the state, please.


I'm not. Anarchists can talk about how much they're based in Marxism all they want, but when it comes to carrying out practice they have always followed a totally different line than communists.

What is your actual argument here? So far it seems to be that anarchists and Marxists are different...Yeah? And?


Marx and Engels laid down the groundwork for the Marxist conception of the state of course, but a great deal of analysis was obviously done by their descendants.

So basically "no" is your answer. Well that's interesting considering you have put so much emphasis in the alleged complete and adequate Marxist definition of the state.

You have also corroborated with my point, that Leninists have simply constructed their own interpretations/ideas of what the "organised" part looks like -- interpretation/ideas that are both incomplete and inadequate, not to mention wrong.


The Soviet revisionists in particular come to mind, a lot of the works they did were actually very good as long as it didn't involve justifying their foreign or domestic policies.

Would you like to name some of them?


I'm not going to sit here and give you every Marxist work on the state ever written because you're too lazy to find them yourself.

Firstly, I didn't ask you to provide every Marxist work on the state. I asked you to provide some links from this multitude of works that you are talking about. Secondly, it's not a question of me being lazy (nice try), it is a question of me believing you are full of shit...Which you have very competently demonstrated by refusing to provide any link from this "multitude" of work you so brazenly asserted exists.

If you are not prepared to back-up your assertions my suggestion to you would be not to make them.


I can, however, give you a good introduction to the subject written by the Soviet revisionists in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/state (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/stateYou'll)

What am I supposed to be looking at?


Then you're not looking for them.

That is not an acceptable response. If you are going to make assertions then you have a responsibility to substantiate them. This is a place for discussion. You chose to engage me in one, so trying to now evade the debate you initiated is not completely disingenuous.

My assertion is that Marxists have not made a complete and adequate analysis of the state and you are claiming that there have been many attempts to do this. Well, if that is the case provide some examples.


I can't help but be reminded of the Strasserists and other right-wing 'socialists' who utilize Marxian economics as well.

You're comparing anarchists with Nazis?

[Questionable]

Perhaps you should stop being so paranoid then.


I don't need to make you look like a fool.

How very mature of you. Now I remember why I love talking to anarchists so much.


The term "borrowed" and "utilizes" implies that anarchist association with Marx's ideas are cursory or superficial.

That's actually not what I'm implying at all. I'm sure anarchists consider the Marxist analysis of capitalism invaluable to their theory, as it is of course the correct one.


Yes, you're saying that anarchism "borrows" and "utilizes" Marxist economics. I am telling you they are inherent to anarchism, which is contrary to the opinion that you expressed...

What? At this point I don't even know what you're arguing.

Look, this all started when I made a statement that anarchism was un-Marxist. You criticized me by saying that Bakunin took from Marx's economic theories, which implied you disagreed with me. I responded by saying that even if the two ideologies have common characteristics, ultimately they're two different beasts.

So...what is it exactly that you're trying to say to me now? Your position seems to be based on the idea that I don't believe anarchism does not include Marxian economics, which I don't. I'm just saying that, for whatever their analysis is, objectively anarchists have always come to oppose Marxism in practice. It matters not if they read Das Kapital when in reality they've always took up arms against the proletariat state.


What was Marx's position on the state? Explain to me his definitive, all encompassing analysis of the state, please.

What? I never said he had a definitive, all encompassing analysis of the state. I actually said quite the contrary; I stated he and Engels laid down the groundwork while his successors fleshed out the theory. Marx had a position on the state that he talked about but I never said it was all-encompassing, and I doubt he himself would have made that claim.


What is your actual argument here? So far it seems to be that anarchists and Marxists are different...Yeah? And?

Again, this argument all began when you challenged my assertion that anarchism was un-Marxist by stating that it allowed for some Marxist analysis of economics, which I gave room for. If you're now going to agree that Marxism and anarchism are different, which I've been saying all along, then I guess this dispute is settled.


So basically "no" is your answer. Well that's interesting considering you have put so much emphasis in the alleged complete and adequate Marxist definition of the state.

No hang on, time out for a second.

Before we continue this, is there anybody else out there who can see "No" in what I've written?

Furthermore, is there anyone else out there who can read this and claim that I stated Marx himself had a fully-completed definition of the state which required no update? Because as I'm typing this, I can scroll up and see where I claimed that Marx and Engels only laid down the groundwork, and it was the job of their successors to flesh out what they said.

I'm not even trying to be sarcastic or witty here. If you are honestly deriving any of this from what I'm saying, honest and truly, no purposeful strawman-building, then either you have a serious cognitive disability which needs immediate attention from a licensed professional, or I have completely failed in translating my ideals into words. Because not a single word of what I typed had the intention of giving anyone the ideals that you're apparently getting from them. So there's only three possible conclusions:

1. You've totally misunderstood me.
2. You've purposefully misrepresented me.
3. I've failed at transmitting my views via text.

Can a neutral third-party please give their stance?


I asked you to provide some links from this multitude of works that you are talking about.

The GSE article is a good introduction which has a bibliography containing information on other texts which investigate the state.


it is a question of me believing you are full of shit

I don't care. I know they exist because I've read them. I gave you the best introduction to the topic I can think of, along with a source for more works (the revisionists), if you don't want to do your own investigation after I get you started it's not my fault.


What am I supposed to be looking at?

It's the one with the "ideologically biased" warning (I'm sure you'll get a big kick out of that and try to use it against me and perhaps an excuse to not read it but as a fellow leftist I'm sure you know anything that doesn't follow the bourgeois line of history is called "ideologically biased"). It provides an introductory yet highly detailed view of the Marxist-Leninist stance on the state.


If you are going to make assertions then you have a responsibility to substantiate them. This is a place for discussion. You chose to engage me in one, so trying to now evade the debate you initiated is not completely disingenuous.

Actually no. I was talking about what I perceived as flaws in anarchism, and you initiated the discussion by complaining about how Bakunin used Marxian economics. I was speaking to no one in particular until you engaged me.


My assertion is that Marxists have not made a complete and adequate analysis of the state and you are claiming that there have been many attempts to do this. Well, if that is the case provide some examples.

I gave you one and your response was "What am I supposed to be looking at?"


You're comparing anarchists with Nazis?

No, just the different groups that hail Marx as one of their ideological founding fathers while coming to wildly different conclusions from each other.

[The Feral Underclass]

How very mature of you.

Maturity is a bourgeois concept used to belittle people who dissent. If being immature is to highlight your misgivings, then I embrace the term with pride.

In any case, I have no interest in your proclamations about my behaviour so perhaps you could stick to the matter in hand...


That's actually not what I'm implying at all. I'm sure anarchists consider the Marxist analysis of capitalism invaluable to their theory, as it is of course the correct one.

It may not be what you mean, but it is most definitely what is implied.


What? At this point I don't even know what you're arguing.

Well that's unfortunate for you.


Look, this all started when I made a statement that anarchism was un-Marxist. You criticized me by saying that Bakunin took from Marx's economic theories, which implied you disagreed with me. I responded by saying that even if the two ideologies have common characteristics, ultimately they're two different beasts.

What you said was: "anarchism is inherently non-Marxist." My very simple argument is that it is inherently Marxist.


So...what is it exactly that you're trying to say to me now? Your position seems to be based on the idea that I don't believe anarchism does not include Marxian economics, which I don't. I'm just saying that, for whatever their analysis is, objectively anarchists have always come to oppose Marxism in practice. It matters not if they read Das Kapital when in reality they've always took up arms against the proletariat state.

What I am "exactly" saying is that anarchism is inherently Marxist.


What? I never said he had a definitive, all encompassing analysis of the state. I actually said quite the contrary; I stated he and Engels laid down the groundwork while his successors fleshed out the theory. Marx had a position on the state that he talked about but I never said it was all-encompassing, and I doubt he himself would have made that claim.

So then Marx had an incomplete and inadequate definition of the state...

You said: "anarchists...ignore a lot of the conclusions Marx derived from these analyses, such as his position on the state" But above you accept that Marx never had a complete or adequate definition of the state, so why would anarchists pay attention to these conclusions?

The point I'm getting at is that there is an inconsistency in what you are saying to me. On the one hand you argue that Marx's conclusions on the state are inadequate and incomplete and then on the other criticise anarchists for "ignoring" the "conclusions" -- Well what conclusions are we supposed to be paying attention to? His incomplete and inadequate ones? That doesn't seem like a particularly useful thing to do.


Again, this argument all began when you challenged my assertion that anarchism was un-Marxist by stating that it allowed for some Marxist analysis of economics, which I gave room for. If you're now going to agree that Marxism and anarchism are different, which I've been saying all along, then I guess this dispute is settled.

I didn't say anarchism and Marxism were the same. What I have argued (consistently I might add) is that anarchism is inherently Marxist.


No hang on, time out for a second.

Before we continue this, is there anybody else out there who can see "No" in what I've written?
If I am having to explain to you the minutiae of meaning within this debate then it is going to get very boring, very quickly. Perhaps instead of acting like some bullish twerp, you could just pay attention to what is being written; by yourself as well as by me.

You said: "There is a wealth of materials available on the Marxist definition of the state, so I don't really know where this is coming from."

I replied: "By Marx and Engels themselves?"

To which you said: "Marx and Engels laid down the groundwork for the Marxist conception of the state."

That response is the opposite of agreeing that there is a wealth of material available on the Marxist definition of the state by Marx and Engels themselves. Your response, in other words, is "no, not by Marx and Engels themselves."

Are you with me so far?


Furthermore,is there anyone else out there who can read this and claim that I stated Marx himself had a fully-completed definition of the state which required no update? Because as I'm typing this, I can scroll up and see where I claimed that Marx and Engels only laid down the groundwork, and it was the job of their successors to flesh out what they said.

At the beginning of this discussion I stated that there was no complete or adequate Marxist definition of the state. You then took it upon yourself to argue that this was incorrect. You have stated that there is a "wealth of material" and a "multitude of works" that give a Marxist definition of the state.

However, you have also stated that Marx's definition of the state is incomplete and inadequate and that the Marxist definition of the state is actually a Leninist construction based upon that incomplete and inadequate definition provided by Marx.

I had further asserted that the definition provided by Lenin fell foul of the same inadequacies of Marx's definition. Namely, it doesn't take an in depth analysis of the historical development and structure of the state.

So far you have done nothing to refute my assertions except to corroborate some of my points, allude to some mysterious texts and accused me of being mentally disabled...


[/B]I'm not even trying to be sarcastic or witty here. If you are honestly deriving any of this from what I'm saying, honest and truly, no purposeful strawman-building, then either you have a serious cognitive disability which needs immediate attention from a licensed professional, or I have completely failed in translating my ideals into words. Because not a single word of what I typed had the intention of giving anyone the ideals that you're apparently getting from them. So there's only three possible conclusions:

1. You've totally misunderstood me.
2. You've purposefully misrepresented me.
3. I've failed at transmitting my views via text.

Can a neutral third-party please give their stance?

Or the fourth option: You are an idiot.

I am not the one who is unclear about what this debate is about. You are the one that has repeatedly exclaimed their confusion at what is happening here, even admitting that you didn't understand what I was arguing.


The GSE article is a good introduction which has a bibliography containing information on other texts which investigate the state.

What GSE article?


I don't care. I know they exist because I've read them.

But you refuse to share them? That is extremely odd thing to do in a discussion.


I gave you the best introduction to the topic I can think of, along with a source for more works (the revisionists), if you don't want to do your own investigation after I get you started it's not my fault.

This is just another way of saying, "I can't provide you with links to the "multitude of work" that I fallaciously said existed."


It's the one with the "ideologically biased" warning (I'm sure you'll get a big kick out of that and try to use it against me and perhaps an excuse to not read it but as a fellow leftist I'm sure you know anything that doesn't follow the bourgeois line of history is called "ideologically biased"). It provides an introductory yet highly detailed view of the Marxist-Leninist stance on the state.

Perhaps you should review the link you provided.


Actually no. I was talking about what I perceived as flaws in anarchism, and you initiated the discussion by complaining about how Bakunin used Marxian economics. I was speaking to no one in particular until you engaged me.

...But you responded. If you are not prepared to have an honest discussion with me, don't respond to my posts.


I gave you one and your response was "What am I supposed to be looking at?"

Yes, and I am still unclear...


No, just the different groups that hail Marx as one of their ideological founding fathers while coming to wildly different conclusions from each other.

Well actually you must be comparing anarchism to Nazism, otherwise how would you be able to make the point that they are both the same when it comes to making wildly different conclusions?

Anyway, I don't think the conclusions are that wild. They are certainly no where near the conclusions drawn by Nazis.

[Questionable]

Maturity is a bourgeois concept used to belittle people who dissent.

Trust me, I'm fully aware of what your stance on maturity is.


If being immature is to highlight your misgivings, then I embrace the term with pride.

No, it means I think you're dumb.

I won't go along with this if I'm being talked down to constantly, which I am. You're a very unpleasant person to speak with, and if you take pride in that, good for you. I'm aware of a few other unsavory things you take pride in, so it doesn't bother me much.

I'm sure you'll accuse me of being an intellectual coward. That is untrue, as my posting history on this forum shows I have no problem with getting into long-winded discussions with people who don't act childishly. If you wish to apologize and behave civilly, I'd be glad to continue. Otherwise, I won't punish my fingers by typing a response to you.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I thought it was customary not to give out infractions to people you were in dispute with. You essentially gave someone an infraction because they were rude to you.

Indeed, but i'm not in dispute with them, so there's no need for you to mini-mod this little discussion, TAT.

As for this thread - everyone play nice and get back on topic please.

[Sasha]

Tat, verbal warning, stay out of modding, its not your call. The boss was acting fully in line with the guidelines when he gave that infraction. In fact, since this is the learning forum he could have even not bothered with the verbal at all so he was being nice.

[Sasha]

Trashed offtopic stuff...

[The Feral Underclass]

I just read this, Anarchy and Scientific Communism (http://revolutionaryanarchist.wordpress.com/tag/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat/), by Bukharin which is just blah. It's simply a re-stating of Leninist views and based largely on misunderstandings.

I also read this piece, Bakunin vs Marx (http://revolutionaryanarchist.wordpress.com/tag/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat/), by the Anarchist Federation in Britain, which I think is equally blah, misunderstands Bakunin's views on materialism and implies that human intervention and certain aspects of "determinism" are mutually exclusive.

[Brutus]

I think Bakunin puts it best:

Somewhat of a prophetic sentence.

TAT's blog actually has a good analysis on the idea of the "Worker's State:"


Which shows that anarchism hasn't fully broke with liberalism

[The Feral Underclass]

Which shows that anarchism hasn't fully broke with liberalism

And why/how would that be?

[Brutus]

And why/how would that be?

Because it still holds on to the liberal concept that 'power corrupts'.

[The Douche]

http://lefthost.info/www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html

Some anarchists do support the dotp, some also support it but don't understand it as such.

[BIXX]

Because it still holds on to the liberal concept that 'power corrupts'.

Well, I would argue that SOMETIMES that theory can prove true. However, anarchism is not fully predicated on the idea that power corrupts, but rather that when there is a hierarchy full liberation of ALL people cannot be achieved, as people in a position of power will wish to remain there.

In defense of the "power corrupts" idea (which may or may not hold true, as I still am inexperienced in these matters) is like to direct you attention to the Stanford Prison Experiement.

Also, a hierarchy (based off of some things Bakunin said) involves a master-slave relationship. This means that the slave is subjected to whatever the master wishes. With the master-slave relationship in capitalism, we don't see them loosening their grip on us, why should we expdct that anyone who is going to be in power during the DotP (whether they are a small group of people claiming to be the vanguard like in the USSR, or an actual DotP with the proletariat controlling the state) will relinquish their power?

Here I am only arguing against the concept of the state DotP which I believe to be the classical version, by the way.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because it still holds on to the liberal concept that 'power corrupts'.

Before we get into the substance, let's understand your statement: "Anarchism hasn't fully broken with liberalism." This assertion supposes, first of all, that anarchism and liberalism had a link to begin with. That is wrong.

Firstly, what liberalism are you referring to? At the time that anarchism was starting to take form, classical liberalism -- a capitalist ideology -- sought to protect the individual by limiting the existence of a continued government, protecting private property and maintaining the free market (and by extension profit), while at the same time asserting that human beings were inherently selfish and egotistical.

Anarchism on the other hand developed as an anti-capitalist set of ideas that rejected the idea there should be any government; that any political power existing to exert political control over the proletariat (specifically) should be smashed. It also claimed that human beings were social animals who are better served working in solidarity, and aimed to abolish private property and establish a society without profit or free markets.

In other words you have a set of ideas that were inherently capitalist and conservative, desiring the maintenance of the status quo, and another set of ideas that stood in radical contradiction. So when you say "broke with liberalism," I would contend that there was never a link to begin with. In fact, Bakunin essentially rejected classical liberalism in his text 'Ethics: Morality of the State.'

On the idea of "power corrupting" itself, we need to examine where this statement actually comes from and ultimately how it relates to anarchism. The classical liberal Lord Acton was the one who said "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" in 1882 in a letter to a Bishop. Acton said this because, as I note above, classical liberals believed that human beings were inherently selfish and egotistical and therefore there required checks and balances in order to safeguard the individual and their property from state tyranny.

Bakunin pre-dated that remark when he talked about the dangers of command. A 1867 text called 'Power Corrupts the Best' outlines his views and this would go on to form part of the chapter 'The State and Marxism' in his pamphlet, 'Marxism, Freedom and the State.'

But what did Bakunin actually mean when he said, "nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command"? He certainly wasn't talking about human beings being inherently selfish and egotistical, and he most definitely wasn't talking about trying to establish some kinds of checks and balances for the continued existence of the state.

His remarks come from the basis that command, authority, hierarchy (all things that are inherent within a state) are social relationships that necessarily negate the ability for humans to create a society in which we can live freely, with autonomy and as equals.

At the time of Bakunin talking about this, Europe was largely controlled by monarchs with authoritarian states, which is where classical liberals come in, aiming to loosen those authoritarian states. Bakunin believed in smashing them! Identifying the need to overcome these social relations in order for the proletariat to truly liberate itself.

When Marx began talking about a socialist state, or a workers' state, Bakunin's criticism was that the same social relations were being reproduced and therefore the reproduction of these social relations would stand in the way of establishing a communist or collectivist society.

Bakunin recognised (incredibly radically for his time) that authority or the state would reproduce social relations that were inherently antithetical to working class liberation, much in the same way as patriarchy and racism are. This stands in stark opposition to liberal ideas of government and is, in essence, a total negation of those views.

[NeonTrotski]

No, I am referring to both senses when I disagree with the DoTP. The problem here is that it involves using the state rather than immediately abolishing it. I also have issue with the idea of any class ruling over another, because it would really be a reversal of today's power structures, and eventually, it would normalize them and make the proletariat the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie the proletariat. I cannot agree with oppression of any kind. Especially when it is introduced into the system and normalized by the state.

The theory goes something like:
The DOTP is a temporary situation. It's meant to oppress the massive backlash (yes oppress) of the capitalists. We all know they will not go peacefully.
Its also meant to ramp up the means of production so that everyone's needs can be met and there will no longer be the need to oppress anyone. (abridged version)
If the DOTP is not successful in eliminating scarcity then yes oppression must continue to prevent capitalism from reinstating itself.

Don't we need a reversal of classes today. I see no problem with sending the rich to work in the mines for once. Esp the ones who owned the mines to begin with. Esp since we will need coal and such if we are to eliminate scarcity. Why not put it to the folks that created the scarcity to begin with.

Are you saying there is no differences between a workers state and a bourgeois state?
All states are bad worker controlled or not?
Isn't a workers state even just a little better?

[BIXX]

The theory goes something like:
The DOTP is a temporary situation. It's meant to oppress the massive backlash (yes oppress) of the capitalists. We all know they will not go peacefully.
Its also meant to ramp up the means of production so that everyone's needs can be met and there will no longer be the need to oppress anyone. (abridged version)

There is a difference between fighting the counter-revolution and oppressing a group of people based on class, or any other social identifier (race, gender, sexual orientation just to name a few).

Also, if the revolution is successful, it would have crippled the ability of counter-revolutionaries to perform a counter-revolution. Otherwise I'd consider the revolution incomplete.

Also, ramping up production is possible by getting everyone who was previously in the Reserve Army of Labour working, plus the people who were already working, and then you will have a few who will realize that it is in their best interests to work under communism who previously did not.


If the DOTP is not successful in eliminating scarcity then yes oppression must continue to prevent capitalism from reinstating itself.

If oppression continues AFTER the DotP, it will be by definition oppressing workers and bourgeoisie by a few ex-workers, and maybe even a few of the original bourgeoisie.

I would argue as well that it would end up being a state-capitalist system, which would then turn into capitalism.


Don't we need a reversal of classes today.

No.


I see no problem with sending the rich to work in the mines for once. Esp the ones who owned the mines to begin with. Esp since we will need coal and such if we are to eliminate scarcity. Why not put it to the folks that created the scarcity to begin with.

I never said I have a problem with the bourgeoisie working, in fact, I find it preferable. However, I feel what you are arguing here is for the punishment of the bourgeoisie (they made us work, lets force them to do a job we don't wanna do). If you want my opinion on the punishment of the bourgeoisie, http://www.revleft.com/vb/punishment-bourgeoisie-t181442/index.html

The idea is that I want to end all oppression, not switch who are the oppressed and oppressors.


Are you saying there is no differences between a workers state and a bourgeois state?

A negligible one.


All states are bad worker controlled or not?

Yes.


Isn't a workers state even just a little better?

If it is a genuine workers state, I would say it is BETTER than a bourgeois one. However, not by much.

[NeonTrotski]

There is a difference between fighting the counter-revolution and oppressing a group of people based on class, or any other social identifier (race, gender, sexual orientation just to name a few).

Hoarding wealth is not the same as being a racial minority, how are we to have a successful revolution while allowing a capitalist class to exist? Are we to allow the wealthy elites or even just the local little bourgeois into the unions or to have a voice in the revolutionary platforms?
I am sincerely asking not just trolling.


Also, if the revolution is successful, it would have crippled the ability of counter-revolutionaries to perform a counter-revolution. Otherwise I'd consider the revolution incomplete.

Isn't saying counter revolution and incomplete revolution saying the same thing?
So how do we "complete" the revolution without oppressing the .... uh the incompletists.
Clearly the Capitalist class wont give up their wealth just because we ask nicely.
Violence is clearly not desirable but how does a revolution defend itself? From capitalist insurgency and neighboring invasions?

Also, ramping up production is possible by getting everyone who was previously in the Reserve Army of Labour working, plus the people who were already working, and then you will have a few who will realize that it is in their best interests to work under communism who previously did not.

So are you suggesting that the Russians couldn't ramp up production primarily because of DOtP theory and not primarily due to invasions, faltering technology, black market gangsters and many many other issues. Did it fail because of the structure of the soviets, the politics of the Bolsheviks?
How would anarchists have handled the Russian revolution differently?


If oppression continues AFTER the DotP, it will be by definition oppressing workers and bourgeoisie by a few ex-workers, and maybe even a few of the original bourgeoisie.

Is nothing deserving of oppression? Shouldn't we oppress racism and sexism at any stage?
Why would we let Nazis continue to exist?




I never said I have a problem with the bourgeoisie working, in fact, I find it preferable. However, I feel what you are arguing here is for the punishment of the bourgeoisie (they made us work, lets force them to do a job we don't wanna do). If you want my opinion on the punishment of the bourgeoisie,

Valid point. I'll read that.

The idea is that I want to end all oppression, not switch who are the oppressed and oppressors.

Ok ill go with that.

If it is a genuine workers state, I would say it is BETTER than a bourgeois one. However, not by much.

I think I did this whole quote thing wrong please forgive my noobness

[Supertramp]

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." ~ Engels

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm

[Supertramp]

Conspectus of Bakunin’s
Statism and Anarchy

~Karl Marx

Interesting Reading
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

[BIXX]

Hoarding wealth is not the same as being a racial minority,

Granted. However, being bourgeois is somewhat more akin to being white. Should we oppress whites because they historically were racist?


how are we to have a successful revolution while allowing a capitalist class to exist? Are we to allow the wealthy elites or even just the local little bourgeois into the unions or to have a voice in the revolutionary platforms?
I am sincerely asking not just trolling.

I don't consider the removal of wealth to be oppression, simply dethroning.
So, I'm not arguing to allow a capitalist class to exist, I'm arguin that we do t need to oppress anyone to do so. And once they do not have the power to oppress other I see no reason to keep them out of any decision making process. It's not like they're anywhere close to a majority so they couldn't really cause any harm (which some might say is the DotP, the version without the state. I have not made up my mind on this).


Isn't saying counter revolution and incomplete revolution saying the same thing?

No. Counter-revolution is the reversal of an incomplete revolution. An incomplete revolution is one that never finished the job.


So how do we "complete" the revolution without oppressing the .... uh the incompletists?

Assuming by "incompletists" you mean counter-revolutionaries, again, dethroning is not oppressing. It's simply bringing them down from some pedestal. Taking away their ability to organize a counter-revolution. Until then, it's essentially war.


Clearly the Capitalist class wont give up their wealth just because we ask nicely.

Granted.


Violence is clearly not desirable but how does a revolution defend itself? From capitalist insurgency and neighboring invasions?

I'm not advocating anti-violence, I'm just anti-statist DotP.


So are you suggesting that the Russians couldn't ramp up production primarily because of DOtP theory and not primarily due to invasions, faltering technology, black market gangsters and many many other issues. Did it fail because of the structure of the soviets, the politics of the Bolsheviks?

I believe the cause for the fall was due to the continued lack of rights which happens under statist "socialism". So, the continued use of oppression and the state-capitalists being in control of it was the reason for failure.


How would anarchists have handled the Russian revolution differently?

Well, probably very similar to other anarchist insurrections were being handled until they were betrayed by statists.


Is nothing deserving of oppression? Shouldn't we oppress racism and sexism at any stage?

You can't "oppress" racism or sexism. You can repress them. That's different. However, repression can constitute a wide range of things, by physically combatting militant racists/sexists/homophobes/whatevers, or you can educate people, etc... None of that requires a state or a DotP.

You oppress racists and sexists, and while I disagree with them, they don't deserve to be oppressed for their lack of education/beliefs. Again, we can physically confront them or educate them, but that's not oppression.

Also, like I've said before (can't remember if it was this thread or what) a successful revolution would have primarily dealt with racism and sexism and other forms of oppression.


Why would we let Nazis continue to exist?

Because they're human. Even if they're disgusting, it'd be up to us to constantly be ready to respond to their threat. We'd be ready to fight them at all costs, but we cannot oppress them, simply because we disagree with them. They're disgusting, and should be physically confronted, but that is not oppression. Even when/if we defeat them, it's only weakening them to a point where they can't harm us.