Can we have an Anarchist Revolution?

[RedSunrise]

Can we have an Anarchist Revolution?

I say not yet... FYI This is kind of a giant statement/question. Point out what is wrong with this idea, so I can correct my thinking :o

I was reading: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/coldoffthepresses/objections.html

#3: All change is slow by Evolution, and not sudden, as the Anarchists wish to make it by Revolution.

I actually agree with this statement. I don't think people will be ready for this kind of system until post-Socialism, when we will achieve anarchy-communism.

The problem with the masses is that they only see 1-step ahead of themselves, which creates two camps: those who want to change, and those who don't. In our current struggle, you have capitalism, socialists, democracy, and the UN. Neither is considered really "radical", but god forbid you mention communism or anarchy. The masses can only see one step ahead or capitalism to socialism. Once we achieve socialism, they will see communism.

If I were to try and create anarchy-communism it will fail, why? We are not united globally. How will we be united globally? Global socialism. (The next in-theory stage) Alright, say I united the world, would it work now? No, because people are raised to be selfish inside of capitalism.

What do you think of my ideas?

Random Thoughts:

Capitalism will fade
UN/New world power will unite us all under global state socialism
After years of oppression, our great-great-great grand kids will rise up
After a number of rebellions, our kids will succeed in removing the oppressors
They will know that government sucks.
They will erect the anarcho-commie utopia-ish system. It will be based off proletariat brotherhood they learned in bondage

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Why do we always just talk of the "masses," like a herd of cattle and we're waiting with baited breath to see what they'll do or try to predict what they would do or should do and so on? I think it's weird.

[RedSunrise]

Why do we always just talk of the "masses," like a herd of cattle and we're waiting with baited breath to see what they'll do or try to predict what they would do or should do and so on? I think it's weird.

... Never thought of that...

I suppose the masses are the "common laymen" who don't know what is good for them, but that does sound both haughty and creepy. Yet, that description is quite apt.
My best guess is that:
To achieve our goals: we need to masses.
To make the masses understand us: we need to speak to them like animals.
(Again that sounds really haughty and creepy but true)

[Overcome]

In regard to your bullet points.

2: the UN would never be able to unite the world under socialism. Socialism can only be achieved from the bottom up.

3: socialism does NOT equal oppression of "the masses" as you seem to be implying. Some past regimes that called themselves socialist may have been oppressive but it doesn't follow that socialism must be so.

The rest is just speculation.

Further, in order for things to be bad enough for the UN to need to step in and forcibly "unite" the world, I would imagine that governments and so forth would have to have lost control over their subjects thus rendering a top down restructuring of society an exersice in futility.


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

[RedSunrise]

In regard to your bullet points.

2: the UN would never be able to unite the world under socialism. Socialism can only be achieved from the bottom up.

3: socialism does NOT equal oppression of "the masses" as you seem to be implying. Some past regimes that called themselves socialist may have been oppressive but it doesn't follow that socialism must be so.

The rest is just speculation.

Further, in order for things to be bad enough for the UN to need to step in and forcibly "unite" the world, I would imagine that governments and so forth would have to have lost control over their subjects thus rendering a top down restructuring of society an exersice in futility.


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

2: State Socialism

3: I know. State Socialism

The only way to rid ourselves of oppression is to rid ourselves of the mother of it: government. I am using socialism here as more of global redistribution of wealth, common ownership, etc.

I don't think post-collapse of America it will be that hard to unify the world. Although China is becoming more State capitalist, I think that will change once everyone has followed suit of America. Perhaps, China will even lead the charge. TBH Most of the "allies" (England, Canada, etc) have fallen to "socialism" America is closer to the last "hold-out" for Capitalism. Once America falls, nothing is stopping globalization.

[Overcome]

Fair enough, you didn't explicitly say "state socialism" so just a misunderstanding there.

Just to clarify, do you claim that England is either socialist or state socialist?


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

[RedSunrise]

Fair enough, you didn't explicitly say "state socialism" so just a misunderstanding there.

Just to clarify, do you claim that England is either socialist or state socialist?


My apoligize! I'll fix that in the post :o Yeah, I don't think there will be two proletariat revolutions. Just the last going from complete oppression to freedom... People can't understand freedom until they taste oppression at its worst.

Not 100% sure because I don't live in England and most leftist words have various meanings to different people. Off the top of my head, I would go with state socialism. What do you think?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think the problem with this is that it imagines the sovereignty of the state as the primary locus of capitalist (and, in the future, proletarian) power - as a fixed body rather than existing in a reciprocal relationship to class power, and, specifically, the class power of the capitalists, ie as a definite social form connected to a particular set of relations of production.
I would argue that, while the state should by no means be ignored, your line of thinking here (typical, unfortunately, of much Marxism, and even, in a backward way, much anarchism) fetishizes the state, approaching it independent of its re/production. That's not to deny the particular materiality of the state (as, for example, Holloway seems to in Change The World Without Taking Power) in terms of its vast infrastructure which remains, in my opinion, fundamentally inextricable from its "stateness" (eg prison architecture or most existing urbanism, for example, are for all intents and purposes useless to any emancipatory project). It is however, to see it all, in the long view, as a something that has come together "piece by piece" rather than as the whole which, in fetishized form, it presents itself as.
Consequently, I think the conquest of power (in the affirmative sense of capacity, rather than as a synonym for authority) by the working class in its abolition-of-itself-as-such needs to approach the state in its decentralized peculiarities, in its real power on a local basis: dealing with its sovereignty as it actually functions (which varies geographically, in both the human and physical senses).
If there is a lesson to be learned from previous "actually existing socialism"s it seems to me that it ought to be that state power is profoundly limited in its capacity to effect social transformation along communist lines: that while it's a very effective means of, for example, carrying out industrialization, building a certain type of army, organizing large scale trade, etc., its power to impact daily life is actually contingent primarily not on its own apparent sovereign power, but on social relations much more broadly.
In fact, I think it's clear, upon clearly looking at the situation, that their relationship is dialectical. The task then, for communists, becomes no more seizing the state than it is the reification of working class subjectivity, but, on the contrary, its transcendence.

[#FF0000]

Christ what a thread.

Posting for content in a bit

[Art Vandelay]

I think describing a revolution in terms of 'anarchist' or 'communist,' as opposed to 'proletarian,' shows a fundamental misunderstanding of revolution. The emancipation of the working class isn't the task of the self described radicals and their respective theories, but rather task of the working class itself.


I suppose the masses are the "common laymen" who don't know what is good for them, but that does sound both haughty and creepy. Yet, that description is quite apt.
To achieve our goals: we need to masses.
To make the masses understand us: we need to speak to them like animals.

:rolleyes:

As a proletarian, I must say that I kinda take offence to the idea that someone needs to talk to me like an animal to get it through my thick skull that revolution is in my interests.

[Remus Bleys]

You are taking Sergey Nechayev too seriously.

[#FF0000]

#3: All change is slow by Evolution, and not sudden, as the Anarchists wish to make it by Revolution.

I actually agree with this statement. I don't think people will be ready for this kind of system until post-Socialism, when we will achieve anarchy-communism.

I mean everyone agrees with that statement though. The dichotomy between "change is slow" and "revolutionary change is necessary" is a false one. Building a movement takes time. Those "material conditions" that make revolution possible take time to develop. The difference between reform and revolution isn't that one is quicker than the other. The difference lies in the idea that the capitalism can be reformed into something different.


The problem with the masses is that they only see 1-step ahead of themselves, which creates two camps: those who want to change, and those who don't. In our current struggle, you have capitalism, socialists, democracy, and the UN. Neither is considered really "radical", but god forbid you mention communism or anarchy. The masses can only see one step ahead or capitalism to socialism. Once we achieve socialism, they will see communism.This is just paternalistic tripe about on the level of some insipid chairman mao quote. You make the condescending assumption here that "the masses" are 1) stupid, in need of a shepard and 2) not something you're a part of. Both are wrong.

Obviously we're all limited in our perspective. It's hard to keep up with current events or, frankly, care that much about something on the other side of the world when you're struggling 20-40+ hours a week. But that's why we need organizations -- and not ones headed up by condescending petit-bourgeois kids who aren't beholden to the working class rank and file.


If I were to try and create anarchy-communism it will fail, why? We are not united globally. How will we be united globally? Global socialism. (The next in-theory stage) Alright, say I united the world, would it work now? No, because people are raised to be selfish inside of capitalism.

What do you think of my ideas?It all sounds like something you threw together in your head based on ideas and assumptions about the world that sounded good in your head but had no basis in reality.




... Never thought of that...

I suppose the masses are the "common laymen" who don't know what is good for them, but that does sound both haughty and creepy. Yet, that description is quite apt.
My best guess is that:
To achieve our goals: we need to masses.
To make the masses understand us: we need to speak to them like animals.
(Again that sounds really haughty and creepy but true)

It's especially haughty and creepy when it's said by someone who doesn't even have a grasp of the ideas they are trying to talk about. This kind of attitude is a big part of why people avoid communist and socialist orgs -- their membership is out of touch, condescending, and sucks all around.

Further, you muddy the waters by referring to welfare state capitalism as "socialism". The "socialism" of Europe is not in any way fundamentally different from capitalism. It is capitalism. Further, they've been dismantling these welfare states since the 70's -- so they hardly even exist as most liberals who admire them so much imagine them to.

[RedSunrise]

It all sounds like something you threw together in your head based on ideas and assumptions about the world that sounded good in your head but had no basis in reality.

It's especially haughty and creepy when it's said by someone who doesn't even have a grasp of the ideas they are trying to talk about. This kind of attitude is a big part of why people avoid communist and socialist orgs -- their membership is out of touch, condescending, and sucks all around.


In a non-creepy way, I love you #FF0000. That was the greatest post... Just wow.

You did exactly what I wanted: adjusted the BS I was thinking with reality. I am going to re-re-read this over and over. I can't make any responses, because you gave me the answer. All I can say is thank you.

"sucks all around." I know I am :( but all I can do is learn.

[Logical seal]

I agree redsun, Pretty damn legit stuff you be saying, Through anarchists are starting to get a little....soft, Dig what I mean?

[Art Vandelay]

"sucks all around." I know I am :( but all I can do is learn.

You shouldn't feel bad simply cause you came up with an idea you wanted to discuss; if anything, its positive in the sense that your engaging in independent thought and are open to revising your analysis when faced with cogent political arguments. On top of that we all have our individual political development to go through and we all have convictions we used to hold that when we look back at them can only shake our heads.

What #FF0000 is saying here is essentially the same argument put forth by Marx & Engel's in their polemics against the utopian socialists of their day. Maybe try giving a glance at 'socialism: utopian and scientific' if your interested in a more in depth look at the line of argumentation.

[#FF0000]

"sucks all around." I know I am :( but all I can do is learn.

Haha, don't worry dogg that wasn't referring to you. More to the really annoying sort of leftist activist that's unfortunately too common.


What #FF0000 is saying here is essentially the same argument put forth by Marx & Engel's in their polemics against the utopian socialists of their day. Maybe try giving a glance at 'socialism: utopian and scientific' if your interested in a more in depth look at the line of argumentation.

Yep pretty much exactly. There's a lot of Marx's texts you could read that might set you straight on a lot of things, though. Basically the entire third chapter of the Communist Manifesto, The Civil War in France (specifically the chapter on the Paris Commune) and I think maybe Critique of the Gotha Programme.

I hate to say "yo check out these 19th century texts", but hey

[Rafiq]

Anyone who thinks anything can function without a state wielding absolute power over the world, at least following capitalism is unaware and takes for granted thousands of different ecological and social processes from which our survival currently depends.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Anyone who thinks anything can function without a state wielding absolute power over the world, at least following capitalism is unaware and takes for granted thousands of different ecological and social processes from which our survival currently depends.

Ah, yes, states have been such a successful means of protecting/restoring delicate ecosystems. Thank fuck we have them to protect us from the tragedy of the commons.

Hey, have you read about geo-engineering at all?
It's cool, we're just going to change the colour of the atmosphere and everything will be fine. Of course, without the organizational capacity of the state, we might not be able to pull this off: ie doom.

Sorry, excuse my sarcasm. More sincerely though, I'd really like to hear a more detailed argument than this if you've got one. My own feeling is that even pre-capitalist states were prone to causing ecological catastrophe (Sumer? Carthage? Etc.).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

To make the masses understand us: we need to speak to them like animals.
That's more than a little condescending, you know.

[bcbm]

#3: All change is slow by Evolution, and not sudden, as the Anarchists wish to make it by Revolution.

'there are decades where nothing happens and there are weeks where decades happen' - lenin

i dont think this quote is true at all. this past century has been one where we saw change happening with exceptional speed. even in the past ten years; things that seemed impossible five years ago are commonplace today. why is revolutionary change any different?


The problem with the masses is that they only see 1-step ahead of themselves, which creates two camps: those who want to change, and those who don't. In our current struggle, you have capitalism, socialists, democracy, and the UN. Neither is considered really "radical", but god forbid you mention communism or anarchy. The masses can only see one step ahead or capitalism to socialism. Once we achieve socialism, they will see communism.

there are no 'masses' and certainly none who think as you imagine

[RedSunrise]

Yep pretty much exactly. There's a lot of Marx's texts you could read that might set you straight on a lot of things, though. Basically the entire third chapter of the Communist Manifesto, The Civil War in France (specifically the chapter on the Paris Commune) and I think maybe Critique of the Gotha Programme.

I hate to say "yo check out these 19th century texts", but hey

No problem! Anything that's good to read should be looked at.

I admit I had trouble reading most of the third chapter of the Manifesto. Perhaps, I don't know enough on the social-economical-political structure then to be able to keep up. But I will certainly look over it again, as obviously it is quite important :grin:


Anyone who thinks anything can function without a state wielding absolute power over the world, at least following capitalism is unaware and takes for granted thousands of different ecological and social processes from which our survival currently depends.

I hate this argument... You are absolutely right. A lot of people and even a little myself rely on the State. I don't take it for granted. I don't want it.

Nothing of my survival depends on what the State gives me, but I do rely on it because I am forced to.

[Guerillero]

In a non-creepy way, I love you #FF0000. That was the greatest post... Just wow.That was just reaction I expected from my posts. :lol:


there are no 'masses' and certainly none who think as you imagineThat's kinda true. We have to destroy the masses. We all want to be regarded as individuals, so if we regard other people as "masses", they won't follow even if they are following each other like masses do. If you want to control the masses you have to establish communism. If you want to build up a good system for individuals, you have to establish anarchy.

[reb]

There is a lot of un-marxian utopian and idealist nonsense going on in this thread. I don't expect everyone to be a great marxian thinker right off but some of the posters here have been here for several years and should really know better.

To attach an ideological prefix to "revolution" such as stalinist, trotskyist, anarchist, marxist, etc, misses the whole point of scientific/marxian socialism (and I would refrain from thinking that marxism actually is a science). To say that there can be an anarchist revolution is utopian and idealist, as well with any other ideological bent.

Ideas do not dictate revolution. The objective circumstances of the proletariat creates the revolution. A lot of people seem to falling into the lazy and entirely contemptuous position of social-democracy orthodoxy of the idea that there is the "labor movement" which needs to be inject with "socialist consciousness" from the intelligentsia in a party. Communism is the movement that arises out of capitalism with the aim to negating capitalism.

The idea that you can dictate that there has to be a state and so on is utopian. It ignores the actual content of revolution in favor of political forms and fanciful plans, it ignore more importantly what a state actually is and it's relation to class society.

[Czy]

RedSunrise, a lot of your posts concerning "laymen" and the "masses" really underestimates the power of workers. The most effective efforts in achieving wide consciousness is bottom-up activism: workers strategizing, campaigning and whatnot together, in unity and solidarity.

I agree that the revolutionary movement needs some form of nucleus, in terms of basic leadership and guidance, but denying the fundamental role of the proletariat is to detach oneself from the essence of Marxism.

-Czy

[RedSunrise]

RedSunrise, a lot of your posts concerning "laymen" and the "masses" really underestimates the power of workers. The most effective efforts in achieving wide consciousness is bottom-up activism: workers strategizing, campaigning and whatnot together, in unity and solidarity.

I agree that the revolutionary movement needs some form of nucleus, in terms of basic leadership and guidance, but denying the fundamental role of the proletariat is to detach oneself from the essence of Marxism.

-Czy

I need to clear this up...

By masses I mean: Brainwashed/Follow without thinking. NOT working class! Most proletariat are the opposite of masses. They want what is best. Some do, but not all sit around and say, "Obama is the best and deserves the Nobel Peace prize cause he is cool for no reason, because everyone else likes him... MOM! Did you do my wash?"

That's what I mean by masses. The ignorant percent. Those who are needed to achieve majority, but do not think things all the way through and hold the opinions they are told.

Yes, that was not a good description. But I am not looking to insult hard working class (I would be insulting myself too)

[#FF0000]

No problem! Anything that's good to read should be looked at.

I admit I had trouble reading most of the third chapter of the Manifesto. Perhaps, I don't know enough on the social-economical-political structure then to be able to keep up. But I will certainly look over it again, as obviously it is quite important :grin:

Yeah, he's talking about a lot of other contemporary socialist movements in that chapter. Movements that are "utopian" socialist, as opposed to Marx's "scientific" socialism.

You know, if you ever have trouble on sections of something you're trying to read, it's definitely a good idea to make a thread about it in Learning. Some of these texts aren't easy reads.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

You can't stop anarchy, it's infectious, much ruckus, so wow, yes we can has anarev, lol, also, can we drop the "masses," part? Like seriously? It gets sillier and sillier the more you try to explain it, lol, mmkay.

[Rafiq]

Ah, yes, states have been such a successful means of protecting/restoring delicate ecosystems. Thank fuck we have them to protect us from the tragedy of the commons.

Hey, have you read about geo-engineering at all?
It's cool, we're just going to change the colour of the atmosphere and everything will be fine. Of course, without the organizational capacity of the state, we might not be able to pull this off: ie doom.

Sorry, excuse my sarcasm. More sincerely though, I'd really like to hear a more detailed argument than this if you've got one. My own feeling is that even pre-capitalist states were prone to causing ecological catastrophe (Sumer? Carthage? Etc.).

The point is that through capitalist production we have created IRREVERSIBLE damage that states today continue to curve and deal with.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The point is that through capitalist production we have created IRREVERSIBLE damage that states today continue to [curb] and deal with.

That states have, in some instances, given in to popular struggles to curb capital's wanton ecological destruction is not an argument for the state. Arguably, even what pitifully little states have done, in the big picture, has served the ends of improving the efficiency of ecological destruction rather than curbing it.
In any case, there are far more examples of states doing the opposite - ruthlessly pursuing accumulation at the expense of local ecology. I would argue that this is a situation where the "big picture" thinking of centralized decision making tends to lend itself to terrible consequences.