Bakunin and Minority Political Organisaiton

[The Feral Underclass]

Detractors of Bakunin like to cite the following quote as evidence that Bakunin was really some clandestine authoritarian or a precursor to Lenin. This is nonsense and a fundamental misunderstanding of Bakunin's ideas.


All that a well-organized secret society can do is, first, to assist in the birth of the revolution by spreading among the masses ideas corresponding to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the revolution—the army must always be the people [—] but a revolutionary General Staff composed of devoted, energetic, intelligent and above all sincere friends of the people, who are not ambitious or vain, and who are capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instincts.

This is the cited quote, taken from the pamphlet, The Program of the International Brotherhood. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm)

For whatever reason, this quote is always misquoted, with an attempt to emphasise the word "all" as an encompassing strategy for the class. Quoted in its entirety, the section reads:


This association has its origin in the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They make themselves; they are produced by the force of circumstances, the movement of facts and events. They receive a long preparation in the deep, instinctive consciousness of the masses, then they burst forth, often seemingly triggered by trivial causes. All that a well-organized society can do is, first, to assist at the birth of a revolution by spreading among the masses ideas which give expression to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the Revolution – the people alone should always be that army – but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people.

"All that a well organised society can do" means an organisation is limited in scope, due to the fact that revolutions are not made by secret societies or organisations, but by the class leading themselves. In other words revolutions are governed by the class and all an organisation can hope to do is attempt to influence and help organise it.

The section that precedes the one above reads:


This revolutionary alliance excludes any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power. It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

What Bakunin is arguing for here is a minority political organisation of revolutionaries (not one that encompasses or leads the whole class), which operates with revolutionary discipline, collective responsibility, and theoretical and tactical unity. In this way, the organisation can effectively insert revolutionary ideas and tactic into struggle, but does not seek to control or direct those struggles.

A reading of this pamphlet as one that embraces or in some way pre-dates the ideas of Leninist vanguardism is to have misread it.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Leninists do not think that revolutions are led by individuals or secret societies, either. In fact Leninists organizations can operate clandestinely, in conditions of illegality, but never as secret societies (like The Club), hiding their real purpose. The point of Leninist "vanguardism" (a term that is only used by proponents of the "party of the entire class", or even "of the whole people") is that modern capitalism prevents the formation of a revolutionary class consciousness in the proletariat as a whole, distinguishing revolutionary layers - the vanguard - from the reactionary, disruptive and bought-off strata of the proletariat.

[The Feral Underclass]

Leninists do not think that revolutions are led by individuals or secret societies, either.

But they do think they are led and done so within a mass party structure by a minority leadership.


The point of Leninist "vanguardism" (a term that is only used by proponents of the "party of the entire class", or even "of the whole people") is that modern capitalism prevents the formation of a revolutionary class consciousness in the proletariat as a whole, distinguishing revolutionary layers - the vanguard - from the reactionary, disruptive and bought-off strata of the proletariat.

And therefore a leadership should control and direct struggle.

Yes, we all know what Leninist vanguardism looks like.

[Hit The North]

What is the general staff of an army if not its leadership?

[Future]

What is the general staff of an army if not its leadership?

Leadership made up of, and directly accountable to, the working class. Leadership aiding the people in their struggle; not commanding and driving the path of the working class as in vanguardism.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is the general staff of an army if not its leadership?

I like that you ignored my entire post and then picked out two words from the text, read them literally and out of context, and then asked me a question I'd already answered...

The text reads:

"...dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people."

I.e. a minority political organisation that serves to insert revolutionary ideas and tactics into struggles and that "excludes any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power."

[Hit The North]

Leadership made up of, and directly accountable to, the working class. Leadership aiding the people in their struggle; not commanding and driving the path of the working class as in vanguardism.

And how is this leadership directly accountable to the working class? Does it have to hold a class-wide referendum before it acts? In other words, how do we move from empty rhetoric to actual accountability?

But I fear that your formulation is at odds with TAT who seems to be suggesting that the "minority political organisation" renounces all attempts at leadership, preferring to "insert revolutionary ideas" into the class struggle, whatever that means.

Meanwhile, I'll add the corrective that the vanguard does not seek to impose itself dictatorially over the working class but seeks to wield influence on the basis of winning authority for its revolutionary politics by recruiting from the most advanced layers of the class through its ideas and practice.


I like that you ignored my entire post and then picked out two words from the text, read them literally and out of context, and then asked me a question I'd already answered...

The text reads:

"...dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people."

I.e. a minority political organisation that serves to insert revolutionary ideas and tactics into struggles and that "excludes any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power."

It's not my fault that Bakunin uses the analogies he does.

According to Wikipedia a general staff:


provides bi-directional flow of information between a commanding officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commanding_officer) and subordinate military units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_units). A staff also provides an executive function where it filters information needed by the commander or shunts unnecessary information.Leaving aside the problem of who the "commanding officer" would be in a revolutionary situation, how is this different from how Marxists think about the role of the vanguard party?

Besides, I also find it useful to seek literal clarification when it comes to Bakunin's wooly formulations. I mean, what does it mean to be an intermediary between the "revolutionary idea" and the "instincts" of the people?

[The Feral Underclass]

It's not my fault that Bakunin uses the analogies he does.

But it is your fault that you take those words in isolation, out of context and then apply a literal definition to them, despite the fact he then goes on to define specifically what he means.


Leaving aside the problem of who the "commanding officer" would be in a revolutionary situation, how is this different from how Marxists think about the role of the vanguard party?

Most Marxists advocate a mass-party line with a specific leadership that seeks to control and direct struggles. Most Marxists also prioritise political organisation over class organisation. The only Marxist groups I've encountered who do not conceive political organising in that way are autonomists.


Besides, I also find it useful to seek literal clarification when it comes to Bakunin's wooly formulations. I mean, what does it mean to be an intermediary between the "revolutionary idea" and the "instincts" of the people?

I have explained that twice in this thread. Pick up your game, dude. You're not this stupid.

If you really don't find my explanations adequate, read this: Specifism Explained: The social and political level, organisational dualism and the anarchist organisation (http://libcom.org/blog/specifism-explained-social-political-level-organisational-dualism-anarchist-organisation-09)

[Thirsty Crow]

Most Marxists advocate a mass-party line with a specific leadership that seeks to control and direct struggles. Most Marxists also prioritise political organisation over class organisation. The only Marxist groups I've encountered who do not conceive political organising in that way are autonomists.

This seems somewhat dubious.

On the question of a mass party, there certainly are Marxist currents who discard such an approach, and with it, the approach which centers on controlling, directing (even initiating!) struggles and prioritising political organization. The various communization groups with roots in Marxism, the existing councilist groups, and the organizations of the communist left.

However, I'd like to see an argument that shows that it is not true that any pro-revolutionary organization seeks to direct struggles - the mere fact that there is a group of people claiming revolutionary politics and engaging in broader working class struggles unmistakably signals the wish to direct struggles. But that is not the point, what matters is how this is to be achieved and what results can be expected from it.

Also, can you elaborate on the way you conceive of the difference between political organizations and class organizations?

[The Feral Underclass]

On the question of a mass party, there certainly are Marxist currents who discard such an approach, and with it, the approach which centers on controlling, directing (even initiating!) struggles and prioritising political organization. The various communization groups with roots in Marxism, the existing councilist groups, and the organizations of the communist left.

I am happy to accept that not all Marxists conceive of political organising in the way I have described, but in my experience they do. I've never encountered a "councilist" group and I'm fairly certain there are no communising groups in the UK that have active political organising platforms.


However, I'd like to see an argument that shows that it is not true that any pro-revolutionary organization seeks to direct struggles

Either you believe the class should regulate and manage their own struggles, or you think an organisation should exist to do that. There's no third way. You can't pick and choose when the class directs its struggles or when the organisation does.


Also, can you elaborate on the way you conceive of the difference between political organizations and class organizations?

The idea that it is the organisation that has to be built and perfected in order for the class to be successful.

[reb]

The problem with Bakunin is that he considered revolution to be only a matter of awakening human instincts, or the real human nature via secret organizations. Not that they are lead by such. Whereas for Marx class consciousness is something that is created within the proletariat in every day struggles, not something to be brought from outside by a party or awakened, if you can even argue that Bakunin is talking about class consciousness here the same way as Marx does. Your first two quotes outline this idea of human instincts hence ideas such as propaganda of the deed and so on, to awaken them.

[Hit The North]

Either you believe the class should regulate and manage their own struggles, or you think an organisation should exist to do that. There's no third way. You can't pick and choose when the class directs its struggles or when the organisation does.


What do you mean by "the class regulating and managing its own struggles"? Do you mean the class as a whole, or the class in its various organisational forms? To posit the idea of the class directing itself without organisation, if this is what you are arguing, seems a bit odd.

What I'm getting from you and Bakunin is the idea that there is an amorphous class, on the one hand, and politically organised revolutionaries on the other, and that all attempts to fuse the two should be resisted in the name of class autonomy. Is this correct?

[The Feral Underclass]

The problem with Bakunin is that he considered revolution to be only a matter of awakening human instincts, or the real human nature via secret organizations.

This view that Bakunin was some kind of humanist runs contrary to his life and his written ideas.

[The Feral Underclass]

What do you mean by "the class regulating and managing its own struggles"?

I mean precisely that.


Do you mean the class as a whole, or the class in its various organisational forms?

In its various struggles.


To posit the idea of the class directing itself without organisation, if this is what you are arguing, seems a bit odd.

To organise and be organised is necessary, yes, but the act of organising does not require the class to be in an organisation.


What I'm getting from you and Bakunin is the idea that there is an amorphous class, on the one hand, and politically organised revolutionaries on the other, and that all attempts to fuse the two should be resisted in the name of class autonomy. Is this correct?

Insofar as the political organisation attempts to subsume the class, yes.

[Thirsty Crow]

Either you believe the class should regulate and manage their own struggles, or you think an organisation should exist to do that. There's no third way. You can't pick and choose when the class directs its struggles or when the organisation does.
But there is a problem here: what is the justification for the mere existence, and intervention of, the political organization if it were the class that should regulate and manage their own struggles?

The very existence of a political organization, something you do not object to, is clearly superfluous if not outright damaging if one were to understand the class and the organization as existing in rigid opposition (along the lines of the opposition of interest in control over practice). Moreover, taken literally, this position completely disables any active criticism against phenomena such as nationalism and sectionalism, as well as reformism, in struggles and indeed any sort of intervention on behalf of a constituted political organization. Ultimately, it seems to me that this can be interpreted as stating that workers' in various struggles ought to choose whichever course they may want to without any opposition or active intervention from communists. This is because I distinguish what you term directing struggles (participating as communist militants) and command over struggles. The point that a communist political organization definitely should not place itself as the sole arbiter and decisive instance in conducting the fight is not what is at stake here since I think we agree on that.

And the third way you speak of is clearly possible, that being premised on the, let's say, advisory role that communist militants can play in relating to workers both in labor struggles and actions outside the workplace. Therefore, the goal would not be conceived as placing a political org in the position of command and the sole locus of initiative, but that of a specific organ of the class which proposes courses of action which are in turn to be judged and acted upon by the very people who are engaged in an action.

[The Feral Underclass]

But there is a problem here: what is the justification for the mere existence, and intervention of, the political organization if it were the class that should regulate and manage their own struggles?

To provide ideas, tactics, historical context, a methodology etc etc. This is now three times I have made this point.


The very existence of a political organization, something you do not object to, is clearly superfluous if not outright damaging if one were to understand the class and the organization as existing in rigid opposition

Tthat is a dichotomy that you have invented, not I. I have never said that the class and the organisation exist in opposition, rigid or otherwise.


Moreover, taken literally, this position completely disables any active criticism against phenomena such as nationalism and sectionalism, as well as reformism, in struggles and indeed any sort of intervention on behalf of a constituted political organization. Ultimately, it seems to me that this can be interpreted as stating that workers' in various struggles ought to choose whichever course they may want to without any opposition or active intervention from communists.

The class will choose whatever course they want, that is why a minority political organisation needs to exist in order to challenge those ideas, present alternatives, experience, methods, resources etc; to stage interventions and provide context, as well as to take risks.


And the third way you speak of is clearly possible, that being premised on the, let's say, advisory role that communist militants can play in relating to workers both in labor struggles and actions outside the workplace. Therefore, the goal would not be conceived as placing a political org in the position of command and the sole locus of initiative, but that of a specific organ of the class which proposes courses of action which are in turn to be judged and acted upon by the very people who are engaged in an action.

Your definition of the word 'direct' and my definition are clearly different. I take the word's literal definition, i.e. manage, regulate, command.

[Future]

And how is this leadership directly accountable to the working class? Does it have to hold a class-wide referendum before it acts? In other words, how do we move from empty rhetoric to actual accountability?

But I fear that your formulation is at odds with TAT who seems to be suggesting that the "minority political organisation" renounces all attempts at leadership, preferring to "insert revolutionary ideas" into the class struggle, whatever that means.

Meanwhile, I'll add the corrective that the vanguard does not seek to impose itself dictatorially over the working class but seeks to wield influence on the basis of winning authority for its revolutionary politics by recruiting from the most advanced layers of the class through its ideas and practice.

The first two paragraphs of this just completely ignore everything that The Anarchist Tension has written. Read what she's said, and it explains all this just fine. There's no rhetorical secret meaning behind what she has said. What Bakunin meant was very simple and means exactly what TAT is saying. No deeper layers to it.

The final paragraph of this is just is a load total nonsense and you know it. Vanguardism interprets the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to mean exactly what it's not supposed to mean, and that is a dictatorship of the advocate. Real communists don't support a vanguard party that "gains the trust of the people" to do whatever it thinks is in the working class' best interest. What real communists support is a proletariat that must make its own path collectively through direct action and decentralized self management; a movement of the masses by the masses. Unlike the Leninists, true communists know that the working class can free itself without needing mommy and daddy to beat up the bully for us. The very idea of the vanguard is classist.

And contrary to what you say, vanguardism seeks to run the show, to drive the revolution, and to build socialism for the people (which is itself oxymoronic). If you support a vanguard that aids the people and is directly accountable to the people - a vanguard that sits on the sidelines and offers theory and action to be evaluated by the working class, then you don't support a vanguard at all; rather what Bakunin was talking about.

[Hit The North]

If you support a vanguard that aids the people and is directly accountable to the people - a vanguard that sits on the sidelines and offers theory and action to be evaluated by the working class, then you don't support a vanguard at all; rather what Bakunin was talking about.

^^^ lol, I certainly don't support the idea of an organisation that sits on the sidelines, so I guess I don't support "what Bakunin was talking about."

Anyway, nice try at avoiding the question, but to reiterate: what mechanisms do you envisage will secure the direct accountability of the revolutionaries to "the people"? You can issue fine-sounding slogans all you want but unless you can actually specify what you mean you might as well just be pissing in the wind.

[Future]

^^^ lol, I certainly don't support the idea of an organisation that sits on the sidelines, so I guess I don't support "what Bakunin was talking about."

Anyway, nice try at avoiding the question, but to reiterate: what mechanisms do you envisage will secure the direct accountability of the revolutionaries to "the people"? You can issue fine-sounding slogans all you want but unless you can actually specify what you mean you might as well just be pissing in the wind.

What are you talking about? First of all, the revolutionaries ARE the people. We anarchists support delegates not that represent the people, but are directly part of the people. Please understand that. That's why we oppose vanguardism. The constituents of the vanguard are not made up of the affected working class on the local levels - the vanguard advocates widescale on the people's behalf (as representatives) - and does so to the degree that it directs and controls the entire revolution! That is what we oppose because it's against our principles.

I'll quote TAT:


What Bakunin is arguing for here is a minority political organisation of revolutionaries (not one that encompasses or leads the whole class), which operates with revolutionary discipline, collective responsibility, and theoretical and tactical unity. In this way, the organisation can effectively insert revolutionary ideas and tactic into struggle, but does not seek to control or direct those struggles.

Do you just not understand what this means? It means a non-hierarchical organization made up of delegates from a community that are theorizing and coming up with ideas which it presents to its community (or confederacy of communities) and in which the community can evaluate together. It helps to provide order and structured ideas to the revolution. But it does not control the revolution. It does not direct the revolution. It just offers its assistance in a non-hierarchical, non-controlling fashion. It doesn't want to direct the working class by taking on some role of "authority".

I'm not saying you have to agree with this; all I hope is that you just understand in clear terms what all this means.


^^^ lol, I certainly don't support the idea of an organisation that sits on the sidelines, so I guess I don't support "what Bakunin was talking about."

That much is clear. You support an authoritarian and hierarchical organization that advocates on behalf of the working class by directing and controlling the revolution. We don't support that. But all we're saying is that Bakunin's idea of the anarchistic minority political organization is not the same as an authoritarian Marxist-Leninist vanguard.

[Hit The North]

What are you talking about? First of all, the revolutionaries ARE the people. We anarchists support delegates not that represent the people, but are directly part of the people. Please understand that.


So in a situation like the one we find ourselves in, where opinion polls show that a majority of "the people" are in favour of attacking welfare benefits, want to end immigration and are ready to blame existing migrants for the economic problems of the country, in what sense are "the people" the revolutionaries? And in what sense will the anarchists be accountable to that section of "the people" who support pro-capitalist policies? Do you intend to be accountable to the right-wing "the people", who want to maintain the social order, as well as the left-wing "the people", who want to change things? Perhaps you need to have a good think about who you want to include in your utopian community of "the people".


I'll quote TAT:

Good!



Originally Posted by The Anarchist Tension
What Bakunin is arguing for here is a minority political organisation of revolutionaries (not one that encompasses or leads the whole class), which operates with revolutionary discipline, collective responsibility, and theoretical and tactical unity. In this way, the organisation can effectively insert revolutionary ideas and tactic into struggle, but does not seek to control or direct those struggles.

Good, because this quote of TAT's would have no difficulty in finding agreement among Marxists from Lenin to Tony Cliff. It's certainly a few steps closer to describing the Marxist concept of the vanguard than your sorry, cartoon version of it. Certainly, the only reservation would be the final statement which would be seen as contradictory. What would be the point of struggling to win workers to revolutionary ideas and tactics but deny that our intention was to direct the struggle. For Marxists, the working class has to organise itself as a party in order to successfully prosecute the class struggle. It is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary one.


Do you just not understand what this means? It means a non-hierarchical organization made up of delegates from a community that are theorizing and coming up with ideas which it presents to its community (or confederacy of communities) and in which the community can evaluate together.

You are going to have to help me out and tell me how anarchists do this at the present moment. I'd also like to know how, without any kind of hierarchy, the "minority political organisation" manages to achieve the "revolutionary discipline, collective responsibility, and theoretical and tactical unity" that TAT argues is so central to it.


I'm not saying you have to agree with this; all I hope is that you just understand in clear terms what all this means.

That much is clear. You support an authoritarian and hierarchical organization that advocates on behalf of the working class by directing and controlling the revolution. We don't support that. But all we're saying is that Bakunin's idea of the anarchistic minority political organization is not the same as an authoritarian Marxist-Leninist vanguard.No, I don't. You are presenting a model of the vanguard that would find acceptance only among Stalinists (who would advocate it) and anarchists (who simplify it in order to oppose it). By definition, the vanguard must be rooted in the class because it represents the advanced detachments of the class - the most class conscious and revolutionary workers. If it is not so rooted then it is not the vanguard, it is something else.

https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#vanguard

[The Feral Underclass]

Good, because this quote of TAT's would have no difficulty in finding agreement among Marxists from Lenin to Tony Cliff.

That is just nonsense. Name me one Marxist party/group in the UK (or anywhere) that advocates for a minority political organisation or any Marxist party/group that does not seek to control or direct working class struggles.

Even if your Marxist conception was the same it is certainly not what is practised.


I'd also like to know how, without any kind of hierarchy, the "minority political organisation" manages to achieve the "revolutionary discipline, collective responsibility, and theoretical and tactical unity"

By not having one...If you have members of your organisation who are not disciplined, responsible or unified, they shouldn't' be in the organisation.

[Future]

So in a situation like the one we find ourselves in, where opinion polls show that a majority of "the people" are in favour of attacking welfare benefits, want to end immigration and are ready to blame existing migrants for the economic problems of the country, in what sense are "the people" the revolutionaries? And in what sense will the anarchists be accountable to that section of "the people" who support pro-capitalist policies? Do you intend to be accountable to the right-wing "the people", who want to maintain the social order, as well as the left-wing "the people", who want to change things? Perhaps you need to have a good think about who you want to include in your utopian community of "the people".

Are you being for real right now? I’m talking about a day when the working class as a whole realizes its plight and is ready to mobilize and take their freedom back. Dude, I’m not talking about the people of the 2014 western capitalist states. When the the working class realizes is potential and realizes the value in our philosophy, “the people” will be very different from the brainwashed masses that exist right now. It's our job to speed things up.

This all demonstrates that you are completely ignorant of our philosophy. That’s not necessarily a bad thing as it’s always good to learn something new and everyone has to start somewhere, but it’s generally not a good idea to criticize things when you’re not informed about what they entail.

We anarchists oppose immoral authority, so anyone who supports capitalism and the state, are in our eyes, the ones we are fighting against – our oppressors, or the supporters of our oppressors. It just so happens that we believe that we can turn the working class to our side one day and we wait until, and work for, a day when that happens.


Good!

I know right. He's pretty smart.


Good, because this quote of TAT's would have no difficulty in finding agreement among Marxists from Lenin to Tony Cliff. It's certainly a few steps closer to describing the Marxist concept of the vanguard than your sorry, cartoon version of it. Certainly, the only reservation would be the final statement which would be seen as contradictory. What would be the point of struggling to win workers to revolutionary ideas and tactics but deny that our intention was to direct the struggle. For Marxists, the working class has to organise itself as a party in order to successfully prosecute the class struggle. It is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary one.

Well, the kind of Marxism I support is the real thing, not your, as you say, “cartoon version”. We orthodox, libertarian Marxists, support decentralized, self-emancipated, non-vanguard, mass direct action. You know, the kind promoted by Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, and the like - the kind that is compatible with the anarchism of Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc. Those who know that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” means the working class itself and not an advocate of it. It comes down to the correct interpretation of these ideas and the incorrect interpretation of these ideas; and you seem to subscribe to the incorrect interpretation. You are what I would consider an unorthodox pseudo-Marxist - at least when it comes to how to carry out the revolution.

Also, this:


That is just nonsense. Name me one Marxist party/group in the UK (or anywhere) that advocates for a minority political organisation or any Marxist party/group that does not seek to control or direct working class struggles.


Even if your Marxist conception was the same it is certainly not what is practiced



You are going to have to help me out and tell me how anarchists do this at the present moment. I'd also like to know how, without any kind of hierarchy, the "minority political organisation" manages to achieve the "revolutionary discipline, collective responsibility, and theoretical and tactical unity" that TAT argues is so central to it.

I’m not talking about the present moment! In case you didn’t know, no successful anarcho-communist revolutions are going on in 2014. I suggest you look at the Spanish Revolution for starters and then study more of anarchist history. Here, read this: h t t p :// anarchism. pagebode. com/ afa/ secA5. h t m l (I don't have 25 posts yet so I can't post links in the traditional manner, just take out the spaces.)

As to your second point, let me try to put it into preschool terms so there is no confusion:

Bob becomes a delegate of a group of other chosen delegates consisting of Tom, John, and Ronald. Bob and Tom come up with an idea about how to increase their chances of carrying out a successful revolution. John and Ronald like their ideas. Bob, Tom, John, and Ronald decide to present their ideas to their community. The community likes this idea. The community puts it into action.

You can have an organization without hierarchy, and you can have an organization that refuses to run the show but still provides structure and order to the revolution.


By not having one...If you have members of your organisation who are not disciplined, responsible or unified, they shouldn't' be in the organisation.

This a million times, this.


No, I don't.
You are presenting a model of the vanguard that would find acceptance only among Stalinists (who would advocate it) and anarchists (who simplify it in order to oppose it). By definition, the vanguard must be rooted in the class because it represents the advanced detachments of the class - the most class conscious and revolutionary workers. If it is not so rooted then it is not the vanguard, it is something else.

Except it’s hierarchical, and thus immoral – and it controls the revolution instead of aiding it – aka, a vanguard.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, the kind of Marxism I support is the real thing, not your, as you say, “cartoon version”. We orthodox, libertarian Marxists, support decentralized, self-emancipated, non-vanguard, mass direct action. You know, the kind promoted by Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, and the like

Just going to comment on this part, as I know HTN is more than capable to respond to the rest, but I felt the need to state that Marxists understand the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy, as a false one and while I'm not sure about Pannekoek, Luxembourg was pro-Bolshevik, so your comments in regards to her, are demonstrably false.

[Future]

Just going to comment on this part, as I know HTN is more than capable to respond to the rest, but I felt the need to state that Marxists understand the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy, as a false one and while I'm not sure about Pannekoek, Luxembourg was pro-Bolshevik, so your comments in regards to her, are demonstrably false.

Taken from Wikipedia. Check the footnotes for the actual sources to the material written here.



From the article: Rosa Luxemburg

Beginning of quotes:

In an article published just before the October Revolution, Luxemburg characterized the Russian February Revolution of 1917 as a "revolution of the proletariat", and said that the "liberal bourgeoisie" were pushed to movement by the display of "proletarian power." The task of the Russian proletariat, she said, was now to end the "imperialist" world war, in addition to struggling against the "imperialist bourgeoisie." The world war made Russia ripe for a socialist revolution. Therefore "the German proletariat are also ...posed a question of honour, and a very fateful question.

In several works, including an essay written from jail and published posthumously by her last companion, Paul Levi (publication of which precipitated his expulsion from the Third International) entitled "The Russian Revolution", Luxemburg sharply criticized some Bolshevik policies, such as their suppression of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, their support for the partition of the old feudal estates to the peasant communes, and their policy of supporting the purported right of all national peoples to "self-determination." According to Luxemburg, the Bolsheviks' strategic mistakes created tremendous dangers for the Revolution, such as its bureaucratisation.

Her sharp criticism of the October Revolution and the Bolsheviks was lessened insofar as she compared the errors of the revolution and of the Bolsheviks with the "complete failure of the international proletariat."

Bolshevik theorists such as Lenin and Trotsky responded to this criticism by arguing that Luxemburg's notions were classical Marxist ones, but did not fit Russia in 1917.


After the October Revolution, it becomes the "historic responsibility" of the German workers to carry out a revolution for themselves, and thereby end the war. When a revolution also broke out in Germany in November 1918, Luxemburg immediately began agitating for a social revolution:

"The abolition of the rule of capital, the realization of a socialist social order – this, and nothing less, is the historical theme of the present revolution. It is a formidable undertaking, and one that will not be accomplished in the blink of an eye just by the issuing of a few decrees from above. Only through the conscious action of the working masses in city and country can it be brought to life, only through the people's highest intellectual maturity and inexhaustible idealism can it be brought safely through all storms and find its way to port."

The social revolution demands that power is in the hands of the masses, in the hands of the workers' and soldiers' councils. This is the program of the revolution. It is, however, a long way from soldier – from the "Guards of the Reaction" (Gendarmen der Reaktion) – to revolutionary proletarian.

From the article: Luxemburgism

The chief tenets of Luxemburgism are a commitment to democracy and the necessity of the revolution taking place as soon as possible. In this regard, it is similar to Council Communism, but differs in that, for example, Luxemburgists do not reject elections by principle. It resembles anarchism in its insistence that only relying on the people themselves as opposed to their leaders can avoid an authoritarian society, but differs in that it sees the importance of a revolutionary party, and mainly the centrality of the working class in the revolutionary struggle. It resembles Trotskyism in its opposition to the totalitarianism of Stalinist government while simultaneously avoiding the reformist politics of Social Democracy, but differs from Trotskyism in arguing that Lenin and Trotsky also made undemocratic errors.

In "The Russian Revolution", written in a German jail during WWI, Luxemburg critiqued Bolsheviks' absolutist political practice and opportunist policies—i.e., their suppression of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, their support for the partition of the old feudal estates to the peasant communes. She derived this critique from Marx's original concept of the "revolution in permanence." Marx outlines this strategy in his March 1850 "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League." As opposed to the Bolsheviks' neo-Blanquist interpretation of permanent revolution, Marx argued that the role of the working class revolutionary party was not to create a one-party state, nor to give away land—even in semi-feudal countries like Germany in 1850, or Russia in 1917, where the working class was in the minority.

Rather, Marx argued that the role of the working class was, within structures of radical democracy, to organize, arm and defend themselves in workers' councils and militias, to campaign for their own socialist political program, to expand workers' rights, and to seize and farm collectively the feudal estates. Because the Bolsheviks failed to fulfil this Marxian program, Luxemburg argued, the Revolution bureaucratized, the cities starved, and the peasant soldiers in the Army were demoralized and deserted in order to get back home for the land grab. Thus the Germans easily invaded and took Ukraine. They justified this, during the Brest-Litovsk treaty negotiations, in the very same terms of "national self-determination" (for the Ukrainian bourgeoisie) that the Bolsheviks had promoted as an aid to socialist revolution, and that Luxemburg critiqued, years earlier, in her "The National Question," and in this document.

Luxemburg criticized Lenin's ideas on how to organize a revolutionary party as likely to lead to a loss of internal democracy and the domination of the party by a few leaders. Ironically, in her most famous attack on Lenin's views, the 1904 Organizational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy, or, Leninism or Marxism?, a response to Lenin's 1903 What Is To Be Done?, Luxemburg was more worried that the authoritarianism she saw in Leninism would lead to sectarianism and irrelevancy than that it would lead to a dictatorship after a successful revolution - although she also warned of the latter danger. Luxemburg died before Stalin's assumption of power, and never had a chance to come up with a complete theory of Stalinism, but her criticisms of the Bolsheviks have been taken up by many writers in their arguments about the origins of Stalinism, including many who are otherwise far from Luxemburgism.

Luxemburg's idea of democracy, which Stanley Aronowitz calls "generalized democracy in an unarticulated form", represents Luxemburgism's greatest break with "mainstream communism", since it effectively diminishes the role of the Communist Party, but is in fact very similar to the views of Karl Marx ("The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves"). According to Aronowitz, the vagueness of Luxembourgian democracy is one reason for its initial difficulty in gaining widespread support. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Luxemburgism has been seen by some socialist thinkers as a way to avoid the totalitarianism of Stalinism. Early on, Luxemburg attacked undemocratic tendencies present in the Russian Revolution.

Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Among them, in reality only a dozen outstanding heads do the leading and an elite of the working class is invited from time to time to meetings where they are to applaud the speeches of the leaders, and to approve proposed resolutions unanimously – at bottom, then, a clique affair – a dictatorship, to be sure, not the dictatorship of the proletariat but only the dictatorship of a handful of politicians, that is a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, in the sense of the rule of the Jacobins (the postponement of the Soviet Congress from three-month periods to six-month periods!) Yes, we can go even further: such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shooting of hostages, etc. (Lenin’s speech on discipline and corruption.)"

The strategic contribution of Luxemburgism is principally based on her insistence on socialist democracy:

Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the members of one party – however numerous they may be – is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of "justice" but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when "freedom" becomes a special privilege.(...)But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism."

End of quotes

So, as you can see, not an Anarchist and sure as hell not a Bolshevik. She was in the middle of this dichotomy leaning toward the Anarchist side. She supported many aspects of anarchist socialism and was highly cirtical of the authoritarianism she saw emerging from (and theoretically inherent to) Marxism-Leninism. She was a truly great Marxist thinker, and while she might have been incorrect in putting her faith into types of authorities that we anarchists reject, she sure as hell was closer to our side of this issue than the Leninists. I respect her for her contribution, and I think she was on the right path. You can't support council communism and anti-statist decentralized socialism and be called a Bolshevik, 9mm.

[The Feral Underclass]

Marxists understand the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy, as a false one

Yes, that's precisely the problem.

[Hit The North]

That is just nonsense. Name me one Marxist party/group in the UK (or anywhere) that advocates for a minority political organisation


Isn't it what Lenin is arguing for in What Is To Be Done? It's the essence of Bolshevism: a tightly organised party of revolutionaries who do not seek to represent the whole class, but its most advanced section. A nice quote from WITB:


Attention must be devoted principally to raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries; it is not at all our task to descend to the level of the “working masses.”


And Tony Cliff was fond of saying, 'This side of the revolution, the revolutionaries are in the minority.'

So, implicit in the ideas of the revolutionary vanguard party is that it occupies a minority political position in the class.

[Hit The North]

Are you being for real right now? I’m talking about a day when the working class as a whole realizes its plight and is ready to mobilize and take their freedom back. Dude, I’m not talking about the people of the 2014 western capitalist states. When the the working class realizes is potential and realizes the value in our philosophy, “the people” will be very different from the brainwashed masses that exist right now. It's our job to speed things up.


Well Bakunin was writing about the role of anarchist organisation in the class struggle and the waging of revolution, not about how the post-revolutionary society would be organised. I didn't know you didn't realise this.

As for your theoretical abduction of Rosa Luxemburg, I suggest you read her post-October work for yourself rather than relying on Wikipedia. Sure she retained differences with Lenin in terms of how she formulated the relationship between party and class but she was always a vanguardist. Because, of course, there are no Marxists who renounce the need for a revolutionary party of dedicated activists based in the working class, the only debate is about how that relationship is mediated and, properly speaking, this will depend on the class struggle at any given time. In other words, Marxists see this relationship dialectically and so can hold attenuating opinions on this issue, rather than Anarchists, who do not think dialectically, and so are forced to think in terms of absolutes and therefore capable of only issuing unchanging rules of principle.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Annoyingly large and unnecessary text block from *laugh* Wikipedia


In this situation, the Bolshevik tendency performs the historic service of having proclaimed from the very beginning, and having followed with iron consistency, those tactics which alone could save democracy and drive the revolution ahead. All power exclusively in the hands of the worker and peasant masses, in the hands of the soviets – this was indeed the only way out of the difficulty into which the revolution had gotten; this was the sword stroke with which they cut the Gordian knot, freed the revolution from a narrow blind-alley and opened up for it an untrammeled path into the free and open fields.

The party of Lenin was thus the only one in Russia which grasped the true interest of the revolution in that first period. It was the element that drove the revolution forward, and, thus it was the only party which really carried on a socialist policy.

It is this which makes clear, too, why it was that the Bolsheviks, though they were at the beginning of the revolution a persecuted, slandered and hunted minority attacked on all sides, arrived within the shortest time to the head of the revolution and were able to bring under their banner all the genuine masses of the people: the urban proletariat, the army, the peasants, as well as the revolutionary elements of democracy, the left wing of the Socialist-Revolutionaries.


Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle. All of us are subject to the laws of history, and it is only internationally that the socialist order of society can be realized. The Bolsheviks have shown that they are capable of everything that a genuine revolutionary party can contribute within the limits of historical possibilities. They are not supposed to perform miracles. For a model and faultless proletarian revolution in an isolated land, exhausted by world war, strangled by imperialism, betrayed by the international proletariat, would be a miracle.

What is in order is to distinguish the essential from the non-essential, the kernel from the accidental excrescencies in the politics of the Bolsheviks. In the present period, when we face decisive final struggles in all the world, the most important problem of socialism was and is the burning question of our time. It is not a matter of this or that secondary question of tactics, but of the capacity for action of the proletariat, the strength to act, the will to power of socialism as such. In this, Lenin and Trotsky and their friends were the first, those who went ahead as an example to the proletariat of the world; they are still the only ones up to now who can cry with Hutten: “I have dared!”

This is the essential and enduring in Bolshevik policy. In this sense theirs is the immortal historical service of having marched at the head of the international proletariat with the conquest of political power and the practical placing of the problem of the realization of socialism, and of having advanced mightily the settlement of the score between capital and labor in the entire world. In Russia, the problem could only be posed. It could not be solved in Russia. And in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to “Bolshevism.”

She was essentially a German Bolshevik, not a council communist nor an anarchist/anti-statist. She clearly supported the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat (a state, so she's not anti-statist), and she believed the Bolsheviks were of historic service to the international proletarian movement for their role in Russia (hardly an anti-Bolshevik position). As someone said, her post-October works are worth reading, and they are fiercely pro-Bolshevik and pro-Lenin.

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, that's precisely the problem.

I sincerely fail to see how that is the case and am somewhat surprised to hear you say that, since I've generally found that some of the better anarchists/anti-statist communists, on the site are in total agreement with the sentiment. A revolution is the most authoritarian act I can think of, whereby one socio-economic class in society imposes its will upon all others, leading them by the nose to their own destruction. Whether the class constitutes itself into political organizations which are of a federated/decentralized basis, or into a centralized and tightly knit vanguard, the act of revolution is an authoritarian one. A 'libertarian revolution' is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, etc..and regardless when it comes to the tactics of centralization vs decentralization, they need to be understood as just that, tactics; elevating one or the other to the status of political principles is foolish and divorces them from the context or material conditions which always need to be taken into account.

[Thirsty Crow]

...there are no Marxists who renounce the need for a revolutionary party of dedicated activists based in the working class, the only debate is about how that relationship is mediated and, properly speaking, this will depend on the class struggle at any given time. In other words, Marxists see this relationship dialectically and so can hold attenuating opinions on this issue, rather than Anarchists, who do not think dialectically, and so are forced to think in terms of absolutes and therefore capable of only issuing unchanging rules of principle.
First you'd need to show just how are the councilist currents, stable in their self-conceptulization as Marxist currents, not really Marxist. That's the problem with the sweeping statement about the advocacy of the revolutionary party.

Secondly, the statement about how Marxists think about the relationship between class and party, and consequently how the political organization conducts engages in its political practice, being dependent on class struggle at any given time doesn't say much about anything. Of course that existing class struggle is the ultimate horizon for an organization's practice, but then you indeed cop-out by that hollow, empty rhetoric of "dialectical" thought.

It is far from clear just what does that imply concretely in this case. I'd imagine that this should not only serve to defend all sorts of zig zags in tactics, but also in core orientation and strategy. After all, it would be undialectical to state an unchanging principle that is class struggle as it actually unfolds (I wonder do you see just how you shoot yourself in the foot at the same time when you babble about dialectical thought and iron absolutes).

Just how attenuated does the basic postulate that the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself get to be? How would you draw the line in the sand?


That is just nonsense. Name me one Marxist party/group in the UK (or anywhere) that advocates for a minority political organisation I believe that the UK branch of the ICT (CWO) can be said to fall under that category. Indeed I think that the whole of the contemporary communist left argues for what you call minority political organizations.

[The Feral Underclass]

Isn't it what Lenin is arguing for in What Is To Be Done? It's the essence of Bolshevism: a tightly organised party of revolutionaries who do not seek to represent the whole class, but its most advanced section. A nice quote from WITB:



And Tony Cliff was fond of saying, 'This side of the revolution, the revolutionaries are in the minority.'

So, implicit in the ideas of the revolutionary vanguard party is that it occupies a minority political position in the class.

You answered neither of my questions.

[The Feral Underclass]

I sincerely fail to see how that is the case and am somewhat surprised to hear you say that, since I've generally found that some of the better anarchists/anti-statist communists, on the site are in total agreement with the sentiment. A revolution is the most authoritarian act I can think of, whereby one socio-economic class in society imposes its will upon all others, leading them by the nose to their own destruction. Whether the class constitutes itself into political organizations which are of a federated/decentralized basis, or into a centralized and tightly knit vanguard, the act of revolution is an authoritarian one. A 'libertarian revolution' is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, etc..and regardless when it comes to the tactics of centralization vs decentralization, they need to be understood as just that, tactics; elevating one or the other to the status of political principles is foolish and divorces them from the context or material conditions which always need to be taken into account.

And as I have said to you on numerous occasions, your conception of anarchists' anti-authoritarianism is fundamentally flawed. This argument of yours is a completely nonsense critique of some made up anarchist position based on an ill-informed, reductive understanding. It is the kind of criticism (and I use the term loosely) one would expect from someone who has never read a classical anarchist text in their entire life.

[The Feral Underclass]

I believe that the UK branch of the ICT (CWO) can be said to fall under that category.

I don't know a great deal about the CWO (though I know some of their members), so I will have to take your word for it.


Indeed I think that the whole of the contemporary communist left argues for what you call minority political organizations.

Sometimes it begs belief what kind of fantasy world some people reside in. Even if this so-called left "argued" for the Bakuninist conception of minority political organisation, it certainly doesn't practice it.

[Thirsty Crow]

Sometimes it begs belief what kind of fantasy world some people reside in. Even if this so-called left "argued" for the Bakuninist conception of minority political organisation, it certainly doesn't practice it.Obviously, I didn't state that the communist left advocates any "Bakuninist" conception, only that if one operates with the distinction between minority political organization and mass parties, it is the former that is the advocated, opposed to some workers' party models which favor recruitment drives resulting in a visible and functional separation between the base and the center.

[Future]

Well Bakunin was writing about the role of anarchist organisation in the class struggle and the waging of revolution, not about how the post-revolutionary society would be organised. I didn't know you didn't realise this.


Of course I realize this and it's what I'm talking about. I was never talking about the role of an anarchist society post-revolution. I'm talking about during a revolution (and keep in mind that the revolution never truly ends). It's just too bad that no successful, mobilizing, anarchist revolution is currently going on. A bunch of anarchist theorists sitting around in the corporate world thinking of ways to get people involved and taking minor actions to try to humanize capitalism is not what Bakunin and I mean when we refer to a minority political organization that is active in an ongoing mass revolutionary event.



She was essentially a German Bolshevik, not a council communist nor an anarchist/anti-statist. She clearly supported the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat (a state, so she's not anti-statist), and she believed the Bolsheviks were of historic service to the international proletarian movement for their role in Russia (hardly an anti-Bolshevik position). As someone said, her post-October works are worth reading, and they are fiercely pro-Bolshevik and pro-Lenin.


Your last sentence is just not true. I have read most of her work on Marxists.org and what you've said does not hold up to what she wrote. Also, as I said:



So, as you can see, not an Anarchist and sure as hell not a Bolshevik. She was in the middle of this dichotomy leaning toward the Anarchist side. She supported many aspects of anarchist socialism and was highly cirtical of the authoritarianism she saw emerging from (and theoretically inherent to) Marxism-Leninism. She was a truly great Marxist thinker, and while she might have been incorrect in putting her faith into types of authorities that we anarchists reject, she sure as hell was closer to our side of this issue than the Leninists. I respect her for her contribution, and I think she was on the right path. You can't support council communism and anti-statist decentralized socialism and be called a Bolshevik.


Let me expand on this. As a libertarian Marxist, she always saw the value in council communism and generally decentralized socialism, even though she was mistaken in her support of some degree of party-led revolutions in situations like Russia. She mistakenly thought that a centralized party of some kind was probably necessary to lead a revolution in places like Russia, and she put far too much faith in that unwanted (but what she thought might be necessary) kind of socialism - but her theoretical base was always strongly against Bolshevik practices and saw Lenin's failure to create the conditions for decentralized soviets as an inherent problem with party-led revolutions. Post-October, she was scathing of Bolshevism and commented that what she had put her faith in would almost certaintly turn into what would later be associated with Stalinism. She was a council communist who left her theory aside for a bit to support what she thought could be a successful socialist revolution - but before October and after October, she was anything but pro-Bolshevik. Just pro-socialist revolution.


All that said, her theoretical contributions to Marxism are extremely libertarian and surprisingly close to anarcho-communist theory. Just look it up, don't take my word for it.

[The Feral Underclass]

if one operates with the distinction between minority political organization and mass parties, it is the former that is the advocated, opposed to some workers' party models which favor recruitment drives resulting in a visible and functional separation between the base and the center.

I just don't accept that analysis. In all my years I have never encountered a mainstream Marxist organisation, and they are numerous, that advocates for a minority political organisation. They all advocate for mass party, substitionist models.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Your last sentence is just not true. I have read most of her work on Marxists.org and what you've said does not hold up to what she wrote.

Well, I just showed you some examples of her pro-Bolshevik writing. I'll take her own words on her own views of the Bolsheviks, rather than yours, thank you very much.


As a libertarian Marxist, she always saw the value in council communism and generally decentralized socialism,


She was a council communist who left her theory aside for a bit to support what she thought could be a successful socialist revolution - but before October and after October, she was anything but pro-Bolshevik. Just pro-socialist revolution.

She never knew what council communism was because it didn't exist when she was around. Councilists argue that the Bolshevik revolution was a bourgeois revolution, not a proletarian revolution which is what Rosa believed. Councilists also oppose parliamentarism, while she didn't.


but her theoretical base was always strongly against Bolshevik practices and saw Lenin's failure to create the conditions for decentralized soviets as an inherent problem with party-led revolutions.

You keep making these claims yet fail to provide any evidence other than "I've read her works! I know what she believed in!" Unlike you, I provided some quotes that are explicitly pro-Bolshevik when I argued she was pro-Bolshevik. It would be kind if you could take a short passage from her works and explain where she argued that the Bolshevik revolution was a bourgeois revolution, not a proletarian revolution (which is the council communist position).


Post-October, she was scathing of Bolshevism and commented that what she had put her faith in would almost certaintly turn into what would later be associated with Stalinism.

Then clearly she wrote down the opposite of what she believed. Were those passages I posted here written in celebration of Opposite Day 1918?


All that said, her theoretical contributions to Marxism are extremely libertarian and surprisingly close to anarcho-communist theory. Just look it up, don't take my word for it.

I did look it up and do you know what I found? I posted two small passages from her post-October work "The Russian Revolution" which were fiercely pro-Bolshevik. Now, do your part in this discussion by providing evidence rather than just telling me to "look it up."

[The Feral Underclass]

^Why are you so against the idea that she had libertarian tendencies? It's like you're personally affronted by the suggestion.

[Fourth Internationalist]

^Why are you so against the idea that she had libertarian tendencies? It's like you're personally affronted by the suggestion.

Because she wasn't a councilist/anarchist/anti-Bolshevik/anti-statist as this person claims. I don't disagree that her beliefs (like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky's ideas aka Marxism) were liberating in nature.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because she wasn't a councilist/anarchist/anti-Bolshevik/anti-statist as this person claims.

Is that his claim though? As far as I can tell his claim is that she had libertarian tendencies and was critical of the Bolshevik leadership. Claims which are both true.

[L.A.P.]

And as I have said to you on numerous occasions, your conception of anarchists' anti-authoritarianism is fundamentally flawed. This argument of yours is a completely nonsense critique of some made up anarchist position based on an ill-informed, reductive understanding. It is the kind of criticism (and I use the term loosely) one would expect from someone who has never read a classical anarchist text in their entire life.

then what is the anarchist conception of the authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Is that his claim though? As far as I can tell his claim is that she had libertarian tendencies and was critical of the Bolshevik leadership. Claims which are both true.

He called her a council communist, anti-statist, etc. which is what I am disagreeing with.

Of course she was critical of many of the Bolsheviks and what they did. So were many of the Bolsheviks themselves critical of what was going on with others in the party. Does that make her an anti-Bolshevik, especially taking into account some of her writings about them? Not really. So often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists.

[The Feral Underclass]

then what is the anarchist conception of the authoritarian-libertarian dichotomy?

No dichotomy exists. It is an absurd invention of Marxists. Yes, revolutions are authoritarian, and rightly so. What's your point?

[The Feral Underclass]

He called her a council communist, anti-statist, etc. which is what I am disagreeing with.

Rosa Luxemburg's ideas have influenced council communism so there is a link there. I did a quick scan through Future's posts and I don't see where he says she was anti-state...


Of course she was critical of many of the Bolsheviks and what they did. So were many of the Bolsheviks themselves critical of what was going on with others in the party. Does that make her an anti-Bolshevik, especially taking into account some of her writings about them? Not really.

I don't see where he says she was specifically anti-Bolshevik either.


So often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists.

You have not read her critiques of the Russian Revolution, clearly.

The Russian Revolultion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm)

[Fourth Internationalist]

Rosa Luxemburg's ideas have influenced council communism so there is a link there. I did a quick scan through Future's posts and I don't see where he says she was anti-state...

I don't see where he says she was specifically anti-Bolshevik either.


So, as you can see, not an Anarchist and sure as hell not a Bolshevik. She was in the middle of this dichotomy leaning toward the Anarchist side. She supported many aspects of anarchist socialism and was highly cirtical of the authoritarianism she saw emerging from (and theoretically inherent to) Marxism-Leninism. She was a truly great Marxist thinker, and while she might have been incorrect in putting her faith into types of authorities that we anarchists reject, she sure as hell was closer to our side of this issue than the Leninists. I respect her for her contribution, and I think she was on the right path. You can't support council communism and anti-statist decentralized socialism and be called a Bolshevik, 9mm.


You have not read her critiques of the Russian Revolution, clearly.

The Russian Revolultion (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm)Take a guess of which work those passages I quoted earlier in the thread were from.

[L.A.P.]

Marxists understand the libertarian-authoritarian dichotomy, as a false one


Yes, that's precisely the problem.


No dichotomy exists. It is an absurd invention of Marxists. Yes, revolutions are authoritarian, and rightly so. What's your point?

please clarify my confusion with these series of posts

[The Feral Underclass]

Take a guess of which work those passages I quoted earlier in the thread were from.

Yes, I noticed. Your copy and paste skills are impeccable.

[The Feral Underclass]

please clarify my confusion with these series of posts

I would first have to understand what you are confused about.

[The Feral Underclass]

please clarify my confusion with these series of posts

The premise of my initial comment implied the existence of a dichotomy? I badly worded my criticism. My response to you is the position I am taking. Is that clearer?

[L.A.P.]

I guess, but then what is the problem with the way Marxists understand the dichotomy's non-existence in materiality?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, I noticed. Your copy and paste skills are impeccable.

Well, in response to my post,


So often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists.

you wrote,


You have not read her critiques of the Russian Revolution, clearly.

and then provided a link to her work "The Russian Revolution" even though in that work she says exactly that here in that exact work.


Let the German Government Socialists cry that the rule of the Bolsheviks in Russia is a distorted expression of the dictatorship of the proletariat. If it was or is such, that is only because it is a product of the behavior of the German proletariat, in itself a distorted expression of the socialist class struggle.

This same quote can be found in my post here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2709518&postcount=28).

Now, how exactly was my post which stated "So often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists," not true, especially in regards to this specific work of hers?

[The Feral Underclass]

The statement "often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists" is not a fair assessment of that entire document and had you read it you would understand that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The statement "often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists" is not a fair assessment of that entire document and had you read it you would understand that.

Good thing it wasn't my goal with my post to make an assessment of the entire document here. Either way, that statement wasn't false, so I don't see what your problem is with it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Good thing it wasn't my goal with my post to make an assessment of the entire document here.

If you are comfortable with cherry-picking quotes to make an argument that's up to you.


Either way, that statement wasn't false, so I don't see what your problem is with it.

Suit yourself.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If you are comfortable with cherry-picking quotes to make an argument that's up to you.

If you can prove she didn't mean what she said there, by all means do so. But you haven't been doing so at all yet.

[The Feral Underclass]

I guess, but then what is the problem with the way Marxists understand the dichotomy's non-existence in materiality?

My understanding of 9mm's criticism is that anarchism maintains a false dilemma by presenting a choice between being libertarian and being authoritarian and then using the fact a revolution is authoritarian by default to attack the position of anti-authoritarianism.

[L.A.P.]

I see. Then the way you quoted it was confusing

[The Feral Underclass]

If you can prove she didn't mean what she said there, by all means do so. But you haven't been doing so at all yet.

I'm well aware of what I have and have not been doing. And I don't need to disprove she didn't mean what she said, since my argument is not that she didn't mean what she said...

You said "often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists" and that is simply not the case. People can read the document for themselves and count the times she does so. I can assure you it is not "often."

[The Feral Underclass]

I see. Then the way you quoted it was confusing

Yes.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You said "often she blamed the mistakes or short comings in Russia not on the Bolsheviks or Lenin but on the failure of the German socialists" and that is simply not the case. People can read the document for themselves and count the times she does so. I can assure you it is not "often."

"Often" was not describing how much she did it in that document. I think she did it at most a few times in the piece specifically. I am talking about in general with her other works in which in many of them she does say very similar words.

[The Feral Underclass]

"Often" was not describing how much she did it in that document. I think she did it at most a few times in the piece specifically. I am talking about in general with her other works in which in many of them she does say very similar words.

Be that as it may, The Russian Revolution contains substantial criticisms of the Bolsheviks and of Lenin, the short comings of the German socialists notwithstanding, which after all was my entire point.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Be that as it may, The Russian Revolution contains substantial criticisms of the Bolsheviks and of Lenin, the short comings of the German socialists notwithstanding, which after all was my entire point.

OK. And those criticisms of the Bolsheviks and of Lenin must also be understood in context, because they weren't enough to bring her to anti-Bolshevism (as often claimed) nor were they enough for her to end her praise and support of the Bolsheviks (which are found in the same work, especially the first chapter).

[The Feral Underclass]

OK. And those criticisms of the Bolsheviks and of Lenin must also be understood in context, because they weren't enough to bring her to anti-Bolshevism (as often claimed) nor were they enough for her to end her praise and support of the Bolsheviks (which are found in the same work, especially the first chapter).

No one in this thread has claimed that she was anti-Bolshevik, so whom exactly are you trying to convince? It is a pity that the scope of your intervention in this thread has been to reduce this entire argument down to whether Rosa Luxemburg was anti-Bolshevik or not. Aside from it never being a point in contention, it is a sad indictment of the puerile way people engage with revolutionary politics.

[Fourth Internationalist]

No one in this thread has claimed that she was anti-Bolshevik, so whom exactly are you trying to convince? It is a pity that the scope of your intervention in this thread has been to reduce this entire argument down to whether Rosa Luxemburg was anti-Bolshevik or not. Aside from it never being a point in contention, it is a sad indictment of the puerile way people engage with revolutionary politics.


So, as you can see, not an Anarchist and sure as hell not a Bolshevik. She was in the middle of this dichotomy leaning toward the Anarchist side. She supported many aspects of anarchist socialism and was highly cirtical of the authoritarianism she saw emerging from (and theoretically inherent to) Marxism-Leninism. She was a truly great Marxist thinker, and while she might have been incorrect in putting her faith into types of authorities that we anarchists reject, she sure as hell was closer to our side of this issue than the Leninists. I respect her for her contribution, and I think she was on the right path. You can't support council communism and anti-statist decentralized socialism and be called a Bolshevik, 9mm.

This is what I replied to originally, which pretty much implies her being anti-Bolshevik by calling her anarchist leaning, a council communist, anti-statist, etc. So yes, someone has claimed that. He did. I responded to it. That's the attitude I am arguing against when I continue to emphasize how pro-Bolshevik or non-anarchistic Luxemburg was. And then you got involved for no apparent reason.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is what I replied to originally, which pretty much implies her being anti-Bolshevik by calling her anarchist leaning, a council communist, anti-statist, etc. So yes, someone has claimed that. He did. I responded to it.

I am well aware of what you think is being implied, and as I have said, that is because your understanding of what Future, and indeed Luxemburg have written, is based on a puerile and reductive reading.

Clearly the idea that Rosa Luxemburg's views were multifaceted and complex, and that she presented critiques and ideas that crossed the divides is totally lost on you -- in fact you seem utterly affronted by the notion. What is important for you is that no one calls her an anti-Bolshevik! That is clearly the most significant aspect of any debate :rolleyes:


That's the attitude I am arguing against when I continue to emphasize how pro-Bolshevik or non-anarchistic Luxemburg was.

What a complete waste of your time.


And then you got involved for no apparent reason.

I don't need to provide you with a justification on why I would interact with content you post on this message board in a thread I started. Your sense of entitlement is disgusting.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I am well aware of what you think is being implied, and as I have said, that is because your understanding of what Future, and indeed Luxemburg have written, is based on a puerile and reductive reading.

He states it here too:


She was a council communist who left her theory aside for a bit to support what she thought could be a successful socialist revolution - but before October and after October, she was anything but pro-Bolshevik. Just pro-socialist revolution.

Anything but pro-Bolshevik certainly implies anti-Bolshevik. But if you disagree with my interpretation of this post, please feel free to argue what you believe it meant.


Clearly the idea that Rosa Luxemburg's views were multifaceted and complex, and that she presented critiques and ideas that crossed the divides is totally lost on you -- in fact you seem utterly affronted by the notion. What is important for you is that no one calls her an anti-Bolshevik! That is clearly the most significant aspect of any debate :rolleyes:

Except for the poster I originally replied to who said she was "anything but pro-Bolshevik."


I don't need to provide you with a justification on why I would interact with content you post on this message board in a thread I started. Your sense of entitlement is disgusting.
Yes, this all clearly has to do with my sense of entitlement. Poor you having to face my entitled attitude! Do you have anything else to add regarding what you think you know about my personality and attitude?

[The Feral Underclass]

Anything but pro-Bolshevik certainly implies anti-Bolshevik.

:rolleyes:

[ArisVelouxiotis]

Anything but pro-Bolshevik certainly implies anti-Bolshevik. But if you disagree with my interpretation of this post, please feel free to argue what you believe it meant.?

I agree with what you are saying but I dont think that makes sense.I am anything but pro-Manchester United fan.Does that make me Anti-Manchester United?

[Fourth Internationalist]

:rolleyes:

Well, you don't really seem in the mood to actually propose an alternative explanation to that seemingly simple interpretation of the phrase "anything but pro-Bolshevik," which means discussion cannot really continue. Good bye.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I agree with what you are saying but I dont think that makes sense.I am anything but pro-Manchester United fan.Does that make me Anti-Manchester United?

That combining with the anti-statism, anarchist leanings, and council communism, easily yes.

[Five Year Plan]

It's funny how Future's intention is being debated and interpreted as though he were dead. Why doesn't everybody here just ask him what his specific point was? If it was just to make the point that Luxemburg shared some criticisms of the Bolsheviks that left communists would later make, Future was clearly right. But as Link pointed out, some Bolsheviks at the time and subsequently also made these criticisms. They aren't criticisms specific to left communism. If Future's point was that Luxemburg was a forerunner of left-communism because she opposed Bolshevism as a form of organizational practice, or claimed that the state that they established was "capitalist" or "bourgeois," clearly Future was wrong. Link has shown where any attempt to appropriate her into that camp, by suggesting a few shared criticisms of the Bolsheviks amounts to a wholesale rejection of Bolshevism and the October Revolution, is wrong and does violence to what might be termed the "multi-faceted" nature of her views.

[The Feral Underclass]

I would really appreciate it if we could move away from this pathetic tendency tug of war over Luxemburg (which serves no purpose) and get back to discussing the topic at hand. This tangential nonsense is beneath all of us, especially you aufheben.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Five Year Plan]

I would really appreciate it if we could move away from this pathetic tendency tug of war over Luxemburg (which serves no purpose) and get back to discussing the topic at hand. This tangential nonsense is beneath all of us, especially you aufheben.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If my single post that tangentially touched on Luxemburg's positions in an attempt to clarify the preceding three pages of discussion amounts to a "tug of war," how would you characterize your two pages of posts, many of them one liners, about Luxemburg's relationship to the Bolsheviks? Leading by example?

[The Feral Underclass]

If my single post that tangentially touched on Luxemburg's positions in an attempt to clarify the preceding three pages of discussion amounts to a "tug of war," how would you characterize your two pages of posts, many of them one liners, about Luxemburg's relationship to the Bolsheviks? Leading by example?

I would characterise them as a waste of time. Now, if you've finished with this nonsense, do you think we could get back to actually discussing some politics?

[Future]

Wow, I had no idea that I'd start so much controversy, lol. I'm sorry TAT for starting the avalanche that got this thread off topic. Anyway guys, I think that TAT has cogently defended what I was saying about Luxemburg. His posts describe exactly what I meant to say.

It seems that a few of you see a problem with having respect for people that don't/didn't advocate exactly what your tendencies promote. That kind of dogmatism really turns my stomach. I can respect Rosa Luxemburg even if I don't agree with her 100%. I said over and over that she was often mistaken for putting her faith in things I find irrational, but it is absolutely undeniable that she had many admirable libertarian tendencies and that she criticized the Bolsheviks because what she saw coming out of Russia went completely against her support of decentralized socialism - I respect her kind of Marxism and I think she helped to lay the way for truely libertarian marxists-anarchists...that's all I meant. As a Marxist in the middle of this anarchist-statist dichotomy, she had many really good ideas that were in advocation of libertarian-like socialism. She had a bunch of mistaken, bad, ideas too. But if we on this forum are going to call ourselves freethinkers, we can't be so closed minded that we feel we're betraying our tendency just because we study the works of those who had different ideas - and as is the case here - if we come to respect some of those ideas. I advise everyone here to seriously study Luxemburg. She was a very interesting thinker who will satsify socialists of many stripes with her words.

Anyway, as this all started with me, let me try to end this now. If you disagree with anything I've said here, please VM/PM me about it. Please everyone get back on topic and discuss Bakunin's minority political organization and whether or not it has merit.

[Five Year Plan]

Wow, I had no idea that I'd start so much controversy, lol. I'm sorry TAT for starting the avalanche that got this thread off topic. Anyway guys, I think that TAT has cogently defended what I was saying about Luxemburg. His posts describe exactly what I meant to say.

It seems that a few of you see a problem with having respect for people that don't/didn't advocate exactly what your tendencies promote. That kind of dogmatism really turns my stomach. I can respect Rosa Luxemburg even if I don't agree with her 100%. I said over and over that she was often mistaken for putting her faith in things I find irrational, but it is absolutely undeniable that she had many admirable libertarian tendencies and that she criticized the Bolsheviks because what she saw coming out of Russia went completely against her support of decentralized socialism - I respect her kind of Marxism and I think she helped to lay the way for truely libertarian marxists-anarchists...that's all I meant. As a Marxist in the middle of this anarchist-statist dichotomy, she had many really good ideas that were in advocation of libertarian-like socialism. She had a bunch of mistaken, bad, ideas too. But if we on this forum are going to call ourselves freethinkers, we can't be so closed minded that we feel we're betraying our tendency just because we study the works of those who had different ideas - and as is the case here - if we come to respect some of those ideas. I advise everyone here to seriously study Luxemburg. She was a very interesting thinker who will satsify socialists of many stripes with her words.

Anyway, as this all started with me, let me try to end this now. If you disagree with anything I've said here, please VM/PM me about it. Please everyone get back on topic and discuss Bakunin's minority political organization and whether or not it has merit.

Interesting. The Anarchist Tension thanks the above post, despite the fact that it continues a discussion that, in his own previous post, he deemed a "waste of time" and requested to stop. Out of respect for The Anarchist Tension, I was prepared to stop posting in this thread, on this topic. Now, in light of his expressed gratitude for the discussion's continuation, it just seems that his request was made in bad faith, so I will continue the discussion.

Future's response is to a number of posts early in this thread that contend Luxemburg supported the October Revolution while issuing criticisms that, rather than representing a political perspective analogous to those that might represent a left/libertarian communist break from Bolshevism, were actually being voiced by segments of Bolshevik party. Rather than challenging these claims with counter-evidence about Luxemburg's political views, Future represents them as "dogmatism" and an unwillingness to "have respect for people that don't/didn't advocate exactly what your tendencies promote."

It seems that Future is unable to distinguish a factual observation about Rosa Luxemburg's politics with a subjective evaluation of the quality of her politics, or even some aspects of her politics. I, for example, reject some of Luxemburg's criticisms of the Bolsheviks as well as her ideas on imperialism. But that does not mean that I no longer have respect for Luxemburg as a political thinker, anymore than Marx's antiquated ideas on homosexuality preclude me from respecting his impressive body of intellectual contributions.

Future claims that Rosa Luxemburg "had many admirable libertarian tendencies." Of course she did. So did Lenin and Trotsky. Future also points out that "what she saw coming out of Russia went completely against her support of decentralized socialism." I would hope so, since no Bolshevik ever claimed that they had established socialism in Russia, at least not until after the revolution had thoroughly decayed throughout the course of over a decade. What was happening in the early years of that degeneration also went completely against Trotsky's and Lenin's understanding of decentralized socialism ("centralized socialism" is an oxymoron). Many of the Bolshevik policies that Luxemburg criticized were not advocated by Lenin and Trotsky as desirable advances in the transition to socialism. Instead, those policies were advocated as what they perceived to be the least-worst of the set of possible alternatives open to a revolutionary leadership presiding over a decimated and overwhelmingly agrarian society under imperialist threat. Or did you think that Lenin and Trotsky secretly wanted to be the new Tsars, all while cloaking themselves in revolutionary rhetoric?

I agree that it is important to read and carefully study the works of people with whom we have disagreements. That begins by being clear with basic points of fact about what Rosa Luxemburg actually wrote, rather than the image of her that has been constructed by the legions of present-day leftists attempting to appropriate her name. Her opinions on the October Revolution, and her criticisms of its degeneration, are a matter of record. I don't agree with all of them. In fact, I have enough disagreements with her that I don't hold her in high enough esteem to want to treat her name as some kind of trademark to battle over.

But if you're going to join that battle, you had better have your ducks in row, because people like Link (and other posters on this forum) will call you out on whatever mistakes or over-reaching suggestions you make. As they should, since doing so is not a matter of "dogmatism" as much as it is a matter of respecting Luxemburg's positions enough to ensure that they are not crammed neatly into some modern-day ideological label.

[Future]

Well, aufheben, I'm certainly no mind reader but I think TAT thanked my post because:


Anyway, as this all started with me, let me try to end this now. If you disagree with anything I've said here, please VM/PM me about it. Please everyone get back on topic and discuss Bakunin's minority political organization and whether or not it has merit.

Your assumption that TAT thanked my post "in light of his expressed gratitude for the discussion's continuation" seems a bit bizzare and almost like an attempt to get in the last word.

What you've written is interesting and I'd like to discuss it, but let's please take it outside this thread. VM or PM seems like a reasonable place to have this conversation if you would like to continue it.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Personally, I think this could be the subject of a new thread or that a mod could make these posts into a new thread.

[Five Year Plan]

Well, aufheben, I'm certainly no mind reader but I think TAT thanked my post because:



Your assumption that TAT thanked my post "in light of his expressed gratitude for the discussion's continuation" seems a bit bizzare and almost like an attempt to get in the last word.

What you've written is interesting and I'd like to discuss it, but let's please take it outside this thread. VM or PM seems like a reasonable place to have this conversation if you would like to continue it.

You wrote multiple paragraphs continuing a discussion that TAT wanted to discontinue. This isn't altered in the least by the fact that you ended your post with a one-line statement agreeing with TAT that the discussion should end ... once you had the opportunity to get your own last word in. So, no, I don't see how TAT would be inclined to thank your post unless he imperiously intended his request to apply only to people who disagreed with him.

I agree that if this topic seems to be derailing the thread, we should request that a mod not just fork it, but to relocate all the previous posts in this thread that are even slightly off-topic, including mine, yours, Link's, and The Anarchist Tension's.

[Future]

It's funny how Future's intention is being debated and interpreted as though he were dead. Why doesn't everybody here just ask him what his specific point was?

^ That paragraph of mine was written in response to your own suggestion.

But again, my intention was clearly to end the discussion here. I haven't been on in a day or two, so I wanted to say what I meant and then follow TAT's advice to end the conversation. I really think you're overthinking this.

[The Feral Underclass]

I am not going to demean myself by providing justifications for why I thanked a post. If you guys want to continue arguing over Rosa Luxemburg's corpse, then knock yourselves out. Who am I to get in the way of this incredibly important discussion?


So, no, I don't see how TAT would be inclined to thank your post unless he imperiously intended his request to apply only to people who disagreed with him.

I've not presented a position that required agreement or disagreement except that a) Link's reading of The Russian Revolution was inaccurate and b) this discussion over the legacy of Luxemburg is puerile and reductive. Two opinions that Future hasn't addressed in his post. So, what are you actually talking about?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Who am I to get in the way of this incredibly important discussion?

I, too, have been wondering this since the second page where you first intervened, making the discussion into what it is now.

[The Feral Underclass]

I, too, have been wondering this since the second page where you first intervened, making the discussion into what it is now.

Yes, you're quite right, I should have known better than to engage you in a conversation. I made the terrible mistake of thinking it would be interesting and informative. As it turns out, talking to you is about as interesting and informative as conversing with dry-rot. Clearly I gave you too much credit.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes, you're quite right, I should have known better than to engage you in a conversation. I made the terrible mistake of thinking it would be interesting and informative. As it turns out, talking to you is about as interesting and informative as conversing with dry-rot. Clearly I gave you too much credit.

It's OK man. We all make mistakes sometimes.

[The Feral Underclass]

it's ok man. We all make mistakes sometimes.

last word!

[Geiseric]

Luxembourg was as active in polish social democracy as dzherzinsky, so she was not in any way "council communist" nor "anarchist" seeing as these tendencies don't currently and never have been active in any social democratic or communist mass movements.

[The Feral Underclass]

Luxembourg was as active in polish social democracy as dzherzinsky, so she was not in any way "council communist" nor "anarchist" seeing as these tendencies don't currently and never have been active in any social democratic or communist mass movements.

Oh thank god you're here and you read the thread.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

So what about Bakunin's concept of 'invisible dictatorship'?


Bakunin’s well-known predilection for the establishment of tightly organized secret hierarchical organizations, for which he worked out elaborate statutes in the style of the Freemasons and the Carbonari, can be attributed partly to his romantic temperament and partly to the fact that all revolutionary and progressive groups were forced to operate secretly. Bakunin’s secret organizations were actually quite informal fraternities of loosely organized individuals and groups connected by personal contact and correspondence, as preferred by his closest associates who considered his schemes for elaborate, centralized secret societies incompatible with libertarian principles.


https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1870/albert-richard.htm

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Honestly I don't think this debate is fruitful since contemporary anarchism has little to do with Balkuin except when they acknowledge him as a theoretical forerunner as opposed to Proudhon (which in of itself is somewhat valuable since proudhonism is nothing but useless dribble with the word "anarchism" stamped on it, even anarcho-capitalism appears as a more practical and coherent doctrine). At least the debates over the meaning of various lenin minutea is relevant from a historical perspective considering that Leninism exists today as a current within the Communist movement with real historical praxis but there's really been no relevant strain of "balkuinist" anarchism as opposed to the much more relevant anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism and now the various communization schools of thought

[reb]

Honestly I don't think this debate is fruitful since contemporary anarchism has little to do with Balkuin except when they acknowledge him as a theoretical forerunner as opposed to Proudhon (which in of itself is somewhat valuable since proudhonism is nothing but useless dribble with the word "anarchism" stamped on it, even anarcho-capitalism appears as a more practical and coherent doctrine). At least the debates over the meaning of various lenin minutea is relevant from a historical perspective considering that Leninism exists today as a current within the Communist movement with real historical praxis but there's really been no relevant strain of "balkuinist" anarchism as opposed to the much more relevant anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism and now the various communization schools of thought

Many anarchist organizations, including anarchist-communists, still print apologias for Bakunin and his attack on "state socialism".

[bropasaran]

"Revolutionary organization and Secret society" Michael Bakunin, from two letters to Nechaev.


Once the revolution has won its first victory, the political revolutionaries, supporters of overt dictatorship, advocate the muting of passions, and speak for order, trust and submission to the established revolutionary powers —in this way they reconstitute the State. We, on the other hand, must foment, awaken and unleash all the passions, we must produce anarchy and, like invisible pilots in the thick of the popular tempest, we must steer it not by any open power but by the collective dictatorship of all the allies — a dictatorship without insignia, titles or official rights, and all the stronger for having none of the paraphernalia of power. That is the only dictatorship I accept.

...


If you set up this collective, invisible dictatorship, you will triumph, the revolution, properly guided, will triumph. If not, not. If you fall to playing at Committees of Public Safety and official, overt dictatorship, you will be devoured by the reaction that you yourselves will have created.

Dear friend, I admire the generous instincts and lively intelligence of the French workers. But I am very much afraid of their penchant for showing off, for big, dramatic, heroic, rowdy scenes. Many of our friends - yourself included - are making ready to play key roles in the coming revolution - the roles of Statesmen of the Revolution. They count on becoming the Dantons, Robespierres, Saint-Justs of revolutionary socialism—and they are already rehearsing the fine speeches and brilliant strokes which are to astonish the world. They will naturally make the popular masses a stepping-stone - a pedestal for their democratic ambition, their personal glory! To save us all, they will produce dictatorship, government, the State. A ridiculous, woeful illusion. They will create nothing but vanity, serve nothing but reaction — they themselves will be reaction.

...


There is only one power and one dictatorship whose organization is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of our principle—and this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or extrinsic character.

... ...


Therefore the sole object of a secret society must be not to create an artificial force outside the people, but to arouse, unite and organize spontaneous popular forces; in this way the only possible, the only effective army of the revolution is not outside the people, but consists of the people themselves.

... ...


What is to be the chief aim and purpose of this organization? To help the people towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality and the fullest human freedom in every direction, without the least interference from any sort of domination, even if it be temporary or transitional, that is without any sort of government control.

We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official power- even if it is an ultra-revolutionary power. We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. But, you will ask, if we are anarchists, by what right do we want to influence
the people, and what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people’s revolution? By a force that is invisible, that no one admits and that is not imposed on anyone, by the collective dictatorship of our organization which will be all the greater the more it remains unseen and undeclared, the more it is deprived of all official rights and significance.

...


These small groups, unknown to anyone as such, would have no officially declared power. But strong in the idea behind them, expressing the very essence of popular instincts, desires and demands in their clear and conscious aims among a crowd of people who would be struggling without any purpose or plan, these groups would finally have the strength of that close solidarity which binds isolated groups in one organic whole, the strength o f mind and energy of its members, who manage to create round themselves a circle of people who are more or less devoted to the same idea, and who are naturally subject to their influence. These groups would not seek anything for themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power, and they would be in a position to direct popular movements in opposition to all those who were ambitious but not united and fighting each other, and to lead the people towards the most complete realization of the social economic ideal and the organization of the fullest popular freedom. This is what I call the collective dictatorship of a secret organization.

The dictatorship is free of any self-interest, vainglory and ambition, for it is anonymous, and unseen, and does not reward any of the members that compose the group, or the groups themselves, with any profit or honour or official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take the place of State control over the people, and because its whole aim, laid down for it in the programme, consists of the fullest realization of the liberty of the people.

This sort of dictatorship is not in the least contrary to the free development and the self-determination of the people, nor to its organization from the bottom upward, conformable to the people’s customs and instincts, for it influences the people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of its members, who have not the slightest power, are scattered in an unseen web throughout the regions, districts and communes, and, in agreement with each other, try, in whatever place they may be, to direct the spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people towards the plan that has been discussed beforehand and firmly determined.


A dictatorship that doesn't have any power, wow, how authoritarian.

As Voline said:

According to the libertarian thesis, it is the labouring masses themselves who, by means of the various class organizations, factory committees, industrial and agricultural unions, co-operatives, et cetera, federated and centralized on a basis of real needs, should apply themselves everywhere, to solving the problems of waging the Revolution. By their powerful and fertile action, because they are free and conscious, they should co-ordinate their efforts throughout the whole country. As for the “elite”, their role, according to the libertarians, is to help the masses, enlighten them, teach them, give them necessary advice, impel them to take the initiative, provide them with an example, and support them in their action — but not direct them governmentally.

[The Feral Underclass]

Honestly I don't think this debate is fruitful

Britain has an openly Bakuninist organisation.

Also, it's a necessary debate, because people like reb and others consistently misrepresent Bakunin and his ideas. Clarification is important, especially since his the praxis he is advocating is incredibly relevant.

[The Feral Underclass]

So what about Bakunin's concept of 'invisible dictatorship'?

When Marx and Bakunin used the term 'dictatorship,' it didn't have the meaning it does now.

[synthesis]

Wow, the middle three pages of this thread. My hypothesis is that the reason so many Trotskyists are this legalistic and lawyer-y about the letter rather than the spirit of the theoretical works of communist historical figures is because it's a huge part of their tendency's tradition, having to defend their interpretation of Lenin from Stalinists and Maoists, who think they have the same "upper hand" that Trotskyists believe they have in discussions with left-communists and anarchists: that somewhere, at some point, a historical figure they support had "actual power" or influence.

So they have to be correct about their interpretations, because otherwise it negates their entire historical legitimacy. (I think this is probably also part of the reason that if the RevLeft search engine had a Google-style autocomplete feature, the word "Trotskyist" would be immediately suffixed with the words "sectarian split.")

Sorry for the tangent; it's something that I've noticed over and over again, and I find it sort of frustrating.

[bropasaran]

Britain has an openly Bakuninist organisation.
Which is that?