Anarchism vs Leninism

[The Feral Underclass]

Capitalism as a system has forced people to accept a certain set of rules to life. Throughout the generations human beings have accepted certain facts as some sort of inevitability to live. For working class people the rules are simple. You are born, you get a job, you pay your way, bills, rent, taxes and then you die. For most this is just a fact of life. But for me, who has been afforded the luxury of time, have learnt to be critical. What makes this a fact of life? The answer is capitalism. The system of profit. It is this concept of individual gain that has forced these rules to be accepted as fact. Throughout these generations individuals, or groups of individuals have been given the rights to maximise their power and wealth, and to do this they nave used other individuals, generations who have come after them, who have been born into certain conditions and have no choice, but to work, pay rent, pay taxes and then die.

This disastrous reality has created feelings of alienation. People are separated from society as mere objects, used in a factory, or other work place, to maximise profit. Wealth is glorified and for those who don’t have it, a sense of underachievement, a sense of disempowerment simply makes people accept that reality is exactly that. Reality, and it could never change.

What name is given to this realisation? I call it class consciousness. For me, class consciousness is the understanding of what capitalism is, why I am exploited, why I feel disempowered and ultimately how I change it. Anarchism and Leninism do not disagree that these class antagonisms are created by capitalism. But as the Leninists argue that the workers are unable to gain class consciousness under capitalism, anarchists see it as inevitability.

In America during the 1950's and 60's black people were unable to sit in certain areas of buses. They were unable to sit in a white’s only cafe. In South Africa black or Indian people were unable to swim at the beach or use park benches. However, the civil rights movement was born and both militantly and peacefully demanded that those white men in their seats of power justify their oppression. They could not do it. They could not justify why a black person could not sit on a park bench or use public transport. They attempted to justify it. With arguments for the need of cultural segregation and when that failed they resorted to violence. Their pathetic justifications were no longer valid. People began to see through these lies and demanded change!

Now I am not saying that racism has completely been eradicated, but change did come. Profound, fundamental change. It is now illegal to stop a black person from using a bus or sitting in a park. Fifty years ago having black lawyers or even black teachers was completely unheard of. Now, it is illegal to disqualify a person based on colour.

Movements grow, they start of small and isolated but they grow over time, forms of domination begin to be forced into justifying themselves. The Vietnam War movement is another example. It started of small, but by the end, the world said in one voice they would not tolerate the war. Consciousness about the war was reached. Yet again, those in power attempted to justify it and even resulted in killing those who protested, but the American government was brought to its knees.

Working class people already have a basic level of consciousness. They see that there are problems in their lives but are unprepared to put those problems into a wider political perspective. History has proven that human ability forces people to certain realisations. Because capitalism exploits and because it disempowers means it is only a matter of dedication and time before it is put into perspective. At this point capitalism is forced to justify itself. It can't justify exploitation and i will be forced to change.

What comes next? In an anarchist perspective it is clear. Class consciousness means confrontation and confrontation will be inevitable there after. Look at the workers now, and already they are angry, already they want change. Watch them grasp a sense of empowerment and the will to change society and woe be the tide. Two hundred years of exploitation and alienation weighs heavy around our necks. Once consciousness has come "like the rain we are unstoppable."

But for Leninism it is not so simple. Because Leninists argue that the working class do not have the ability to gain this class consciousness within capitalism, renders the whole notion of a revolution, well, impossible. I suppose it is a matter of opinion.

What is a workers revolution? A workers revolution is just that. A revolution of workers. In order for a revolution to be purposeful, i.e. to achieve its objective, which is workers liberation, the entire working class must be conscious of it, otherwise what is the point. The Leninists argue that a revolution can be fought unilaterally without the general support of the working class. To overthrow the state and replace it with a workers state.

To be pedantic, if the workers are not supporting or involved in the revolution then who is the revolution for? If you reduce it down to its very core the revolution is about a group of men and women attempting to get into power. That is what it is. I suppose you could say in it’s (the revolution) material “being” that is the sole purpose of this action. To achieve control over a state. What the Leninists then do is throw in lots of ideals to justify their actions. They call it a workers state or use the most bizarre term, “in the interests of the workers,” in an effort to validate what they are doing. But these idealistic phrases mean nothing to the actual, material situation that is being created by them.

Leninists and anarchists both agree what workers liberation is. Communism! A society of human beings who live freely, without a state or its authority, in co-operation with each other and free from exploitation, or, the need to sell your labour to survive. That is what we all want. Anarchists and Leninists alike.

However, Leninists believe that to achieve this the workers must be led into a revolution, which seems impossible to achieve baring in mind, and by the admission of Leninists, that capitalism has warped the workers brains beyond any kind of understanding, to create a whole new state. What the state then does is act as a parent or guardian for the ignorant working class to protect them from the bouregoisie. When I say protect, it isnt actually the state that is doing the protecting it is the workers themselves. Being organized and led by a party vangaurd. What you then have, assuming that the workers suddenly, blinded by their ignorance, decided to overhtrow the ruling class, is a proletariat obeying the vangaurd, because they have no other alternative to comprehend. The Leninists have overthrown one regime that the workers dont understand and replaced it with another regime, they do not understand. The vangaurdists then ask, or demand, that the workers accept their authority and trust them to do the right thing.

In the eyes of Leninism, to do the right thing, the state must be perpetrated in all its glory. In fact, it must be strengthened and increased in order to fulfil the ideal of workers liberation. Amazing as it may seem, in order to liberate the working class they must first be dominated by the very thing that stops them from being liberated, by those who wish to liberate them. “But the masses are ignorant to our aims, they must be led” shout the cries. But Look at how they are to be led. In order to defend the working class all their freedoms must be taken away from them. In order to safe guard the Leninist revolution, all opposition, regardless of class, must be oppressed. In order to create liberation the working class must hand over all power to a centralised authority, a vanguard and state. This is the inherent problem with Leninism. You can not give workers freedoms while at the same time taking them away. You can not hand over power to them while removing power from them. Leninism does not work because it creates layer after layer, solving one problem with another problem which ultimatly creates one giant mess. Not workers liberation!

Take Kronstadt. In order to maintain the revolution certain messures had to be taken which resulted in a collective of workers demanding certain, not unreasnale changes. This was seen as a threat to the state. The state can not defend the ignorant workers if there is opposition. So what did they (Leniniss) do, they smash the workers collective and shoot them for subversion. To solve one problem they have violated the very point of the revolution. Thus creating a brand new problem. To hand over power to the workers they smashed them. This contradiction can not be justified however you look at it.

For as much as the leninists may want that ultimate goal of communism it can not be achieved through the state. The very essence, the base, the nature of the state dictates from the very beginning that liberation to an under class is simply not possible, because to keep the state alive it must oppress and by the time it has finished oppressing, the workeing class are simply under a boot. What care would they have for listening to these leaders. Even if these leaders did not get power happy in their new positions of government the working class will have been so misused and beaten down that any promise of future liberation will be looked at as an attempt to win popularism. In fact look at the world now. Communism is loathed by the very people it wishes to free. And why is that. Because of Marxism-Lensinism. For this very reason.

But what does any of this matter. The workers are ignorant anyway, they will follow and be led because they have no alternative. No alternative will be given to them, in fact any alternative that may be presented to them will be smashed and destroyed all in the name of achieving an alternative.

The workers can not achieve liberation through a state, just as they can not obtain libration through the present day state structure. Liberation can only come once human ability has been achieved. When consciousness has been reached and it will be reached, just as it has been done throughout history. As long as there is a movement challanging capitalism and forcing it to justify itself it will not last for ever.

Even the Leninists agree with this. When ever presented with the argument that human ability negates the need for a state or authority it is never disputed. The Leninists know that human cosnciousness creates the necessary situation for workers liberation and casts their theory away. And they fear it. They fear having to say that Lenin was wrong. Or maybe they simply lack the proper consciousness to achieve their own liberation. Living in a world with electricity must have been seen as an idealistic fantasy. Maybe to these leninists it is the same. It is simply an idealistic fantasy to think that the workers can liberate themselves, without a vangaurd, without a state and without authority.

Once you get through the icon glorifying Leninists do not seem to theorise and champion their cause as much as, just like those white americans in seats of power in the 50’s and 60’s, they attempt to justify it. A theory which has systematically failed everytime it has been attempted. It has to be embarresing to say the least. It is as if Leninism has lost faith itself, but at the same time desperatly wanting to validate its principles. Of course it can not. The last hundred years has forced Leninism out of any serious arena and reduced it to nothing but what if’s? Leninism merely tries to justify itself by asserting “if we do this differently.” Like a naughty teenage junky begging for money from it’s parents, insiting “it will be better next time,” Leninists want us to trust them. How can we? Or better still why should we?.......I don’t even think they know the answer.

[The Children of the Revolution]

<Very well. I shall reply&#33;>

Firstly, please bear in mind that "Leninism" as a theory was designed to achieve a revolution IN RUSSIA ALMOST 100 YEARS AGO. Lenin brilliantly adapted Marx&#39;s theory to the conditions in Russia at the start of the 20th century - he had the interests of the workers at heart; he wanted to avoid the bourgeois phase of History altogether. I&#39;m sure you&#39;ll concede that if he had succeeded, we wouldn&#39;t be having this debate now.

It is abundantly clear to me, having read Lenin&#39;s works, that he did not envision a Stalinist style Russia. Something must have gone wrong somewhere; it is foolish to blame Lenin for the USSR and all its vices. Concerning the nature of the Revolution: YES, it DOES require a struggle. YES, freedoms will be lost temporarily. But when the conditions are set, emancipation WILL follow. In Russias case, there were SEVERAL external factors which led to the failure of the Revolution, as well as internal issues. I fully condone ALL of Lenin&#39;s actions considering the circumstances.



"Capitalism as a system has forced people to accept a certain set of rules to life...
... Reality, and it could never change."


This is good, I like it. (The whole section, I am wary of post length though&#33;) How about writing something for the e-zine along these lines? Seriously, it&#39;s good.



"But as the Leninists argue that the workers are unable to gain class consciousness under capitalism, anarchists see it as inevitability."

"Look at the workers now, and already they are angry, already they want change. Watch them grasp a sense of empowerment and the will to change society and woe be the tide."


I think many workers can and indeed will gain "class consciousness", yes. But not enough. A revolution along the lines you describe obviously requires a majority of the population - and I don&#39;t think this will ever happen in the West. Not now. The workers are angry, you say? Well, I disagree. Having worked alongside the "Proletariat" (Supermarket workers living in council houses - great guys, don&#39;t get me wrong&#33;&#33;) I can safely say that none of my "comrades" there would join a Revolution. They are working class, without a doubt, but don&#39;t care for politics. They have trouble financing a night out, but they wouldn&#39;t take to the streets because of it. I think the angry workers you refer to are the ones in the press - and as we all know, the press is notoriously sensationalist.



"Two hundred years of exploitation and alienation weighs heavy around our necks."


To quote comrade Redstar, "Sheer Romanticist crap&#33;"

This is a nice vision, a wonderful dream... The workers spilling out onto the streets and overthrowing their vicious oppressors&#33; Unfortunately, this is all it is. A dream.



"To be pedantic, if the workers are not supporting or involved in the revolution then who is the revolution for? If you reduce it down to its very core the revolution is about a group of men and women attempting to get into power. That is what it is."


Let us take the Russian Civil War as an example here. Look at the plight of a peasant, living in a mud hut somewhere. There is a bloody conflict emerging between two "oppressive" sides. (The Bolsheviks were forced to implement emergency measures like grain requisitioning during the War years - unpopular with the rural peasant majority&#33;) Who do you side with? It was by no means an easy choice; most didn&#39;t wish to fight at all. But they chose the Bolsheviks. You say the workers gained nothing from the Revolution. But it was certainly better than Tsarism&#33;&#33; And, I would argue, better than Bourgeois oppression...



"... is a proletariat obeying the vangaurd, because they have no other alternative to comprehend. The Leninists have overthrown one regime that the workers dont understand and replaced it with another regime, they do not understand. The vangaurdists then ask, or demand, that the workers accept their authority and trust them to do the right thing.


At least the "vanguard" is acting (yes, I will use this phrase) "in the interests of" the proletariat. Well, Lenin was. History seems to have portrayed him as a villain when the reverse is true.



"Take Kronstadt. In order to maintain the revolution certain messures had to be taken which resulted in a collective of workers demanding certain, not unreasnale changes. This was seen as a threat to the state. The state can not defend the ignorant workers if there is opposition. So what did they (Leniniss) do, they smash the workers collective and shoot them for subversion."


This was not Lenin&#39;s finest hour. But PLEASE, before attacking Lenin, look at the alternatives... Really, do&#33; Then tell them to me, I will be interested to hear what you have to say&#33; If you can come up with a better solution FOR ALL CONCERNED (remember the peasants in all of this, and the workers NOT taking part in the uprising) without sacrificing the revolution I will be impressed.



"The workers can not achieve liberation through a state, just as they can not obtain libration through the present day state structure. Liberation can only come once human ability has been achieved. When consciousness has been reached and it will be reached, just as it has been done throughout history. As long as there is a movement challanging capitalism and forcing it to justify itself it will not last for ever."

"Even the Leninists agree with this. When ever presented with the argument that human ability negates the need for a state or authority it is never disputed."


Lenin theorised that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was a means to an end result - that of true Communism. He (quite correctly) saw that you cannot do away with the state overnight. This is even more true now than it was then. There would be chaos; anarchy. (In the negative sense of the word&#33; :lol: That is the worst pun I have ever written...) The "dictatorship" would be temporary, and would then "wither away", leaving a Communist paradise&#33;

Let&#39;s not forget that we&#39;re on the same side here... Leninists and Anarchists simply differ on the method of creating the same end result. Leninism may not have worked as of yet, but neither has a spontaneous uprising. The workers WILL NOT free themselves in the West, leadership is needed. And the natural theory to adopt is modified Leninism.

I enjoyed this&#33; :)

[The Feral Underclass]

he had the interests of the workers at heart;

You can not assert this. You did not know Lenin nor were you involved in the 1917 revolution. You can not know what Lenins intentions were. You can only presume.


he wanted to avoid the bourgeois phase of History altogether.

Maybe Marxism relies on such a phaze to validate it&#39;s theory?


Something must have gone wrong somewhere;

The perptration of the state was what went wrong. As I said in my initial post workers liberation and the state contradict each other. Instead of working together they move away from each other because of the very nature of what a state is. The state can only perpetrate itself by oppressing the workers and centralising authority into the hands of a ruling class. The second stage of communism can not be obtained because the state does what a state does and creates oppression. Communism is lack of state, leninism is the perpetration of a state. You can not achieve communism using the state because as you perpetrate it you create material conditions which can not lead to communism. The two things move further and further away from each other while the state maintains its existence. What happened was the result of the theory. Stalin happened because the theory is flawed. You can not water flowers by sucking water out of them. You want to water the flowers by taking the water out. As you take the water out you move further and further away from your goal. You want communism but you use the state to try and achieve it, but as you use the state you are moving further and further away from communism which then can not lead to communism.


YES, freedoms will be lost temporarily.

But this is a contradiction. You can not give freedoms by taking them away.


But when the conditions are set, emancipation WILL follow.

How? You can not teach emancipation while at the same time suppressing people. What makes you think that the workers will want this? In order to achieve emancipation you must teach about freedom and you can not teach freedom while suppressing people.


I think many workers can and indeed will gain "class consciousness", yes. But not enough. A revolution along the lines you describe obviously requires a majority of the population

revolution will happen when the mass go out onto the streets and demand change. It may start of with a small group of people, but eventually it will grow into a majority. Look at the civil rights movement in the US, the example I used. A movement which grew slowly and eventually changed the world. Gaining class consciousness is the same thing. A movement will start of slowly, but movements grow. Class consciousness will not just suddenly appear it will grow gradually until the workers demand society is changed. Leninism believes that we should seize on opporunities. I disagree. Revolution has to be a mass class action. Like the beany baby craze, class consciousness will eventually sweep the nation as capitalism is forced to justify itself.


and I don&#39;t think this will ever happen in the West. Not now. The workers are angry, you say? Well, I disagree. Having worked alongside the "Proletariat" (Supermarket workers living in council houses - great guys, don&#39;t get me wrong&#33;&#33;) I can safely say that none of my "comrades" there would join a Revolution.

Not right now probably not. This does not mean they cant.


They are working class, without a doubt, but don&#39;t care for politics. They have trouble financing a night out, but they wouldn&#39;t take to the streets because of it.

Dont we all&#33;....This is the point I am making. Class consciousness may not be attained now, or in the next hundred years, but it will come eventually. Just like feudelism turned into capitalism. One day people like this will take to the streets and not about going clubbing but about exploitation.


I think the angry workers you refer to are the ones in the press - and as we all know, the press is notoriously sensationalist.

I am talking about striking postel workers and firrefighters. The workers who sit in their factories bored and frustrated. The worker who stands next to you in your supermarket cursing his boss because he dosnt pay him enough. Workers who hate to go to work because its so boring. These are angry workers. There angry at capitalism, they just dont know it.


This is a nice vision, a wonderful dream... The workers spilling out onto the streets and overthrowing their vicious oppressors&#33; Unfortunately, this is all it is. A dream.

If there was class consciousness I would certainly spill into the streets as you would. Because once class consciousness has been reached and there is understanding the workers are not going to accept it. They will see what I see and what you see. 200 hundred years of exploitation and they will be unstoppable.


Let us take the Russian Civil War as an example here. Look at the plight of a peasant, living in a mud hut somewhere. There is a bloody conflict emerging between two "oppressive" sides. (The Bolsheviks were forced to implement emergency measures like grain requisitioning during the War years - unpopular with the rural peasant majority&#33;) Who do you side with? It was by no means an easy choice; most didn&#39;t wish to fight at all. But they chose the Bolsheviks. You say the workers gained nothing from the Revolution. But it was certainly better than Tsarism&#33;&#33; And, I would argue, better than Bourgeois oppression...

None of this has any baring on 21st century class struggle.


At least the "vanguard" is acting (yes, I will use this phrase) "in the interests of" the proletariat.

So are the left revolutionary non-vangaurdists :unsure: they just believe they can achieve emacipation without a party elite and would rather the workers be fighting for themselves. Wouldn&#39;t you rather that?


This was not Lenin&#39;s finest hour. But PLEASE, before attacking Lenin, look at the alternatives... Really, do&#33; Then tell them to me, I will be interested to hear what you have to say&#33; If you can come up with a better solution FOR ALL CONCERNED (remember the peasants in all of this, and the workers NOT taking part in the uprising) without sacrificing the revolution I will be impressed.

We keep going back to 1917 russia. What can be done fifferently the next time is control being given to workers councils. Not shooting them&#33;


Lenin theorised that the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was a means to an end result - that of true Communism.

But I do not believe that you can achieve communism by perpetrating such an oppressive state. The two things contradict each other into oblivion. A little like sausages and rice pudding.


He (quite correctly) saw that you cannot do away with the state overnight.

There is no proof to say that this is the case. Like I said, conciousness means the ability to act and to behaviour and understand and achieve certain things. Society can be organized without the state from the beginning.


This is even more true now than it was then.

Why?


There would be chaos;

Think of what people thought about the transition from feudelism to capitalism. Probably the same sort of things. You just do not have the ability to comprehend organization without a state etc. To use morpheus&#39; example, if you go on a shopping trip do you put someone incharge who then delegates down everything. Someone who decides were you go, what you eat, what clothes to ware or is it a mutuel thing. You all organize the trip together. It&#39;s called human ability.


The "dictatorship" would be temporary, and would then "wither away", leaving a Communist paradise&#33;

You do not explain how and why it would mysteriously wither away.


neither has a spontaneous uprising.

Anarchism has been through many different situations and survived as a workable theory. You can not stop the inevitable. Just like the Kings and Queens could not stop the bouregois revolutions, the bouregois will not stop a workers one.


workers WILL NOT free themselves in the West, leadership is needed.

Why?

[Saint-Just]

In America during the 1950&#39;s and 60&#39;s black people were unable to sit in certain areas of buses. They were unable to sit in a white’s only cafe. In South Africa black or Indian people were unable to swim at the beach or use park benches. However, the civil rights movement was born and both militantly and peacefully demanded that those white men in their seats of power justify their oppression. They could not do it. They could not justify why a black person could not sit on a park bench or use public transport. They attempted to justify it. With arguments for the need of cultural segregation and when that failed they resorted to violence. Their pathetic justifications were no longer valid. People began to see through these lies and demanded change&#33;

Now I am not saying that racism has completely been eradicated, but change did come. Profound, fundamental change. It is now illegal to stop a black person from using a bus or sitting in a park. Fifty years ago having black lawyers or even black teachers was completely unheard of. Now, it is illegal to disqualify a person based on colour.

This is true, their became conscious of the oppression. But these movements had leaders. The masses make history, but not often without leaders.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is true, their became conscious of the oppression. But these movements had leaders. The masses make history, but not often without leaders.

That is because it has never been done any other way. This does not mean it can not be done a different way. The point of this example is to show that class consciousness can be reached by a majority of people who then challange the system and change it.

The civil rights movements never gave the grass root activists the opportunity to organize themselves without centralised command or leaders. Had this happened activists could easily have had the ability to organize themselves in a co-operative way. Conssciousness and passion is a prerequisit for ability. If you are pasionate about something it means that you will go that extra mile to see it happen. When working class people have that understanding and passion, which will ultimatly come, areas of nations will be able to organize themselves without centralism or leaders to tell them what to do.

All it takes is democracy. An area is made up of a voluntary council who elects delgates to assume certain responsabilities. It is often done in working class struggles. Picket lines are not organized with leaders and central committees. The mass of people work out what needs to be done and then people are elected or volunteer to carry out what ever responsability needs to be done. It happens alot in working class struggles.

Leaders are just fictional charactors forged in their own image. They are people who lust power or wish to take credit for a rightous and noble idea. The very concept of a leader assumes that others they command are not worthy enough for the same responsability. Maybe this is true for someone who lacks understanding and passion, but for someone who&#39;s sole desire is to overthrow the ruling class and create a communist society they will stop at nothing to achieve it, they will learn and they will organize.

[The Children of the Revolution]

But I do not believe that you can achieve communism by perpetrating such an oppressive state. The two things contradict each other into oblivion. A little like sausages and rice pudding.


This is it; I believe, you don&#39;t. If conditions had stabilised, oppression could be reduced. If the working class had been large enough, Soviets could have taken power. Don&#39;t forget that the Soviets in Petrograd and Moscow supported Lenin&#39;s October Revolution&#33;

I like sausages and rice pudding. And egg and rhubarb bake, it&#39;s gorgeous.

My example of the peasant "fighting" in the civil war was to illustrate a particular point. You can swap "repression" for "repression" and be better off afterwards.



Think of what people thought about the transition from feudelism to capitalism. Probably the same sort of things.


That was much more of a gradual process. Yes, there was a Civil War, causing massive social upheaval. But the consolidation of bourgeois power took centuries to achieve - what with industry building up to then replacing agriculture as the dominant economic force in the UK. And all this time the state was increasing its power, increasing its influence. To suddenly remove this - <pop> - WOULD cause chaos. To use one example, how would Social Welfare be organised? I&#39;ll leave you to reply to this.



You do not explain how and why it would mysteriously wither away.


Read some of Lenin&#39;s works&#33;&#33;

You have yet to come up with an alternative to Krondstadt...

"This was not Lenin&#39;s finest hour. But PLEASE, before attacking Lenin, look at the alternatives... Really, do&#33; Then tell them to me, I will be interested to hear what you have to say&#33; If you can come up with a better solution FOR ALL CONCERNED (remember the peasants in all of this, and the workers NOT taking part in the uprising) without sacrificing the revolution I will be impressed."

"Giving control to workers councils" doesn&#39;t count&#33;&#33; How would this help?? It would invariably lead to bourgeois democracy, thus "sacrificing" the revolution.

[redstar2000]

You cannot water flowers by sucking water out of them. You want to water the flowers by taking the water out. As you take the water out you move further and further away from your goal.

TAT&#39;s example is very much to the point.

It is only in the realm of dialectical mysticism that you "approach" a goal by moving further and further away from it.

Thus Hegel "proved" that the "highest form of democracy" was...the Prussian absolute monarchy.

All the excuses made for Lenin are...well, excuses. Lenin worshipers always argue that Lenin "really intended" to "do good things" but "circumstances" made it "impossible".

Bah&#33;

There are always "circumstances". If you have a serious goal, then you takes steps in the direction of that goal...even if "circumstances" require that your steps be very small ones.

All of Lenin&#39;s steps, without exception, concentrated more and more power in the "center"--both in the state and in the party.

Not once, to the best of my memory, did he every take a single step in the other direction...granting more power to a larger number...ever.

I&#39;ll tell you something: if he had lived, he would have become "Stalin".

Yes...that&#39;s the trajectory of his whole political career--the totality of everything he stood for.

You may argue that he would have been "a kinder and gentler" "Stalin" -- perhaps you would be right...and perhaps not.

Whatever his thoughts on communism--something he evidently "believed in" the way Christians believe in the "rapture"--there can be no question but that he was convinced that here and now and for the foreseeable future absolute dictatorship of his party and of himself over that party was in "the best interests" of the working class.

That was his goal and everything he did in his life pointed straight in that direction.

What is really astounding is that some people still think he was "right" about that.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Saint-Just]

I agree redstar2000, that Lenin would have behaved very similarly to Stalin.

The civil rights movements never gave the grass root activists the opportunity to organize themselves without centralised command or leaders/

You would have to study this era in massive detail to consider this question. I have studied this era, I cannot say that you are wrong very easily. However, I do know the various organisations such as the NAACP did help the movement massively. When African Americans were organised they were able to achieve a lot. For example, it took one Afr. Am. to sit at the front of a bus and than everyone else supported that person by boycotting the bus service after they were told to move from their seats. At the times which the Afr. Am. civil rights movement lacked organisation they achieved very little. It was people like Booker T. Washington who got Afr. Am. some concessions from the start and organised schools for Afr. Am.

Leaders are just fictional charactors forged in their own image. They are people who lust power or wish to take credit for a rightous and noble idea. The very concept of a leader assumes that others they command are not worthy enough for the same responsability. Maybe this is true for someone who lacks understanding and passion, but for someone who&#39;s sole desire is to overthrow the ruling class and create a communist society they will stop at nothing to achieve it, they will learn and they will organize.

I would suggest that often leaders come up with good ideas and people follow them precisely because they are able to do that. In addition, only certain individuals do have leadership skills, not everyone is capable of leadership. I would also say that the leaders of the Afr. Am. civil rights movement, for example, did desire to change society.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Children of the Revolution


This is it; I believe, you don&#39;t.

But you don&#39;t say how. You do not attempt to refute my observation that a contradiction exists and is validated by the actual outcomes of what happened when Leninism was put into practice.


This is it; I believe, you don&#39;t. If conditions had stabilised, oppression could be reduced. If the working class had been large enough, Soviets could have taken power. Don&#39;t forget that the Soviets in Petrograd and Moscow supported Lenin&#39;s October Revolution&#33;

Let&#39;s stop putting this into the context of 1917 russia. I dont care whether the Soviets supported Lenin, it&#39;s besides the point. I am talking about the actual theory and why it does not work.


My example of the peasant "fighting" in the civil war was to illustrate a particular point. You can swap "repression" for "repression" and be better off afterwards.

The example you used is irrelevant. So these land workers sided with the Bolsheviks. That dosnt mean the bolsheviks were right. In fact you make the point yourself. It was probably better than Tzarism. But again, that does not mean it was going to lead to communism, and in fact didnt.


That was much more of a gradual process.

Exactly. And inevitably communism will take over. If you force change to happen and erect these safe guards and use idealism such as the dictatorship of the proletariat the ultimatly outcome can not be communism. For the reasons I have stated, which you havent addressed.


But the consolidation of bourgeois power took centuries to achieve

I do not presume that communism will suddenly happen. What I know is that to achieve it you can not use the state.


To suddenly remove this - <pop> - WOULD cause chaos. To use one example, how would Social Welfare be organised? I&#39;ll leave you to reply to this.

You are assuming that organization can only happen using the state. There are thousands and thousands of different methods that can be used to organize things like this. Having a state, which by nature serves to maintain its existence can only lead one way. The theory behind leninism can only lead to the opposite of communism.

The question of social welfare is a difficult one. I can not see into the future. The nature of social welfare not maybe different once the state has been smashed. The needs of collectives would be organized by those collectives. The statists always look at society as one gian mass when in fact this giant mass is made up of millions of small masses which are detachable from this mass or nation and are capable of organizing and co-ordinating their needs within this smaller mass or region.


Read some of Lenin&#39;s works&#33;&#33;

I have read some of Lenin&#39;s works and spoken to enough leninists to be able to feel ok to refute the theory. My mentor so to speak was a leninist, I believe I was a leninist, until I began to read his work. I thought it was completely absurd. However, feel free to name some writings for me and I will check them out.


You have yet to come up with an alternative to Krondstadt...

All they simply had to do was allow the workers and sailors of Krondstadt the right to organize themselves and accept their demands, which as I have said were not unreasanble. These men and women were capable enough to see the descrepency in Lenins rule, they were capable enough to articulate there needs and they were passionate enough to carry out the tasks that came with organizing. The workers would have maintained loyalty to the revolution while beginning to take control of their own lives. Lenin and Trotsky obviously felt differently.


It would invariably lead to bourgeois democracy, thus "sacrificing" the revolution.

It again goes back to this leninist assertion that the workers are incapable of doing anything for themselves. Workers who have just fought of an oppressor would stop at nothing to ensure these oppressors did not come back. You can not assert that it would lead to bouregois democracy, you have no way of telling. The workers were never given the chance. A lack of human understanding and this fear of a world without a state ultimatly created the circumstances in russia and will do again if ever given the chance.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Not once, to the best of my memory, did he every take a single step in the other direction...granting more power to a larger number...ever.


What about his "New Economic Policy", granting peasants (80% of the population) the right to make a profit on selling surplus goods? Is this a suitable example?



Lenin worshipers always argue that Lenin "really intended" to "do good things" but "circumstances" made it "impossible".


"This" is "the" gospel (&#33;) "truth". I "know" your "knowledge" of "History" isn&#39;t "great", but "I&#39;m" sure "you" realise "the" massive "problems" and "incidents" there "were" post "WWI"? There "WERE" many "circumstances" which "contributed" to the "perversion" of "Lenin&#39;s" true "ideas."

Long live the inverted comma&#33;&#33;&#33; Long live the bold tags&#33;&#33;&#33; "Why" do "you" insist "on" using "them" so "much" anyway???



Whatever his thoughts on communism--something he evidently "believed in" the way Christians believe in the "rapture"--there can be no question but that he was convinced that here and now and for the foreseeable future absolute dictatorship of his party and of himself over that party was in "the best interests" of the working class.


Yes. He was right too.



Let&#39;s stop putting this into the context of 1917 russia.


Excuse me... Lenin took power in 1917... Here began his attempt to put "Leninism" into practice... So I will refer to 1917 as much as I like&#33;&#33;



Exactly. And inevitably communism will take over. If you force change to happen and erect these safe guards and use idealism such as the dictatorship of the proletariat the ultimatly outcome can not be communism. For the reasons I have stated, which you havent addressed.


My point was simple. Again, you missed it. Grrr. The state has developed it&#39;s power over centuries. It has infected almost all aspects of our society. Destroying this system overnight will cause chaos. Whereas under the Leninist model - a gradual reduction in the powers and influence of the state - the transition between Bourgeois oppression and Communist freedom will be much smoother.



The statists always look at society as one gian mass when in fact this giant mass is made up of millions of small masses which are detachable from this mass or nation and are capable of organizing and co-ordinating their needs within this smaller mass or region.


I see. So all the unemployed and all the single parents can detach themselves from society and sort themselves out? No. Also consider the need for trade routes and links - how is a "workers collective" in the Scottish highlands supposed to obtain some bananas from a plantation in the WIndies? If the international trade structure were to disappear suddenly, what on Earth would they do? Survive on Haggis for a few decades till things get sorted out? <_<

[redstar2000]

What about his "New Economic Policy", granting peasants (80% of the population) the right to make a profit on selling surplus goods? Is this a suitable example?

I suppose it could be argued that this was a partial devolution of economic power...it certainly had no political implications to speak of.

The NEP, as I recall, required the peasants to sell a certain portion of their harvest to the state at a price fixed by the state...and the peasants were then allowed to sell the remainder on the free market at any price they wished.

But political bodies in rural areas remained firmly under the control of the party.


Long live the inverted comma&#33;&#33;&#33; Long live the bold tags&#33;&#33;&#33; "Why" do "you" insist "on" using "them" so "much" anyway???

Because I like them. :lol:


He was right too.

No he wasn&#39;t.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Excuse me... Lenin took power in 1917... Here began his attempt to put "Leninism" into practice... So I will refer to 1917 as much as I like&#33;&#33;

Dont be so childish...I&#39;m not interested in the failed attempts of your icon, I am interested in why leninism does not work. You have still failed to answer any my points regarding the contradiction in the theory. I wonder why that is?


My point was simple. Again, you missed it.

I understood it fully. I dont agree, and I told you why&#33;


The state has developed it&#39;s power over centuries. It has infected almost all aspects of our society. Destroying this system overnight will cause chaos.

So you keep asserting. I have told you why this is not the case and why I believe society can be organized in a different way based on human ability. You have not yet told me why you believe it can not except by using the word "chaos." I have even questioned the reasons why leninists believe this would lead to chaos. You have still not attempted to refute my argument. You can not keep asserting the same thing hoping i will accept it the next time round.


Whereas under the Leninist model - a gradual reduction in the powers and influence of the state

How can the state reduce itself when it has to increase itself in order to survive? You keep missing this. The state can only perpetrate itself by using oppression which you accept is ok. If the state reduces its oppression then it will fail because the masses are ignorant. It therefore has to keep increasing itself which you believe, with no explination, it will mysteriously reduce itself into freedom. Such a contradiction has proven to be fatal.


the transition between Bourgeois oppression and Communist freedom will be much smoother.

There can be no transition to communism while the state maintains itself. The state stops the transition by its very nature and has to continue to do those things a state has to do in order for it to exist. Communism can not be achieved by moving away from communism.


I see. So all the unemployed and all the single parents can detach themselves from society and sort themselves out?

That&#39;s not what I said. You assert that a state has to exist in order for the unemployed and single parents to be able to survive. One of the main reasons for this is because statists believe that organization can not run unless it is centralised into a state structure and guarded there in. This isnt true. Regions can work detached from this state structure and organize within themselves. of course a level of co-oepration has to be maintained which results in a kind of hyper organization. But by doing this you achieve the fundamental principle of a workers revolution. Freedom from a state.


Also consider the need for trade routes and links - how is a "workers collective" in the Scottish highlands supposed to obtain some bananas from a plantation in the WIndies?

This is a classic question and a rediculas one at that. How can you justify this position? Do you think that human beings do not have the ability ot organize something as simple as transporting bananas. As I said, collectives organize themselves within themselves. If growing bananas is the main trade of a collective and provides socially necessary things then the collective will organize themselves to produce these socially necessary items. A collective who desires bananas decides that this is the case (not so hard) and arranges it. It isnt any more complicated than that.

What you also fail to do is give any kind of viable arguement to say that why a state, the perpetration of a ruling class, is any more efficient. Because it has been done before? or because there is an icon in control dispersing his wisdom to the relevant committees? Your jsut punching bigger questions of absurdness into your precious ideology.


If the international trade structure were to disappear suddenly, what on Earth would they do? Survive on Haggis for a few decades till things get sorted out?

Again you throw the entire question of human ability out of the window and base your entire attack on the basis that centralised, rigid state authority is somehow better than the human mind. People do have the ability to deal with problems, not matter how large. We are a community of people. We can work it out together. We do not have to be placed inside an ordered structure with specific duties, accountable to committees and these "benevelont" dictators in order to survive.

[The Feral Underclass]

Chairman Mao


When African Americans were organised they were able to achieve a lot. For example, it took one Afr. Am. to sit at the front of a bus and than everyone else supported that person by boycotting the bus service after they were told to move from their seats. At the times which the Afr. Am. civil rights movement lacked organisation they achieved very little. It was people like Booker T. Washington who got Afr. Am. some concessions from the start and organised schools for Afr. Am.

Not having leaders does not mean a lack of organization. I am not suggesting that the working class be unorganized, I am suggesting that the working class organize themselves. This woman and the support she got for not obeying the rules regarding where black people can sit on a bus did not come from leadership. It came from a will to fight. The same will happen with working class struggle. People will get the will to fight and along with it an ability to act. Once the workers have that there is no need for leaders. They will have the ability to lead themselves.


I would suggest that often leaders come up with good ideas and people follow them precisely because they are able to do that.

So your saying the argument for having "leaders" is because people can follow them. it dosnt make sense. Leaders do not have good ideas, people have good ideas. These people then feel the need to elivate themselves above those who didnt have the good idea and make everyone call them "leader."


In addition, only certain individuals do have leadership skills, not everyone is capable of leadership.

All leadership is, is the ability to think and make decisions. Workers revolution is about workers democracy. Decisions have to be made by the workers themselves. not handed down by leaders. I admit that some people have a better understanding of certain, specific things. Such as fighting a war or making Humus. Of course it is wise, common sense even to listen and take the advice of people who understand more about something. If I was in a street battle fighting some police and we had an ex army soldier fighting with us, I would sure as hell listen to everything he had to tell me and would use my own ability to understand that he know what he is talking about. Authority on certain skills however, is not the same as authority over someone.


I would also say that the leaders of the Afr. Am. civil rights movement, for example, did desire to change society.

I&#39;m sure they did. But could they have done it without turning themselves into icons? I think they could&#33;

[The Children of the Revolution]

But political bodies in rural areas remained firmly under the control of the party.


This is completely untrue. Remember, we&#39;re talking about 1917&#33; Large areas of the countryside remained untouched by the influence of the Bolsheviks even after the Civil War&#33; SOME remote settlements didn&#39;t even know a revolution (or two, in fact) had taken place - right up until the Second World War&#33;&#33;



"Long live the inverted comma&#33;&#33;&#33; Long live the bold tags&#33;&#33;&#33; "Why" do "you" insist "on" using "them" so "much" anyway???"

Because I like them. :lol:


Well fine. To use your logic, I will continue to praise Lenin and elevate him to superhuman status BECAUSE I LIKE DOING SO&#33;&#33; Glad that&#39;s settled... :P



Dont be so childish...I&#39;m not interested in the failed attempts of your icon, I am interested in why leninism does not work.


:angry: :angry: :angry: Don&#39;t be so shortsighted&#33;&#33;&#33; Listen to what I&#39;m saying&#33;&#33;&#33; Leninism failed in 1917, yes... But the fault was not in the theory&#33; The reasons for failure are all related to the "circumstances" (there&#39;s that magic word again) of the times - OF 1917&#33;&#33;&#33; Grrr, I am in a state (heh, state...) of near outrage here&#33;&#33;

The rest of your post is extraordinarily repetitive; I will settle the issue once and for all. Here is my interpretation of how Leninism might work.

There existed, in 1917 Russia, (as there does now) a state. Not particularly advanced perhaps, but a state. And the political system was "autocratic". The workers suffered terrible conditions in the cities, as per usual in an industrial revolution. They were also politically repressed - witness the Lena Goldfields massacre in which striking workers were shot in their hundreds. There was no functioning democracy. (The Duma being largely comprised of reactionaries due to suffrage laws)

Society still being in the "feudal" phase of development, a workers revolution seemed to be a long way off. But Lenin theorised that the bourgeois and workers uprisings could be telescoped together, thus saving the Russian worker from centuries of oppression. The "state" had to be maintained for many reasons: logistics, (Russia in 1917 was near-impossible to govern effectively) international relations and warfare. (the world today is very different from as it was then) Workers collectives, as advocated by yourself and the Krondstadt mutineers, were impractical - they would have undoubedly starved within weeks.

Sacrifices - like the grain requisition during "War Communism" were necessary to protect the revolution as well as the lives of the workers. "Forced Labour" in the factories was crucial to maintaining an industrial war economy; without this measure the Reds would have lost - the White armies were being supplied by the West, after all. The state HAD to exist during this period, there can be little arguement here.

Lenin then envisaged the states influence "withering away". IF there had been a successful revolution in Germany, there would have been enough food coming in to feed the cities - so Lenin needn&#39;t have forcibly taken grain from the peasants. IF there hadn&#39;t been a Civil War, the policies of War Communism needn&#39;t have been implemented. Circumstances conspired to force Lenin into repressive measures.

In an ideal world, (free from shortages, war and other "wants") workers collectives could have been established. Workers would trade with the peasants for grain (impossible in 1917 because of the level of industrial production and the peasants conservatism) and encourage industrialisation. Factory control would be handed over to "Soviets". Rural collectives would eventually be set up - but this would take time. Until that moment, the state would HAVE to exist.

[redstar2000]

This is completely untrue. Remember, we&#39;re talking about 1917&#33;

And you&#39;re the guy who was commenting on my "weak historical knowledge"?

You asked if Lenin&#39;s NEP was a case of Lenin spreading out the power a little.

I summarized what the NEP actually did for the peasantry...including the fact that political power in rural soviets remained firmly in the hands of the party.

And you come back with "remember, we&#39;re talking about 1917"...&#33;&#33;&#33;

The NEP was adopted in 1921 and implemented in 1922.

Good grief&#33; :o


To use your logic, I will continue to praise Lenin and elevate him to superhuman status BECAUSE I LIKE DOING SO&#33;&#33; Glad that&#39;s settled...

I see. You equate your Lenin cult with my use of bb codes. :huh:

I guess that makes as much sense as anything else you&#39;ve said. :blink:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

And you&#39;re the guy who was commenting on my "weak historical knowledge"?


The 1917 comment was addressed to both of you. (Redstar and TAT) I meant the revolution in general, not the NEP. I am well aware that this was implemented in 1922; read the part of my post describing War Commnism (i.e. pre-1922) and you&#39;ll see this. Please trust me on this&#33;

I didn&#39;t word the reply very well though, fair enough.



I see. You equate your Lenin cult with my use of bb codes.


Yes. Yes I do. The principles are exactly the same&#33; Heh, Lenin cult... :lol: We&#39;re all going to commit mass suicide and take our rightful place at Lenin&#39;s right hand in heaven next Sunday if anyone wants to come along and watch?? (Damn, I&#39;m so going to hell for this...)



I guess that makes as much sense as anything else you&#39;ve said.


Wow, I&#39;m glad you finally understand&#33; I didn&#39;t realise it was so coherent, so acute... I&#39;m so great&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Listen to what I&#39;m saying&#33;&#33;&#33; Leninism failed in 1917, yes... But the fault was not in the theory

You still havent told me why? All you keep doing is justifying the theory by using 1917 as an example.


The reasons for failure are all related to the "circumstances"

I am not denying it. But the circumstances didnt just happen. They came from something, the appeared because of conflicting things. The state&#33;


The rest of your post is extraordinarily repetitive;

It appears you do not understand what I am trying to get at. Even this post, when you "settle" the issue is once again you justifying Lenins actions in the russian revolution. You have not answered my questions or attacks on the theory. I say the theory is flawed because of the contradiction which you have rightly pointed out I have made a thousand times and you keep justifying the situations that accured in Russia. I tell you why those things happened (because of the contradiction) and you then repeat the same thing like a mantra. I know what happened in Russia what I am interested to find out is why. The best you keep coming up with is the word "circumstances" as if circumstances just fall out of the sky and unfortunatly Lenin got a bad share. Lenin was in control, Lenin was the leader, and thing that went wrong was because of him and his cnetral committee. He perpetrated the state, he suppressed the workers.

Now answer my questions. Or maybe you just dont have an answer. That would be more consistent with Leninism.

[The Children of the Revolution]

OK. I will settle this. (Hopefully) By referring to the theory, that&#39;s right isn&#39;t it? And concisely too.

Why is a vanguard needed?

> Mass action brilliant - Lenin supported it - but insufficient. Read Marx: the Proletarian Revolution is the hardest to achieve in all of History.
> Workers action lacks centralised power to break the highly developed bourgeois state aparatus. Dedicated "elite" provide this core support.
> Example: European uprisings in late 60&#39;s; 15 million take to the streets... but cannot overthrow the "state".
> Vanguard, having established power, works to increase "class consciousness" until true revolution (i.e. Communism) can be implemented.

Why perpetrate the state and why refuse democracy?

> Quoting Engels: "As long as the proletariat still needs the state, it needs it, not in the interests of freedom, but for the purpose of crushing its antagonists; and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, then the state, as such, ceases to exist" - the state must exist to create the conditions (wiping out of Capitalism in all forms) necessary for Communism.
> Quoting Lenin: "Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken ... when there are no classes (i.e., there is no difference between the members of society in their relation to the social means of production), only then the state ceases to exist"
> Quoting Lenin: "during the transition from capitalism to Communism, suppression is still necessary; but it is the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of exploited."

> "Democracy", in Bourgeois sense, means exploitation. Whilst there are still counter-revolutionary elements around, "democracy" cannot function.
> Quoting Lenin: "Only in Communist society... a really full democracy, a democracy without any exceptions, will be possible and will be realized."


Hopefully this will answer some questions.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 30 2004, 12:37 AM
> Mass action brilliant - Lenin supported it - but insufficient. Read Marx: the Proletarian Revolution is the hardest to achieve in all of History.
> Workers action lacks centralised power to break the highly developed bourgeois state aparatus. Dedicated "elite" provide this core support.
I can&#39;t seem to figure out why is this needed, really. And what if the "leaders" were Anarchists??


> Vanguard, having established power, works to increase "class consciousness" until true revolution (i.e. Communism) can be implemented.

Well, not really. They just make the people depend on the state, and such a system won&#39;t create "class consciousness" because it doesnt prepare people for a stateless society.

I think the masses will eventually revolt against capitalism. It&#39;s just a matter of time. After all, Marx only tried to show how he saw history. Imposing the change from above won&#39;t end up well. It did happen in the Russian Revolution, because the situation was one of the best examples of when the masses should change things. However things didn&#39;t end up as expected. We all know why.
The "class consciousness" will eventually arrive. The only thing we can do until that moment is preparing the people. And of course, we can&#39;t create a stateless society all of the sudden. And I can&#39;t see why a centrally planned economy is better than a federally planned economy organized directly by workers. A big failure we had so far is not creating the class consciousness. Without it, a revolution won&#39;t happen.

I think people is able to organize matters by themselves. They do that everyday, for example, I don&#39;t need a leader to tell me to post this, i post this by my own decision.

[The Feral Underclass]

OK. I will settle this. (Hopefully) By referring to the theory, that&#39;s right isn&#39;t it? And concisely too.

Unfortunatly no.

>
Mass action brilliant - Lenin supported it - but insufficient.

Why?


the Proletarian Revolution is the hardest to achieve in all of History.

No one said it would be easy.


Workers action lacks centralised power to break the highly developed bourgeois state aparatus.

You still havent said why centralised power is any more effective at removing the ruling class from power?


Dedicated "elite" provide this core support.

Why cant the workers provide support for each other?


Example: European uprisings in late 60&#39;s; 15 million take to the streets... but cannot overthrow the "state".

What are you refering too?


Vanguard, having established power, works to increase "class consciousness" until true revolution (i.e. Communism) can be implemented.

So the assertion goes (again) I put it to you that the vanguard can not achieve class consciousness and ultimatly communism by using the state because of the contradictions mentioned.


"As long as the proletariat still needs the state, it needs it, not in the interests of freedom, but for the purpose of crushing its antagonists; and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom, then the state, as such, ceases to exist" - the state must exist to create the conditions (wiping out of Capitalism in all forms) necessary for Communism.

Engels was wrong. The state can not be used to achieve communism. Of course it can be used to effectivly smash the ruling class. But he says "when it is possible to speak of freedom the state, as such, ceases to exist." the as such bit sounds dubious for a start. Secondly the state can not cease to exist because it has to be perpetrated in order for it to stop existing. This is a huge contradiction. Engels does not explain how it ceases to exist, he simply asserts that it will. Mysteriously and without explination, the state, which has been perpetrated for years will suddenly just disappear.


"Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken ... when there are no classes (i.e., there is no difference between the members of society in their relation to the social means of production), only then the state ceases to exist"

"social means of production", does that mean that everyone gets paid the same or what? The state does not suddenly disappear because everyone gets the same wages or because everyone has equal economic conditions. How does a huge army, police force, security forces and cenral bureaucracy just cease to exist. Why do leaders suddenly hand over there power? Because the workers get to earn the same amount of money? Because everyone has bread?


"during the transition from capitalism to Communism, suppression is still necessary; but it is the suppression of the minority of exploiters by the majority of exploited."

I agree whole heartedly. The workers must be organized to suppress capitalism and create a statless society.


"Democracy", in Bourgeois sense, means exploitation. Whilst there are still counter-revolutionary elements around, "democracy" cannot function.


Why? The workers councils and collectives in barcelona and catalnia managed to organze themselves democraticly and continue to operate in a democratic way. This assertion again goes back to human ability. There is no explination for what you are saying. Why cant democracy exist in a revolutionary situation? Do human beings not have the ability to think and at in such a way.


Quoting Lenin: "Only in Communist society... a really full democracy, a democracy without any exceptions, will be possible and will be realized."

I would say that true communism can only be achieved once the ruling class has been smashed. But I do not agree that revolutionary war negates democracy or the ability to be democratic. The only thing that creates antagonisms is the state and its hierarchical authority. Remove these things and the workers will have the ability and the power to act for themselves. Maintain it and the outcome of the revolution will be the same as Russia, China and Cuba. "To many ego&#39;s spoil the revolution."

[The Feral Underclass]

I can&#39;t seem to figure out why is this needed, really. And what if the "leaders" were Anarchists??

What do you mean by leaders?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30 2004, 09:30 AM
What do you mean by leaders?
I don&#39;t think "leaders" will be needed, because in fact such a role should be played by every revolutionary. The point was that Anarchists can play that role as a whole, that doesn&#39;t necesarilly mean that there should be a "vanguard". I was just comparing the "vanguard party" with the Anarchist revolution.

[The Children of the Revolution]

You still havent said why centralised power is any more effective at removing the ruling class from power?


The vanguard, the "revolutionary elite", exists only to destroy the existing capitalist framework. It has devoted itself to this cause whereas individual workers will have different ideas; perhaps even support the old system.



"Example: European uprisings in late 60&#39;s; 15 million take to the streets... but cannot overthrow the &#39;state&#39;."

What are you refering too?


The popular uprisings in France and Italy in 1968 and 1969. (I think) As I said, nearly 15 million took to the streets and achieved next to nothing. Because they lacked the dedicated hard-core revolutionaries of a Leninist persuasion.



Mysteriously and without explination, the state, which has been perpetrated for years will suddenly just disappear.


The state has existed for this long because its primary role is to maintain the power of the ruling class. As Lenin said, once this ruling class has been destroyed, the state has no function. And so it will wither away.



How does a huge army, police force, security forces and cenral bureaucracy just cease to exist.


These institutions are only there to serve Capitalist interests. The suppression of the workers and Imperial foreign policy. Once these are no longer an issue, they will have no function; they are obsolete. So they will gradually (as Lenin said, it won&#39;t happen overnight) decline in importance, then disappear.



Why cant democracy exist in a revolutionary situation? Do human beings not have the ability to think and at in such a way?
...
I would say that true communism can only be achieved once the ruling class has been smashed.


You have answered your own question. Until the revolution succeeds, there will be counter-revolutionary elements "hanging around". These must be eliminated before any "workers collectives" can even be considered. It is not solely the state that creates "antagonisms", (although it does to some degree) but the ruling class itself. What you suggest - removing the state - does not, in any way, deal with the ruling class themselves.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 26 2004, 06:06 PM
Capitalism as a system has forced people to accept a certain set of rules to life. Throughout the generations human beings have accepted certain facts as some sort of inevitability to live. For working class people the rules are simple. You are born, you get a job, you pay your way, bills, rent, taxes and then you die. For most this is just a fact of life. But for me, who has been afforded the luxury of time, have learnt to be critical. What makes this a fact of life? The answer is capitalism. The system of profit. It is this concept of individual gain that has forced these rules to be accepted as fact. Throughout these generations individuals, or groups of individuals have been given the rights to maximise their power and wealth, and to do this they nave used other individuals, generations who have come after them, who have been born into certain conditions and have no choice, but to work, pay rent, pay taxes and then die.
I agree and I like the way you exlained it. The capitalist system is intigrated into people as they develope, almost from birth in many circumstances. You are also correct that the option of not working within the capitalist system is largly unavailable.


This disastrous reality has created feelings of alienation. People are separated from society as mere objects, used in a factory, or other work place, to maximise profit. Wealth is glorified and for those who don’t have it, a sense of underachievement, a sense of disempowerment simply makes people accept that reality is exactly that. Reality, and it could never change.
Not only are these people reduced to objects but they are for all practical purposes property of the state, sold to corporate interests. These people have no avialable examples of resistance to this system, they need our movement to enpower them.


Now I am not saying that racism has completely been eradicated, but change did come. Profound, fundamental change. It is now illegal to stop a black person from using a bus or sitting in a park. Fifty years ago having black lawyers or even black teachers was completely unheard of. Now, it is illegal to disqualify a person based on colour.
This is where the reform factor comes in. As the capitalists have the power over the system, they can over-ride the reforms made and curb the movement. That is why radical change is needed.


Movements grow, they start of small and isolated but they grow over time, forms of domination begin to be forced into justifying themselves. The Vietnam War movement is another example. It started of small, but by the end, the world said in one voice they would not tolerate the war. Consciousness about the war was reached. Yet again, those in power attempted to justify it and even resulted in killing those who protested, but the American government was brought to its knees.
This is because people could see the direct effects of the war. The ruling class has made many changes since then to improve the sell-ablity of war.


Working class people already have a basic level of consciousness. They see that there are problems in their lives but are unprepared to put those problems into a wider political perspective. History has proven that human ability forces people to certain realisations. Because capitalism exploits and because it disempowers means it is only a matter of dedication and time before it is put into perspective. At this point capitalism is forced to justify itself. It can&#39;t justify exploitation and i will be forced to change.
This basic level is almost intuative but the ruling class has methods to exploit this. Ignorance is a large problem, some people just don&#39;t want to deal with the problems. We have to force capitalism to justify itself and the working class to take an interest in it.


But for Leninism it is not so simple. Because Leninists argue that the working class do not have the ability to gain this class consciousness within capitalism, renders the whole notion of a revolution, well, impossible. I suppose it is a matter of opinion.
I don&#39;t concider myself a Leninist. The people that see the problems of a society must work for awareness. They may become leaders but all people of the working class should try to take part in the movement.


What is a workers revolution? A workers revolution is just that. A revolution of workers. In order for a revolution to be purposeful, i.e. to achieve its objective, which is workers liberation, the entire working class must be conscious of it, otherwise what is the point. The Leninists argue that a revolution can be fought unilaterally without the general support of the working class. To overthrow the state and replace it with a workers state.
Revolution is built on the workers support. If you lose their support, you have a critical failure.


To be pedantic, if the workers are not supporting or involved in the revolution then who is the revolution for? If you reduce it down to its very core the revolution is about a group of men and women attempting to get into power. That is what it is. I suppose you could say in it’s (the revolution) material “being” that is the sole purpose of this action. To achieve control over a state. What the Leninists then do is throw in lots of ideals to justify their actions. They call it a workers state or use the most bizarre term, “in the interests of the workers,” in an effort to validate what they are doing. But these idealistic phrases mean nothing to the actual, material situation that is being created by them.
It seems to me that they take control for the workers as the workers don&#39;t have the means.


Leninists and anarchists both agree what workers liberation is. Communism&#33; A society of human beings who live freely, without a state or its authority, in co-operation with each other and free from exploitation, or, the need to sell your labour to survive. That is what we all want. Anarchists and Leninists alike.
I would expand that to revolutionary leftists in general.


However, Leninists believe that to achieve this the workers must be led into a revolution, which seems impossible to achieve baring in mind, and by the admission of Leninists, that capitalism has warped the workers brains beyond any kind of understanding, to create a whole new state. What the state then does is act as a parent or guardian for the ignorant working class to protect them from the bouregoisie. When I say protect, it isnt actually the state that is doing the protecting it is the workers themselves. Being organized and led by a party vangaurd. What you then have, assuming that the workers suddenly, blinded by their ignorance, decided to overhtrow the ruling class, is a proletariat obeying the vangaurd, because they have no other alternative to comprehend. The Leninists have overthrown one regime that the workers dont understand and replaced it with another regime, they do not understand. The vangaurdists then ask, or demand, that the workers accept their authority and trust them to do the right thing.
The workers should really be informed of how to help themselves. The movement for the workers cannot move against the workers, if the workers are informed on the movement, they will help and if it goes wrong, they would be there to support. You cannot make enemies of the workers, this is the opposite of the goal.


In the eyes of Leninism, to do the right thing, the state must be perpetrated in all its glory. In fact, it must be strengthened and increased in order to fulfil the ideal of workers liberation. Amazing as it may seem, in order to liberate the working class they must first be dominated by the very thing that stops them from being liberated, by those who wish to liberate them. “But the masses are ignorant to our aims, they must be led” shout the cries. But Look at how they are to be led. In order to defend the working class all their freedoms must be taken away from them. In order to safe guard the Leninist revolution, all opposition, regardless of class, must be oppressed. In order to create liberation the working class must hand over all power to a centralised authority, a vanguard and state. This is the inherent problem with Leninism. You can not give workers freedoms while at the same time taking them away. You can not hand over power to them while removing power from them. Leninism does not work because it creates layer after layer, solving one problem with another problem which ultimatly creates one giant mess. Not workers liberation&#33;
The dictatorship of the proletairiot is supposed to be the working class oppressing the ruling class, in order to regain rights and community structure that is fragmented by the capitalists.


The workers can not achieve liberation through a state, just as they can not obtain libration through the present day state structure. Liberation can only come once human ability has been achieved. When consciousness has been reached and it will be reached, just as it has been done throughout history. As long as there is a movement challanging capitalism and forcing it to justify itself it will not last for ever.
A state run by the working class is a different matter. As long as the ruling class has state powers, there must be a counter or we are back where we started and the is best case scenario.

[The Feral Underclass]

Children of the Revolution

I apologies for not responding sooner. I did write a response before but then lost it.


The vanguard, the "revolutionary elite", exists only to destroy the existing capitalist framework.

But you have not explained why this form of organization is any more effective than organization, which is decentralized and non-hierarchical?


individual workers will have different ideas; perhaps even support the old system.

You seem to be missing my original point. The working class, in order to even have a revolution, must first understand it, accept that understanding and work to change the material conditions of society. Your conclusion doesn’t make sense. How does your revolution come into being if the workers have "different ideas" to that of liberating themselves? Achieving class consciousness within the proletariat means that the sole purpose of any action taken will be to destroy the old system.


The popular uprisings in France and Italy in 1968 and 1969. (I think) As I said, nearly 15 million took to the streets and achieved next to nothing. Because they lacked the dedicated hard-core revolutionaries of a Leninist persuasion.

Actually the workers and students who went onto the streets of Paris in May 1968 had clear objectives. The action was largely spontaneous and due to the fact that the right wing government of De Gaulle was creating unbearable social realities. Action was taken. In fact a lot of the organization came from non authotarians who had broken into groups to take control of certain key areas. One example being the ministry of justice. It was only when a Student Trotskyist organization attempted to centralize control and organize the action from a central platform that the uprising began to falter. The workers and students lost the initiative and opportunities were missed. Ultimately leading to the suppression of the uprising. This assertion you have made is factually untrue.


These institutions are only there to serve Capitalist interests. The suppression of the workers and Imperial foreign policy. Once these are no longer an issue, they will have no function; they are obsolete

What has changed is only in the name. These institutions now serve the ruling elite of the Leninist party vanguard as opposed to serving the interests of the capitalist ruling class. You assume that the state will wither away. I say that it can not simply wither away because of the contradiction that I have mentioned several times. In order for the state to exist it must expand itself. It must grow in power and suppress workers freedoms in order for it to achieve its ultimate goal. I will ask you again. How can the state decrease and wither away if it is expanding and becoming all consuming. The state then becomes integrated within society as the only force that can achieve workers liberation, which can never be achieved because the state by its nature contradicts the concept of liberation. The state can not simply lose function and become obsolete. It can only be removed by force. Just as the capitalist system can not be modified to the point of non existence. The state can only be removed by force.


Until the revolution succeeds, there will be counter-revolutionary elements "hanging around".

I agree. That is why the working class must be organized to fight them.


These must be eliminated before any "workers collectives" can even be considered.

Why? Workers collective is a concept of organization. Of course the concept will go through hard times but a revolution is not going to be easy. The concept of creating collectives and defending the revolution seem to be separate issues. Collective is a democratic way to organize which frees humans from the oppression of the state. You see a weakness in the concept because you can not comprehend organization without the state. I see it as quite simple. The conscious working class organizing themselves and fighting capitalism.

You say that it can not be "considered" which is a strange choice of words. We have the ability to consider anything it is making it work which maybe difficult. This does not mean it can not work though. Nobody said it would be easy.


It is not solely the state that creates "antagonisms", (although it does to some degree) but the ruling class itself.

Precisely and those antagonisms will continue as the "workers" state exists. Meaning that communism can never be achieved. Again, in order for the state to exist and operate in the way Leninism intends it to it must create more and more antagonisms. This can not lead to liberation. It is (materially) impossible.


What you suggest - removing the state - does not, in any way, deal with the ruling class themselves.

Yes it does. It just deals with it in a different way&#33;

[The Feral Underclass]

Not only are these people reduced to objects but they are for all practical purposes property of the state, sold to corporate interests. These people have no avialable examples of resistance to this system, they need our movement to enpower them.

Exactly. The point of any movement is to empower people, not to lead them.


This is where the reform factor comes in. As the capitalists have the power over the system, they can over-ride the reforms made and curb the movement. That is why radical change is needed.

Again precisly my point.


This basic level is almost intuative but the ruling class has methods to exploit this. Ignorance is a large problem, some people just don&#39;t want to deal with the problems.

People may not want to deal with general problems in society but I believe that this is because they feel disempowered. When speaking and meeting with people, students and working class people the same response always comes up - "it&#39;s a great idea but what can I do to change it." I admit that that consumerism has clouded people&#39;s minds and has created a layer of apathy. But I think generally the desire to change is strong, people just do not think they can make a difference. It is the role of any movement fighting for workers liberation to create feelings of empowerment and bring these feelings of anger, and even apathy into perspective.


We have to force capitalism to justify itself and the working class to take an interest in it.

Yes&#33;


Revolution is built on the workers support. If you lose their support, you have a critical failure.

Yet leninists believe it is unnecessary.


It seems to me that they take control for the workers as the workers don&#39;t have the means.

I dont agree. The workers have the means to take control, they do not have the perspective or sense of empowerment.


The workers should really be informed of how to help themselves. The movement for the workers cannot move against the workers, if the workers are informed on the movement, they will help and if it goes wrong, they would be there to support. You cannot make enemies of the workers, this is the opposite of the goal.

But Leninism asserts that the workers, for all intents and purposes, should be coerced into accepting the authority of ruling elite in order achieve their liberation :unsure:


The dictatorship of the proletairiot is supposed to be the working class oppressing the ruling class, in order to regain rights and community structure that is fragmented by the capitalists.

Supposed being the operative word. Actually the theory is simply words and ideals used to justify their position. The practical purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat contradicts the theoretical purpose. The working class actually have little say in the running of state instituations and in fact must obey the authority of the vangaurd elite or face charges of subeversion. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which amounts to the state, must centralise authority into the hands of the vanagaurd, completely bypassing the working class in order for it to exist. Thus creating a contradiction. The theory goes against the practice. One can not exist in order for the other to exist. Either it is workers power or state power. There can not be both. The contradiction is staggering and the leninists, on this board at least, do not even seem to attempt to correct it. Or they simply do not understand it.


A state run by the working class is a different matter. As long as the ruling class has state powers, there must be a counter or we are back where we started and the is best case scenario.

The state is only run by the working class in so far as the members of the ruling elite may have been workers before assuming power, although the likly hood of actual workers from factories etc would sit in any executive committee. In fact the Leninists do not believe that it is possible for the workers to have positions of power and must leave these desicions to the intellectuals.

The workers state exists only in name. As I said above a contradiction of implosive proportion exists within the theory which can not lead to success. You can not have one and the other. It has to be a choice. Workers liberation or state power. Leninists choose state power, anarchists choose workers liberation.

[The Children of the Revolution]

But you have not explained why this form of organization is any more effective than organization, which is decentralized and non-hierarchical?


It makes perfect sense, comrade. An organistation devoted to destroying the "existing capitalist framework" - or a bunch of workers who would rather just have enough to eat? And if the workers WERE this committed, they would form part of the vanguard&#33; They would have achieved class consciuosness (although I maintain that they would be a minority) and would therefore be a part of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".



How does your revolution come into being if the workers have "different ideas" to that of liberating themselves?


My dear fellow, this is the very crux of the argument&#33;&#33; A vanguard takes power IN THE NAME OF the proletariat whilst promoting the development of class consciousness amongst the workers&#33;&#33;



Actually the workers and students who went onto the streets of Paris in May 1968 had clear objectives.


But not the overthrow of the state.



How can the state decrease and wither away if it is expanding and becoming all consuming.


The state CAN AND WILL wither away in the absence of the class it supports&#33;&#33; This being the capitalist class&#33;&#33; Once they have been vanquished, the state will have no function. It will not defend the Leninist elite, they exist (in theory) only to serve the proletariat.



in order for the state to exist and operate in the way Leninism intends it to it must create more and more antagonisms.


I think you are looking at 1917 here, and trying to criticise the theory rather than the practice. The state is a capitalist tool; it was extremely limited in the feudal era and, I would argue, in the proletarian era too.

[DEPAVER]

I embrace the tennants of anarchism, but do not claim to be a communist and never will. Please don&#39;t act like you are speaking for all anarchists, because you are not.

In a society in which a worker, by any definition, owns a 3,000 square foot house, has two cars, a boat, 60 inch color teevee, a stereo system, travels to Cancun for vacation, has stocks and bonds and a pension from work,,, it is very difficult to distinguish between worker and owner. When one has more than enough, having more of more makes little difference.

Yes, there are some who don&#39;t have these things, but they are workers, too, no less than those who have more. Those who have less than those who have more, have much less than those who have much more of more.

The distinction between CEO and janitor is not between have and have not, it is between have less and have more. All have; it is a matter of degree.

The worker wants exactly the same things that the owner has, so there is no inherent difference in goals between owner and worker. the worker doesn&#39;t want o own the factory; the worker wants to own the same size house, the same number of cars and boats, the same number of expensive toys as the owner. The worker doesn&#39;t want to share the means of production with the other workers; the worker wants to be the owner&#33;

Those who are unemployed, homeless or disabled want not only to be workers, but to be owners as well. They want (those who care) to have all the things the workers and owners have, to be just like them. They don&#39;t want to be equal owners of the means of production, they want to be the owners. It&#39;s the American dream&#33;

Anyone who still thinks that the interests of workers and owners are diametrically opposed has never spent any time among the workers, or even read a popular magazine or newspaper.

The true opposition is between corporations and communities, between centralized and decentralized decision-making, between authoritarianism and self-government.

Furthermore, the distinction between workers and owners, if there is any, which there isn&#39;t, is irrelevant in a society which is rapidly destroying the earth&#39;s ability to sustain it. There is no alternative to destructive capitalism in the world today. There is no socialism, there is no anarchism. There is not even a significant minority of the people who understand the threat of global environmental and economic collapse looming on the horizon.

I wish we could go back to the simple lifestyle of the Native Americans, but we can&#39;t. There&#39;s too damn many of us, producing and consuming too much shit.

I hate to burst everyone&#39;s hopes, but unless there is some sort of world wide breakdown, some socio-enviro collapse that brings us to our senses and kills a few million non-feathered bipeds, people are not going to change. The average American has no clue what you&#39;re talking about, they don&#39;t feel oppressed and just want their "fair share," even if their fair share comes at the expense of other living things.

"I am going to venture that the man who sat on the ground in his tipi meditating on life and its meaning, accepting the kinship of all creatures, and acknowledging unity with the universe of things, was infusing into his being the true essence of civilization."
Chief Luther Standing Bear

[The Feral Underclass]

com·rade ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmrd, -rd)
n.
A person who shares one&#39;s interests or activities; a friend or companion.


It makes perfect sense, comrade. An organistation devoted to destroying the "existing capitalist framework" - or a bunch of workers who would rather just have enough to eat? And if the workers WERE this committed, they would form part of the vanguard&#33; They would have achieved class consciuosness (although I maintain that they would be a minority) and would therefore be a part of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

I know what the theory is. My question is why is this form of organization any better than decentralised, non hierarchical organization.


My dear fellow, this is the very crux of the argument&#33;&#33; A vanguard takes power IN THE NAME OF the proletariat whilst promoting the development of class consciousness amongst the workers&#33;&#33;

How do they manage to do this? And why do the leninists feel that they have more of a right to create change than the workers?


But not the overthrow of the state.

I do not know whether this was an objective on the table or not, neither do you. What is your point?


The state CAN AND WILL wither away in the absence of the class it supports&#33;&#33;

But in order for it exist the new ruling class (vanguard elite) to achieve its objectives it has to expand the state. How can it decrease if in order for it to exist it has to expand. how can something that is increasing wither away. That is the question I am asking you?


This being the capitalist class&#33;&#33; Once they have been vanquished, the state will have no function. It will not defend the Leninist elite, they exist (in theory) only to serve the proletariat.

I understand the theory or even the intent of leninists. What I am poseing is that the theory does not work because of thise contradiction. Do you admit that a contradiction exists? If so how can communism be achieved? If not then what is wrong with what I am saying? How am I coming to this conclusion? You dont seem to have an answer. All you keep doing is repeating the same mantra over and over again.


I think you are looking at 1917 here, and trying to criticise the theory rather than the practice.

I am talking about the theory in general and how the theory and the practice contradict each other.


The state is a capitalist tool;

This is your fatal mistake. It is not just a capitalist tool. It is a tool used by a ruling class to perpetrate its existence.


it was extremely limited in the feudal era and, I would argue, in the proletarian era too.

You mean you assume it will be limited in the proletarian era? Even this creates a contradiction. How can the state be "extemely limited" when the state has to expand in order to survive? Lenin himself said that the state would have to become more bigger and more servier. Ok, so he may have meant it to be against the bouregoisie. The problem is, because of the nature of what Lenin was trying to do the line between bourgois subversion and workers subversion became distorted. In fact there was no line. All subversion was crushed and must be crushed in future leninist regimes in order for the state to exist. The state becomes a tool used by the vanguard to crush all opposition. Control the economy and the armed forces. Thus expanding the role of the state. Thus creating a contradiction. It can not be limited and expanded at the same time. This same contradictions run through the whole marxist-leninist theory of the state. A contradiction you are failing to see.

[The Feral Underclass]

DEPAVER

I presume your post was aimed at me&#33;

I dont really understand the point your trying to make. From what I did understand I will respectfully disagree with you. The worker and the owner may have the same desires but there is a reason for that. Capitalism makes this the case. Which I pointed out in my original post. I do not really see why this is relevant except as far as your fatalism goes. You think it is hopeless, I do not.

In my opinion these desires and beliefs are not finite they are changable. Another point I made in my original post.

As for not being a communist fine. But understand that communism is principly anarchism.


Anyone who still thinks that the interests of workers and owners are diametrically opposed has never spent any time among the workers, or even read a popular magazine or newspaper.

This I fundamentally disagree with. The interests of the workers and the rulers is profoundly opposed. The rulers mean to exploit the workers are exploited. Maybe their desires are the same. The workers wish to get to a point where they can exploit, but that isnt a conscious feeling. The workers do not think "i want to become an exploiter because I will have a nice house." Capitalism creates these devisions and has compeltely perversed any kind of perspective. You seem to think that the workers are the same as the rulers. I think thats outragous. Yes the workers want to have nice houses and nice cars and go on nice holidays. Do you blame them. Being exploited and used and forced to except such an injust reality desiring a good standard of living is to be expected.

[DEPAVER]

As for not being a communist fine. But understand that communism is principly anarchism.

This statement is completely false. Anarchism is a political philosophy that embraces democracy and freedom, and seeks to eliminate all forms of coercion and oppression. Ancient people like the Ohlone of Northern California had anarchistic communities, but were certainly not communist.

In anarchism there is no "overthrow of capitalism" by the revolution of the proletariat, since violent revolution is antithetical to anarchism. How do you propose to overthrow capitalism?

As communism is understood in today&#39;s world (and remember, the people you&#39;re talking to are looking at things in this manner) represents a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power. This is completely antithetical to anarchism.

The practice of anarchism is based on five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity. With regard to our anarchist political philosophy, anarchists speak of equality in terms of access to power, the power to determine how each individual wants to live his or her life. This doesn&#39;t mean anarchists want a new society based on a totalitarian vision of everyone looking andacting the same, in fact we see strength in diversity. The best way for equal power to be institutionalized is through diverse, culturally relevant forms of democracy.



The interests of the workers and the rulers is profoundly opposed.

Go sit next to a utility worker for an energy company in the U.S. and ask him if he feels his interests are opposed to his "rulers." He&#39;s going to say he wants more pay, a bigger house for the lady, college money for the kids and most likely wants to be the boss.

My suggestion would be for you to put down the old text books written by a bunch of dead white men and talk to the average joe on the streets. They don&#39;t see it this way, although you and I may see it that way.


You seem to think that the workers are the same as the rulers. I think thats outragous.

I never said that. I said their goals are the same in that they both want more "stuff." I don&#39;t believe the average worker in America gives a rats ass about bringing the ruler down to his level. He wants to move up to the level of the ruler&#33;

And of course they are exploited, but we can&#39;t use these old terms to try and explain what&#39;s happening. Americans are trained in compulsory state run schools to be compliant, quiescent and to obey authority. The minute you start using a bunch of terms they&#39;ve been trained to be wary of, you&#39;ll lose them.

Talk about fairness, healthcare for everyone, having more green places so you can fish, hunt and hike with your kids, talk about fair wages and not having to worry about your job or losing your home. Talk about things they can relate to and throw the words "ruler," "worker," "anarchism," "socialism" and the like out of your vocabulary.

In fact, substitute anarchy with democracy. They are essentially the same thing. Governance for the people, by the people and of the people.

[redstar2000]

In a society in which a worker, by any definition, owns a 3,000 square foot house, has two cars, a boat, 60 inch color teevee, a stereo system, travels to Cancun for vacation, has stocks and bonds and a pension from work...

Interesting group of workers you hang out with...I don&#39;t know anyone like that myself.

I have heard of them -- second-hand -- of course. I surmise that they owe a bundle on all of that stuff they "own". I assume that in the event their job moves to Assholia, they won&#39;t be allowed to go with it. I wonder how much of what they "own" they&#39;ll get to keep after the repo man calls and the bankruptcy court issues its judgment...and their new McJob grants them the princely sum of &#036;9.50 per hour.


The distinction between CEO and janitor is not between have and have not, it is between have less and have more. All have; it is a matter of degree.

Funny thing for an "anarchist" to say. The difference is that the CEO gives orders and the janitor takes orders. The former is a free man; the latter is a wage-slave.

Not to mention the fact that in Los Angeles, the janitor&#39;s union is extremely militant and growing rapidly...evidently, they don&#39;t feel that they just "have less".


The worker wants exactly the same things that the owner has, so there is no inherent difference in goals between owner and worker.

Things? You mean stuff? Like palaces and estates and yachts and crap like that?

The most precious thing I&#39;ve ever known workers to talk about is having enough money not to have to work...to be free from bondage.

The stuff is supposed to "compensate" for not being free.

It doesn&#39;t.


Anyone who still thinks that the interests of workers and owners are diametrically opposed has never spent any time among the workers, or even read a popular magazine or newspaper.

I&#39;ve never spent any amount of time with anyone who wasn&#39;t a worker -- and the opinion was universal: the people "on top" are a bunch of bastards&#33;

That&#39;s primitive Marxism for you.

As to "popular magazines and newspapers", are you under the impression that people read that stuff "because they agree with it?"

They read it because that&#39;s all they know that exists...and their opinions of those things are not particularly elevated. When I tell new acquaintances that I don&#39;t own a dummyvision set, the response is usually "you aren&#39;t missing a thing".

One of the reasons for the explosion of the internet is the search by ordinary people for information about what is really going on...they already know they are being lied to.


Furthermore, the distinction between workers and owners, if there is any, which there isn&#39;t, is irrelevant in a society which is rapidly destroying the earth&#39;s ability to sustain it. There is no alternative to destructive capitalism in the world today. There is no socialism, there is no anarchism. There is not even a significant minority of the people who understand the threat of global environmental and economic collapse looming on the horizon.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the sky is falling and doom is at hand...so what?

If the planetary environment crashes, there&#39;s not a fucking thing we can do about it.

If an asteroid 10 kilometers in diameter crashes into the Earth, nearly all life will be destroyed...and there&#39;s nothing we can do about that either.

"Doomsday" scenarios are useless...if not just an excuse for passive acceptance of the prevailing social order.


I hate to burst everyone&#39;s hopes...

No you don&#39;t; that was the purpose of your post.


In anarchism there is no "overthrow of capitalism" by the revolution of the proletariat, since violent revolution is antithetical to anarchism.

This is the kind of thing that gives "anarchism" a bad name among revolutionaries (just like Leninism gives "Marxism" a bad name).

Anyone who wants to end wage-slavery would read your statement and automatically assume that "anarchists" are a bunch of dreamers...who understand nothing of class struggle.

But go and read about the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish Revolution. Oddly enough, the violent overthrow of the capitalist class was exactly what they had in mind.

True, they failed. Most human endeavors fail. It&#39;s better to try to do the right thing and fail than it is to try and do the wrong thing and succeed.


Go sit next to a utility worker for an energy company in the U.S. and ask him if he feels his interests are opposed to his "rulers." He&#39;s going to say he wants more pay, a bigger house for the lady, college money for the kids and most likely wants to be the boss.

Well, that depends on which utility worker you happen to sit next to. If he&#39;s just been informed that his job is in the toilet and so is his pension plan, he might offer a somewhat more caustic appraisal of "employer-employee" relationships.


My suggestion would be for you to put down the old text books written by a bunch of dead white men and talk to the average joe on the streets.

Maybe some of those "dead white men" knew more about social reality than "the average joe".

Maybe?


I don&#39;t believe the average worker in America gives a rat&#39;s ass about bringing the ruler down to his level. He wants to move up to the level of the ruler&#33;

In periods of reaction, people often conclude that individual "solutions" to their problems are "all there is" (that&#39;s certainly the message that&#39;s constantly pounded into their heads).

The possible gains from collective struggle are difficult to perceive when there&#39;s very little of it taking place.

But, things change. Periods of reaction give way to periods of upheaval. Unless you want to argue that "history has come to an end", the winds of rebellion will rise again.

And the "average joe" will prove to be far more radical than you can even begin to imagine.


Talk about fairness, healthcare for everyone, having more green places so you can fish, hunt and hike with your kids, talk about fair wages and not having to worry about your job or losing your home. Talk about things they can relate to and throw the words "ruler", "worker", "anarchism", "socialism" and the like out of your vocabulary.

Talk like...Bill Clinton?

Talk just like all the slimy bastards who run things talk now...and that will make people listen to us?


In fact, substitute anarchy with democracy. They are essentially the same thing. Governance for the people, by the people and of the people.

I think you should follow your own advice...since you are the most "watered-down" -- not to say piss-poor -- "anarchist" that I&#39;ve run across.

Now, go run for office.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

This statement is completely false. Anarchism is a political philosophy that embraces democracy and freedom, and seeks to eliminate all forms of coercion and oppression. Ancient people like the Ohlone of Northern California had anarchistic communities, but were certainly not communist.

Communism is a political philosophy that advocates a stateless, non-hierarchical society based on the principle "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

Anarchism advocates the same yet means to achieve it differently to the marxist hypothesis. Anarchism, as far as I understand it advocates these communist principles in organization and in acheiving communism.


In anarchism there is no "overthrow of capitalism" by the revolution of the proletariat, since violent revolution is antithetical to anarchism. How do you propose to overthrow capitalism?

Any confrontation with capitalism will inevitably be violent. It is a fact. Not a nice one but a fact nonetheless. In order for the working class to achieve liberation capitalism must be destroyed and that is not going to happen through modification or reform. Capialism is not going to wither away because the majority of people do not want it. Capitalism is a protected institution and form of organization kept in place by armed forces, state laws and the police. No matter how many people you become conscious capitalism is not going to go without a fight.


As communism is understood in today&#39;s world (and remember, the people you&#39;re talking to are looking at things in this manner) represents a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power. This is completely antithetical to anarchism

What people understand about communism is wrong. Communism is in fact the complete opposite of what most people percieve it to be. Do you think we should forget what communism is because the popular understanding is in the opposite?


The practice of anarchism is based on five basic principles: 1) equality; 2) democracy; 3) free association; 4) mutual aid; 5) diversity. With regard to our anarchist political philosophy, anarchists speak of equality in terms of access to power, the power to determine how each individual wants to live his or her life.

In what context. People can live their lifes in many different ways that dosnt mean they are free or liberated. Your five basic principles can not be achieved within the frame work of capitalism.

You say that each indevidual has the right to live how they choose I do not agree. The ruling class do not have a right to live as exploiters, getting rich from the work of others and while that system exists your principles will never happen. You can only achieve the things you mention when the capitalist system has been destroyed.


The best way for equal power to be institutionalized is through diverse, culturally relevant forms of democracy.

Again within what context. How do you plan to achieve this? In my opinion it can not be done within the framework of capitalism.


Go sit next to a utility worker for an energy company in the U.S. and ask him if he feels his interests are opposed to his "rulers." He&#39;s going to say he wants more pay, a bigger house for the lady, college money for the kids and most likely wants to be the boss.

Subjective views about reality is not fact. Your utility worker has no idea or concept of exploitation. Sure he may desire to have more pay, who dosnt. But that dosnt mean he is any less exploited. That dosnt make the system right.


My suggestion would be for you to put down the old text books written by a bunch of dead white men and talk to the average joe on the streets. They don&#39;t see it this way, although you and I may see it that way.

Talk about fairness, healthcare for everyone, having more green places so you can fish, hunt and hike with your kids, talk about fair wages and not having to worry about your job or losing your home. Talk about things they can relate to and throw the words "ruler," "worker," "anarchism," "socialism" and the like out of your vocabulary.


These dead white men have a lot to say about things as do are the theorists who are still alive. My own consciousness is my business and I wish to develop it in order for me to have a better understanding of my role within working class struggle.

In order to achieve workers liberation they have to see it this way. I worked in united front issues with various organizations and I have come into contact with many people from across the whole class spectrum, workers, petty-bouregois and students alike. The main thing that always comes up is a feeling of disempowerment. It is our job to attempt to put that into perspective.

Many people do not care (about theory) but that dosnt mean that they wont gain some form of perspective. Fighting in contemporary working class struggles and in united front issues is important and any movement should always find new ways to create understanding. One idea that has been floated around the anarchist scene in sheffield is doing direct community work. We have also had a Sheffield Social Forum. I unfortunatly have not been involved in it due to the work I am doing (i am away from sheffield) which has been a united front forum around working class struggles. Unfortunatly it was infiltrated by Nazis and has had to stop for the time being.

But that is not what we are talking about in this discussion and the people who are involved in this discussion are comfortable with the words and meanings of "anarchism" etc. Please done distort my political activities with my theorising on che-lives. They are two seperate things.


I never said that. I said their goals are the same in that they both want more "stuff." I don&#39;t believe the average worker in America gives a rats ass about bringing the ruler down to his level. He wants to move up to the level of the ruler&#33;

This does not negate the actual issue. In order to achieve workers liberation the workers have to understand that they need to bring the ruler down to his level otherwise liberation can never be reached. How you achieve this is the decision for anarchist federations or groups around the world.

Redstar mentions the janitors union in LA. I would like to mention the miners strikes, dock workers strikes in the 70&#39;s and 80&#39;s and the firefighters and postel strikes today in our country. Workers are angry. They do become militant and they do want to see workers having more control.


In fact, substitute anarchy with democracy. They are essentially the same thing. Governance for the people, by the people and of the people.

What democracy? In what context are you saying democracy? I will not substitue the word anarchy with democracy. Democracy is a vague uneffiliated word which is even more abstract than anarchism. Democracy how? for what purpose? Anarchism is a defined political philosophy that answers all questions. Just because the working class maybe afraid of the word dosnt mean that we should be. Challanging peoples understandings of things is paramount to working class struggle. I am not sayin it is the only way to achieve an anarcho-communist society, but if we start changing or modifying our meanings to suit the present situation then what actually are you achieving. I am not some opportunist who will change my coating to find support. I am an anarchist. And proud to be one. It is my role as an anarchist and the role of the movement I belong to to promote anarchism within the working class in what ever capacity that may be.

[DEPAVER]

Funny thing for an "anarchist" to say. The difference is that the CEO gives orders and the janitor takes orders. The former is a free man; the latter is a wage-slave.

And of course, your challenge is to convince him that he is a wage slave.

What do you point non socialists/anarchists/communists toward in order to explain what socialism is and why we should have a socialist society? How do we explain to non-socialists (who are rewarded by the present society for anti-socialist behavior) how a socialist society would provide for their needs better than the present anti-socialist society? How do we explain to workers who have an abundance of material wealth that they should band with other workers, including those who have less material wealth, to do away with the present socials system that rewards them with such material wealth?

How do those who are not living a socialist life convince others to change their ways?



Things? You mean stuff? Like palaces and estates and yachts and crap like that?

I mean the tons of cheap, plastic crap that Americans purchase without any regard whatsoever to where it all goes once you&#39;re done using it and all the fuel that&#39;s required to ship it.


The most precious thing I&#39;ve ever known workers to talk about is having enough money not to have to work...to be free from bondage.

I&#39;ve worked in America for twenty years and never heard a single person utter those words.


The stuff is supposed to "compensate" for not being free.

It doesn&#39;t.

I never said it did. Where did I say that?


I&#39;ve never spent any amount of time with anyone who wasn&#39;t a worker -- and the opinion was universal: the people "on top" are a bunch of bastards&#33;

I wouldn&#39;t disagree with this statement, but I&#39;m not convinced that they are upset enough to adopt socialism.


That&#39;s primitive Marxism for you.

Marx is a very difficult read and very few people in the U.S. understand Marxism. Marx wrote in the tradition and with the concepts, concerns and style of ninetieth century German critical philosophy. He did not use evidence, logic or language the way Americans do today, because he believed that true knowledge and understanding require a different method. Marxism, right or wrong, has become synonymous with the rigid but widely varying doctrines and sectarian conflicts of the Communist party, Trotskyist and other splinter groups, and it bears the stigma attached to the Soviet Union.

So, forget about Marx when you&#39;re talking to the average American. They won&#39;t understand and don&#39;t care.


As to "popular magazines and newspapers", are you under the impression that people read that stuff "because they agree with it?"

While you and I may not agree, some do. They read it because they are so hopelessly conditioned.


If the planetary environment crashes, there&#39;s not a fucking thing we can do about it.

That&#39;s not only wrong, but in my estimation a phenomenally uninformed thing to say. Of course there are things we can do to change the direction we&#39;re headed.


"Doomsday" scenarios are useless...if not just an excuse for passive acceptance of the prevailing social order.

Doomsday is where we&#39;re headed as long as people like you keep proposing solutions that don&#39;t account for all living things, not just homo sap.



No you don&#39;t; that was the purpose of your post.

You&#39;re not me and have no idea what the purpose of my post is unless I tell you what the purpose is. The purpose is to engage in a discussion that centers around what I see as a flaw in the current anarchistic orthodoxy.



But go and read about the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish Revolution. Oddly enough, the violent overthrow of the capitalist class was exactly what they had in mind.

Then, they are not anarchists.

Ed Abbey examined the efficacy of violence as a tool of anarchist action in his 1959 Masters thesis, "Anarchy and the Morality of Violence." Through analysis of the writing of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Sorel, Abbey concluded that there is no justification for violence in the pursuit of anarchy, and that, in fact, violence is counterproductive to the establishment of a non-coercive society.

Attacking a centralized authority with the intent of toppling its oppressive regime, even if successful, would only create a power vacuum at the top of a hierarchical, centralized, coercive structure that would still be in place. Are we expected to gather in the reins of the galloping steed and order it to stop and reverse direction? Are we to take command of these institutions and order everyone to stop being coercive and capitalistic? Are we to replace their illegitimate authority with our legitimate authority?

We cannot cut off the head of the state and expect the body to mend its ways and follow the head that we put in its place. In order to build a new society, we must build a body that needs no head, that grows from itself, that self-generates and therefore needs no direction from a centralized authority. When all citizens are functioning members of a true democracy,
the need for a centralized state and its concentrate of wealth and power, disappears.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."- Buckminister Fuller

"World peace through nonviolent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed. Thus we must begin anew. Nonviolence is a good starting point. Those of us who believe in this method can be voices of reason, sanity, and understanding amid the voices of violence, hatred, and emotion. We can very well set a mood of peace out of which a system of peace can be built."-Martin Luther King, Jr., December 1964





Maybe some of those "dead white men" knew more about social reality than "the average joe".

Maybe?

Perhaps, but reality is nothing more than what that particular person perceives is reality.



I think you should follow your own advice...since you are the most "watered-down" -- not to say piss-poor -- "anarchist" that I&#39;ve run across.

I am happy to respond to any substantive refutation of anything I write here, but I will not respond to personal attacks other than to ask for the same consideration as any other member of this list.



Now, go run for office.

Under anarchism, there would be no offices to run for, so I&#39;ll decline.

[DEPAVER]

Any confrontation with capitalism will inevitably be violent. It is a fact. Not a nice one but a fact nonetheless. In order for the working class to achieve liberation capitalism must be destroyed and that is not going to happen through modification or reform.

There is no liberation in the context of violence. None.

It seems to me that there are three pillars of a simple life, principles that both serve as an inspiration for change and principles that flow naturally from living a simple life: compassion, nonviolence and mindfulness.

Compassion is walking a mile in their shoes, putting ourselves in their places, becoming one with all living things, to grok in fullness, acting with empathy.

Nonviolence is more than avoiding physical harm to all living things. As the Dalai Lama has explained, violence includes expecting more in return than one gives, manipulating others to gain the upper hand, competition, profit, sharp practice. To practice nonviolence is to seek balance among all living things.

For anarchists to storm the Bastille at this point in history would be hopelessly self-destructive. We are so few and the state is so huge, we would hardly raise a blip on the corporate-funded radar screen, yet this would be all the excuse needed for the state to declare us as the enemy and either include us as terrorists or start a new war on anarchism.

While the state can engage in repression of action, there is nothing the constabulary can do about non-action. If we organize among ourselves at the local level, create local economies, systems of governance, social support systems, local currency, neighborhood committees; if we turn our backs on the state and refuse to support or even cooperate with state hierarchical, authoritarian rule, what can they do?

They can force us to apply for a national ID card, control access to jobs, bank accounts, credit, airline or rail travel, welfare, insurance even health care. But if we organize to provide these things for ourselves, what can they do? If we create and support local currency, provide financial support within our own neighborhoods and communities, (Bailey&#39;s Savings and
Loan), deal in cash only, grow food for local consumption, barter and trade with our friends and neighbors for needed goods and services, in short, turn back the clock to pre-World War II community support, what can they do?

At first, as it is now, this movement will be unnoticeable as the economy rolls on. But as state oppression tightens its grip, as world-wide recession continues and spreads, and most readily when we reach the end of the Age of Oil, our way will become the norm, even the only way to secure a full and meaningful life.

This is what anarchy really is; not the black flag held aloft by a black-clad youth in a black bandana, not the proverbial brick through the storefront window, not a march on Washington, London or Brussels. Anarchy is you and me and our families and friends, our neighbors and fellow community members, working to provide for ourselves and each other. Only when we turn
away from the state and build our own society, will the state wither away from its own internal inconsistencies. As long as we give it our power, the state will persist.

I&#39;ve come to the conclusion that we cannot successfully oppose The System. We must make an Aikido move and use the force of the current violent and destructive government to bring about its own end.


Do you think we should forget what communism is because the popular understanding is in the opposite?

I think you better call it something else&#33;


Your five basic principles can not be achieved within the frame work of capitalism.

I&#39;m not so sure. I&#39;ve haven&#39;t given up on the simple capitalism of the independent shop keeper, a baker or small farmer. If people are not free to produce a good and sell it, how is this not coercive?


You say that each indevidual has the right to live how they choose I do not agree.

Who decides how YOU should live?



Again within what context. How do you plan to achieve this? In my opinion it can not be done within the framework of capitalism.

See my above comments.



Your utility worker has no idea or concept of exploitation.

Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner, folks&#33;
You&#39;re right. He doesn&#39;t. Now, how do you propose to convince him he is oppressed?



In order to achieve workers liberation they have to see it this way.

And they don&#39;t see it this way and there is no plan for making them see anything.


One idea that has been floated around the anarchist scene in sheffield is doing direct community work. We have also had a Sheffield Social Forum.

This is outstanding and how you can really make a difference. It sounds like some good stuff is going on, and I would say that your input would be a valuable contribution. If you aren&#39;t there, start a similar group in your community.


Please done distort my political activities with my theorising on che-lives. They are two seperate things.

I understand. Well put.



In fact, substitute anarchy with democracy. They are essentially the same thing. Governance for the people, by the people and of the people.


What democracy? In what context are you saying democracy? I will not substitue the word anarchy with democracy. Democracy is a vague uneffiliated word which is even more abstract than anarchism. Democracy how? for what purpose?

Democracy in its ultimate form is indistinguishable from anarchy.

Democracy is government of the people, by the people and, for the people.

The United States government is not a democracy and has never been. It is a representative republic in which representatives to the central government are chosen in a winner-take-all popular vote and have no responsibility to follow the will of the people once elected into office. Elections are funded by corporate and individual bribery, trading political contributions for political favor.

Democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government in which each individual citizen takes personal responsibility for his or her own
well-being and for the well-being of the community in which he or she lives.
Each individual takes part in the decision-making process, individually, in
the family, in the neighborhood, in the community, in the region, in the state, in the nation, in the world.

Decision-making means deciding on each aspect of the society, from paving the roads to dealing with crime, to protecting wilderness, to responding to external threats of violence. Power is not concentrated at the
top but flows from the citizens. Power is not assigned to centralized systems, it is retained at the individual level.

[The Feral Underclass]

There is no liberation in the context of violence. None.

Only in an ideal way. Unfortunatly material circumstances will prove that we dont have a choice.


compassion, nonviolence and mindfulness.

Very noble traits but they will not destroy capitalism and liberate the working class.


Compassion is walking a mile in their shoes, putting ourselves in their places, becoming one with all living things, to grok in fullness, acting with empathy.

Our task is not to empathise with the ruling class. Men and women who make wars and have no problem with exploiting an oppressing millions do not interest me. My interest is freeing the workers from wage slavery.


Nonviolence is more than avoiding physical harm to all living things. As the Dalai Lama has explained, violence includes expecting more in return than one gives, manipulating others to gain the upper hand, competition, profit, sharp practice. To practice nonviolence is to seek balance among all living things.

It&#39;s a very sweet opinion but it does not deal with the issues. It is fact that capitalism will not go without a fight. The ruling class control society. They are powerful and they are rich. They have everything they need and they believe they deserve it. No matter how many working class, petty bouregois and the like become conscious and want to change society they will not be able to do it being pacifists.

I do not like violence but unfortunatly it is a fact that we will not be able to avoid. At some point in a working class struggle capitalism will be forced to justify itself at a time when it can not. Public opinion and cosnciousness will be so, that people simply demand fundamental change within society. Do you honestly believe that those in power, people like George Bush, Tony Blair, Rupert Murdoch etc will simply hand over their power and wealth to these angry workers and say "i was wrong. Exploitation is wrong. I do not want my power and wealth anymore - take it&#33;."

Of course they aren&#39;t&#33; Look at Genoa. That was just a demostration against a capitalist organization. There were 25,000 personnel on the streets that day armed with guns. There was a huge 1km peramiter guarded by missiles. The police even shot an Italian anarchist and later claimed he was a drug dealer. No one was repremanded for it. No one was sacked and even the authorities comended the police for their work. Imagine what will happen when striking workers go onto the streets and demand capitalism hands over power to them. They will use those guns and missiles to fight us, smash and kill us. What do we do then? Turn around and go home. Sit in the middle of the streets and say we will not move? While they shoot us and beat us do we shout "we are non-violent" and accept the regime that will come after we have been destroyed. Thre will be no workers movement after this. The world, the ruling class will suppress us beyond belief. Liberal democracy will go out of the window. We will have lost, maybe never have that opportunity again. I am sorry. But as much as I deplore violence when they come to break those barricades I will fight back. We all must fight back and defend the very thing we went out onto the streets for. Violence is simply a disgusting inevitabilty. Do not presume that the ruling class have hearts. They clearly do not&#33;


As long as we give it our power, the state will persist.

The state forces us to allow it to persist. It is called wage slavery. The workers have no choice but to work otherwise they would all starve.


If people are not free to produce a good and sell it, how is this not coercive?

Produce them for who? Most people produce goods by exploiting others to gain profit. I do not see this as acceptable.


Who decides how YOU should live?

The ruling class and the system they perpetrate.


You&#39;re right. He doesn&#39;t. Now, how do you propose to convince him he is oppressed?

The way that every cosnciousness has been sort after. Dedication and hard work.


And they don&#39;t see it this way and there is no plan for making them see anything.

Not in the place where I am from. There are many plans and many ideas to fight for class consciousness it simply takes organization.


This is outstanding and how you can really make a difference. It sounds like some good stuff is going on, and I would say that your input would be a valuable contribution.

My comrades have been working hard.


If you aren&#39;t there, start a similar group in your community.

I am actually in a commune working to go to africa for six months. I have a debating club I have organized swith a sympothetic friend and am constantly debating with people. The training we do also means we have to make presentations to build up confidence talking infron of large groups of people. So I have done presentations on certain subjects.


Democracy in its ultimate form is indistinguishable from anarchy.

Democracy is government of the people, by the people and, for the people.

The United States government is not a democracy and has never been. It is a representative republic in which representatives to the central government are chosen in a winner-take-all popular vote and have no responsibility to follow the will of the people once elected into office. Elections are funded by corporate and individual bribery, trading political contributions for political favor.

Democracy, on the other hand, is a form of government in which each individual citizen takes personal responsibility for his or her own
well-being and for the well-being of the community in which he or she lives.
Each individual takes part in the decision-making process, individually, in
the family, in the neighborhood, in the community, in the region, in the state, in the nation, in the world.

Decision-making means deciding on each aspect of the society, from paving the roads to dealing with crime, to protecting wilderness, to responding to external threats of violence. Power is not concentrated at the
top but flows from the citizens. Power is not assigned to centralized systems, it is retained at the individual level.

None of this can be achieved through non violence and compassion.

[DEPAVER]

Only in an ideal way. Unfortunatly material circumstances will prove that we dont have a choice.

Of course you have a choice&#33; So, you have no choice, implying a lack of freedom, and you&#39;re going to use coercion (force) to produce freedom?

Wow.


Very noble traits but they will not destroy capitalism and liberate the working class.

History proves your way doesn&#39;t work. The only thing that will be destroyed is YOU, when a bunch of heavily armed Federal soldiers turn you into a piece of swiss cheese.


My interest is freeing the workers from wage slavery.

You can&#39;t free anyone. People have to free themselves.


Do you honestly believe that those in power, people like George Bush, Tony Blair, Rupert Murdoch etc will simply hand over their power and wealth to these angry workers and say "i was wrong. Exploitation is wrong. I do not want my power and wealth anymore - take it&#33;."

I&#39;m asking them to do anything. I&#39;m saying why not build our own system and make theirs irrelevant.
Do you really think you can storm the Bastille and win?


Of course they aren&#39;t&#33; Look at Genoa. That was just a demostration against a capitalist organization. There were 25,000 personnel on the streets that day armed with guns. There was a huge 1km peramiter guarded by missiles.

And that wasn&#39;t even the heavy stuff. You&#39;d be crushed like a bug.



Violence is simply a disgusting inevitabilty. Do not presume that the ruling class have hearts. They clearly do not&#33;

Well, they had enough heart to take over this country and wipe out everything that got in their way. Never underestimate your foe.


The workers have no choice but to work otherwise they would all starve.

Grow your own food, catch your own fish and kill your own game. No one is forcing me to starve&#33;


Produce them for who? Most people produce goods by exploiting others to gain profit. I do not see this as acceptable.

What&#39;s wrong with bartering? I produce a table and chairs. You need a table and chairs. You&#39;re also a great bike mechanic, so we strike a deal that you can have the table and chairs if you&#39;ll help repair my bike and help out in the community garden.



The ruling class and the system they perpetrate.

This is not true&#33; If you allow others to control your life, that&#39;s no ones fault but your own.


I am actually in a commune working to go to africa for six months. I have a debating club I have organized swith a sympothetic friend and am constantly debating with people. The training we do also means we have to make presentations to build up confidence talking infron of large groups of people. So I have done presentations on certain subjects.

As I suspected. You are more in control of your life that what you even know&#33;
DO NOT ALLOW OTHERS TO DICTATE YOUR LIFE. You absolutely can grow your own food, have a decent home and clothes and not be beholden to the "man."

Read that book about Eustace Conway The Last American Man, it&#39;s an eye opener.


None of this can be achieved through non violence and compassion.

What proof do you have this is so? What proof do you have that violence accomplishes anything?

You should closely examine the life of Dr. king and see what he accomplished through non-violence.

I really wish you wouldn&#39;t go around calling yourself an anarchist and propose violence.

It gives anarchism a black eye and is self defeating.

This is what Murray Bookchin refers to as the difference between lifestyle anarchism and social anarchism. Lifestyle anarchism is the in-your-face black-clad anti-everything Goth radical, usually associated with punk music and an overabundance of personality. It is an inward directed emotional drive, all about youthful angst, alienation and, most of all, anger.

Lifestyle anarchism is about "freedom from."

Social anarchism is a genuine attempt to find an alternative form of social organization that offers maximum freedom, decentralization in politics and economy, local self-autonomy, free association and mutual aid.

Social anarchism is "freedom to."

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course you have a choice&#33; So, you have no choice, implying a lack of freedom, and you&#39;re going to use coercion (force) to produce freedom?

You are missing the point. When the ruling class send in their army to smash us we must defend ourselves. The choice will be fight or go home. I would choose to fight.


History proves your way doesn&#39;t work. The only thing that will be destroyed is YOU, when a bunch of heavily armed Federal soldiers turn you into a piece of swiss cheese.

I can not comment on logistics and this is a question of logistics.


You can&#39;t free anyone. People have to free themselves.

I agree.


I&#39;m asking them to do anything. I&#39;m saying why not build our own system and make theirs irrelevant.

You are now "underestimating your foe." You can not simply make capitalism irrelevant. The ruling class will force us to accept their laws. As soon as any new system begins to undermine the ruling classes power they will smash us. Those with power and wealth will not allow capitalism to become irrelevant without a fight.


And that wasn&#39;t even the heavy stuff. You&#39;d be crushed like a bug.

Logistics again. Many revolutions and armed struggles have been won against giant enemies.


Do you really think you can storm the Bastille and win?

Yes&#33;


Well, they had enough heart to take over this country and wipe out everything that got in their way. Never underestimate your foe.

I presume this is a joke.


Grow your own food, catch your own fish and kill your own game. No one is forcing me to starve&#33;

And how do I buy the equipment or pay for the electricty or water. How do I pay my rent? How do I get from A to B?


This is not true&#33; If you allow others to control your life, that&#39;s no ones fault but your own.

So what you suggest is I give up my house, my right to get on a bus, my right to buy food and go and live what kind of life. On the streets? Or maybe you suggest I walk and build my own house?

Why should I have to do this? The system can be organized so I do not have to build my own house or walk anywhere. We have enough houses and enough buses for me to have these things for a contribution to society (or socially necessary work).

We should not have to regress into primitive times we should be advancing, making sure that people do not have to graft so hard in order to survive or go without all together. We have the means and the ability to provide for everyone.

I do not want to live on my own on a small farm growing my own vegitables and having to sell them to buy clean running water, I want to live with my comrades and work in society together with everyone else to ensure that the whole of society is provided for. I want to be able to have free electricity and free water. I want to be able to have food provided for me without having to sell my labour for 50 hours a week. I do not want to have to pay taxes to corrupt governments. I want to be able to live my life by being creative. I want to enjoy life with my friends and families, read books, write films, get drunk, enjoy the world and experience being alive. That isnt too much to ask for&#33;


What&#39;s wrong with bartering? I produce a table and chairs. You need a table and chairs. You&#39;re also a great bike mechanic, so we strike a deal that you can have the table and chairs if you&#39;ll help repair my bike and help out in the community garden.

I am sure I could strike a deal with you for a table but where does the wood come from or the tools? Where do the parts for your bike come from? How do we provide food for everyone. What happens if you live in a city? Do we all get a box of compost to grow potatoes in. What about electricity? Does everyone strike a deal with the electricty guy? What about running water or cleaning the sewers?


What proof do you have this is so? What proof do you have that violence accomplishes anything?

It accomplishes closure. You pressume that capitalism will suddenly become irrelevant? Why? Do you think the ruling class will see the errors of their ways? Do you honestly believe that the ruling class will allow us to take their power and wealth from them simply because we all decide we dont want them to have it. For a 41 year old your incredibly naive&#33;


You should closely examine the life of Dr. king and see what he accomplished through non-violence.

Concessions is what he accomplished&#33; We do not want concessions. We want a fundamental change in the entire fabric and structure of society.


I really wish you wouldn&#39;t go around calling yourself an anarchist and propose violence.

Obviously your interpretation of anarchism is non-violent but what anarchism you intend to achieve is beyond me. And I am not alone with my understanding of class antagonisms. My understanding of the inevitability of violence is shared by an entire movement of anarchism. Several movements of anarchism to be exact. Are you telling me that my understanding of anarchism is wrong? Please, enlighten me&#33;


It gives anarchism a black eye and is self defeating.

Oh contra&#33; You are blinded by pacifism. You are so stuck in your own rightousness that reality simply passes you by. In fact you refuse to even entertain the the possibility that we may have to fight. As long as we are not violent the world will be a better place. Please&#33; wake up and smell the leather stomping boots. The ruling class have no quirms with shooting us. They arent going to let your little world happen. It would be lovly to live in a peaceful world were we could demand change and it would come but this just isnt the case. We have to fight to achieve it.


Lifestyle anarchism is the in-your-face black-clad anti-everything Goth radical, usually associated with punk music and an overabundance of personality. It is an inward directed emotional drive, all about youthful angst, alienation and, most of all, anger.

Generalizations are not going to make your point anymore valid. Your media induced understanding of anarchists is shameful. I admit there are people, teenagers, who are like this. But this is not the case for others who understand the material reality of society. I do not go around wearing balaclavas throwing bricks through mcdonalds windows. I dont listen to punk music, I got past my angst at 17. Yes I am angry and so should you be&#33;

It is easy to rationalize peoples understanding of the world from on top of your rightous high horse. Your sense of morals is incredibly frustrating.


Social anarchism is a genuine attempt to find an alternative form of social organization that offers maximum freedom, decentralization in politics and economy, local self-autonomy, free association and mutual aid.

How can you ever achieve this&#33; How on earth do you think that we can achieve it without getting rid of capitalism. By building fucking communes everywhere. Supplying everyone with tools to make their own fucking god damn vegitables. And how do they send their kids to school. How do we pay our rent. How can we live these social anarchism within capitalism. You think that it will suddenly appear. That the capitalists will have no say about it. Do you think sitting in the middle of a road for a few hours linking arms with each other and shouting "I AM NOT RESISTING ARREST" when the trapple through with horses and batons. Or should we just go home at that point.

Explain to me in disgustingly graphic detail just how you think that you can defeat capitalism?

[DEPAVER]

Explain to me in disgustingly graphic detail just how you think that you can defeat capitalism?

Let me begin by stating you and I will just have to agree to disagree on violence vs. non-violence. We&#39;re making no progress.

Secondly, the generalization concerning the black clad anarchists wasn&#39;t necessarily my opinion, but it is how the media portrays the violent sect of anarchists. I should have clarified, but to the ordinary person, there is only one kind.

I&#39;ll post in another post how I think we can get from point A to point B. It will be long, so perhaps it&#39;s best to not post it here.

I am, however, interested in your plan. Once you&#39;ve taken Washington or Wallstreet or both, how do you intend to implement your brand of anarchism?

What if the people of Germantown, TN decide they don&#39;t want to cooperate and want to keep living as they have been, in a fairly self-sufficient community of capitalists? Are your people coming in and forcing us to give up our wares by bayonet?

Finally, let me say that while I don&#39;t agree with your approach, I DO understand your frustration, and I do agree with many of things you&#39;ve stated. You and I part ways on two points:

1. The willingness of people to take up the cause and demand change...I don&#39;t believe the masses are as far along as you seem to think
2. How to bring about change

We should work together as much as possible and try to find common ground.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Anarchism will always degenerate into free market libertarianism. In order to end segregation, a government needs to FORCE equality. Businusses won&#39;t shut themselves down, an state needs to force them to shut down their operations and replace it with a state run economy. The world cannot simply manage itself. Society needs careful planning, which can only be done through a democratic centralist, one party (not one man&#33;) dictatorship.

[redstar2000]

How do those who are not living a socialist life convince others to change their ways?

The same way you convince anyone about anything...with argument and evidence.

Why were there so many communists and socialists and various other kinds of radicals in the 1930s? The evidence "for" capitalism was starting to look pretty bad.

Think it will never look that bad again?


I&#39;ve worked in America for twenty years and never heard a single person utter those words.

Not surprising; I suspect we move in very different circles.

But consider: millions of people purchase lottery tickets every week...in spite of the horrendous odds. When, on occasion, they interview a big winner, you sometimes hear them say "oh, I&#39;m going to keep on working, blah, blah, blah."

Ha&#33; They&#39;re outta there (their old job) like they were shot from a cannon&#33;

Don&#39;t get me wrong; humans love purposeful activity. The idea that people would just lie around and look at the pretty clouds if there were no bosses to make them work is just bullshit.

But without the freedom to choose that purposeful activity, it is "work", a "job", slavery.

Of course those are sentiments that never soil the ears of a boss...unless a worker is very careless.


...but I&#39;m not convinced that they are upset enough to adopt socialism.

At this time, I would agree.


Marx is a very difficult read and very few people in the U.S. understand Marxism.

Actually, much of his material is quite accessible to the modern reader...though some of it is almost impenetrable, I will agree.

I always recommend Value, Price and Profit and Wage Labor and Capital to newbies.

But it can be re-written in modern language. For example, here&#39;s Marxist economics in one sentence:

No employer will knowingly hire you to work for him unless the market value of the goods or services that you produce exceeds the wage that he pays you.

That wasn&#39;t hard, now was it?


So, forget about Marx when you&#39;re talking to the average American. They won&#39;t understand and don&#39;t care.

There was a time (long ago) when I was "an average American"...and I cared and understood.

If I could do it, why can&#39;t anyone?


That&#39;s not only wrong, but in my estimation a phenomenally uninformed thing to say. Of course there are things we can do to change the direction we&#39;re headed.

Well, crunch the numbers for yourself. My reading is that huge decreases of draconian proportions would be required to "halt" global warming, for example.

You and I and a handful of other people in the western world may live "low energy" lifestyles (I don&#39;t have any choice in the matter&#33;)...but I can&#39;t see how you could argue that such occasional individual defections from "consumerism" could make a statistically significant difference.

I frankly doubt it would even cause a "blip" in the pattern.


Doomsday is where we&#39;re headed as long as people like you keep proposing solutions that don&#39;t account for all living things, not just homo sap.

Well, I&#39;m a human. I&#39;m open to persuasion concerning measures for the well-being of other life forms on which I depend or which I may find aesthetically appealing.

I will not donate, however, to the "Save the Mosquito" Fund. Don&#39;t even bother to ask.

Try me on trees. Did you know that thousands and maybe tens of thousands of trees are cut down in the American Northwest every year so that the Japanese can have disposable chop-sticks? That&#39;s what I heard, anyway. Come the revolution, we won&#39;t do that any more.


Then, they [the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists] are not anarchists.

Or, they are real anarchists and you are not.


"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."- Buckminister Fuller

Thanks, Bucky. Tell me, which revolution did you take part in? I forgot.

Another "dead white guy" by the way.

And why should we be interested in the advice of someone who was not interested in social revolution?


World peace through nonviolent means is neither absurd nor unattainable.

At least now we have a "dead black guy".

But what makes you think that modern capitalism is even interested in "world peace"? The weapons industry is one of the real hot spots of late capitalism.

A certain amount of armed conflict is "good for business".


I am happy to respond to any substantive refutation of anything I write here, but I will not respond to personal attacks other than to ask for the same consideration as any other member of this list.

In other words, it&#39;s ok if I write a long post showing in considerable detail why your views really suck...but if I conclude by saying that your views really suck, that&#39;s a "personal attack".

I don&#39;t see it that way. If someone responds to you with a short post consisting entirely of personal abuse, then I think you have a legitimate gripe.

But if someone goes to the trouble of refuting your views at length--and does so, of course, in a reasonable and not simply abusive manner--and then sums up your views in a critical fashion (they suck&#33;), I don&#39;t think that is a "personal attack".

After all, what have you offered here? A little anarchism, a little pacifism, a little eco-doom crying, even a little capitalism...and a good deal of introspective pessimism.

Though stirred and not shaken, it&#39;s still not an appealing ideological "cocktail".

You have a very "tough sell" on your hands.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

But go and read about the anarcho-syndicalists in the Spanish Revolution. Oddly enough, the violent overthrow of the capitalist class was exactly what they had in mind.

Then, they are not anarchists.

There is no &#39;right&#39; or &#39;wrong&#39; tactic. From the general strike, to black bloc, to guerilla warefare; they&#39;re all acceptable to anarchists.

There is no certain tactic that makes one more or less anarchist.

Of course, one is free to disagree with certain tactics.

[The Feral Underclass]

Once you&#39;ve taken Washington or Wallstreet or both, how do you intend to implement your brand of anarchism?

For a start I am not American. I am English. What first needs to be answered is how history has developed up to this point. I can only presume to know the answer. Through out history economic necessity has shifted from on thing to another and continues to shift everyday. Forms of governments, ideals and technologies are created which push out the old systems and replace them with new ones. The hunter gatheres understanding of the world forced them to change their economical situations. More and more sphisticated humans became and throughout history hunter gatherers gave way to tribes, tribes gave way to feudelism, feudelism gave way to capitalism. The economic needs of the bouregoisie demanded that society had to change. A new class of ruler was created, pushing the old system out. [It must have been beyond anyones comprehension that feudel control would give way to liberal "democracy"] It happened because people understood. They demanded change and when change didnt come they forced change to happen.

I presume that this will be the same for an anarcho-communist society. Capitalism will begin to implode eventually, it can not continue to over produce and over produce. Capitalism has to keep reinventing itself but in order to do that it must push the workers further down. Granted capitalism is winning at the moment. People have become complasent, but they are by no means apathetic. I have worked in many united front campaigns in sheffield including the Unison strike against the privatization of the housing office. Workers were angry at this blatant disregard for anyones interests but those with the money. Look at the firefighters dispute. Firefighters on the picket lines demanding change. What was missing was a highly organized effective movement and opportunities get missed. My point is that working people get angry and because capitalism will implode eventually consciousness and understanding will come. People will begin to get militant. They will see the need for change. Just like the bouregoisie need to change their material conditions in the 18th century so will the workers. It is a historical inevitability.

Who knows what will happen first? When the movement grows who knows how the workers will organize themselves. I presume at some point the workers will go on strike. Maybe there are demonstrations againt the governments handling of certain economical situations. Maybe there starts riots. Universities occupied. Maybe the police begin to crack down on us. Arrests are made. Suspected agitaters detained. People start to go missing. A general strike cripples the country so the government ban the right for workers to strike making it illegal, sending in the police to arrest them. All of this is happening over a period of time. More and more anger is directed towards those in control and all the while the movement is building, arguing their case, winning over the workers until the day comes when one demonstration, one riot, one police break of a picket line is one too much and the worekrs simply start to fight back. At that point we have to make a choice. We wither organize ourselves and fight or we accept that we are beaten right there and then and go home.

At this point in history the workers and students in Britain will have a huge sense of empowerment. The arguments will be won. The benifits in a better society will be clearly understood. The question will now be, how do we achieve it. Once the workers have control of london and of other key cities organization will be undertaken to provide everyone with what they need. The basic areas will be electricity, food and water. They will be essential for the maintenance of the city. So these things would be organized using the demarchy theory or threw volunteers. Those who wanted to be involved would discuss the problems with the relevant person, assign responsability and go out and orgaize. Maybe there are 1,084 people want to help organize and destribute food. So they come together they discuss the problems. Yes, all of them&#33; In a democratic and free way. Roles and responsabilities are created. We need 17 people to co-ordinate the farms in the area, 10 people to organize transport for the food. 83 people are needed for destribution, 5 people for quality control and 75 people are needed for organizing production. Maybe 1084 people are not needed so a rota is created and voted on. Only 180 people at any one time are needed for these responsabilities. After voting on roles and creating a rota these teams then break of to discuss logistics. It takes one night to organize that much. They get an office in the old Insurance building at the newly named Revolutionary square and they set to work co-ordinating with other collectives who have done exactly the same. Of course there will be problems. Huge problems maybe. Maybe people go hungry a few times a day, but eventually people will learn, they will work in co-operation with each other and move forward. Things will become more and more organized and this process will be played out through out the entire world for everything socially necessary work. Idealism with a purpose. Idealism embedded in fact. Historical circumstacnes combined with human ability create a world where no one goes hungry, no one lives on the streets and no one is oppressed or exploited by the state. We have a highly organized society absed on freedom, democracy and co-operation.


What if the people of Germantown, TN decide they don&#39;t want to cooperate and want to keep living as they have been, in a fairly self-sufficient community of capitalists? Are your people coming in and forcing us to give up our wares by bayonet?

It&#39;s an interesting question. I personally would say that if that was their democratic [majority of workers] decision then so be it. However at some point the people there are going to find it increasingly difficult to survive. This communist society may not work so brilliantly at first but eventually it will. Workers who have to sell their labour for shit wages in Germantown will see his sister in Knoxville working 6 hours a week for her whole communities benifit and being provided for in return with everything she needs. What would you choose? Eventually capitalism as isolated as this can not survive for ever. How would they trade? how would they eat? How would they convince the workers that living in such a community was better than living in the community in knoxville?


1. The willingness of people to take up the cause and demand change...I don&#39;t believe the masses are as far along as you seem to think

As redstar said we must move in different circles. Actually the workers and students I have and do speak with are very angry. They simply dont have a perspective. Possibly it is true that the American working class is rooted further into the consumerism that is society but I do not see that with the British working class. After our last census it was said that 22% of those who claim to be working class are actually living under the EU poverty line. I would say that there were 13 million working class people in this country. That&#39;s 3 million of them living without a decent standard of living. 2% of the population are unemployed. Thats a further 1.2 million, a vast majority of thoe people being people aged between 18 and 25 who recieve £42 a week. That&#39;s &#036;77 according to todays exhange rate. That&#39;s &#036;77 a week. That&#39;s &#036;15 per working day or better still &#036;2 per hour. The UN poverty line is set at &#036;2 per day. These people, and I was one of them, are only &#036;13 a day better of than the most poorerst people in the world, in a country which has a gigantic and copisous abundance of resources and wealth. And you tell me that people dont see that. Your telling me that that dosnt make people angry? I beg to differ&#33;


2. How to bring about change

I would love to believe that this kind of reality which I have described would suddenly become irrelevant but it isnt going to happen. Capitalism will never allow itself to become irrelevant. The ruling class will not allow it. You can not bring about fundamental change by never entertaining the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you might have to fight back.

[Blackberry]

Who knows what will happen first? When the movement grows who knows how the workers will organize themselves. I presume at some point the workers will go on strike. Maybe there are demonstrations againt the governments handling of certain economical situations. Maybe there starts riots. Universities occupied. Maybe the police begin to crack down on us. Arrests are made. Suspected agitaters detained. People start to go missing. A general strike cripples the country so the government ban the right for workers to strike making it illegal, sending in the police to arrest them. All of this is happening over a period of time. More and more anger is directed towards those in control and all the while the movement is building, arguing their case, winning over the workers until the day comes when one demonstration, one riot, one police break of a picket line is one too much and the worekrs simply start to fight back. At that point we have to make a choice. We wither organize ourselves and fight or we accept that we are beaten right there and then and go home.

...

I amused myself with a possible scenario of a workers&#39; revolution in the form of a novel. It took me a month to write, but it is written. From late December to late January. I won&#39;t copy and paste parts, though.

Basically, the revolution in this scenario is similar to the quoted part above: In brief... workers at one worksite strike over two deaths; capitalists refuse to give in; strike becomes bigger; it spreads throughout mainland Europe (in cities); war breaks out. It isn&#39;t a smooth revolution by no means, and its futuristic setting complicates matters even further. (To further interest you, some demarchy is used in the set-up of the New society, but is not explored in much descriptive detail.) I won&#39;t expand on the story further.

It is nice to amuse oneself with a seemingly infinite number of scenarios. I warn against using it in any serious debate. If you like a certain strategy, don&#39;t think of what might happen... think of what you want to happen. Speak of your goal, and how to go about this. One can dismiss such pondering of details as rubbish... which it is. It is pure speculation, and unnecessary.

Good to see we&#39;re on a similar wavelength though.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:45 AM
The world cannot simply manage itself. Society needs careful planning, which can only be done through a democratic centralist, one party (not one man&#33;) dictatorship.
A Democratic Dictatorship is an oxymoron.

[The Feral Underclass]

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr

I suggest you read the whole thread, including my orginal post.


Anarchism will always degenerate into free market libertarianism.

How and why?


In order to end segregation, a government needs to FORCE equality.

What happens if they dont want to be equal? What happens if they dont want what you are offering them because the dont understand it?


Businusses won&#39;t shut themselves down, an state needs to force them to shut down their operations and replace it with a state run economy.

I dont understand what you mean by businesses? If your talking about profit making institutions then they have no choice but to close down. We dont need them. We have socially necessary work that we need to organize for.

Who controls this state? The party vangaurd? How is this workers liberation? And how will you be able to achieve communism by perpetrating the state. As I have said through out this thread the role of the state and workers liberation contradict each other. They have two seperate paths they must go down. You can not use a state to perpetrate workers liberation no more than you can use workers liberation to achieve the state. It defies logic&#33;


The world cannot simply manage itself

Why?


Society needs careful planning, which can only be done through a democratic centralist, one party (not one man&#33;) dictatorship.

You make wild assertions without answering why you think it? Why can planning only be done through your democratic blah blah blah?

You say a democratic centralist on party dictatership but you are not looking at it objectivly. The purpose of the leninist state is to achieve communism (a statless, classless society). In order to do that the Leninist assertion is to maintain the state. Now because you have to maintain the state to achieve communism you have to keep the state in existence. Furthermore because of the purpose of a leninist state you must suppress all oposition. Even if it is workers opposition, because freedoms can not be given at that moment. So the state expands its role in society, it creates more and more centralised authority, it smashes freedoms and suppresses the workers and continues to expand in areas such as econonmics in order for the state to exist in order for the existence of the state to lead to communism. This is a contradiction. You can not expand the state and give it more power while at the same time trying to achieve communism. The state and communism diametircally opposed to each other. No matter how much your theorise about the role of the state, materially, in a practical appliation of the theory, it can not work. You can not create a stateless society while expanding the state.

[DEPAVER]

redstar2000,Feb 4 2004, 04:48 AM


The same way you convince anyone about anything...with argument and evidence.

Okay, here&#39;s something we can build on; however, I would say the biggest obstacle is the educational system in the U.S.

Kids come out of U.S. schools taught not to question authority, say the pledge, support the President and go to college. Add a good dose of religious fundamentalism and viola&#33; you&#39;ve got yourself a brainwashed drone.

When students get to college, their eyes are often opened, and they become more involved in activism, but not always. And too many of the ones that do, forget that activism one they join the workforce and become obsessed with families, SUV&#39;s, lavish vacations and keeping up with the Joneses.

I slipped through the cracks, actually quite late in life. I didn&#39;t figure out what was really going on until I was thirty&#33;


Not surprising; I suspect we move in very different circles.

I&#39;m sure we do.

The purpose of my comment is to illustrate that these people with which I&#39;ve unfortunately associated with for years have no intention of listening to you. In fact, they&#39;d probably like to kill you. They see folks like you as worthless leaches that deserve nothing but contempt.

I&#39;m on your side, but don&#39;t underestimate the lengths they&#39;ll go to keep you quiet. In the U.S., the definition of terrorism and the activities of the Department of Homeland Security are being expanded to include anyone that questions the authority of the United States government. Be wary.


You and I and a handful of other people in the western world may live "low energy" lifestyles (I don&#39;t have any choice in the matter&#33;)...but I can&#39;t see how you could argue that such occasional individual defections from "consumerism" could make a statistically significant difference.

We&#39;ve won some battles that have a made a difference, and even if my individual effort at living in place and in harmony with geophysical cycles made zero difference, I&#39;d still do it because it&#39;s the right thing for ME to do.



Well, I&#39;m a human. I&#39;m open to persuasion concerning measures for the well-being of other life forms on which I depend or which I may find aesthetically appealing.

It&#39;s really quite simple. Ecosystems need diversity to survive. Humans need flourishing ecosystems to survive, but in order to have a diverse, flourishing ecosystem, you must have a balanced food chain.

"We can have wilderness without freedom; we can have wilderness without human life at all, but we cannot have freedom without wilderness, we cannot have freedom without leagues of open space beyond the cities, where boys and girls, men and women, can live at least part of their lives under no control but their own desires and abilities, free from any and all direct administration by their fellow men." Edward Abbey (another dead white guy)




Or, they are real anarchists and you are not.

I suppose there is benefit in diversity of tactics, but one thing we&#39;ve learned, if we&#39;ve learned anything, is that violence
begets violence, no exceptions. Most who advocate a violent revolution have never encountered violence personally, only read about revolution in books. They&#39;ve never experienced the process of revolutionary change, so they have
no concept of how to get from here to there. Might as well say, "and then a miracle happens."

History is not taught as real, human beings involved in real struggle. It&#39;s all abstract, so college students have no way of knowing what it means to talk about "The American Revolution," or the "Russian Revolution." They don&#39;t understand that violent revolution means babies cut in half and your intestines spilling out onto the street. Most importantly, they don&#39;t know,
that violent change produces violent change. Peace, equality, freedom and liberty start with peace, equality, freedom and liberty... personally, between the ears, and works its way outward from there.



In other words, it&#39;s ok if I write a long post showing in considerable detail why your views really suck...but if I conclude by saying that your views really suck, that&#39;s a "personal attack".

Well, that&#39;s no way to have intelligent discourse with people sympathetic to your cause.


After all, what have you offered here? A little anarchism, a little pacifism, a little eco-doom crying, even a little capitalism...and a good deal of introspective pessimism.

You&#39;re entitled to your opinion, and of course, that&#39;s all it is really.

I&#39;ve tried to offer some alternatives I feel make sense, but if you feel they have no value, fine. I&#39;ll take the discussion elsewhere and talk with people interested in peaceful revolution, not violent revolution.


You have a very "tough sell" on your hands.

Not as tough as yours, mate. We&#39;ll see how well your program sells when it&#39;s time to start facing the bullets. I have a feeling many of your "converts" are going to be returning the goods and asking for a refund.

[The Feral Underclass]

Comrade James

I&#39;d be interested to have a read...


If you like a certain strategy, don&#39;t think of what might happen... think of what you want to happen. Speak of your goal, and how to go about this.

What I want is for the workers to overthrow captialism and create an anarchist society. I can not answer specific questions with much knowledge. I only know what I can do with my comrades within my area or combined with the nation movement. I suppose our goals will come as we move the struggle forward.


It is pure speculation, and unnecessary.

I agree. Although I can not be specific about the future. I can be specific for my short term goals within the movement in my area and also discuss what I would like to see the movement progress nationally.


Good to see we&#39;re on a similar wavelength though.

:o

I thought the day would never come ;)

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

How and why?
I suggest you read the whole thread, including my orginal post.

A corporation is more efficient at making goods then any socialized form of industry because they are able to cut costs via any means necessary, not limited to forcing povery on to working class and neglecting the safety of workers. In fact, slavery is an even more efficient way of making goods. Socialized industry is deliberately inefficient, because it caters to the working class rather then the capitalist elite. Unless capitalism is forcefully extinguished, it will florish under an un-regulated system.


What happens if they dont want to be equal? What happens if they dont want what you are offering them because the dont understand it?.

In order to end segregation, a government needs to FORCE equality. For example, take an area in rural Florida, where the rebel flag still flies high. If it were not for a strong central govt that forced it&#39;s will on the local population, there would still be segregation, if not slave owning here. It really doesn&#39;t matter weather racist scum understand socialism or equality. It should have it shoved down their throats if necessary.


Who controls this state? The party vangaurd? How is this workers liberation? And how will you be able to achieve communism by perpetrating the state. As I have said through out this thread the role of the state and workers liberation contradict each other. They have two seperate paths they must go down. You can not use a state to perpetrate workers liberation no more than you can use workers liberation to achieve the state. It defies logic&#33;

I would say a mix of labor unions, regional and national (and possibily global) representatives elected by the party, and a supreme court should form the government.



You say a democratic centralist on party dictatership but you are not looking at it objectivly. The purpose of the leninist state is to achieve communism (a statless, classless society). In order to do that the Leninist assertion is to maintain the state. Now because you have to maintain the state to achieve communism you have to keep the state in existence. Furthermore because of the purpose of a leninist state you must suppress all oposition. Even if it is workers opposition, because freedoms can not be given at that moment. So the state expands its role in society, it creates more and more centralised authority, it smashes freedoms and suppresses the workers and continues to expand in areas such as econonmics in order for the state to exist in order for the existence of the state to lead to communism. This is a contradiction. You can not expand the state and give it more power while at the same time trying to achieve communism. The state and communism diametircally opposed to each other. No matter how much your theorise about the role of the state, materially, in a practical appliation of the theory, it can not work. You can not create a stateless society while expanding the state.

Aw gee...ya got me...well someday, in a perfect world, where all the children listen, all the people love and respect one another, and where no one is greedy or would want to hurt anyone else, we might be able to have a classless and stateless society at the same time, but for now, classlessness comes before statelessness, guess I&#39;ll just have to deal with it. After all, isn&#39;t that what we are trying to get to? However the state doesn&#39;t necessarily smash freedoms and supress workers. There&#39;s an old saying that the right to swing your fist ends and the tip of my nose, and thats exactly what the state is all about. Certain rights might infringe upon the security, stability, and equality of society. The party does not oppress workers, in fact the workers and the party are one. The party is a tool of liberation for the masses.

[redstar2000]

Kids come out of U.S. schools taught not to question authority, say the pledge, support the President and go to college. Add a good dose of religious fundamentalism and viola&#33; you&#39;ve got yourself a brainwashed drone.

So it would seem...which makes you wonder how it is that revolutions ever happen or that people can even imagine the possibility.

Somehow, people do "slip through the cracks" and it can seemingly happen at any age.

What happens when the cracks get bigger?

A lot bigger?


In fact, they&#39;d probably like to kill you. They see folks like you as worthless leeches that deserve nothing but contempt.

Don&#39;t I know it&#33; But that&#39;s the nature of social reality, isn&#39;t it? In the last analysis, there are those prepared to kill to defend their privilege (real or imagined) and those prepared to kill to end those privileges.

Some are amenable to the "arms of criticism"...others require the "criticism of arms".


...even if my individual effort at living in place and in harmony with geophysical cycles made zero difference, I&#39;d still do it because it&#39;s the right thing for ME to do.

I have no quarrel with that position. There are many ways to partially "opt out" of the system on a personal basis...and I would never advise anyone "not" to try one or more of them that appealed to them.

I would, for example, urge everyone on this board to throw away your dummyvision set&#33; Not because it would "make a significant difference" but because it&#39;s "the right thing to do"--to stop putting up with being lied to.

On the other hand, I can&#39;t manage to muster up much indignation with people who keep watching...perhaps the distraction is what allows them to function at all.

So I respect your personal choice and that of anyone who rebels in some fashion, however limited it might be.

It&#39;s when we get to the "big picture" that I question individual life-style choices as significant.


Ecosystems need diversity to survive. Humans need flourishing ecosystems to survive, but in order to have a diverse, flourishing ecosystem, you must have a balanced food chain.

Too vague&#33; How much diversity? "Balanced" in what way?

Ecosystems are naturally unstable; even if the human species did not exist, they would still change over time.

The "general principle" is not of much assistance. What is really worth saving and what is not? And how could such decisions possibly be made in other than a "human-centric" way?

The AIDS virus is just "trying to make a living" like everything else. Perhaps a "deep ecologist" would want to step forward and argue in its behalf.

He&#39;d lose the argument.


"...but we cannot have freedom without wilderness, we cannot have freedom without leagues of open space beyond the cities, where boys and girls, men and women, can live at least part of their lives under no control but their own desires and abilities, free from any and all direct administration by their fellow men."--Edward Abbey

You really like this guy, eh?

Well, I&#39;m not so sure about this sentiment. It depends upon how he&#39;s defining "any and all direct administration".

No one is "directly administering me" while I&#39;m typing this post, for example. Or later on this evening, when I make myself a burger and fries and sit down to eat with a novel to read...is anyone "directly administering me" then?

The truth is, I don&#39;t think most humans much like real wilderness...I&#39;m certainly not fond of it myself. It was one thing to look out upon the "wild and rugged" Sierra Nevada mountains from the windows on the California Zephyr as it snaked its way through the peaks...but I didn&#39;t really feel "at ease" until the train pulled into downtown Reno.

Of course, I&#39;m an "inner city" guy...I&#39;ve always lived in or near downtown. Others, I know, feel very differently.

Perhaps "feeling free" involves more subjectivity than Mr. Abbey realized.


...but one thing we&#39;ve learned, if we&#39;ve learned anything, is that violence
begets violence, no exceptions. Most who advocate a violent revolution have never encountered violence personally, only read about revolution in books. They&#39;ve never experienced the process of revolutionary change, so they have no concept of how to get from here to there.

Actually people do have "concepts"...more or less directly copied from past revolutions.

And the real thing will almost certainly be very different from what they expect.

But when you say "violence begets violence", I think you obscure the real source of modern violence.

It is not revolutionaries who "impose violence" on an otherwise peaceful scene...violence is routine in class society and its source is the ruling class.

You normally see very little of it...it&#39;s only rarely covered in the media, etc.

And it&#39;s not even limited to overt "acts of force"--the things that cops do a thousand times every day.

When workers are injured or killed on the job, that&#39;s ruling class violence. Some "cost-analysis" guy decided that this particular business could "afford" so many injuries and so many deaths per time period...and "top management" approved his decision. It was "cheaper" than the cost of the safety measures required to prevent those injuries or deaths.

When a product that is known to be unsafe is marketed anyway, that&#39;s ruling class violence. Someone decided that they could afford a certain number of food poisonings or hand injuries or whatever the danger might be...it would be "too costly" to prevent those injuries with a production or engineering change.

With regard to violence, Mark Twain had it right: "I read much complaint about the four years of terror that the French people inflicted on the aristocrats; I read no complaints, however, of the thousand years of terror that the aristocrats inflicted on the French people".


They don&#39;t understand that violent revolution means babies cut in half and your intestines spilling out onto the street.

No, I don&#39;t suppose they do. No one who has ever seen real violence first hand retains any romantic notions about it.

It ain&#39;t like the dummyvision or the movies at all.

But what are we to do? Pacifism has rarely been effective even in gaining changes that were far short of revolutionary. People like to offer the American civil rights movement as an example of what pacifism can accomplish...but can you imagine confronting the Confederacy and freeing the slaves non-violently?

The reason that "college kids" (and others) talk about violent revolution is that, thus far, it offers the best chance of success. That&#39;s what they&#39;ve learned from their history lessons.

Can anyone reasonably dispute that?


Peace, equality, freedom and liberty start with peace, equality, freedom and liberty...personally, between the ears, and works its way outward from there.

Yes, I agree...you have to conceive of all those good things as real possibilities before you can make any attempt to acquire them. They certainly won&#39;t fall in your lap by sheer chance.

But, to coin a phrase, what is to be done?

I don&#39;t think that non-violence as an "over-arching strategic framework" will do us any good at all.

Tactically, on the other hand, it may often be useful.


Not as tough as yours, mate. We&#39;ll see how well your program sells when it&#39;s time to start facing the bullets. I have a feeling many of your "converts" are going to be returning the goods and asking for a refund.

Always a possibility, of course. My way may lose and lose badly. Your way, as far as I can tell, can&#39;t win.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

A corporation is more efficient at making goods then any socialized form of industry because they are able to cut costs via any means necessary, not limited to forcing povery on to working class and neglecting the safety of workers.

A corporation is simpy a name given to a form of organization. The actually efficiency and the cost cutting etc is achieved through human ability. The corporation dosnt organize, the corporation dosnt cut costs humans do. The human mind concieves these concepts and works to put them into effect. You are simply choosing one form of organization to do this over another.

Again the safty of workers is not done by a corporation it is done by human ability. Humans concieve the concept of safty and then insure that it is the case. There is no logical explination why the form of organizing which is "corporations" is any more effective than workers councils and collectives. Human ability dictates how we run ourlives and how we organize ourselves not a name.


In fact, slavery is an even more efficient way of making goods.

But the concept of slavery is morally reprehensable. Evil even. Just because it maybe an effient way to achieve something does not mean it is the right way.


Socialized industry is deliberately inefficient, because it caters to the working class rather then the capitalist elite.

That is the point of workers revolution. To give power to the working class so society caters for them. Not for the capitalist elite.


Unless capitalism is forcefully extinguished, it will florish under an un-regulated system.

So we forcefully extinguish it. When you say "unregulated system" I presume you mean anarchist organization. Again, you are putting your faith in a name. You assume that the form of organization has mystical powers. It does not. Just because the system is collectivised and organized without central authority by the workers does not mean that it will lead to capitalism. Human beings have the ability to stop that from happening. Even in your centralised command it is human ability which make it work. It is humans who organize it and it is humans who operate it.


In order to end segregation, a government needs to FORCE equality. For example, take an area in rural Florida, where the rebel flag still flies high. If it were not for a strong central govt that forced it&#39;s will on the local population, there would still be segregation, if not slave owning here.

You seem to be confused. I am not against forcing the ruling class to accept the will of the workers. In fact I see it as an inevitability as soon as any confrontation made by the workers against the bouregoisie comes about. What I am opposed to is a government forcing their will onto the workers. The working class, in order to achieve a meaningful and lasting revolution, they must be conscious of it. In order to achieve real workers liberation the workers must be aware of the situation, what it does to them and why they should change it. At which point change will be demanded.

If you force the working class to accept communism the opposite will happen. Look at the working class&#39; sentiments about communism now. If you attempted to force them to accept it all their preconceptions about the philosophy will have been proven right. They will not accept it, nor will want to live with it. Regardless of whether the actual theory is right.

Regardless of all that, how can you even achieve this government without the support of the workers? Through a band of armed soldiers? A coup? parlimentry democracy? None of these things serve the interests of the workers. They are antithetical to the whole concept of workers liberation. Marx even said "the act of the working class must be by the working class" not by some "freedom fighters" who have some egotistically rightous ideas about how to save the world.


It really doesn&#39;t matter weather racist scum understand socialism or equality. It should have it shoved down their throats if necessary.

I have no quirms with fighting with Nazi&#39;s but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the workers. In fact alot of working class people have racist tendancies. Our job is not to coerce them into accepting our opinion but to challange them. Ask them to justify it. They can not. The working class must realise for themselves that racism and capitalism are wrong. We can not force people to accept out point of view. This is not liberalism gone mad, it is an understanding of how to achieve true workers liberation which will last.


I would say a mix of labor unions, regional and national (and possibily global) representatives elected by the party, and a supreme court should form the government.

Thus creating a new ruling class. The concept of a ruling elite is fundamentally wrong. Not to mention completely opposed to the interest of the workers. In order to achieve workers liberation these forms of governments, political party and supreme court ( :rolleyes: ) must be destroyed with direct workers councils take responsability for the organization of society.

When you say elected by the party this means from ambitious vangaurd members. Not from the actual working class. I do not want to smash capitalism to then be controlled by some snotty nosed pretty-bouregois intellectual who see&#39;s the party as a platform for success. I want to control my own life. I want to run society with my friends and family from where I live. I want to work in co-operation with my comrades and my community and I have a right to do that. This state is no better, possibly even worse than the capitalist state and should be treated the same by all people who wish to achieve workers liberation.

The concept of the state elivates human over human and legalizes those rulers authoriy of those who are ruled. Authority over people should not be legalized it should be fought against. No one has a right to control the life of anyone else. What happens if the workers decide not to have this state? The vangaurd or ruling party, supreme court will use their power to suppress it. And what I find so ironic is they do in the name of giving us freedom.

You seem to miss the point. Courts and governments are designed to allow a ruling class to have power. They can not serve the interests of the workers, they can only serve the interests of the rulers. That is the whole purpose of the state. Of course you can give concessions here and there which liberal democracies do today. But you can not free the workers. The nature of the state just will not allow that to happen.


where all the children listen, all the people love and respect one another, and where no one is greedy or would want to hurt anyone else, we might be able to have a classless and stateless society at the same time

Why do these things exist? Understand it and work to dismantle it within the working class? You make it sound so futile. These are only concepts created through capitalism. The movements role is to try and break down those concepts through dedication and hard work. You can not simply abandon the whole concept of workers revolution and modify it just because it maybe too difficult.


However the state doesn&#39;t necessarily smash freedoms and supress workers.

The leninist state has to oppress freedoms and suppress people from which ever class in order to perpetrate itself. The Leninist state can not exist unless it is unchallanged and for you leninists you can not achieve liberation without the state. Do you not see the contradiction. You can not achieve both things. The state will allows smash freedoms and suppress people, workers alike, because unless it does that it can not exist.


Certain rights might infringe upon the security, stability, and equality of society.

But it isnt just certain rights it is the right to associations, to freedom of speech, to freedom of assembly, freedom of movements for anyone. Look at Russia. Lenin had to smash workers opposition, and even Trotsky said it was acceptable. The state must have complete loyalty and discipline in order for it to do what it has to do. And how does that lead to liberation? It cant&#33; You can not speak of liberation while suppressing freedoms and you can achieve a stateless society by expanding the state.

What happens if that instability comes from workers not wanting the state anymore? Do you infringe on them as well? You create problem to solve the problem.


The party does not oppress workers, in fact the workers and the party are one.

Insofar as they are members. Who may occasionally have the right to vote for a factory steward. When actual decisions about party or national policy come about they are made by the ruling elite.


The party is a tool of liberation for the masses.

The movement can act as a tool in as much as it serves to being about consciousness. It can not bring liberation if it seizes control unilaterally and creates a state. If it is not unilaterally and by the workers themselves then the need of a state negates itself. And that&#39;s my point&#33;

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 5 2004, 10:15 AM
But the concept of slavery is morally reprehensable. Evil even. Just because it maybe an effient way to achieve something does not mean it is the right way.
I would say that it may even not be more efficient. People working as slaves will struggle for freedom, not innovation and the people that rule over the slaves must waste their time as oppressors. As previous forms of slavery have shown, this results in a hostile and stagnant society. Also, the capitalist dominated world we live in is inefficient in almost every way. Capitalism is merely a form of ecconomic slavey. In a society where people could work together with all of their minds and effort without endless conflict, we would have efficient progress. The only thing capitalism does efficiently is wasting human resource.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

A corporation is simpy a name given to a form of organization. The actually efficiency and the cost cutting etc is achieved through human ability. The corporation dosnt organize, the corporation dosnt cut costs humans do. The human mind concieves these concepts and works to put them into effect. You are simply choosing one form of organization to do this over another.

Again the safty of workers is not done by a corporation it is done by human ability. Humans concieve the concept of safty and then insure that it is the case. There is no logical explination why the form of organizing which is "corporations" is any more effective than workers councils and collectives. Human ability dictates how we run ourlives and how we organize ourselves not a name.

Correct, it is not corporations, but it is the bourgouise that are the reason for the oppression. Corporations are just an instrument used to exploit. However, corporations are by nature exploitive.


But the concept of slavery is morally reprehensable. Evil even. Just because it maybe an effient way to achieve something does not mean it is the right way.

Correct again, slavery is morally wrong, just like capitalism.


That is the point of workers revolution. To give power to the working class so society caters for them. Not for the capitalist elite.

Thank you captain obvious.


You seem to be confused. I am not against forcing the ruling class to accept the will of the workers. In fact I see it as an inevitability as soon as any confrontation made by the workers against the bouregoisie comes about. What I am opposed to is a government forcing their will onto the workers. The working class, in order to achieve a meaningful and lasting revolution, they must be conscious of it. In order to achieve real workers liberation the workers must be aware of the situation, what it does to them and why they should change it. At which point change will be demanded.

A government forcing its will on workers is something that is inevitable. Although the workers and the party are one, it is impossible to satisfy everyone. Everyone cannot simply do as they wish, society must be carefully managed with the interests of all in mind.


If you force the working class to accept communism the opposite will happen. Look at the working class&#39; sentiments about communism now. If you attempted to force them to accept it all their preconceptions about the philosophy will have been proven right. They will not accept it, nor will want to live with it. Regardless of whether the actual theory is right.

Correct, the masses should come to accept communism, however that is no reason to not fight for a revolution.


Regardless of all that, how can you even achieve this government without the support of the workers? Through a band of armed soldiers? A coup? parlimentry democracy? None of these things serve the interests of the workers. They are antithetical to the whole concept of workers liberation. Marx even said "the act of the working class must be by the working class" not by some "freedom fighters" who have some egotistically rightous ideas about how to save the world.

I was thinking along the lines of any means necessary. Coup, democracy, armed revolt, its all good.


Thus creating a new ruling class. The concept of a ruling elite is fundamentally wrong. Not to mention completely opposed to the interest of the workers. In order to achieve workers liberation these forms of governments, political party and supreme court must be destroyed with direct workers councils take responsability for the organization of society

Where I live, that would mean the rulership of the Ku Klux Klan. Minorities sometimes need to be protected from the will of the majority. These forms of government serve to look out for the interests of everyone


I have no quirms with fighting with Nazi&#39;s but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the workers. In fact alot of working class people have racist tendancies. Our job is not to coerce them into accepting our opinion but to challange them. Ask them to justify it. They can not. The working class must realise for themselves that racism and capitalism are wrong. We can not force people to accept out point of view. This is not liberalism gone mad, it is an understanding of how to achieve true workers liberation which will last.

If you have no quirms fighting with Nazis, then why should you have quirms about fighting with capitalists? Many racists are very firm in their beliefs, and would go to their graves without denying them. Why don&#39;t we just hasten the process a bit for them?


But it isnt just certain rights it is the right to associations, to freedom of speech, to freedom of assembly, freedom of movements for anyone. Look at Russia. Lenin had to smash workers opposition, and even Trotsky said it was acceptable. The state must have complete loyalty and discipline in order for it to do what it has to do. And how does that lead to liberation? It cant&#33; You can not speak of liberation while suppressing freedoms and you can achieve a stateless society by expanding the state.

What happens if that instability comes from workers not wanting the state anymore? Do you infringe on them as well? You create problem to solve the problem

When certain workers have a will that goes against the good of the people as a whole, then no, they cannot be allowed to propagate that belief. Just because you are needed to adhere to certain rules and guidelines does not mean that a person cannot be free from oppression. No matter what, it is impossible to make everyone happy. Trying to make everyone loyal and disciplined isn&#39;t oppression, its called responsibility.


Insofar as they are members. Who may occasionally have the right to vote for a factory steward. When actual decisions about party or national policy come about they are made by the ruling elite.

No, member should have be able to elect party representatives, and manage local affairs to some extent.


The movement can act as a tool in as much as it serves to being about consciousness. It can not bring liberation if it seizes control unilaterally and creates a state. If it is not unilaterally and by the workers themselves then the need of a state negates itself. And that&#39;s my point&#33;

Control is necessary for the responsible management of society. The state is nothing more then an instrument of the working class to responsibly manage themselves as a whole.

[The Feral Underclass]

:angry:

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 04:22 AM
:angry:
:blink:

[The Feral Underclass]

There is nothing I can or want to say to you. I do not come here to argue with fascists. You clearly are one.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 03:31 PM
There is nothing I can or want to say to you. I do not come here to argue with fascists. You clearly are one.
Wrong, I am not a fascist unless you consider leninism to be fascism. You create a post titled anarchism vs. leninism, so pray tell, what did you intend to argue about then? Perhaps you would be more in favor of an all anarchist bashing of leninism? Perhaps you should read the Fascism thread in OI before you mislabel me as a fascist.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Wow, this thread became very long...
I haven&#39;t read most of the latest posts but as far as I can see, I want to add some things concerning the revolution.
Right now around here people like criticizing their government. They like to blame their whole problems on the government. Not on the state, not on the capitalist system, not in those who are benefitted the most from this system (the bourgeoisie), they blame things on the government. They want honest, respectable and efficient people to govern them, and they blame their problems on thew politicians, because of them being corrupt and liars.
Now let&#39;s separate the concept of "government" and the concept of "state". Many things people criticize to their government is that the politicians are corrupt and liars, which are things that in fact are part of the nature of the state&#33;&#33;&#33;
So, people want the government to take care of everything. They don&#39;t care about the capitalist exploitation the government defends, they don&#39;t care that in other parts of the world people are starving (they only care about their country), they only care about how the government affects their lives.
Of course that this happens mostly in the middle class, people who can become rich by "working hard" and if the economical situation allows it, but at the same time that people can become poor if things don&#39;t go well. So I would say that before we start dreaming about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the revolution, we concentrate on this group. If we make them realize that their problems are because of the capitalist system, the state&#39;s hipocrisy and the fact that those richest bastards don&#39;t care about the rest of the society but they only care about their bank account, they will see that the problems are deeper than they thought and will start to gain some consciousness. Why is this "middle class" so important? Maybe this people are the ones who will bring the next revolution. If we support their interests, that&#39;s another thing. But we can&#39;t let this people support fascists and those who pretend to be honest politicians, which tend to attract this people, who will defend their hard-gained private property at all costs, both from "communism" and "corrupt politicians" (which should be interpreted as capitalists).