Anarchists and Marxists? So many ists....

[Red Star Rising]

So, as a newcomer to this sight, I am rather overwhelmed by all the "isms" that are thrown around. I think that it is at best confusing and at worst damaging to have so much division in the left but I decided that I might try and refine my own ideals and see if I fit into anything (or just a merging of various ideologies - slotting people into groups is detrimental and pointless as everyone will have different ideas one way or another). I'm currently in the process of deciding whether I am a Marxist or an Anarchist (or neither or both) - I'm pretty certain that I'm not a Leninist because I think that the establishment of a vanguard "party" creates a despotic class of ruling elite.

- I think that primary goal of any state that calls itself Socialist is the gradual removal of the need for a state.
- I think that a state is needed to act as an umbrella and shield that aids Socialist revolutions around the world. When global revolution is complete, the state must wither.
- I think that money capital should be abolished and replaced - this being the last major reform of the state while it is in existence.
- I think that revolution is absolutely necessary - violent or non-violent, people need to stand up and seize power from the elite.
- I think that Socialism requires democratic discussion to avoid class divides.

Apologies if this question makes little sense or if those ideals are in some way contradictory or something - like I said, I'm new and overwhelmed. Also, sorry if you get a lot of posts like this, I just want to know where I stand in relation to others on this forum.

[tuwix]

But what's your question actually is? Because as far, it's only your statement.

[Red Star Rising]

But what's your question actually is? Because as far, it's only your statement.

I am asking which of the "tendencies" (if that is the correct term) I belong to, because I can't decide myself...

[RedSunrise]

You would be closer to a Marxist. Anarcho-communists don't believe in the Socialism stage (they believe in direct revolution), so the fact you have that puts you closer to Marx

[bropasaran]

Maybe look at De Leonism and Impossibilism (SPGB).

[consuming negativity]

My suggestion would be to read and do research. There's not much sense in basing your political beliefs on a version of reality that doesn't exist. Once you do, you'll find that the tendencies make sense but at the same time are often superfluous or useless and more of a way for people to show the rest of us that they read a book about something.

[The Idler]

Sounds sort of similar to WSM/SPGB.

[Red Star Rising]

Maybe look at De Leonism and Impossibilism (SPGB).

I looked at Impossibilism. I've only scratched the surface but I think that it is the type of Socialism that I agree with (though its name doesn't do it any favours). Does anyone know of a good source of detailed information on that area?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

OP: I imagine that most people saying you're closer to this or that are doing so for their own personal reasons (i.e. they want a convert to their particular 'ism').

I agree with you so much about the damage of the 'isms'. You will find that the left (be it the Marxist left or the Anarchist left) is fractured beyond belief into largely irrelevant sects that 'despise' each other based on some tiny programmatic difference, or some disagreement over some historical event.

If I were you, I would ABANDON any study of what 'ism' you belong to. The problem with belonging to an 'ism' is that, as I said above, they are generally marked from each other by tiny programmatic differences and, as a result, you tend to support positions or attitudes that are anathema to what your own particular, unique ideas and analyses are.

I don't think anybody needs to belong to an 'ism', but there seems to be this desire to pigeon hole others and, as an extension, to pigeon hole one self for whatever reason of community and belonging.

My advice, OP, having travelled the long worn road of converting several 'isms' (I used to consider myself a Democratic Socialist, then a Luxemburgist, then a Left Communist, then a Marxist, then....I don't know) is that it is the quickest way to burn yourself out. I advise that you ignore what 'ism' you apparently are, and focus on just studying, analysing and evaluating the issues that you want to learn about, and ignore people's desires to pigeon hole.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

OP: I imagine that most people saying you're closer to this or that are doing so for their own personal reasons (i.e. they want a convert to their particular 'ism').

I agree with you so much about the damage of the 'isms'. You will find that the left (be it the Marxist left or the Anarchist left) is fractured beyond belief into largely irrelevant sects that 'despise' each other based on some tiny programmatic difference, or some disagreement over some historical event.

If I were you, I would ABANDON any study of what 'ism' you belong to. The problem with belonging to an 'ism' is that, as I said above, they are generally marked from each other by tiny programmatic differences and, as a result, you tend to support positions or attitudes that are anathema to what your own particular, unique ideas and analyses are.

I don't think anybody needs to belong to an 'ism', but there seems to be this desire to pigeon hole others and, as an extension, to pigeon hole one self for whatever reason of community and belonging.

My advice, OP, having travelled the long worn road of converting several 'isms' (I used to consider myself a Democratic Socialist, then a Luxemburgist, then a Left Communist, then a Marxist, then....I don't know) is that it is the quickest way to burn yourself out. I advise that you ignore what 'ism' you apparently are, and focus on just studying, analysing and evaluating the issues that you want to learn about, and ignore people's desires to pigeon hole.

That's a nice sentiment - unless you want to do political work. Then "finding an -ism" - or rather finding a group you are in programmatic and theoretical agreement with - is extremely important. The fact that various socialist groups ostensibly have the same long-term goal doesn't help when one group is trying to organise an election campaign, one goes around smashing windows etc.

As for the OP, to be honest I think the desire to "avoid class divides" would be a problem with any actual socialist group. Socialists want victory in the class war, not class peace.

[Tim Cornelis]

Many of the points implicitly suggests a voluntaristic notion: the idea that it is a matter of conscious choice, for instance, whether the state withers away; a reform that can be enacted, or not. Maybe I'm reading into that though. Anyway, if true, that idealist paradigm is alien to Marxism.

[Red Star Rising]

That's a nice sentiment - unless you want to do political work. Then "finding an -ism" - or rather finding a group you are in programmatic and theoretical agreement with - is extremely important. The fact that various socialist groups ostensibly have the same long-term goal doesn't help when one group is trying to organise an election campaign, one goes around smashing windows etc.

As for the OP, to be honest I think the desire to "avoid class divides" would be a problem with any actual socialist group. Socialists want victory in the class war, not class peace.

But surely the fracturing of the left in this way is only detrimental to any Communist ideology. Communists have always had the most success when allying themselves to the struggle of workers as a whole or a unionist movement etc. so Communists probably ought to avoid creating divisions and try to be as united as possible.

The main points of conflict that I can see are whether a revolution is necessary and whether a vanguard party is advisable. As for the necessity of revolution - perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Just because one may believe that it is possible for Socialism to emerge from Capitalism without revolution does not mean that one must believe that Socialist revolution is impossible (and vice versa). If the majority of Socialists believe in revolution, there will be one if they have support, and there won't be if they are a minority. Democratic discussion is needed for Socialism to be maintained, but the fact remains the whether there is a revolution will depend on which side of the debate has the most support.

Whether we need a vanguard party would come down to discussion and circumstances as well after Socialism is in place. I'm not saying that having slightly different opinions and voicing them is damaging, I'm saying that categorizing ourselves in this way only creates a sense of argument between severed groups that seem to forget that they share 90% of their ideology with them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But surely the fracturing of the left in this way is only detrimental to any Communist ideology. Communists have always had the most success when allying themselves to the struggle of workers as a whole or a unionist movement etc. so Communists probably ought to avoid creating divisions and try to be as united as possible.

The main points of conflict that I can see are whether a revolution is necessary and whether a vanguard party is advisable. As for the necessity of revolution - perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Just because one may believe that it is possible for Socialism to emerge from Capitalism without revolution does not mean that one must believe that Socialist revolution is impossible (and vice versa). If the majority of Socialists believe in revolution, there will be one if they have support, and there won't be if they are a minority. Democratic discussion is needed for Socialism to be maintained, but the fact remains the whether there is a revolution will depend on which side of the debate has the most support.

Whether we need a vanguard party would come down to discussion and circumstances as well after Socialism is in place. I'm not saying that having slightly different opinions and voicing them is damaging, I'm saying that categorizing ourselves in this way only creates a sense of argument between severed groups that seem to forget that they share 90% of their ideology with them.

In fact the greatest success of the socialist movement - the October Revolution - was coordinated by a group, the Bolsheviks, who understood the necessity of breaking with opportunists and adventurists, and who refused any sort of "left unity" in the absence of a firm programmatic agreement, even with groups, such as the United Internationalists, who differed from them on one or two questions that must have seemed minor at that point. But minor disagreements often mean fundamental incompatibility. The United Internationalists split, with most of the party joining the Bolsheviks and the conservative party leadership doing nothing notable during the Civil War, although to their credit they did not go over to the Whites and the Entente.

And why should the historical tasks of the proletariat be decided by vote? Why should the backward strata drag the revolutionary strata down?

[Red Star Rising]

And why should the historical tasks of the proletariat be decided by vote? Why should the backward strata drag the revolutionary strata down?

Can you suggest an alternative which does not result in despotic dictatorship? And regardless, in the case of revolution, Socialism requires the support of the masses or the disregard and oppression of them. The latter of which is not really Socialism.

[TheFox]

So, as a newcomer to this sight, I am rather overwhelmed by all the "isms" that are thrown around. I think that it is at best confusing and at worst damaging to have so much division in the left but I decided that I might try and refine my own ideals and see if I fit into anything (or just a merging of various ideologies - slotting people into groups is detrimental and pointless as everyone will have different ideas one way or another). I'm currently in the process of deciding whether I am a Marxist or an Anarchist (or neither or both) - I'm pretty certain that I'm not a Leninist because I think that the establishment of a vanguard "party" creates a despotic class of ruling elite.

- I think that primary goal of any state that calls itself Socialist is the gradual removal of the need for a state.
- I think that a state is needed to act as an umbrella and shield that aids Socialist revolutions around the world. When global revolution is complete, the state must wither.
- I think that money capital should be abolished and replaced - this being the last major reform of the state while it is in existence.
- I think that revolution is absolutely necessary - violent or non-violent, people need to stand up and seize power from the elite.
- I think that Socialism requires democratic discussion to avoid class divides.

Apologies if this question makes little sense or if those ideals are in some way contradictory or something - like I said, I'm new and overwhelmed. Also, sorry if you get a lot of posts like this, I just want to know where I stand in relation to others on this forum.

Anarchism makes perfect sense. No government or state. It's quite simple.

[Red Star Rising]

Anarchism makes perfect sense. No government or state. It's quite simple.

Is this not the same thing that Marxists advocate? Only Marxist believe that Socialism is necessary for the transition and Anarchists do not.

[bropasaran]

I looked at Impossibilism. I've only scratched the surface but I think that it is the type of Socialism that I agree with (though its name doesn't do it any favours). Does anyone know of a good source of detailed information on that area?
http://www.worldsocialism.org/ - there are nice, clear explanations here. And they use a better name :)


Is this not the same thing that Marxists advocate? Only Marxist believe that Socialism is necessary for the transition and Anarchists do not.
Libertarian marxist tend to agree with anarchists on the question of the abolishing the present state. Other marxist do think that we should go through "socialism" to get to a classless, stateless, moneyless society, but neither anarchists not libertarian marxists consider that "transitory phase" to be socialism, but rather see it as state-capitalism, a system where the state becomes the only capitalist, and the nomenklatura become the new oppressors and exploiters.

[Slavic]

Anarchism makes perfect sense. No government or state. It's quite simple.

Anarchists and Communists both want the end goal of "No government or state".

The difference lies in the question of "How?"

[PhoenixAsh]

- I think that primary goal of any state that calls itself Socialist is the gradual removal of the need for a state.
- I think that a state is needed to act as an umbrella and shield that aids Socialist revolutions around the world. When global revolution is complete, the state must wither.
- I think that money capital should be abolished and replaced - this being the last major reform of the state while it is in existence.
- I think that revolution is absolutely necessary - violent or non-violent, people need to stand up and seize power from the elite.
- I think that Socialism requires democratic discussion to avoid class divides.


Your ideas and conceptions of the state means you are not an anarchist nor even close to being one. Anarchism opposes the state in all its forms and rely on worker selfmanagement and organisation. They either advocate a non transition from capitalism to communism (so no DotP) or redefine the DotP as the revolution itself and an immediate destruction of the state instead of a gradual one as a direct goal of the revolution.

I would suggest a different avatar.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Have you read Bob Avakian? What about Mao?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's a nice sentiment - unless you want to do political work. Then "finding an -ism" - or rather finding a group you are in programmatic and theoretical agreement with - is extremely important.

This is predicated on the (wrong) assumption that the most successful political work is done by ideologically pure small parties/sects, which is generally not the case. The greatest expressions of class war, by the working class, in recent years in Britain came in the 2011 riots and the Occupy movement, both of which drew from a far more heterogeneous political/social grouping than a trotskyist/marxist-leninist sect.


The fact that various socialist groups ostensibly have the same long-term goal doesn't help when one group is trying to organise an election campaign, one goes around smashing windows etc.

That's a problem with the sectarian nature of the left, and your desire for everyone to belong to an 'ism' wouldn't change that - people would still belong to different 'isms'. The point isn't to have as many discrete 'isms' as possible, but for people to see that whatever abc or xyz parties think, people do not need to pigeon hole themselves as this or that 'ism'. In fact, I think it's extremely unhealthy and leads to the sectarianism noted above, and the lack of organisation and cooperation amongst leftist sects.

[Red Star Rising]

Your ideas and conceptions of the state means you are not an anarchist nor even close to being one. Anarchism opposes the state in all its forms and rely on worker selfmanagement and organisation. They either advocate a non transition from capitalism to communism (so no DotP) or redefine the DotP as the revolution itself and an immediate destruction of the state instead of a gradual one as a direct goal of the revolution.

I would suggest a different avatar.

Huh, didn't even notice the "A" there actually (tbh it looks more like a weird compass or something). Still, isn't all Communism stateless anyway? I don't really get why people get so riled up about the means of getting there. It seems ridiculous to suggest that this would happen instantly. people's collective perception of a state is not going to vanish into thin air even after a revolution. I never understood that part of Anarchism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Huh, didn't even notice the "A" there actually (tbh it looks more like a weird compass or something). Still, isn't all Communism stateless anyway? I don't really get why people get so riled up about the means of getting there. It seems ridiculous to suggest that this would happen instantly. people's collective perception of a state is not going to vanish into thin air even after a revolution. I never understood that part of Anarchism.

You mean aside from the fact that all revolutions which used the state to demolish the state...all degraded and degenerated into brutal repressive capitalist systems which were as far removed from communism as fascism is?

[Red Star Rising]

You mean aside from the fact that all revolutions which used the state to demolish the state...all degraded and degenerated into brutal repressive capitalist systems which were as far removed from communism as fascism is?

The shining example of course being the USSR. Just because that regime collapsed doesn't mean that the immediate removal of the state would have worked instead (not to mention the myriad of other problems that arose in the Soviet Union). That's like curing a tumour in the brain by cutting the whole head off - no anarchist society would survive with the influences of Capitalism bearing down upon it. I see no issue with a Socialist nation if its primary goal is the ultimate abolition of the state once the proper conditions exist. People don't have enough faith in their own power for an immediate transition to stateless Communism from Capitalism, Socialism should be a bridge between them that empowered the workers.

Honestly I think that Communists of all kinds should detach themselves from any cold war Socialism. History does not prove that Socialism fails it proves that totalitarian dictatorship fails - men like Stalin did not rise to power simply because there was a state (if anything the idea of a vanguard party had more to do with it).

[PhoenixAsh]

The shining example of course being the USSR.

How about every other state that used this model? DKPR, Vietnam, Cambodia, The entirety of Eastern-Europe, Everytihng that happened in the free territories, in Spain, etc.




Just because that regime collapsed doesn't mean that the immediate removal of the state would have worked instead (not to mention the myriad of other problems that arose in the Soviet Union). That's like curing a tumour in the brain by cutting the whole head off - no anarchist society would survive with the influences of Capitalism bearing down upon it.

untill now we would never actually know since Anarchist experiments that did seem to work were betrayed by the system and ideology you are defending here.

Not to mention of course that just about every system you are defending here never actually passed the stage of capitalism itself...and went immediately about to actually implement it further...so I suppose you are right,.


I see no issue with a Socialist nation if its primary goal is the ultimate abolition of the state once the proper conditions exist.

Yes...you say that correctly: once the proper conditions exist. And since the state is a self perpetuating entity those conditions won't ever exist. But pretty please with sugar on top...DO kindly explain what these conditions are exactly?


People don't have enough faith in their own power for an immediate transition to stateless Communism from Capitalism, Socialism should be a bridge between them that empowered the workers.

O so people are idiots? They can have a revolution and create a mass movement t overthrow capitalism but they are too stupid to lead and organize themselves, is that it?

They require a glorious...what exactly? To run the state for them? Since you said you don't believe in a Vanguard.


Honestly I think that Communists of all kinds should detach themselves from any cold war Socialism.

Cold war socialism? The revolution failed in 1917.


History does not prove that Socialism fails it proves that totalitarian dictatorship fails - men like Stalin did not rise to power simply because there was a state (if anything the idea of a vanguard party had more to do with it).

Stalin didn't fall from the sky. Stalin didn't single handedly ruin the revolution. Do NOT come up with "omg one man ruined it fof the rest of us". There were spcific circumstances that led to Stalin and the bureaucracy he represented. This would however NEVER have occured without the state apparatus and these developpments were already being discussed within the Bolshevik party in 1918-19.

[Red Star Rising]

How about every other state that used this model? DKPR, Vietnam, Cambodia, The entirety of Eastern-Europe, Everytihng that happened in the free territories, in Spain, etc.

DPRK, along with the USSR and all those nations were state capitalist not Socialist. and Eastern Europe were just puppets of the USSR anyway.

[PhoenixAsh]

DPRK, along with the USSR and all those nations were state capitalist not Socialist. and Eastern Europe were just puppets of the USSR anyway.

sigh.

Yes. And what have I been saying about trying to implement the idea of the state?

[Red Star Rising]

untill now we would never actually know since Anarchist experiments that did seem to work were betrayed by the system and ideology you are defending here.
Detailed example please. Tell me why it is the perception of the state is the inherently damaging trait.


Not to mention of course that just about every system you are defending here never actually passed the stage of capitalism itself...and went immediately about to actually implement it further...so I suppose you are right,.
Yes. All the examples that capitalists love to cite were no more Socialist than they were Anarchist.



Yes...you say that correctly: once the proper conditions exist. And since the state is a self perpetuating entity those conditions won't ever exist. But pretty please with sugar on top...DO kindly explain what these conditions are exactly?

Workers owning the means of production. Citizens themselves having a greater participation in political discussion than any party. The abolition of money. Global revolution. The state is only a perpetuating entity when government and people are kept separate through Vanguardism.


O so people are idiots? They can have a revolution and create a mass movement t overthrow capitalism but they are too stupid to lead and organize themselves, is that it?

They require a glorious...what exactly? To run the state for them? Since you said you don't believe in a Vanguard.
Democracy maybe? if there is a mass revolution then there should be enough support to maintain rule through democratic discussion as well. People themselves being able to take part in a democracy until the point that they have become self-sufficient doesn't necessarily mean hat there is no government at all.



Cold war socialism? The revolution failed in 1917.

What? You seem to think that post-revolutionary Socialist states form totalitarianism anyway. So you are admitting that there was no Socialist state after 1917. If so, what evidence do you have that a Socialist state would not work?


Stalin didn't fall from the sky. Stalin didn't single handedly ruin the revolution. Do NOT come up with "omg one man ruined it fof the rest of us". There were spcific circumstances that led to Stalin and the bureaucracy he represented. This would however NEVER have occured without the state apparatus and these developpments were already being discussed within the Bolshevik party in 1918-19.
The fact that Stalin alone didn't ruin the revolution does not mean that Socialism did.

[helot]

If so, what evidence do you have that a Socialist state would not work?.


What evidence do you need when it's contradictory? Socialism is classless therefore stateless. Or is it you're on about the revolutionary period when the proletariat creates its own organs of power that are immediately identical to the class itself and seeks to destroy the conditions of class society and the means of its reproduction? The proletariat's own organs will be in direct conflict with the state.

[Red Star Rising]

What evidence do you need when it's contradictory? Socialism is classless therefore stateless. Or is it you're on about the revolutionary period when the proletariat creates its own organs of power that are immediately identical to the class itself and seeks to destroy the conditions of class society and the means of its reproduction? The proletariat's own organs will be in direct conflict with the state.

Why would a classless society have to be stateless? This assumes that people in government would form an elite class. This is only true of undemocratic dictatorships.

[helot]

Why would a classless society have to be stateless? This assumes that people in government would form an elite class. This is only true of undemocratic dictatorships.


I'm guessing you're not familiar with Marx then.


States exist to maintain class society. They are an organ of class rule. There has never been a state that did not exist within class society.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is no singular defintion of socialism. The definition of socialism you are using is socialism in terms of a transitorial state after the revolution.


Workers owning the means of production. Citizens themselves having a greater participation in political discussion than any party. The abolition of money. Global revolution. The state is only a perpetuating entity when government and people are kept separate through Vanguardism.

Actually no. This is impossible. The state by its logical means is the minority entity to which the majority delegate their rights and souvereignity. It is in fact minority rule of either a vanguard, party or certain political faction or factions which then proceed to sway political and economic power over the majority.

While Marxists define the state as an entity of class rule in which one class dominates the others.

What we are dealing with here is two very distinct notions of the state. Both however exclude the possibility of the state as an instrument of abolishing the state. The state by its very nature will centralize power and perpetuate and in fact create a new social elite and class because it merely changes the ones who own the means of production to a small segment of the working class.

This in fact was what clealy happened in every country which claimed to be implementing state socialism.




Democracy maybe? if there is a mass revolution then there should be enough support to maintain rule through democratic discussion as well. People themselves being able to take part in a democracy until the point that they have become self-sufficient doesn't necessarily mean hat there is no government at all.

The Anarchist idea of immediate abolition of the state and the rejection of the DotP beyond the direct convines of the revolution is absoolutely essential because the state is excluding by its very nature the majority of the masses from the decision making process.

Your notion here therefore directly contradicts the notion of the state being this instrument. Or as Bakunin put is: "Where all rule there are no more rules and therefore there is no state."

Anarchists want to replace the state with the free democratic association of the workers. Or...to quote again Bakunin: "The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom up, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal."

This is exactly how Anarchists define socialism.


Detailed example please. Tell me why it is the perception of the state is the inherently damaging trait. Yes. All the examples that capitalists love to cite were no more Socialist than they were Anarchist.

My point exactly. These examples failed to actually implement your definition of socialism not because they didn't try but because it is a factual impossibility to use the state to do so.


What? You seem to think that post-revolutionary Socialist states form totalitarianism anyway. So you are admitting that there was no Socialist state after 1917. If so, what evidence do you have that a Socialist state would not work?

What I am saying is that your definition of socialism (state socialism) will most definately by its very nature devolve to totalianiarism, state capitalism or will degenerate into deformed or whatever worker states.


The fact that Stalin alone didn't ruin the revolution does not mean that Socialism did.

Actually...yes it does. Your version of socialism (state socialism) will always utterly fail to bring about both socialism and/or communism (if you make the distinction between these two)...in fact state socialism will create Stalin and Stalinism by its ver nature.

The main criticism levelled against Leninism and Marxism way before the Russian revolution was a possibility even, this was the general warning of Anarchists of all tendencies and some left-communists as well.The development of the USSR after 1917 was simply predicted as a logical outcome of the ideological traits of state socialism.

[Red Star Rising]

I'm guessing you're not familiar with Marx then.


States exist to maintain class society. They are an organ of class rule. There has never been a state that did not exist within class society.

However Marx did not claim that its immediate destruction was advisable, he instead said that it would be put in the hands of the workers in a socialist society after which point it would gradually decay. The state is only an instrument of oppression in a class-oriented society. Under socialism it (along with parties and politicians) would become more and more pointless as the revolution spreads and people become more and more self-sufficient.

[Red Star Rising]

The Anarchist idea of immediate abolition of the state and the rejection of the DotP beyond the direct convines of the revolution is absoolutely essential because the state is excluding by its very nature the majority of the masses from the decision making process.

Under Socialism, the state would be an instrument of allowing all workers (who would collectively control the state rather than vice versa) to have a voice in the decision making process. With the advent of the internet, this does require mass centralisation and would be much more effective. The state would become a tool of preventing totalitarianism by using modern technology to allow as many people as possible access to politics in a large government forum or something.

[PhoenixAsh]

Under Socialism, the state would be an instrument of allowing all workers (who would collectively control the state rather than vice versa) to have a voice in the decision making process. With the advent of the internet, this does require mass centralisation and would be much more effective. The state would become a tool of preventing totalitarianism by using modern technology to allow as many people as possible access to politics in a large government forum or something.

Yes, except that is impossible and contradicts the nature of the state. Which is what I have been trying to tell you.

Here:

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-state-its-historic-role
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/michail-bakunin-statism-and-anarchy
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/erich-muhsam-the-liberation-of-society-from-the-state-what-is-communist-anarchism

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Under Socialism, the state would be an instrument of allowing all workers (who would collectively control the state rather than vice versa) to have a voice in the decision making process.

You must surely see the irony of you ordaining this supposed democracy upon the workers, no?


The state would become a tool of preventing totalitarianism by using modern technology to allow as many people as possible access to politics in a large government forum or something.

1. This is a very ahistorical understanding of the raison d'etre of the state. The state, as we know it today, was borne out of the need to protect profit-seeking merchants during the early-modern period. Ergo you had the British state providing cover for those who wished to increase urbanisation within Britain, and later for those who wanted to go and 'explore' (i.e. exploit) the natural and labouring riches of countries that, until then, had been un-discovered by capital's rent-seeking pursuits.

2. Following on from above, this really means that the state is not an appropriate tool to either prevent totalitarianism (which itself is a concept that is positively related to the size of the state) nor allow people access to politics. The state machinery - the bureaucracy, the civil service, the professional political class, the military etc. - are not the right tools to achieve what you want to achieve.

[Wonton Carter]

I would call you either an Impossibilist or a non-doctrinaire communist.

[Zanthorus]

All of the isms are useless, because none of them agrees on every point with me, and since I'm right, they must be wrong. QED.


the military etc

Militaries have been around since waaaaaayyyyyy before the early-modern period. Classes with privileged access to political power too. Calling someone's view of the state 'ahistorical', claiming that the state as we know it only arose in the early-modern period, and then mentioning those as essential features of the state doesn't look particularly consistent.

[Comrade #138672]

Capitalism is just an ism too. We are all people. Just be happy and smile.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is predicated on the (wrong) assumption that the most successful political work is done by ideologically pure small parties/sects, which is generally not the case.

I was talking about "programmatic and theoretical agreement" (with programmatic agreement implicitly given precedence), not "ideological purity", whatever that means (to me it sounds like a derogatory term for refusing to compromise socialist principles). And it is an empirical fact that, while programmatically cohesive organisations have been able to meaningfully participate in the class struggle, "broad church" organisations have not.


The greatest expressions of class war, by the working class, in recent years in Britain came in the 2011 riots and the Occupy movement, both of which drew from a far more heterogeneous political/social grouping than a trotskyist/marxist-leninist sect.

The Occupy "movement" was petit-bourgeois and often explicitly anti-worker in nature. My knowledge of the 2011 riots is limited, but as far as I know they were linked to impoverishment and police violence - all commendable, but there was no clear class line, no split between the proletariat and the petite-bourgeoisie and so on.


That's a problem with the sectarian nature of the left, and your desire for everyone to belong to an 'ism' wouldn't change that - people would still belong to different 'isms'. The point isn't to have as many discrete 'isms' as possible, but for people to see that whatever abc or xyz parties think, people do not need to pigeon hole themselves as this or that 'ism'. In fact, I think it's extremely unhealthy and leads to the sectarianism noted above, and the lack of organisation and cooperation amongst leftist sects.

Do you think cooperation among the various leftist and "leftist" sects would achieve anything? Except forming a new TUSC or Left Unity perhaps, and we all know what bulwarks of the proletariat these are. And sectarianism means abstaining from the class struggle. It does not mean opposing other "socialist" groups when their line is idiotic.

[Brotto Rühle]

However Marx did not claim that its immediate destruction was advisable, he instead said that it would be put in the hands of the workers in a socialist society after which point it would gradually decay.You should try reading Marx before you claim anything he has said. Marx never suggested it was advisable that the working class take power and form its own state, he said it was necessary. However, he NEVER said that this was in a "socialist society". Lastly, the term is "withers away", and it withers away at the same point class is abolished in society.... socialism.


The state is only an instrument of oppression in a class-oriented society. Under socialism it (along with parties and politicians) would become more and more pointless as the revolution spreads and people become more and more self-sufficient.Under socialism, it would not exist.

[The Idler]

This is predicated on the (wrong) assumption that the most successful political work is done by ideologically pure small parties/sects, which is generally not the case. The greatest expressions of class war, by the working class, in recent years in Britain came in the 2011 riots and the Occupy movement, both of which drew from a far more heterogeneous political/social grouping than a trotskyist/marxist-leninist sect.



That's a problem with the sectarian nature of the left, and your desire for everyone to belong to an 'ism' wouldn't change that - people would still belong to different 'isms'. The point isn't to have as many discrete 'isms' as possible, but for people to see that whatever abc or xyz parties think, people do not need to pigeon hole themselves as this or that 'ism'. In fact, I think it's extremely unhealthy and leads to the sectarianism noted above, and the lack of organisation and cooperation amongst leftist sects.
I think you misunderstand "sects" and "sectarianism" in a way common on the left.
Small parties with ideological differences are not "sects" or "sectarian" for disagreeing with other possibly larger parties. If that were the case, then every "socialist" party since the formation of the SPGB in 1904 would be "sectarian".
Refusing to work with or co-operate with another party with whom you have differences is not "sectarian".
Properly understanding the differences (or non-differences) between the ideas of groups (instead of decrying this or dismissing this as "sectarian") is the quickest and best way for you to choose with which group you agree with.

[Red Star Rising]

You must surely see the irony of you ordaining this supposed democracy upon the workers, no?



1. This is a very ahistorical understanding of the raison d'etre of the state. The state, as we know it today, was borne out of the need to protect profit-seeking merchants during the early-modern period. Ergo you had the British state providing cover for those who wished to increase urbanisation within Britain, and later for those who wanted to go and 'explore' (i.e. exploit) the natural and labouring riches of countries that, until then, had been un-discovered by capital's rent-seeking pursuits.

2. Following on from above, this really means that the state is not an appropriate tool to either prevent totalitarianism (which itself is a concept that is positively related to the size of the state) nor allow people access to politics. The state machinery - the bureaucracy, the civil service, the professional political class, the military etc. - are not the right tools to achieve what you want to achieve.

Well I'm going to assume that the you(plural) have thought about this more than I have so I guess I may as well throw in with you (or at least revise my conception of the state). The state in Socialism should become a central administration used by the workers as an instrument of organising labour and nothing else. It may also serve as forum for the discussion of ideas but that does not require a political elite and would most likely happen anyway. "Politicians" would become obsolete, there would be no such profession - workers may take part in organising their affairs but the running of affairs cannot be a separate job. There would be an agreed upon constitution which would include a set of rules that defined Socialism (no private ownership, workers own means of production etc.) but no direct enforcement of the will of one party.

Does this sound more agreeable?