Another Thread On Tendency!

[Sinister Intents]

This is a thread on personal tendency. I'm very undecided on things and constantly question my politics as of lately and I'm very sure I fall into the area in between Marxist and anarchist and I'm very stuck in between both sides. As per myself I identify as a Libertarian Marxist and Anarchist Communist.

Who wants to ask me questions and try to sway me one way or another? I want to not be stuck between two ideas, I want to end contradicting myself and end cognitive dissonance in politics.

So... Ask me a question and let's see where this goes!

[Sewer Socialist]

It sounds like we share views somewhat. I used to consider myself an anarchist, but after a bit of reading, I found Marxist materialism to be persuasive. I am still figuring things out for myself, but I'll try to ask some things I've considered.

Hm, let's see. How do you feel about what happened in Catalonia, 1936-1939?

What year do you think the Russian Revolution was betrayed?

[Sinister Intents]

It sounds like we share views somewhat. I used to consider myself an anarchist, but after a bit of reading, I found Marxist materialism to be persuasive. I am still figuring things out for myself, but I'll try to ask some things I've considered.

Hm, let's see. How do you feel about what happened in Catalonia, 1936-1939?

What year do you think the Russian Revolution was betrayed?

I am no longer sure where I stand. I started out in as a weird liberal Stalinist. Years ago I had read the Communist Manifesto and some stuff by Lenin, and Snippets of Marx and Engels. i considered myself a Marxist. I read a lot of anarchist theory though after that and I identified as an anarchist communist more and more as time went on. Now I'm stuck between the two despite at times being directly opposed to Marxist thought. I've read some Bordiga recently and other Left Com stuff, but I wouldn't exactly call myself a left communist. I've read more Bordiga than Pannekoek and Luxemburg.

As per anarchist Catalonia I read about all that in 2012 but don't remember a whole lot, other than the fact that the Stalinists assisted in it's demise. I'd say anarchist Catalonia showed that anarchist methods can and will work.

As per the Russian Revolution I at one point considered it a bourgeois revolution because it went the same way as the French Revoution. Before that I considered it a proletarian revolution without knowing about how the anarchists assisted the Bolsheviks into power months prior to the October Revolution. I'd have to say initially the Bolsheviks had the right ideas in mind but with the persecution on the anarchists and the installment of the NEP is when the revolution was betrayed. I feel the Bolsheviks should have legalized the anarchists and allowed them direct influence in the Soviets. I feel the Soviets shouldn't have become the puppets of the Soviet state and they should've remained free Soviets. I also feel Makhno's Free Territory should never have been crushed and should have been allowed further existence.

[Sinister Intents]

Keep in mind I'm not the most educated on all of this and I'm not as well read as many are here

9mm will you please talk to me in this thread?

[Sewer Socialist]

I think it's pretty easy to feel intimidated here. Sometimes I'm afraid to chime in because I think someone will rip apart what I said.

Anyway, I would say that if you think the Bolsheviks had the right ideas at first, until Kronstadt / NEP / Makhno, that sounds more Bordigist.

I agree on Catalonia; though I would say that Catalonia also showed that Marxist methods can work; there were a lot of Marxists and anarchists working together, and the Marxist POUM/UGT was similarly betrayed by the Comintern-backed PCE/PSUC. You could, in my opinion, view it as a DOTP, and one that was instituting a transition to socialism. Do you see it that way?

Do you prefer Marxist materialism to anarchist writing?

I should probably ask something about Councilism, but I'm not as familiar with it as I would like to be.

[Sewer Socialist]

Oh, and I forgot to ask about the "popular front" policy - what you think about the PCE/PSUC in Spain's opposition to revolutionary collectivization and appeals to the petit-bourgeoisie?

[Sewer Socialist]

Oh, I missed this.


Now I'm stuck between the two despite at times being directly opposed to Marxist thought.

Well, I guess that's probably important. What specifically are you opposed to? I find myself critical of some aspects of Marx, but I fundamentally agree with the materialism.

[Illegalitarian]

As per the Russian Revolution I at one point considered it a bourgeois revolution because it went the same way as the French Revoution. Before that I considered it a proletarian revolution without knowing about how the anarchists assisted the Bolsheviks into power months prior to the October Revolution. I'd have to say initially the Bolsheviks had the right ideas in mind but with the persecution on the anarchists and the installment of the NEP is when the revolution was betrayed. I feel the Bolsheviks should have legalized the anarchists and allowed them direct influence in the Soviets. I feel the Soviets shouldn't have become the puppets of the Soviet state and they should've remained free Soviets. I also feel Makhno's Free Territory should never have been crushed and should have been allowed further existence.

Russian Revolution as the ideological twin of the French Revolution, eh? That puts Lenin up there with Robespierre, lopping off the heads of those who lacked "virtue". Sounds about right I'd reckon.



Honestly I'm in the same boat as you. I've traditionally been an anarchist of the communist variety, but I've also dabbled in Marxism, trying my best to wrap my mind around some of his more complicated dialectical stuff as well as the dry economics of Das Kapital, as well as a healthy dose of Lenin in there.


I'm not sure if I'd call myself an anarchist, or a marxist, or if there's even really a difference between the two aside from the latter being more or less the science of communism, with the former putting more of an emphasis on how to properly build it, along with the ethics of it all.

All I know is, I believe that the world's working class should, can and will rise up in rebellion against the current mode of production whenever the material conditions are right, overthrowing the bourgeois state and the bourgeois class and establishing itself as the new ruling class, before abolishing all of class society, establishing common use of the means of production, with production being geared towards need and a person being able to take what they wish from that pool of production, ending exploitation, systemic oppression against all people, and the cycle of poverty

Whatever label you want to slap on that, it's what I am I guess.

[Sinister Intents]

I think it's pretty easy to feel intimidated here. Sometimes I'm afraid to chime in because I think someone will rip apart what I said.

Definitely! I feel that too often and it destroys my already low confidence and self esteem. I've in the last several months, perhaps almost a year, been able to post more comfortably than in the past. I've been torn apart before here and it really affects me too negatiely.


Anyway, I would say that if you think the Bolsheviks had the right ideas at first, until Kronstadt / NEP / Makhno, that sounds more Bordigist.


That's interesting! I came to these conclusions before reading Bordiga, and I still have a long way to go with reading him and other left communist writers.


I agree on Catalonia; though I would say that Catalonia also showed that Marxist methods can work; there were a lot of Marxists and anarchists working together, and the Marxist POUM/UGT was similarly betrayed by the Comintern-backed PCE/PSUC. You could, in my opinion, view it as a DOTP, and one that was instituting a transition to socialism. Do you see it that way?


I agree seeing it that way, even though I'm not as read on it as you are, I'm in agreeance with the idea of the DotP only so far, I see it something that should only be weak state with a defined group that is allowed influence as in anarchists, marxists, left coms, and so on, but no one outside of specific tendencies. I see it as something that should be entirely democratic with directly recallable officials and with elections, but not elections like that in the current bourgeois democracies.


Do you prefer Marxist materialism to anarchist writing?


I like both! I love reading both Marxist and anarchist texts. I agree with Marxist materialism quite a lot actually and agree with the anarchists like Kropotkin and Emma Goldman. I also agree with Marx and Engels and Lenin on several things.


I should probably ask something about Councilism, but I'm not as familiar with it as I would like to be.

I agree with Pannekoek's ideas if that's what you mean :) but I've only read his work on Worker's councils and snippets of other texts of his.


Oh, and I forgot to ask about the "popular front" policy - what you think about the PCE/PSUC in Spain's opposition to revolutionary collectivization and appeals to the petit-bourgeoisie?

I should probably read up on that, but I haven't exactly the time. Could you provide a brief summary perhaps? I'm petit-bourgeois, so I'll probably be able to notice something and reply better. I think the petit-bourgeoisie can be a revolutionary class if they're swayed to revolutionary politics. They're essentially a wild card when it comes to revolutionary politics. I'd assume some haute-bourgeoisie could be swayed into supporting the Marxists and anarchists.


Oh, I missed this.



Well, I guess that's probably important. What specifically are you opposed to? I find myself critical of some aspects of Marx, but I fundamentally agree with the materialism.

I generally agree with Marxists on the functions and usage on the state, when it comes to the DotP I believe in a modified version of it. I fully agree with the Marxist conception of materialism.

[RedWorker]

Libertarian Marxist

Why do you feel the need to identify as a 'libertarian Marxist' rather than a Marxist?


I'd have to say initially the Bolsheviks had the right ideas in mind but with the persecution on the anarchists and the installment of the NEP is when the revolution was betrayed.

I'd say the revolution failed primarily due to material reasons and such repressions were more of a consequence than a cause of this.


I feel the Bolsheviks should have legalized the anarchists and allowed them direct influence in the Soviets.

Didn't the anarchists manage to send some delegates to the Congress of Soviets?


Oh, and I forgot to ask about the "popular front" policy - what you think about the PCE/PSUC in Spain's opposition to revolutionary collectivization and appeals to the petit-bourgeoisie?

I wonder, is a divergence of opinions about this even possible here (not counting our beloved Stalinists)? They were outright counter-revolutionary and called for the restoration of the normal function of the capitalist mode of production and bourgeois state every day, which really isn't surprising at all. And then backed it up with pro-bourgeois violence which put the owners back in control of the factories.

[Illegalitarian]

Yeah, Marx didn't have much at all to say about the state, compared to his philosophical successors.

To call yourself a Libertarian Marxist sort of implies that Marxism itself is an authoritarian ideology, which it surely is not

[Sinister Intents]

@RedWorker: I say libertarian Marxist because of my leaning towards Marxism, but also because I'm anarchist as well. It seemed pretty accurate a descriptive label because I feel like I'm in between Marxism and anarchism.

[Sinister Intents]

Yeah, Marx didn't have much at all to say about the state, compared to his philosophical successors.

To call yourself a Libertarian Marxist sort of implies that Marxism itself is an authoritarian ideology, which it surely is not

It really depends on the Marxist and I'm part anarchist and agree a lot with anarchists and agree with Marxists too. Danielle Ni Dighe (I think that's how its spelled. ..) typed a post on Libertarian Marxism that I agreed with and felt it accurately described my politics

[RedWorker]

To you, what are the main differences between your Marxism and your anarchism?

[motion denied]

We are doomed if your politics are defined by century-old happenings. Who cares if the Bolsheviks fucked the soviets, or if the October Revolution was a Coup funded by Wall Street Jewish Reptilian Bankers.

What matters is now. How is left-communism/libertarian marxism/anarchism relevant today.

...

[Sinister Intents]

To you, what are the main differences between your Marxism and your anarchism?

The difference really being historical in strategy and tactics, semantics, and so on.


We are doomed if your politics are defined by century-old happenings. Who cares if the Bolsheviks fucked the soviets, or if the October Revolution was a Coup funded by Wall Street Jewish Reptilian Bankers.

What matters is now. How is left-communism/libertarian marxism/anarchism relevant today.

...

My politics aren't defined by that but the occurrences of the past can give us a gauge for the future of politics and global happenings. Those tendencies aren't very relevant at all, but the labels can give an idea of someone's specific ideas and positions. I'm trying to find where I fit.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I simply could not find a tendency that I could side with. No matter what, I always found one small detail of any particular tendency that would just irritate me to no end.

So I created my own. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=19072) ;)

[Sewer Socialist]

I simply could not find a tendency that I could side with. No matter what, I always found one small detail of any particular tendency that would just irritate me to no end.

So I created my own. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=19072) ;)

Comrade, I wholeheartedly agree with your unique position on chocolate cake.

ALL CAKE TO THE SOVIETS!

[Rafiq]

This is a thread on personal tendency. I'm very undecided on things and constantly question my politics as of lately and I'm very sure I fall into the area in between Marxist and anarchist and I'm very stuck in between both sides. As per myself I identify as a Libertarian Marxist and Anarchist Communist.


You claim that partially, historical experience is what compels you to sympathize with Anarchism - or at least on a certain level, identify with it. The Makhnovschina (and this is if we put aside all of the allegations against the RIAU), as well as Anarchsit catalonia stand as ideological legends, distinguished by their purity. Their demise - as it is known, can be attributed to external factors and external factors alone. Catalonia and Free territory were not allowed to survive, and ultimately fail, history did anarchism a service by keeping open the possibility that these societies could have lead to a global revolution and so forth.

But let's evaluate the circumstances of their demise - why were they unable to defend themselves in a way that was as brutally efficient, organized and systemic as the Bolsheviks? The point isn't that anyone doubts that a society of politically conscious individuals, organized at a level of self management can function (and let's be honest - It's unlikely that this could ever work on a global level, especially today) - the reason why a proletarian dictatorship is necessary is precisely because of the necessity to combat, and destroy the same external factors which lead to the ruin of the garden of purity.

The second belief is that the mechanisms of class dictatorship themselves were responsible for the failure of the October revolution. This is complicated, because as the Soviet state became more and more refined at defending itself, indeed this did coincide with the failure of the revolution and up to a point - the Soviet state slowly became the gravedigger of the October revolution. However it is infantile and lazy to attribute to hold the Soviet state, and the soviet state alone responsible for this failure. Correlation does not always imply causation, as it should be known - ultimately, the mechanisms of state dictatorship were not what led to the demise of the revolution - rather, there was a turning point in which the survival of the Soviet state in a world which was in totality fundamentally hostile to its existence necessarily depended on making grand concessions. The interests of the proletariat and the Soviet state did not break because there was a dictatorship "over" the workers - but that the same politically conscious workers who brought the Bolsheviks to power perished in the civil war. If we consider these factors, as well as the fact that the Bolsheviks presided over a country which was largely composed of classes not predisposed to Communism as an ideology or the Communist movement, it makes a lot of sense that all of society became subordinate to the mechanisms of the state - and that the state acted in a manner independent of the working classes. The state assumed a fundamentally Jacobin character and 20th century Communism henceforth became a singular prolonged Jacobin phrase destroying the social vestiges of feudalism. It is important to remember that even during the early 20th century, a grand portion of the world, while inclusive in the capitalist totality - was still composed of feudal relationships to production. Only prolonged political terror was able to artificially destroy the vestiges of feudal social relations.

ALL places in which Communism was established were either operating within the geo-political sphere of the Soviet Union (as a result of, for example, the second world war) OR were countries that were overwhelmingly agrarian and feudal in nature. There are literally no exceptions. If you want to look at it in a Hegelian sense: 20th century Communism happened to make way for globalized capitalism (Of course, this couldn't have been predicted BEFORE it happened - the point is that this is what 20th century Communism, historically, served in the development of our present day condition).

Of course it's ALL more complicated than that - much more complicated at that when one considers all other factors. This should give us a general idea, however - of course the remnants of the proletarian dictatorship were there throughout.

I understand the appeal of anarchism, especially after the collapse of 20th century Communism. Anarchism embodies purity, anarchism is the virgin of emancipatory history. Anarchism, however, at its core remains as an infantile expression (not confined) to working class consciousness in a way which is not codified or disciplined - in other words, the mechanisms of long-term reproduction of worker consciousness are not present in Anarchism (without Marxist influence, of course), which is why petty bourgeois positions and views are so easily adopted by them. It may APPEAR that Bakunin was right, Marx was wrong - it may appear that this whole fiasco is evidence that the Anarchists were right all along - but a revolutionary movement which relies on a cheap, dishonest and desperate last resort will get nowhere. Contrary to what is expected, we need Marxism today more than ever - only Marxism could ever consistently understand the failure of 20th century Communists and the error of Marxists before us.

But that isn't to say anarchists are worthless, or that there is nothing we can learn from anarchism. Anarchism, at the end of the day - began organically as a working-class movement exposing the contradictions of bourgeois ideology, taking the bourgeois notions of freedom and liberty and turning them on themselves. The Bolsheviks were successful because they were the synthesis of Anarchism and Marxism the first international lets us dream about - anarchists ultimately represent the ideological sentiment and revolutionary vigor of the proletariat - which is just as important as Marxist theoretical discipline. It is not so much the doctrine of anti-Authoritarianism or autonomous self-management which makes anarchism unique, or worth defending (to an extent) - it is the horror of anarchism, the terror that struck the hearts of the ruling class. Even if anarchist revolutionaries themselves were not fully committed to it, or were what we would call "edgy" (i.e., not positing any affirmative ideological stance) - the Bolsheviks codified, and systemized this vigor, and gave it an affirmative character. They stand as the sole proletarian organization in history to ever have been able to conquer the state - the only (successful, at least in the short term) proletarian revolution in history was that of the Bolsheviks.


We are doomed if your politics are defined by century-old happenings. Who cares if the Bolsheviks fucked the soviets, or if the October Revolution was a Coup funded by Wall Street Jewish Reptilian Bankers.


On the contrary, the Communist movement must be defined just as much by its past, as it is by its future. The fight for our legacy necessarily translates into the fight of today: Defending the legacy of the October revolution is not simply important because of truth: It is important because it's implications are strictly of TODAY's potential struggle. Everything, including history, must be appropriated by the Communist ideological universality. Communism as a movement could never survive, not for a day - if it could not provide us with a consistent understanding of the world. If the October revolution was a banking conspiracy - than the implications are that the same mechanisms of power still exist today and are responsible for a wide array of events. It means that it is not capitalism which is to blame - but the alleged secret cabal of bankers.

The past shapes the now - the battle for history and our legacy is a battle of today's condition. To an extent I agree - we shouldn't be bound by our petty disagreements - I think that a cohesive, singular radical Left movement simply committed as a cause of the working people, whether it incorporates a caravan of different leftists or not - is ultimately desirable.

[Rafiq]

Russian Revolution as the ideological twin of the French Revolution, eh? That puts Lenin up there with Robespierre, lopping off the heads of those who lacked "virtue". Sounds about right I'd reckon.


As if such a comparison is an insult. Indeed, your politics can be distinguished based on your position with regard to the French revolution - to those who support the revolution but prattle of the "excesses" of the terror - this is the mark of a spineless liberal. You don't go touting liberty and equality when the implications of establishing these are fundamentally forceful and violent. When a significant portion of the population is wiling to violently defend the old world - there are two options, submit or overcome, conquer or perish. All revolutionaries in all historical epochs new this very, very well.

But in the end, Robespierre was not bloodthirsty enough. Robespierre, if he can be criticized, was too soft on the scum festering in treachery and corruption. One example is that the "megalomaniac", the "dictator" who "turned on the ideals of the revolution" was in full capability of orchestrating a coup (with popular backing, mind you) which would overthrow those who would prove to conspire against him - Robespierre knew full well of the conspiracy, but did nothing. He had the power to BECOME dictator - but did not, willingly. Why? Because he was committed to the civic values of the French revolution.

But it's hilarious because you demonstrate an utterly childish notion of the French and Russian revolution. You really think it was this simple? You really think that Lenin had people executed because he "disagreed" with them? Do you think Robespierre did this, either? For fuck's sake - this would be quite the wormhole as far as any meaningful discourse on either event - it would present everything else as utterly contradictory. Are you 12? Do you ACTUALLY think this? To make this more hilarious - you ACTUALLY think Robespierre was some kind of dictator who had supreme power. You go and tarnish the names of revolutionary heroes by talking out of your ass - these two were men who were more committed, and more dedicated to their respective revolutions than any spineless pacifist.


Yeah, Marx didn't have much at all to say about the state, compared to his philosophical successors.

To call yourself a Libertarian Marxist sort of implies that Marxism itself is an authoritarian ideology, which it surely is not

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?


Marxism doesn't recognize the false dichotomy between authoritarian or libertarian. We might use any means - consistent with the ideas of Communism, to defend the proletarian dictatorship. If you ever have the hope of a world without imposition and without any form of command (Something, I'm afraid, I'm quite pessimistic about) - then only through authoritarian use could such a society potentially come about. We might oppose the gun - but we do not charge into battle with swords.

[Illegalitarian]

As I understand it, Rafiq, you believe that anarchism is a good thing, a manifestation of the proletariat's 'revolutionary vigor' and fighting spirit for a better tomorrow, which coincides well with the theoretical discipline of marxism?

If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree. I think the two go hand in hand, and perhaps are even inseparable.

As to where Marxism is the science of communism, if you will ( I know that's pushing it but bear with me for the lack of a better way to phrase it), the disciplined and highly analytical theory behind the history of class struggle and the lens through which we can view and understand social relations as they move through time, anarchism is the expression of this theory: the emotion, the passion, the actions that should logically follow from this understanding of the material world.




The second belief is that the mechanisms of class dictatorship themselves were responsible for the failure of the October revolution. This is complicated, because as the Soviet state became more and more refined at defending itself, indeed this did coincide with the failure of the revolution and up to a point - the Soviet state slowly became the gravedigger of the October revolution. However it is infantile and lazy to attribute to hold the Soviet state, and the soviet state alone responsible for this failure


I suppose that one could say that the terror carried out by the Bolsheviks and other self-professed communist movements throughout the 20th century was the result of this isolation, of being bound to the confines of a world that was still dominantly bourgeois. These movements had no choice, in a word, but to either try and fight for the ability to protect the gains they had made, gains they would need in order to go on and construct their socialist societies by purging every perceived enemy, as we saw in Russia, China, etc.

Either that, or to continue forth with constructing their ideal societies at the expense of establishing a means of protecting their gains, as we saw with the Free Territory, as we saw with Catalonia.

Which is again proof that communism does not exist in a vacuum, in the vacuum of one country or one community. It is a totalitarian mode of production I dare say, in so far that it must be global to be successful.

Would we truly say that the revolution failed in Russia because those who fought for it, those class conscious proles, died in the war? We have to remember that the working class revolution began shortly after the February revolution, the establishment of the Soviet congress of workers councils, which was later coopted by the bolsheviks who then fundamentally changed the characteristics of this congress and created a centralized power structure around themselves, turning the soviets into useless legislative bodies along the way.

This was paternalistic blanquism at its worst, I believe, but if the failure of the revolution did not come about in this way, had the boles never came along to took over the Soviets and the revolution continued on as it had been, would have failed, again, just as Catalonia did, only it would have likely ended with a more conservative force rising up to crush the movement and form a new state.

Either way, blaming anything except for the simple fact that material conditions were simply not conducive to a successful socialist revolution - a worldwide revolution - is looking at the symptom and not the disease.



the Communist movement, it makes a lot of sense that all of society became subordinate to the mechanisms of the state - and that the state acted in a manner independent of the working classes. The state assumed a fundamentally Jacobin character and 20th century Communism henceforth became a singular prolonged Jacobin phrase destroying the social vestiges of feudalism. It is important to remember that even during the early 20th century, a grand portion of the world, while inclusive in the capitalist totality - was still composed of feudal relationships to production. Only prolonged political terror was able to artificially destroy the vestiges of feudal social relations.


Seeing the Soviets, the Chinese revolutionaries etc as the spiritual predecessors of the Jacobins is pretty spot on, I've never really saw it like that. These movements all cropped up in countries dominated by feudal social relations, where the feudalistic mode of production was still dominant, most were characterized by periods of revolutionary terror and experienced their own forced cultural revolutions, and all stamped out what was left of feudalism as a mode of production and replaced it with a bourgeois society.

I wonder if this is why Marxist Leninism is so prominent in nations where so-called semi-feudalism exist, where feudalistic social relations still exist along side a newly emerging capitalist class.


All in all that was a really eye opening post for me and I hope I took away the right lesson without mistaking too much of what you said.

[Sabot Cat]

Another question for SI: What non-defunct organization do you feel reflects your political philosophy if you had to pick one? Who among the living do you agree with the most, aside from anyone on here?

[Illegalitarian]

As if such a comparison is an insult. Indeed, your politics can be distinguished based on your position with regard to the French revolution - to those who support the revolution but prattle of the "excesses" of the terror - this is the mark of a spineless liberal. You don't go touting liberty and equality when the implications of establishing these are fundamentally forceful and violent. When a significant portion of the population is wiling to violently defend the old world - there are two options, submit or overcome, conquer or perish. All revolutionaries in all historical epochs new this very, very well.


Of course, those who pay lip service to the idea of revolution without understanding its implications are those who are clearly not serious in their convictions. I'm no pacifist, despite what my profile says. That's just for fun. Your characterization of their attacks as simply purging counter-revolutionaries and combating class enemies is foolish and you damn well know it too. Lenin and Robespierre both had anyone received as a threat to the revolution crushed, which to them and their base, meant almost anyone who had complaints against what the regimes were doing.

Robespierre believed that terror and virtue were one in the same, that the latter could not exist without the former, and the threat of the former. But no, I suppose he was only killing "the bad guys", right? Of course not, he was a paranoid utopian idealist who clutched power and did whatever he could to retain it. He had his own CULT for fucks sake, what exactly is it that you're defending here?

This is what I was referring to in a tongue-in-cheek manner, the fact that both of these men played too fast and far too lose with the power they had and used it not for some revolutionary means, but to purge and terrorize anyone perceived as a threat, which meant the torture and death of a lot of people who did no wrong, at the hands of the psychopath proudly displayed in your avatar.


But in the end, Robespierre was not bloodthirsty enough. Robespierre, if he can be criticized, was too soft on the scum festering in treachery and corruption. One example is that the "megalomaniac", the "dictator" who "turned on the ideals of the revolution" was in full capability of orchestrating a coup (with popular backing, mind you) which would overthrow those who would prove to conspire against him - Robespierre knew full well of the conspiracy, but did nothing. He had the power to BECOME dictator - but did not, willingly. Why? Because he was committed to the civic values of the French revolution.


Plenty bloodthirsty, just not for the right blood. This is an awfully interesting subject, Robespierre not acting against his conspirators out of some sense of duty. do you have anything I could read on this particular subject? Or would you care to elaborate more, for the sake of knowledge?


But it's hilarious because you demonstrate an utterly childish notion of the French and Russian revolution. You really think it was this simple? You really think that Lenin had people executed because he "disagreed" with them? Do you think Robespierre did this, either? For fuck's sake - this would be quite the wormhole as far as any meaningful discourse on either event - it would present everything else as utterly contradictory. Are you 12? Do you ACTUALLY think this? To make this more hilarious - you ACTUALLY think Robespierre was some kind of dictator who had supreme power. You go and tarnish the names of revolutionary heroes by talking out of your ass - these two were men who were more committed, and more dedicated to their respective revolutions than any spineless pacifist.

I think he and Lenin targeted those people considered to be counter revolutionaries, which just so happened to also extend to anyone or any group of people who openly disagreed with or had troubles with the ruling bodies in France and Russia. I do not think he had them "snuffed out" like some mafioso, no, but again it's incredibly dishonest to portray what happened in these countries as merely defending the gains of the revolution when everyone knows that many people wrongfully lost their lives to the over paranoia and lust for hegemony that characterized these movements.

Was Robespierre a dictator? Not in the traditional sense, but for a brief period during the revolution he was the most powerful person in the nation and to deny that he misused this power is an outright disregard of the facts at hand.

Maybe the "incorruptible" bourgeois liberal is your revolutionary hero, but not mine.

I'm not trying to paint them as monsters who did no good, certainly not, but to deny that there were excesses that absolutely could have been avoided is simply wrong.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The popular view of Robespierre is to a large extent an invention of the Thermidorean period (many of the officials of the Thermidorean regime were members of the Convention, and some of them served alongside Robespierre, so the alleged "excesses" of the period had to be blamed on one man lest people start asking where Fouché, Carnot etc. were - this is also why "Stalin" is popularly blamed for everything that happened when he was the Secretary General, as if people like Khrushchev etc. had nothing to do with state policy in that period). Robespierre and the Jacobins were in fact rather moderate - and that sealed their fate. They could never keep up with the mood of the revolutionary masses, and in the end they were responsible for destroying the Left and making the Paris Commune powerless, which made a coup by the Right inevitable. That is their real crime - not lopping off some royalist heads.

And as for the Russian Revolution - who was it, exactly, that "wrongfully lost their lives to the over paranoia and lust for hegemony"? The Whites? If anything the Bolsheviks can be faulted for not shooting the Whites and the soon-to-be-Whites sooner. Left Esers, who tried to drag the country back into an imperialist war?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If one or more words can provide a very general overview of your politics, use those words, but don't worry too much about them.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

if i'm anything, i'm a communist.

[Illegalitarian]

The popular view of Robespierre is to a large extent an invention of the Thermidorean period (many of the officials of the Thermidorean regime were members of the Convention, and some of them served alongside Robespierre, so the alleged "excesses" of the period had to be blamed on one man lest people start asking where Fouché, Carnot etc. were - this is also why "Stalin" is popularly blamed for everything that happened when he was the Secretary General, as if people like Khrushchev etc. had nothing to do with state policy in that period). Robespierre and the Jacobins were in fact rather moderate - and that sealed their fate. They could never keep up with the mood of the revolutionary masses, and in the end they were responsible for destroying the Left and making the Paris Commune powerless, which made a coup by the Right inevitable. That is their real crime - not lopping off some royalist heads.

Of course there were others in on it, it's not as if Robespierre walked around in a giant mechanical spider killing all of the profligates. It is impossible to deny, however, that he lead the charge with the excesses, he was at the forefront.

If you have any good literature on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Everything I've read on the matter, however, indicates that the "mood of the revolutionary masses" was actually quite positive of the Jacobins until, you know, they started lopping peoples heads off everywhere.

Again, you could be right, but if you are I'd greatly appreciate some citations on some of this.


And as for the Russian Revolution - who was it, exactly, that "wrongfully lost their lives to the over paranoia and lust for hegemony"? The Whites? If anything the Bolsheviks can be faulted for not shooting the Whites and the soon-to-be-Whites sooner. Left Esers, who tried to drag the country back into an imperialist war?

I'm not about to get into a debate about the K word with a trot haha

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The Black Jacobins is a book about the Haitian revolution but does a good job of discussing the (French) Jacobins moderate and sometimes even conservative politics. Particularly with regards to slavery and economics.

[Illegalitarian]

Of course they had moderate and conservative politics, they were a left-bourgeois faction who presented themselves as such, which confuses me about the avid defense of them by some on the revolutionary left.

[consuming negativity]

Of course there were others in on it, it's not as if Robespierre walked around in a giant mechanical spider killing all of the profligates.

Keep on whitewashing, you Jacobin shill!

http://s24.postimg.org/edye6ec83/robespierre.png

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The French revolution is an important part of the birth of liberalism, but modern liberalism tends to reject any association with it for moral reasons and likes to attach itself to the English or America revolutions instead. Marxists point this out and it looks like a defense I guess. I agree with whoever said that the jacobins were behind the masses when it came to understanding what was happening. So much of the "excess" was spontaneous and carried out by random commoners, Robespierre wasn't planning mass drownings of landowners in the countryside, he was too busy playing politics in Paris.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

And the jacobins actually won elections a few years after the reaction but were prevented from taking those offices by The Directorate. So the population certainly had not turned against them out of disgust with the terror.

[Illegalitarian]

And the jacobins actually won elections a few years after the reaction but were prevented from taking those offices by The Directorate. So the population certainly had not turned against them out of disgust with the terror.

That's exactly what happened, though. The terror horrified the country and it got to the point where someone had to take the fall lest the entire revolution all into chaos.

Robespierre, whether or not he played a huge role, was and is presented as the central figure of the movement.


I've yet to see a legitimate defense of him and his actions, I'm hoping someone will come along with a nice article or some other literature proving me wrong, however.

[Art Vandelay]

I've yet to see a legitimate defense of him and his actions, I'm hoping someone will come along with a nice article or some other literature proving me wrong, however.

Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life - Peter McPhee

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

That's exactly what happened, though. The terror horrified the country and it got to the point where someone had to take the fall lest the entire revolution all into chaos.

Robespierre, whether or not he played a huge role, was and is presented as the central figure of the movement.


I've yet to see a legitimate defense of him and his actions, I'm hoping someone will come along with a nice article or some other literature proving me wrong, however.

It's not though. The reaction is the period immediately following the terror. I'm saying the Jacobins won in elections a few years after the reaction, meaning after Robespierre's death. The were prevented from taking office by the Directory, which was an anti-democratic technocrat government that ruled France post-Robespierre. If the people of France really were disgusted by the Jacobins and blamed them for the terror (and it follows, were opposed to the terror as well..), why would they try to re-elect them after they were already out of power?

[Illegalitarian]

Because the Jacobin's didn't take the blame, Robespierre did, and was executed for it. Of course this clearly influenced opinion against the Jacobins to an extent, but since the excesses were pinned on one guy it was presented as if he did not represent the interests of the Jacobins and acted like a rogue, even if that is not what happened.


Much in the same was the gang of four took the fall for what Mao had done, I suppose.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Of course there were others in on it, it's not as if Robespierre walked around in a giant mechanical spider killing all of the profligates.

It's not that others were "in on it", but they were crucial to the functioning of the Convention and the Committee of Public Safety, and Robespierre, contrary to the popular image of the man as some sort of dictator, could be overruled, and often was. If his ideas seemed to dominate the committee, it was because he was able to play off radicals like Saint-Just against the moderates, and because he had the tacit support of "technocrats" like Carnot (until they abandoned him when it became clear he would lose in the next round of inter-committee fighting).

Furthermore, even with the General Police Bureau, Robespierre and the Jacobin faction around him were nothing without the Paris Commune, something he himself failed to appreciate.


It is impossible to deny, however, that he lead the charge with the excesses, he was at the forefront.

I think it is quite possible to deny that. The September Massacres, for example, were a spontaneous insurrection of the poorer strata of Parisian society. Carrier organised the repression in the Vendée quite independently, and Schneider ended up guillotined for alleged excesses on orders of Saint-Just. And so on.


If you have any good literature on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Everything I've read on the matter, however, indicates that the "mood of the revolutionary masses" was actually quite positive of the Jacobins until, you know, they started lopping peoples heads off everywhere.

I think any serious study of the French Revolution should be enough - unfortunately no concrete title comes to my mind now apart from Slavin's "The Making of an Insurrection", but I can't for the life of me remember if it's any good, and as my connection speed is at pre-1792 levels right now I can't really search around for one. Black Jacobins, which I see people have mentioned, is good - I think even Taine's ancient and obviously biased work mentions the relationship between the Jacobins and the Left.

The three events I would draw particular attention to are the insurrection of the 31st of May and the reluctance of the Jacobins to hand over the Gironde to the Parisians, the destruction of the Hébertists and the rest of the Left, by the Committee of Public Safety, and the reluctance of the Jacobins to enforce (although they controlled the General Police Bureau) the laws of, what, Ventose?, providing for the seizure of émigré and suspect property and its distribution among the sans-culottes as well as the law of the maximum.


I'm not about to get into a debate about the K word with a trot haha

As you please, but note that you did say that "everyone knows" that "innocent people..." and so on and so on - well apparently not everybody knows since there are those of us who won't shed any tears over Eser insurgents endangering a key fort.


Of course they had moderate and conservative politics, they were a left-bourgeois faction who presented themselves as such, which confuses me about the avid defense of them by some on the revolutionary left.

Why do socialist songs extol F. Geyer? When the Jacobins were suppressed, most people forgot their earlier wavering and moderation and placed them on the left, an impression that was only furthered by Babeuf and later socialist "Jacobins". People like Lenin were looking for a powerful metaphor, they didn't want to split hairs over whether Hébertists and the later Cordeliers were to the left of the Jacobins.

[RedWorker]

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

It's important to note that Engels here is not supporting authoritarianism, he's just argumenting against simplists. A revolution really isn't authoritarian in the way the left uses the word; authoritarianism means something more complex than that. Just before, Engels says: "Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state?"

[Sinister Intents]

Another question for SI: What non-defunct organization do you feel reflects your political philosophy if you had to pick one? Who among the living do you agree with the most, aside from anyone on here?

I'd like to say none :) but the IWW comes in very close

[BIXX]

I'd like to say none :) but the IWW comes in very close

The iww who protects child molesters and rape apologists?

[Sinister Intents]

The iww who protects child molesters and rape apologists?

I don't really research or care about organizations... I'm changing my answer to none!

[Art Vandelay]

The iww who protects child molesters and rape apologists?

What are you referring to here? I've never heard this before.

[Sabot Cat]

What are you referring to here? I've never heard this before.

Maybe this? (http://jointheiww.tumblr.com/post/100802980637/join-the-iwws-response-to-statements-made-about-the)

[Sinister Intents]

Maybe this? (http://jointheiww.tumblr.com/post/100802980637/join-the-iwws-response-to-statements-made-about-the)

My answer shall remain none :)

[BIXX]

Maybe this? (http://jointheiww.tumblr.com/post/100802980637/join-the-iwws-response-to-statements-made-about-the)

Well, the situation with the child molester is different than the iww makes it sound. For one, he never really accepted responsibility for his actions, he failed to meet requirements set forth by his accountability process (which was already shitty), and in the statement he was supposed to release (of which there were two versions, one of which was better but ultimately still shit) he tries to act like he has been victimized. Furthermore, having had interactions with the child molesting shitbag, he also is unwilling to treat Hispanic folks with the same respect etc that he treats white folks (even going as far as to call a Hispanic guy by a random generic Hispanic name, and acted like that gy being offended didn't matter and was "cute". For those of you who are interested his name is Tomas Bernal.

The Mike Koz situation I admittedly know less about, however if the IWW is willing and just unable to get rid of him rather than unwilling, it just says something about the IWW and its capabilities/usefulness in modern days. But I suspect that most of the problem is that the IWW membership is in general is unwilling to out forth the effort required for that sort of thing. Either way it amounts to his sanctuary withing the IWW.

To continue, in Portland the anarchist scene is total shit, and in fact I'd be willing to say a much wider area has fallen victim to the anarchist scen bullshit having personally witnessed scott crow blaming victims of abuse for the failure of a conference when they spoke out against the Kristian Williams bullshit (he aided in defending an abuser and called into question the support that the victims was getting from the community), and acting like they shouldn't have been bothered by the fact that Kristian Williams pulled that shit.

I don't know if its a problem with anarchists or the IWW, but its all bullshit.

[Illegalitarian]

its a problem with the IWW, or rather, certain individuals within it. IWW is still legit on the whole, although dead

[BIXX]

its a problem with the IWW, or rather, certain individuals within it. IWW is still legit on the whole, although dead

Well, when I asked the question I meant tge culture contained within anarchism or the IWW. I lean toward the former as I have seen a lot of this shit outside of the IWW.

[Illegalitarian]

So you're saying anarchism has a culture of.. protecting child molesters? I don't follow

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, the situation with the child molester is different than the iww makes it sound. For one, he never really accepted responsibility for his actions, he failed to meet requirements set forth by his accountability process (which was already shitty), and in the statement he was supposed to release (of which there were two versions, one of which was better but ultimately still shit) he tries to act like he has been victimized. Furthermore, having had interactions with the child molesting shitbag, he also is unwilling to treat Hispanic folks with the same respect etc that he treats white folks (even going as far as to call a Hispanic guy by a random generic Hispanic name, and acted like that gy being offended didn't matter and was "cute". For those of you who are interested his name is Tomas Bernal.

The Mike Koz situation I admittedly know less about, however if the IWW is willing and just unable to get rid of him rather than unwilling, it just says something about the IWW and its capabilities/usefulness in modern days. But I suspect that most of the problem is that the IWW membership is in general is unwilling to out forth the effort required for that sort of thing. Either way it amounts to his sanctuary withing the IWW.

To continue, in Portland the anarchist scene is total shit, and in fact I'd be willing to say a much wider area has fallen victim to the anarchist scen bullshit having personally witnessed scott crow blaming victims of abuse for the failure of a conference when they spoke out against the Kristian Williams bullshit (he aided in defending an abuser and called into question the support that the victims was getting from the community), and acting like they shouldn't have been bothered by the fact that Kristian Williams pulled that shit.

I don't know if its a problem with anarchists or the IWW, but its all bullshit.

So do you have any evidence for this or are you just throwing accusations around and seeing which of them will stick? Because the things you wrote are serious accusations that could have a serious effect on people, particularly when you give their personal names.

[Illegalitarian]

And the jacobins actually won elections a few years after the reaction but were prevented from taking those offices by The Directorate. So the population certainly had not turned against them out of disgust with the terror.

re-reading this thread, this post jumps out at me again.

When did this happen? What "Jacobins", after the Thermidorian Reaction there was no more Jacobin Club to be spoken of.

[Zanters]

Yes, because a democratically run industrial union gathered ballots to caste a vote on who apologizes for child molesters and rapists.

All Americans are capitalist too, and Muslims are terrorists.

Honestly, I'm a wobbly, I could post as a member under the IWW and claim anything I wanted to. That doesn't mean they support me.

[Sandy Becker]

We are doomed if your politics are defined by century-old happenings. Who cares if the Bolsheviks fucked the soviets, or if the October Revolution was a Coup funded by Wall Street Jewish Reptilian Bankers.

What matters is now. How is left-communism/libertarian marxism/anarchism relevant today.

...
Not learning the hard fought lessons of the past history of the left is a recipe for disaster. There have been so many repetitions of the same fundamental mistakes and they always work out the same way -- the lead to the continuation of the capitalist status quo. I know this stuff can seem distant and not relevant, but it is very important. The tired adage that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it is true. How can you know about the relevance of the left today if you don't know history? You would have no frame of reference. The best guide to the future is the past, even though it is a highly imperfect guide.