Trotsyism and Libertarian Socialism - much difference? [Archive]

Kill all the fetuses!

3rd November 2014, 16:36

I disagree. TFU is a very knowledgeable poster.

What makes you say this?

Yes, he is a very knowledgeable poster, but his knowledge doesn't extend to Marxism or Trotskyism, quite obviously.

It's a position I used to hold when I considered myself an Anarchist and that's something I intend to write in a separate thread some time soon. The point is ultimately this: Anarchists tend to make a big bogey man out of Trotskyism and Leninism without actually understanding or engaging with the tendencies at all. It's all quite simple - the Bolsheviks consolidated power, implemented militarization of labour, crushed Kronstadt rebellion etc - all of this are obviously and unambiguously "unlibertarian" acts (in the simplistic sense Anarchists use the word). So having this in mind why should anyone even bother trying to understand it, why should someone spend any time engaging with ideas that are so obviously anti-libertarian and anti-socialist? Many Anarchists go on to say that Leninism and Trotskyism, in fact, has very little to do with Socialism itself (if I remember correctly, TFU said precisely the same thing in another thread). You also might read things like Brinton's "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control", which extensively documents authoritarian actions by the Bolsheviks or whatnot.

But the point ultimately is that once you actually engage with Trotskyism or Leninism or rather once you engage with these tendencies without prejudices and not through prejudiced Anarchist literature, once you conceptualize the situation in its entirety, then you get a more nuanced picture than "Anarchism and Trotskyism are fundamentally opposed, the former is libertarian, the later is authoritarian".

That is not to say that there are no differences between these tendencies, but it's certainly not as simplistic and infantile as TFU makes them out to be.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

3rd November 2014, 17:02

Yes, he is a very knowledgeable poster, but his knowledge doesn't extend to Marxism or Trotskyism, quite obviously.

It's a position I used to hold when I considered myself an Anarchist and that's something I intend to write in a separate thread some time soon. The point is ultimately this: Anarchists tend to make a big bogey man out of Trotskyism and Leninism without actually understanding or engaging with the tendencies at all. It's all quite simple - the Bolsheviks consolidated power, implemented militarization of labour, crushed Kronstadt rebellion etc - all of this are obviously and unambiguously "unlibertarian" acts (in the simplistic sense Anarchists use the word). So having this in mind why should anyone even bother trying to understand it, why should someone spend any time engaging with ideas that are so obviously anti-libertarian and anti-socialist? Many Anarchists go on to say that Leninism and Trotskyism, in fact, has very little to do with Socialism itself (if I remember correctly, TFU said precisely the same thing in another thread). You also might read things like Brinton's "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control", which extensively documents authoritarian actions by the Bolsheviks or whatnot.

But the point ultimately is that once you actually engage with Trotskyism or Leninism or rather once you engage with these tendencies without prejudices and not through prejudiced Anarchist literature, once you conceptualize the situation in its entirety, then you get a more nuanced picture than "Anarchism and Trotskyism are fundamentally opposed, the former is libertarian, the later is authoritarian".

That is not to say that there are no differences between these tendencies, but it's certainly not as simplistic and infantile as TFU makes them out to be.

Aye, and having done the background reading you come to understand that Trotskyism is premised on some serious theoretical mistakes. That's not to say that anarchists aren't guilty of some of these same errors, only that, by contrast, anarchism isn't premised on them.

Trotskyists:

1) Don't understand the state or sovereignty, and reproduce the most ridiculous liberal notions in their conceptualizations thereof (eg that sovereignty is uniform and definitive within a state's ostensible borders; that the nation state is not a particular form of social relations inextricably bound to the particular mode of production which produced it, etc.).

2) Don't understand capitalism - and imagine a socialism with money, with fixed separation of managerial and productive activity, etc. (ie a socialism that is capitalism run by self-described socialists).

3) Don't understand the working class, and routinely mistake a small elite - the aristocracy of labour - for the class as a whole.

4) Don't understand the relationships of gender and race to class, routinely resorting to a shallow notion of "special oppression" which fails to historicize gender and race within the emergence of capitalism and primitive accumulation.

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 17:03

Yes, he is a very knowledgeable poster, but his knowledge doesn't extend to Marxism or Trotskyism, quite obviously.

It's a position I used to hold when I considered myself an Anarchist and that's something I intend to write in a separate thread some time soon. The point is ultimately this: Anarchists tend to make a big bogey man out of Trotskyism and Leninism without actually understanding or engaging with the tendencies at all. It's all quite simple - the Bolsheviks consolidated power, implemented militarization of labour, crushed Kronstadt rebellion etc - all of this are obviously and unambiguously "unlibertarian" acts (in the simplistic sense Anarchists use the word). So having this in mind why should anyone even bother trying to understand it, why should someone spend any time engaging with ideas that are so obviously anti-libertarian and anti-socialist? Many Anarchists go on to say that Leninism and Trotskyism, in fact, has very little to do with Socialism itself (if I remember correctly, TFU said precisely the same thing in another thread). You also might read things like Brinton's "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control", which extensively documents authoritarian actions by the Bolsheviks or whatnot.

But the point ultimately is that once you actually engage with Trotskyism or Leninism or rather once you engage with these tendencies without prejudices and not through prejudiced Anarchist literature, once you conceptualize the situation in its entirety, then you get a more nuanced picture than "Anarchism and Trotskyism are fundamentally opposed, the former is libertarian, the later is authoritarian".

I think Chomsky does a better job of articulate why you're talking bullshit than I. Those videos are an interesting beginning of understanding just that. Maybe you should watch them?

It's all very well to talk so earnestly about how I know nothing about Marxism and Trotskyism, especially when all you have to qualify that statement is a whole load of rhetoric and no substance. Why would you think I know anything about it when my views evidently contradict your puerile attempt to make Trotskyism seem more pleasant than it is? Just because the truth contradicts your weird attempts to co-opt Trotsky as some kind of libertarian to appease your childish beliefs is not really my concern.

In any case, it's absolutely absurd for you to try and claim Trotskyism is not statist, hierarchical and based on centralism when you also highlight specific historical examples of it being precisely statist, hierarchical and centralist. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find any Trotskyist organisation that does not seek state control, operate on a hierarchical basis using democratic centralism as an organising method.

Idiot.

That is not to say that there are no differences between these tendencies, but it's certainly not as simplistic and infantile as TFU makes them out to be.

Trotskyism is statist, it is hierarchical and it is centralist. Even the most cursory look at its history and practice can confirm that.

Kill all the fetuses!

3rd November 2014, 17:21

Words

Let's make things very clear. I am not a Trotskyist, I don't even particularly like Trotkyism. I do think there are fundamental theoretical flaws in Trotskysim. But even with my limited understanding of Trotskyism I think you are just being ridiculous with (some of) your criticism. It feels like these reactionary idiots who make claims like "oh, but value is subjective, so the LTV is obviously wrong". Or whatever.

But I will leave Trotskyists to respond to your points.

I think Chomsky does a better job of articulate why you're talking bullshit than I. Those videos are an interesting beginning of understanding just that. Maybe you should watch them?

You know how many times I watched them? When I considered myself an Anarchist, I read quite a bit on Trotskyism, but only through Anarchists themselves. I've watched these videos so many times and I looked for things Chomsky has to say about Trotskyism and Leninism and their authoritarian nature, because I knew that Chomsky was so obviously right!

It's all very well to talk so earnestly about how I know nothing about Marxism and Trotskyism, especially when all you have to qualify that statement is a whole load of rhetoric and no substance. Why would you think I know anything about it when my views evidently contradict your puerile attempt to make Trotskyism seem more pleasant than it is? Just because the truth contradicts your weird attempts to co-opt Trotsky as some kind of libertarian to appease your childish beliefs is not really my concern.

Pot. Kettle. Black. It's not that I am justifying Trotsky to you or making him look libertarian. I don't even like the guy. I am merely calling you out on your simplistic understanding (or rather no understand at all) of the tendency. I am calling you out not as a Trotskyist (which I am not), but as a ex-Anarchist (if I could say so), because I can relate to how you think. In fact, not all that long ago I posted here saying that Trotskyism has nothing to do with Socialism.

In any case, it's absolutely absurd for you to try and claim Trotskyism is not statist, hierarchical and based on centralism when you also highlight specific historical examples of it being precisely statist, hierarchical and centralist. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find any Trotskyist organisation that does not seek state control, operate on a hierarchical basis using democratic centralism as an organising method.

Trotskyism is statist, it is hierarchical and it is centralist. Even the most cursory look at its history and practice can confirm that.

Well, yeah, I thought it would be useless to engage in a discussion with such a dogmatist as yourself, but I somehow never learn. You say the same things I would have said (and did say) some time ago. And it would have been (and was) too simplistic of me.

But whatever, keep believing whatever you want to believe.

Creative Destruction

3rd November 2014, 17:30

Here are a couple of videos of Chomsky responding to an ISO members criticism of his views on Leninism. He talks of Trotsky a little, so it might give some insight into what Chomsky thinks of Trotskyism. They're worth a watch in any case.

Nz11K1wUbrc

RfL8-4OOIuI

lol. That was the most reasonable "question" I've heard come from the mouth of an ISO member, which is kind of damning with faint praise, but, yeah..

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 17:32

Let's make things very clear. I am not a Trotskyist, I don't even particularly like Trotkyism. I do think there are fundamental theoretical flaws in Trotskysim. But even with my limited understanding of Trotskyism I think you are just being ridiculous with (some of) your criticism. It feels like these reactionary idiots who make claims like "oh, but value is subjective, so the LTV is obviously wrong". Or whatever.

But I will leave Trotskyists to respond to your points.

You know how many times I watched them? When I considered myself an Anarchist, I read quite a bit on Trotskyism, but only through Anarchists themselves. I've watched these videos so many times and I looked for things Chomsky has to say about Trotskyism and Leninism and their authoritarian nature, because I knew that Chomsky was so obviously right!

Pot. Kettle. Black. It's not that I am justifying Trotsky to you or making him look libertarian. I don't even like the guy. I am merely calling you out on your simplistic understanding (or rather no understand at all) of the tendency. I am calling you out not as a Trotskyist (which I am not), but as a ex-Anarchist (if I could say so), because I can relate to how you think. In fact, not all that long ago I posted here saying that Trotskyism has nothing to do with Socialism.

Well, yeah, I thought it would be useless to engage in a discussion with such a dogmatist as yourself, but I somehow never learn. You say the same things I would have said (and did say) some time ago. And it would have been (and was) too simplistic of me.

But whatever, keep believing whatever you want to believe.

I am not interested in getting into a pissing match with some idiot on the internet about how much I know and don't know. If you are so confident of my lack of understanding, then why not highlight for me what precisely it is you think I am missing. Perhaps you will educate me.

Provide some substance to your accusations or why bother to intervene? It seems to me that all you're interested in doing is being antagonistic, rather than actually constructively forwarding a debate. If this is just a "let's take a shot at TAT" exercise then you're more petty than I thought. If it isn't, then I suggest you start acting like a reasonable adult and actually contribute something of meaning rather than some snide, petty attacks on my intellect. I don't pretend to know everything. If I'm wrong, then show me why.

I am happy to concede that early Trotsky was very much in a libertarian bent. Our Political Tasks shared many of my own criticisms of Leninism. His attack on Lenin's obsession with centralism and statism was very refreshing to read from someone like Trotsky. But let's also remember that Trotsky himself actively disowned that work. The only reason it was ever mentioned again was as an attack on Trotsky by his enemies, which Trotsky went to great lengths to reject and deny were his beliefs any more. Moreover, not one single Trotskyist organisation has ever taken it up as principles of their ideological or practical methodologies. So what does that tell you?

But I await with baited breath all these wonderful texts that you are going to show us that will highlight to me precisely why I am such a colossal idiot.

Creative Destruction

3rd November 2014, 17:41

Kill all the fetuses!

3rd November 2014, 17:49

I am not interested in getting into a pissing match with some idiot on the internet about how much I know and don't know. If you are so confident of my lack of understanding, then why not highlight for me what precisely it is you think I am missing. Perhaps you will educate me.

Provide some substance to your accusations or why bother to intervene? It seems to me that all you're interested in doing is being antagonistic, rather than actually constructively forwarding a debate. If this is just a "let's take a shot at TAT" exercise then you're more petty than I thought. If it isn't, then I suggest you start acting like a reasonable adult and actual contribute something of meaning rather than some snide, petty attacks on my intellect.

I am happy to concede that early Trotsky was very much in a libertarian bent. Our Political Tasks shared many of my own criticisms of Leninism. His attack on Lenin's obsession with centralism and statism was very refreshing to read from someone like Trotsky. But let's also remember that Trotsky himself actively disowned that work. The only reason it was ever mentioned again was as an attack on Trotsky by his enemies, which Trotsky went to great lengths to reject and deny were his beliefs any more. Moreover, not one single Trotskyist organisation has ever taken it up as principles of their ideological or practical methodologies. So what does that tell you?

But I await with baited breath all these wonderful texts that you are going to show us that will highlight to me precisely why I am such a colossal idiot.

I didn't say you are colossal idiot, I said your conceptualization of Trotskyism as "fundamentally opposed to anarchism" and "statist" is too simplistic. It's like considering any "authoritarian" (or authoritarian for you, i.e. without quotation marks) act as inherently statist, hierarchical and, hence, bad. I say that's too simplistic and metaphysical, i.e. I think one has to consider the situation in its entirety to understand the essence of an action rather than its form.

If, say, Trotsky or Trotskyists would have/would considered militarization of labour or crushing of Kronstadt rebellion as an inherent and necessary part of socialism, then sure, call it inherently statist, hierarchical and whatnot. But I don't think that the case since these actions were conceptualized as necessities rather than inherent parts of socialism. Sure, maybe they were/are wrong in such conceptualization, but that doesn't make the tendency fundamentally opposed to Anarchism or liberty or whatever. It's like saying that since the FAI acted in authoritarian ways in its relation to the CNT then the FAI was no true Anarchist organization or whatever - it's utterly too simplistic.

Kill all the fetuses!

3rd November 2014, 17:54

This is all well and fine, I suppose, but I, for example, didn't really think much on Marxism, or Trotskyism for that matter, when I was an anarchist. I had no opinions of Trotskyism from an anarchist perspective. On the other hand, when I became a Marxist is when I started becoming aware of Lenin and Trotsky. And, I have to say, TFU's criticisms don't run afoul with my understanding of Trotsky from a Marxist perspective. It may be a bit too reductive to be useful for a larger discussion, but it isn't an invalid summary either of, at least, orthodox Trotskyism.

The only thing the guy said was that Trotskyism fundamentally opposed to Anarchism and that the former is statist, while latter is anti-statist. And that's a fair criticism?!

I mean, don't you think it's utterly to simplistic? But then again, it might be, because I have a different conceptualization of what words such "fundamentally opposed" and "statist" mean.

Creative Destruction

3rd November 2014, 18:08

The only thing the guy said was that Trotskyism fundamentally opposed to Anarchism and that the former is statist, while latter is anti-statist. And that's a fair criticism?!

I mean, don't you think it's utterly to simplistic? But then again, it might be, because I have a different conceptualization of what words such "fundamentally opposed" and "statist" mean.

I can see an argument where some of the later wave of Trotskyists dropped the more statist aspects of Trotsky from their platforms and ideologies (with a debate as to whether doing this then renders the tendency to no longer be "Trotskyist" as such), enough to the point where I've seen them work with anarchists. But if you're talking about the man himself and his ideas, and at least the orthodox movement of Trots, then I'd say it's fair. I personally wouldn't say it's a "criticism," because those Trots are very much opposed to anarchists and their ideals. That's just a statement of where they stand ideologically, and not an unfair one.

I don't put too much stock into what is or isn't "authoritarian," tbh, because I agree, by and large, with what Engels said about it. But "statist" is an accurate description. Trotsky inherited that part of Lenin, which relied on the idea of the workers taking power of the state as we know it rather than constructing their own. This essentially formed his defense -- well into Stalin's time -- of the Soviet union as a "degenerated workers state." It completely goes against the pre-Leninist Marxist conception of what a "workers state" is or would be, enough to the point of validly being considered "statist," I think. The fact that Lenin and Trotsky both thought that an era of state capitalism (by Lenin's own admission, no less (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr-23032011)) was necessary is enough to make that claim true. By virtue of that, yes, they would be fundamentally opposed to anarchists since anarchists are fundamentally opposed to a state existing for any reason (or what they consider to be a state, anyway.)

Now, again, whether that is too reductive to have a larger conversation about Trot thoughts on the state itself and its character, and other relative minutiae, is a different question. But, as a nutshell analysis that TAT provided, it does fine as far as I can tell.

Fakeblock

3rd November 2014, 18:23

Trotsky inherited that part of Lenin, which relied on the idea of the workers taking power of the state as we know it rather than constructing their own.

Lenin didn't rely on this idea at all. In fact, he was quite clear in his opposition to it.

Zanters

3rd November 2014, 18:27

I think Chomsky does a better job of articulate why you're talking bullshit than I. Those videos are an interesting beginning of understanding just that. Maybe you should watch them?

It's all very well to talk so earnestly about how I know nothing about Marxism and Trotskyism, especially when all you have to qualify that statement is a whole load of rhetoric and no substance. Why would you think I know anything about it when my views evidently contradict your puerile attempt to make Trotskyism seem more pleasant than it is? Just because the truth contradicts your weird attempts to co-opt Trotsky as some kind of libertarian to appease your childish beliefs is not really my concern.

In any case, it's absolutely absurd for you to try and claim Trotskyism is not statist, hierarchical and based on centralism when you also highlight specific historical examples of it being precisely statist, hierarchical and centralist. Moreover, you'll be hard pressed to find any Trotskyist organisation that does not seek state control, operate on a hierarchical basis using democratic centralism as an organising method.

Idiot.

Trotskyism is statist, it is hierarchical and it is centralist. Even the most cursory look at its history and practice can confirm that.

Are you kidding me? You accuse her/him of using faulty debating logic, then go on to use ad hominem attacks, and claims without any examples?

When you debate in the learning section, please be as clear and precise as possible. People here are trying to learn, not hear the same bullshit spouted by the same tendencies over and over. It is really tiring having to decipher the crap from the actual well developed discussions and arguments in learning.

Kill all the fetuses!

3rd November 2014, 18:28

I can see an argument where some of the later wave of Trotskyists dropped the more statist aspects of Trotsky from their platforms and ideologies (with a debate as to whether doing this then renders the tendency to no longer be "Trotskyist" as such), enough to the point where I've seen them work with anarchists. But if you're talking about the man himself and his ideas, and at least the orthodox movement of Trots, then I'd say it's fair. I personally wouldn't say it's a "criticism," because those Trots are very much opposed to anarchists and their ideals. That's just a statement of where they stand ideologically, and not an unfair one.

I don't put too much stock into what is or isn't "authoritarian," tbh, because I agree, by and large, with what Engels said about it. But "statist" is an accurate description. Trotsky inherited that part of Lenin, which relied on the idea of the workers taking power of the state as we know it rather than constructing their own. This essentially formed his defense -- well into Stalin's time -- of the Soviet union as a "degenerated workers state." It completely goes against the pre-Leninist Marxist conception of what a "workers state" is or would be, enough to the point of validly being considered "statist," I think. The fact that Lenin and Trotsky both thought that an era of state capitalism (by Lenin's own admission, no less (http://libcom.org/forums/theory/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr-23032011)) was necessary is enough to make that claim true. By virtue of that, yes, they would be fundamentally opposed to anarchists since anarchists are fundamentally opposed to a state existing for any reason (or what they consider to be a state, anyway.)

Now, again, whether that is too reductive to have a larger conversation about Trot thoughts on the state itself and its character, and other relative minutiae, is a different question. But, as a nutshell analysis that TAT provided, it does fine as far as I can tell.

Well, Lenin's conception of state-capitalism is entirely different from the one usually used when referring to the SU as state-capitalist, I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

But as far as the substance of your post goes, I don't think that you conceptualize the workers' state rightly. Then again, I might be wrong and I await any Trotskyist clarifying positions in this debate. But it seems to me that Trotsky characterized the SU as "degenerated workers' state" precisely, because it laid foundations (nationalization etc) for the actual workers state as envisioned by Lenin in his State and Revolution. For instance, the man himself said:

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link { } It is not a question of substituting one ruling clique for another, but of changing the very methods of administering the economy and guiding the culture of the country. Bureaucratic autocracy must give place to Soviet democracy. A restoration of the right of criticism, and a genuine freedom of elections, are necessary conditions for the further development of the country. This assumes a revival of freedom of Soviet parties, beginning with the party of Bolsheviks, and a resurrection of the trade unions. The bringing of democracy into industry means a radical revision of plans in the interests of the toilers. Free discussion of economic problems will decrease the overhead expense of bureaucratic mistakes and zigzags. Expensive playthings palaces of the Soviets, new theaters, show-off subways – will be crowded out in favor of workers’ dwellings. “Bourgeois norms of distribution” will be confined within the limits of strict necessity, and, in step with the growth of social wealth, will give way to socialist equality. Ranks will be immediately abolished. The tinsel of decorations will go into the melting pot. The youth will receive the opportunity to breathe freely, criticize, make mistakes, and grow up. Science and art will be freed of their chains. And, finally, foreign policy will return to the traditions of revolutionary internationalism.

Then again, in order to characterize someone as statist, one should have a clear conception of what a state actually means. It might be that we simply don't use the word in the same way. I don't know. Tell me, what do Anarchists so fundamentally oppose in the above quote by Trotsky?

Creative Destruction

3rd November 2014, 18:29

Lenin didn't rely on this idea at all. In fact, he was quite clear in his opposition to it.

His pre-October revolution rhetoric may have made this seem like it was the case, but that wasn't the expression of it once the Bolsheviks got into power. He basically changed his stance on "the state" and the revolutionary process once the Bolsheviks effectively overturned the soviets.

Kill all the fetuses!

3rd November 2014, 18:35

His pre-October revolution rhetoric may have made this seem like it was the case, but that wasn't the expression of it once the Bolsheviks got into power. He basically changed his stance on "the state" and the revolutionary process once the Bolsheviks effectively overturned the soviets.

Well, but you see, that's the reason why I criticize TFU - you think in too metaphysical way. In order to understand whether someone changed his conception of something or is inherently one way or another, you have to look at the context of these thoughts/actions. Saying that Lenin said one thing in State and Revolution and then changed his mind once in power pretty much means that he was power-hungry dictator, who opportunistically got in power and then showed his true colour. Which is exactly P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }A:link {* what Chomsky says. Is that your position? Or would you acknowledge that there were real material conditions that necessitated actions that weren't in line with what Lenin wrote in earlier? After all, Lenin and Trotsky criticized the rise of bureaucracy even before the rise of Stalin, even when they were in power.

Creative Destruction

3rd November 2014, 18:39

Well, Lenin's conception of state-capitalism is entirely different from the one usually used when referring to the SU as state-capitalist, I think that's an important thing to keep in mind.

No, not quite. If you look at the early theorists of state capitalism, like CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya, they use Lenin's conception of state capitalism as a springboard for their developing criticism of it. I guess if you look at later socialist critiques of it from that stand point, it could be true, but I don't give much weight to those arguments in any case.

But as far as the substance of your post goes, I don't think that you conceptualize the workers' state rightly.

I conceptualize it the same as Marx and Engels did, which was tightly summed up in this article: https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state

Then again, I might be wrong and I await any Trotskyist clarifying positions in this debate. But it seems to me that Trotsky characterized the SU as "degenerated workers' state" precisely, because it laid foundations (nationalization etc) for the actual workers state as envisioned by Lenin in his State and Revolution. For instance, the man himself said:

One thing you have to keep in mind is that Lenin self-revised continually once the Bolsheviks came into power. And, yes, that's how Trotsky characterized it. But that isn't a Marxist conception of the worker's state, anyway. Marx does not leave any room for a "degenerated workers state" or for there to be a period of "state capitalism" to supplant an actual dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky and Lenin are still toying with the conception of the state as a bourgeois institution where workers are trying to reorganize its affairs. That's a statist perception of "the state" and expressed itself as such during the whole of the Soviet Union's existence. The "degenerated workers state" is still state capitalist. It's still a bourgeois institution, with a veneer of worker's control.

Then again, in order to characterize someone as statist, one should have a clear conception of what a state actually means. It might be that we simply don't use the word in the same way. I don't know. Tell me, what do Anarchists so fundamentally oppose in the above quote by Trotsky?

I'm sure anarchists would have been thrilled if that quote was an accurate description of what the SU was. Trotsky was nothing, if not an opportunist. Same goes for Lenin, ultimately. But even his defense of this was too much for some of his followers, like Dunayevskaya, and caused a major break with quite a few of them.

Fakeblock

3rd November 2014, 18:42

Creative Destruction

3rd November 2014, 19:00

How so?

lol. Have you read "Left-Wing Communism: An Infintile Disorder"? He basically makes the case that the reneging on his prior commitment to a revolutionary socialist, anti-state, process was due to what he saw as the material reality of Russia, which he knocked "left-wing communists" and anarchists for not "realizing". He doesn't hide the fact (even if he doesn't outwardly cop to it) that he revised, not only himself, but Marx, as well.

Kill all the fetuses!

3rd November 2014, 19:07

No, not quite. If you look at the early theorists of state capitalism, like CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya, they use Lenin's conception of state capitalism as a springboard for their developing criticism of it. I guess if you look at later socialist critiques of it from that stand point, it could be true, but I don't give much weight to those arguments in any case.

Could you summarize CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya's theory of state-capitalism in a sentence of two?

I'm sure anarchists would have been thrilled if that quote was an accurate description of what the SU was. Trotsky was nothing, if not an opportunist. Same goes for Lenin, ultimately. But even his defense of this was too much for some of his followers, like Dunayevskaya, and caused a major break with quite a few of them.

But isn't this the point? That is that Anarchists are thrilled by what Trotsky claimed he wanted to make out of the SU? English is not my mother-tongue so just to make sure: does this "Trotsky was nothing, if not an opportunist. Same goes for Lenin, ultimately." mean that you are saying that Trotsky and Lenin were opportunists?

lol. Have you read "Left-Wing Communism: An Infintile Disorder"? He basically makes the case that the reneging on his prior commitment to a revolutionary socialist, anti-state, process was due to what he saw as the material reality of Russia, which he knocked "left-wing communists" and anarchists for not "realizing". He doesn't hide the fact (even if he doesn't outwardly cop to it) that he revised, not only himself, but Marx, as well.

Rednoise, can you please tell us if you think that there are or can be any circumstances under which one is forced to act not upon the principles laid before the situation arises?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

3rd November 2014, 19:18

Sharia Lawn

3rd November 2014, 19:52

No, not quite. If you look at the early theorists of state capitalism, like CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya, they use Lenin's conception of state capitalism as a springboard for their developing criticism of it.

I think that was the poster's point. Dunayevskaya and James critiqued and disagreed with Lenin's useage of state capitalism. They clearly defined it differently than Lenin did. I.e., Lenin's concept was different.

Creative Destruction

3rd November 2014, 19:59

I think that was the poster's point. Dunayevskaya and James critiqued and disagreed with Lenin's useage of state capitalism. They clearly defined it differently than Lenin did. I.e., Lenin's concept was different.

There was a process of development in the conception of what state capitalism was (which eventually lead to a break between Dunayevskaya and James). To be fair to Lenin, he didn't develop that concept very well and, to his credit, he didn't try hiding the fact that the SU was state capitalist. What he did was look at the state of the Soviet Union when he wrote those things and basically agreed that, yeah, it was state capitalist and that it was a necessary step given Russia's supposed backwardness at the time. Dunayevskaya and James agreed with that. What they disagreed with is that it should be that way or that it was a necessary step in a socialist revolution, as Lenin felt. That's really what seems to form the meat of their criticism.

Sharia Lawn

3rd November 2014, 20:04

To be fair to Lenin, he didn't develop that concept very well and, to his credit, he didn't try hiding the fact that the SU was state capitalist.

Yes, Lenin talked about state capitalism in the Soviet Union according to his definition of state capitalism, which is different than what Dun. and James and you mean when using the term -- the poster's point.

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 21:11

I didn't say you are colossal idiot, I said your conceptualization of Trotskyism as "fundamentally opposed to anarchism" and "statist" is too simplistic. It's like considering any "authoritarian" (or authoritarian for you, i.e. without quotation marks) act as inherently statist, hierarchical and, hence, bad. I say that's too simplistic and metaphysical, i.e. I think one has to consider the situation in its entirety to understand the essence of an action rather than its form.

But it is that simple. Excuse me if I've understood you incorrectly, but if your argument is that material conditions necessitated these methods, then I state that this is a lie, and a convenient one at that. Putting aside the historical examples of that not being true, it not only shields contemporary Trotskyists from really critically assessing their predecessors actions, it provides a neat little justification for the future. Even if my analysis of this outlook was not as Machiavellian as I'm implying, it does not alter the political objectives and practice of historical and contemporary Trotskyists, and the profoundly divergent political objectives and practice of historical and contemporary anarchists and left-wing communists.

If we were to break down the fundamentals of both Trotskyism and anarchism, what are the similarities? TGDU points out the desired results are the same, as are the starting points, but the vast chasm in between, which includes political methodology and objectives, are absolutely, fundamentally different, and they are different because of the separate and opposed analyses of the state, centralism and hierarchy.

If, say, Trotsky or Trotskyists would have/would considered militarization of labour or crushing of Kronstadt rebellion as an inherent and necessary part of socialism, then sure, call it inherently statist, hierarchical and whatnot. But I don't think that the case since these actions were conceptualized as necessities rather than inherent parts of socialism. Sure, maybe they were/are wrong in such conceptualization, but that doesn't make the tendency fundamentally opposed to Anarchism or liberty or whatever. It's like saying that since the FAI acted in authoritarian ways in its relation to the CNT then the FAI was no true Anarchist organization or whatever - it's utterly too simplistic.

If I understand your argument correctly, what you seem to be saying is that despite the fact Trotsky brutally put down anarchist insurrections against the Bolsheviks they were not fundamentally opposed to anarchism? If Trotsky was not fundamentally opposed to anarchism why was it a necessity to brutally repress them?

I also think the differentiation that you're attempting to create as a justification for your argument is incredibly spurious. I mean, firstly I didn't say that authoritarianism etcetera was a fundamental part of socialism, I implied that it was a fundamental part of Trotskyism. Now if we are going to assess the veracity of my assertion, how would we go about doing that if we do not look at precisely what happened?

Secondly, in a situation where a political party has centralised political authority into its hands and is repressing workers' expressions of power there is always going to be a situation in which anarchists and other left-wing communists are going to object. Unless you want to argue that Trotskyist organisations in the here-and-now do not want to follow in the historical tradition of Trotsky's political objectives (i.e. what he did in practice) then anarchists and left-wing communists are invariably going to be at odds with Trotskyist practice, thereby always necessitating such a response from the state (now controlled by Trotskyists).

Lastly, what is the fundamental difference between conceptualising something as necessary in a given material situation and necessary as an inherent part of the ideological methodologies of a given belief system? It was necessary for Trotsky to be statist, hierarchical and centralist because that is precisely what it believes is necessary in defending the "workers'" state and repressing political dissent from both the right and the left. It did those things because it believed it was ideological justified.

I also don't follow your FAI vs CNT analogy.

Tell me, what do Anarchists so fundamentally oppose in the above quote by Trotsky?

It is a lie!

Geiseric

3rd November 2014, 22:16

Trotsky didnt kill any "libertarian socialists" in the contemporary sense. The peasant rebellions were due to the embargo put on the SU and the effects of the civil war. Very often anti bolshevik rebellions were due to the allies. Kronstadt was due to grain requisitions, and the delay of the NEP being instituted, one of Lenin's biggest errors. But trotsky didnt arbitrarily execute anarchists and libertarian socialists, thats a lie.

As always, the resident pseudo intellectuals fail to correctly define state capitalism, to the detriment of everybody who is reading. The misrepresentation of lenins ideas is also disconcerting. The pseudo intellectuals need to look up what actual, marxist "state capitalism" means, as well as the "new economic policy" and the "planned economy," before any discussion can continue and be productive.

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 22:21

But trotsky didnt arbitrarily execute anarchists and libertarian socialists, thats a lie.

You're right, he didn't arbitrarily kill left-libertarians, he did it for very specific, ideological reasons that were essential to the CPSU's policies to "defend" the revolution.

Geiseric

3rd November 2014, 22:31

You're right, he didn't arbitrarily kill left-libertarians, he did it for very specific, ideological reasons that were essential to the CPSU's policies to "defend" the revolution.

Honestly I had you on my ignore list until now. I took you off to give you a single chance, but my optimism was evidently misguided.

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 22:34

Honestly I had you on my ignore list until now. I took you off to give you a single chance, but my optimism was evidently misguided.

:rolleyes:

He didn't do it arbitrarily and he didn't do it systematically...So what? He did it by accident?

Please put me back on ignore.

Lord Testicles

3rd November 2014, 22:51

:rolleyes:

He didn't do it arbitrarily and he didn't do it systematically...So what? He did it by accident?

Please put me back on ignore.

What I think Geiseric is saying is that Trotsky didn't kill any left-libertarians, he was killing peasants which is obviously so much better.

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 22:52

What I think Geiseric is saying is that Trotsky didn't kill any left-libertarians, he was killing peasants which is obviously so much better.

And also wrong.

Lord Testicles

3rd November 2014, 22:54

And also wrong.

Yes but lets not let facts besmirch the image of our favourite dead Russian.

Geiseric

3rd November 2014, 23:16

Fine. Name a single anarchist trotsky personally ordered executed.

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 23:32

Fine. Name a single anarchist trotsky personally ordered executed.

http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSvolin.htm

Lord Testicles

3rd November 2014, 23:36

http://spartacus-educational.com/RUSvolin.htm

To be fair, he was executed by Stalin but that doesn't change the fact that Geiseric is asking a dishonest question. I'm sure he couldn't name a single Jew that Hitler had personally ordered executed but that doesn't mean that the actions carried out by Hitler didn't end up killing Jews.

The Feral Underclass

3rd November 2014, 23:40

To be fair, he was executed by Stalin but that doesn't change the fact that Geiseric is asking a dishonest question. I'm sure he couldn't name a single Jew that Hitler had personally ordered executed but that doesn't mean that the actions carried out by Hitler didn't end up killing Jews.

He was eventually executed by Stalin, but he was initially ordered to be arrested and executed by Trotsky. Trotsky eventually gave him amnesty when he had to make a deal with Makhno to fight the Whites in the Ukraine. That was a treaty that Trotsky would later renege on and that saw the subsequent death of hundreds of anarchist combatants at the hands of the Red Army, commanded by Trotsky

Lord Testicles

3rd November 2014, 23:58

He was eventually executed by Stalin, but he was initially ordered to be arrested and executed by Trotsky. Trotsky eventually gave him amnesty when he had to make a deal with Makhno to fight the Whites in the Ukraine. That was a treaty that Trotsky would later renege on and that saw the subsequent death of hundreds of anarchist combatants at the hands of the Red Army, commanded by Trotsky

I just jumped to the end because that's were I assumed his execution would be.

I notice that it says that Makhno's commanders were executed by the red army, but I guess those executions don't count because we don't know their names.

Geiseric

3rd November 2014, 23:59

The same "anarchists" who tried to assassnate lenin during brest litovsk were his allies in the fucking SR party. The same SR party which accepted help from the entente against the workers government.

Lord Testicles

4th November 2014, 00:00

Geiseric

4th November 2014, 00:03

Assassinating Lenin would have been a legit move. Pity they failed.

I wasnt talking to you, I was addressing anybody else who might be unfortunate enough to stumble through this thread.

Lord Testicles

4th November 2014, 00:06

I wasnt talking to you, I was addressing anybody else who might be unfortunate enough to stumble through this thread.

I couldn't care less. Don't say "assassinate Lenin" like it's a bad thing. What difference would one more dead counter-revolutionary make? :)

Creative Destruction

4th November 2014, 00:19

Could you summarize CLR James and Raya Dunayevskaya's theory of state-capitalism in a sentence of two?

I'm sorry, I can't. Not to dodge the question, but I am shit at summarizing things like that and I fear I would muddle the issue rather than clarify it. The best I can recommend is that you find a copy of The Marxist-Humanist Theory of State-Capitalism and look up the Johnson-Forest Tendency.

does this "Trotsky was nothing, if not an opportunist. Same goes for Lenin, ultimately." mean that you are saying that Trotsky and Lenin were opportunists?

Yes, absolutely. Trotsky especially. He would do just about anything to stay close to power, including switching sides from the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks -- not out of sincere ideological agreement, but because that is who won the civil war. I have admiration for Lenin's sincerity and his writings from 1917 and before. But his actions once the Bolsheviks obtained power pointed to a very opportunistic personality.

Rednoise, can you please tell us if you think that there are or can be any circumstances under which one is forced to act not upon the principles laid before the situation arises?

Sure, but there's a difference between changing the program to adapt to conditions and completely abandoning your principles in order to hold onto your power. (There should be no delusion about the fact that once the soviets had effectively been dismantled, it was any longer a "worker's government.") War communism was a policy that Marx and Engels already denounced as barracks communism, and the reasons they gave turned out to be valid in the wake of the Bolshevik power grab.

Art Vandelay

4th November 2014, 00:21

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 01:34

I don't understand why some folks feel the need to reconcile aspects of Trotskyism/Leninism with anarchism; when it comes to the question of the role of a transitional state, we are not on the same page, which is fine, the 1st international split for a reason.

I get that anarchists take issue with actions carried out by the Bolsheviks, some of which Trotsky personally had a hand in. Take issue with that all you like, but it is nothing but disingenuous when these people support those same anarchists carrying out violent attacks on the Bolsheviks and the fledgling workers state; that's without even mentioning the support for preeminent attacks on Leninists.

So don't be mad at the Bolsheviks or bemoan their actions, be upset that the anarchists didn't act sooner or with enough efficiency and ruthlessness to see their political ideals brought to fruition.

You can't help but be mad, but I'm not really bemoaning the actions of the Bolsheviks. I am merely correcting the Bolshevik wannabes in this thread who try as hard as they can to white wash what happened.

Don't get me wrong, Fanya Kaplan is a hero, just as Maria Spiridonova was. I'm all for violent attacks on the Bolsheviks, as well as your so called "workers'" state.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 01:46

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 01:51

Both anarchists and Bolsheviks used violence to pursue political objectives, so how does it make sense to point to the violence of the Bolsheviks as a unique sign of authoritarianism? The fact that it was directed against anarchists? That's quite the exercise in question-begging.

No one has accused Bolsheviks of being authoritarian because they used violence, against anarchists or any one. The point of bringing it up was to highlight that there was a fundamental schism between Trotskyists/Leninists and anarchists, which a couple of posters in this thread have tried to claim doesn't exist, with one lunatic going so far as to claim that Trotsky never actually ordered/condoned the killing of anarchists.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 01:55

There is obviously a set of political disagreements between anarchists and Leninists, even if they are sometimes caricatured or misidentified.

Sinister Intents

4th November 2014, 01:55

No one has accused Bolsheviks of being authoritarian because they used violence, against anarchists or any one. The point of bringing it up was to highlight that there was a fundamental schism between Trotskyists/Leninists and anarchists, which a couple of posters in this thread have tried to claim doesn't exist, with one lunatic going so far as to claim that Trotsky never actually ordered/condoned the killing of anarchists.

The tragedy at Kronstadt most definitely never happened and the Tcheka most certainly never rounded up anarchists en masse and anarchists were certainly not suppressed and treated as counter-revolutionaries for opposing what the Bolsheviks were doing. Quotations from Emma's My Dissilusionment In Russia would be perfect here for highlighting many different aspects of what Soviet Russia was and what it did.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 01:55

There is obviously a set of political disagreements between anarchists and Leninists, even if they are sometimes caricatured or misidentified.

Try telling that to your buddies.

Sinister Intents

4th November 2014, 01:56

There is obviously a set of political disagreements between anarchists and Leninists, even if they are sometimes caricatured or misidentified.

What gave you that idea :rolleyes:?

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 01:56

Try telling that to your buddies.

For one with a professed disdain for authoritarian politics, you sure like to bark out orders.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 01:59

For one with a professed disdain for authoritarian politics, you sure like to bark out orders.

Oh dear, aren't you a sensitive soul.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 02:01

Oh dear, aren't you a sensitive soul.

Sensitive to irony, anyway.

Sinister Intents

4th November 2014, 02:04

Sensitive to irony, anyway.

How is telling someone what to do on a forum authoritarian? It's kinda just text on a screen you don't have to follow, which is a bit ironic considering I tend to take things to heart easily but I've gotten better about it.

I'd have to say that there is a huge schism between libertarian socialism and Trotskyism, though I tend to fit a middle ground between anarchist and Marxist, though I'm leaning more towards Marxism, but still agree with the anarchists heavily and can't think of anything Bakunin has written that I disagree with.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 02:11

Sensitive to irony, anyway.

So absent of any substantial contribution to this discussion you've opted to accuse me of being authoritarian based on my use of a common turn of phrase?...RevLeft is so lucky to have you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 02:22

So absent of any substantial contribution to this discussion you've opted to accuse me of being authoritarian based on my use of a common turn of phrase?...RevLeft is so lucky to have you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe I've made a couple of small contributions to the discussion, and without issuing directives.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 02:28

I believe I've made a couple of small contributions to the discussion, and without issuing directives.

Am I being trolled? I can't tell.

It wasn't a directive, you strange person, it's just a popular turn of phrase. It's to indicate that you know something that people who are similar to you don't know...I'm not demanding that you literally go to each of your individual friends and state your opinion to them, for crying out loud. Jeez Louise, no wonder you're fucking lonely.

Rafiq

4th November 2014, 02:30

There was no schism between the Bolsheviks and Anarchists. They were never coherently unified. The conflict between the Bolsheviks and the anarchists (on a simple level) has its roots in the schism of the first international. It's more complicated than this though, I do not think the Bolsheviks cared to make any distinctions between the Makhnovites and any other independent peasant military groups, the Red Army was the armed wing of the revolutionary industrial proletariat - Makhno's was of the rural petty bourgeoisie. It was obviously a matter of subordinating the peasantry to the worker's dictatorship, something any idiot among the ranks of the Bolsheviks would have found absolutely necessary.

There is a great deal of difference between Left-Libertarianism as such, and Anarchism. In today's context, there is little that separates Chomskyite libertarians from Trotskyists - aside from the fact that the latter are more pretentious, loud and obnoxious with their phrase mongering. Ideologically there is little difference, both are essentially liberals trying to carve out a special place in the liberal pie for their cosmetic facade.

I am also unsure as to whether anarchism, as it has existed historically even exists today in any meaningful sense, as a movement. I suppose we can applaud them for smashing property and setting fires at demonstrations for the past twenty years of 'left'-cowardice (truly, I mean this - they have done us all a great service. I'm not being sarcastic either, of all the petty Left-Wing activism that has come to define the Left for the past two decades, mindless anarchist violence was the most useful).

I don't think there is any political context for Anarchism today, however.

Illegalitarian

4th November 2014, 05:10

A very large portion of those on the left identify as anarchist communists and there has been a mass surge of anarchist activity both in South America and Africa, not to mention its prevalence in the developed world.

It's nothing like Bakunin's political nihilists, nor is it as veracious as the illegalists of the 20's, but it's alive and very much well.

It's pretty hilarious how fucking coy some people in this thread are being just to avoid and honest engagement on a subject they don't want to talk about for obvious reasons.

"ooh gee why would someone bemoan the Bolsheviks for their violence but not the anarchists, hypocrites much?!"

For fucks sake drop the act, you know damn good and well that it was the Bolsheviks who instigated the initial violence against anarchists who didn't want to come into the fold, just as they attacked any other concerned communists who didn't want to accept the will of the vanguard party, and you're avoiding a discussion on the difference between the two acts because you want to avoid the fact that one of these groups was highjacking a legitimate worker's revolution and using it as a means of propelling themselves into a position of military and political hegemony, and the other was rebelling against that

The difference between the violence from anarchists and from boles is the same difference between the violence from Spanish communists and francoists, the difference between the violence of those in the Warsaw ghettos and the Nazis.

The difference was that one of these groups killed the revolution in the cradle and laid the groundwork for 70 years of nationalist, capitalist dictatorship, and the other was fighting against that. Your argument is so dishonest that all it effectively can be is an argument against violence, so why don't we talk about the real issue here and stop this nonsense.

MonsterMan

4th November 2014, 05:56

Have you heard a Trotskyist speak? The gap between the two ideas really comes out when you do.

I'd imagine they sound rather idealistic - agree?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 10:23

Don't get me wrong, Fanya Kaplan is a hero, just as Maria Spiridonova was.

Because of course there is nothing more authentically anarchist than dragging an unwilling country back into an intra-imperialist war. You do have to love our "libertarians" who basically become stooges of the Entente whenever Russia is mentioned.

(For the record: this was the view of most of Kaplan's and Spiridonova's party as well. Their stupid adventurism in the service of Franco-British imperialism broke the PLSR without the Bolsheviks having to lift a finger. The Left Esers split into so many fragments - PLSR (minority), Party of Popular Communists etc. - that no one can keep track of all the fragments. But I'm sure the Russian masses who didn't want to die in some trench for the British King and the French president just didn't understand the genuine insurrecto leanings of people like Spiridonova.)

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 11:27

Because of course there is nothing more authentically anarchist than dragging an unwilling country back into an intra-imperialist war. You do have to love our "libertarians" who basically become stooges of the Entente whenever Russia is mentioned.

(For the record: this was the view of most of Kaplan's and Spiridonova's party as well. Their stupid adventurism in the service of Franco-British imperialism broke the PLSR without the Bolsheviks having to lift a finger. The Left Esers split into so many fragments - PLSR (minority), Party of Popular Communists etc. - that no one can keep track of all the fragments. But I'm sure the Russian masses who didn't want to die in some trench for the British King and the French president just didn't understand the genuine insurrecto leanings of people like Spiridonova.)

A Trotskyist misrepresenting history for the purpose of slandering political opponents. How novel.

Bolshevik propaganda and your biased interpretation of Russian political history does not constitute fact. (http://img2.foodservicewarehouse.com/Prd/1900SQ/AmericanMetalcraft_IC80.jpg)

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 11:30

A Trotskyist misrepresenting history. How novel.

Your biased interpretation of Russian political history does not constitute fact. (http://img2.foodservicewarehouse.com/Prd/1900SQ/AmericanMetalcraft_IC80.jpg)

So, what is it that you deny exactly? That the PLSR central committee tried to drag Russia back into the intra-imperialist war by blowing up Mirbach, or that the PLSR split with most of the party denouncing the central committee?

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 11:31

So, what is it that you deny exactly? That the PLSR central committee tried to drag Russia back into the intra-imperialist war by blowing up Mirbach, or that the PLSR split with most of the party denouncing the central committee?

Your interpretation of events is just that. Interpretation.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 11:35

Your interpretation of events is just that. Interpretation.

"Well that's just your opinion man."

Actually, no. Whether the PLSR split is not a matter of interpretation. You couldn't go into the former PLSR offices with the interpretation that it had not split and magically find the central committee in session. You couldn't go to the German embassy with the interpretation that Mirbach hadn't been killed and find him alive.

But again, it's not even clear just what you deny, so...

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 11:44

"Well that's just your opinion man."

Actually, no. Whether the PLSR split is not a matter of interpretation. You couldn't go into the former PLSR offices with the interpretation that it had not split and magically find the central committee in session. You couldn't go to the German embassy with the interpretation that Mirbach hadn't been killed and find him alive.

But again, it's not even clear just what you deny, so...

I deny your interpretation of events.

The split form the central committee was not just over Brest-Litovsk, it was also over the lack of freedom of trade unions and the lack of workers' control in factories. Two facts you conveniently failed to mention.

The LSRs didn't support a continuation of an "imperialist war", they rejected peace with an imperialist country and Trotsky's insistence that no German troops occupying the Ukraine were attacked.

The assassination of Mirbach was not an attempt to do the bidding for France and Britain, it was to incite resistance and an uprising against German occupation and the German state in Russian occupied territories that had been conceded by Trotsky.

And that's all aside from the fact the Russian "masses" were already dying in war: It was called a civil war.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 12:31

Am I being trolled? I can't tell.

It wasn't a directive, you strange person, it's just a popular turn of phrase. It's to indicate that you know something that people who are similar to you don't know...I'm not demanding that you literally go to each of your individual friends and state your opinion to them, for crying out loud. Jeez Louise, no wonder you're fucking lonely.

Do you honestly believe I would be commenting on your vexatious behavior if it were limited to this thread?

I understand that "tell your buddies" is a turn of phrase. It was more the spirit of grouping everybody who isn't virulently anti-Leninist into a fellowship of buddies that I was remarking upon. That mindset definitely bears all the marks of an authoritarian, perhaps even paranoid mindset. It was only fitting that the spirit of your comment assumed the form of a command, even if it was a figure of speech.

The issues in this thread as far as I see them, and as far as they have been developed, are pretty simple. Anarchists do have political disagreements with Leninists. But I think reducing it down to authoritarian vs. libertarian is, as fetuses suggests, overly simplistic. Both anarchists and Leninists advocate the use of force and authority in the revolutionary process in a way that can't be quantified and compared as greater or lesser versions of one another. They are qualitatively different conceptions of what power is, where it comes from, and how it can be eliminated.

It's an interesting discussion to be had, but I think your bunker mentality would prevent you from being a serious participant. I would be interested in having it with others, though.

PhoenixAsh

4th November 2014, 12:39

Ahum. for some reason I get flashbacks to the Double Standards thread. No idea why.

This is the learning forum.

I am giving a very respectful but also stern (picture frowny brows and pressed lips) general warning. The only reason I am giving a general warning is because the last few pages there were no more flames.

From this post on I expect everybody to keep it that way. Stop flaming people in the learning forum.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 13:28

I think reducing it down to authoritarian vs. libertarian is, as fetuses suggests, overly simplistic.

Except that's not what I did, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.

It was more the spirit of grouping everybody who isn't virulently anti-Leninist into a fellowship of buddies

Again, that's not what I did, is it? The two or three people Leninists or Leninist sympathisers in this thread who are saying the opposite of what you're saying don't constitute "everybody who isn't virulently anti-Leninist."

Look, if you're going to participate in a discussion, at least have the courtesy to understand what people are actually saying.

The Idler

4th November 2014, 13:35

No one has accused Bolsheviks of being authoritarian because they used violence, against anarchists or any one.

Both anarchists and Leninists advocate the use of force and authority in the revolutionary process in a way that can't be quantified and compared as greater or lesser versions of one another.
It is significant in respect of authoritarianism that both Russian Bolsheviks and Russian anarchists used violence and those dreaming of the assassination of Lenin here is pretty authoritarian.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 13:50

It is significant in respect of authoritarianism that both Russian Bolsheviks and Russian anarchists used violence and those dreaming of the assassination of Lenin here is pretty authoritarian.

In this whole thread, I have not once mentioned authoritarianism as part of my criticisms of the Bolsheviks.

I really don't understand why people think I'm this great proponent of anti-authoritarianism. I don't have some universal opposition to authority as a matter of principle. What I will say though, is that I reject this toy-town, dictionary.com definition of 'authoritarian'. I'm fairly confident that neither the literal nor political definitions of the term 'authoritarian' really applies to assassination. That strikes me as a moralist position more than anything else.

PhoenixAsh

4th November 2014, 14:16

This is what The Feral Underclass said:

The main difference is that Trotskyism is a statist ideology and libertarian socialism is anti-state. Trotskyism also advocates for democratic centralism and liberatian socialism rejects centralism and hierarchy.

These are fundamental differences that exist between Anarchism and Trotskyism. TFU also mentioned the concrete examples of how Trotsky dealt with Anarchists in the real world. Which were used to underline the core argument. Violence (nor brutality for that matter) however is not the decisive factor in authoritarianism.

This whole interesting debate is preset on the basis of straw man and red herrings.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

4th November 2014, 14:18

In today's context, there is little that separates Chomskyite libertarians from Trotskyists - aside from the fact that the latter are more pretentious, loud and obnoxious with their phrase mongering. Ideologically there is little difference, both are essentially liberals trying to carve out a special place in the liberal pie for their cosmetic facade.

Could you provide substantiation for this claim, especially on the ideological plane? Literally all tendencies can have their "pretentious, loud and obnoxious" adherents.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 14:55

I deny your interpretation of events.

The split form the central committee was not just over Brest-Litovsk, it was also over the lack of freedom of trade unions and the lack of workers' control in factories. Two facts you conveniently failed to mention.

At this point, I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. The majority of the PLSR split from the PLSR central committee because they did not support the policy of the adventurist leadership, which amounted to dragging the country back into an imperialist war. This, incidentally, shows that your attempt to spin the facts to favour Popov and Spiridonova was not accepted by most members of their own party.

The LSRs didn't support a continuation of an "imperialist war", they rejected peace with an imperialist country [...]

Which is the same as saying that they did not support the death of Mirbach, they just rejected him staying alive. In the absence of peace or a ceasefire, there is war. This war would have once again entangled Russia in the intra-imperialist war on the side of the Entente. Those are the facts, and no amount of interpretation is going to change that.

[...]and Trotsky's insistence that no German troops occupying the Ukraine were attacked.

What an odd thing to insist on during peace negotiations.

The assassination of Mirbach was not an attempt to do the bidding for France and Britain, it was to incite resistance and an uprising against German occupation and the German state in Russian occupied territories that had been conceded by Trotsky.

See, that doesn't make any sense at all - even if we assume the Left Esers were God's fools who thought they could "incite resistance and an uprising" by blowing people up, why target Mirbach and not Noulens? Why target members of the Central Powers and not the Entente? And it would be better to not mention Ukraine, as the Esers there were part of Petlyura's pogromist, pro-Entente government.

And that's all aside from the fact the Russian "masses" were already dying in war: It was called a civil war.

Well, that makes starting a new war for the benefit of Entente imperialism alright I guess.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 15:57

At this point, I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. The majority of the PLSR split from the PLSR central committee because they did not support the policy of the adventurist leadership, which amounted to dragging the country back into an imperialist war. This, incidentally, shows that your attempt to spin the facts to favour Popov and Spiridonova was not accepted by most members of their own party.

I see. I thought you meant their split from the Bolsheviks.

Which is the same as saying that they did not support the death of Mirbach, they just rejected him staying alive. In the absence of peace or a ceasefire, there is war. This war would have once again entangled Russia in the intra-imperialist war on the side of the Entente. Those are the facts, and no amount of interpretation is going to change that.

The first world war was all but over one way or the other and the Russian state was already -- or at least about to be -- at war with the British and French, so I don't really understand the logic here.

Trotskyists have a traditional habit of just accusing their detractors of being on the side of imperialists or capitalists. It's an old trick and really fucking boring. Especially when you consider the fact the Bolsheviks not only conceded parts of revolutionary Russia to an imperialist country, they gave that imperialist country the opportunity to bolster and strengthen their Western front.

What an odd thing to insist on during peace negotiations.

As far as they were concerned, there shouldn't have been peace negotiations in the first place. Imperialist occupiers of a socialist country shouldn't be given concessions and protection from the fucking revolutionary socialist government.

See, that doesn't make any sense at all - even if we assume the Left Esers were God's fools who thought they could "incite resistance and an uprising" by blowing people up, why target Mirbach and not Noulens? Why target members of the Central Powers and not the Entente?

Their extrajudicial and terrorist tactics are well documented.

I'm also not going to get dragged into some non-sequitur bullshit. The fact that Germany was a target of this particular policy does not mean that the "Entente" was somehow tacitly supported or ignored as irrelevant.

And let's not forget that it was your Bolsheviks that signed a peace deal with the German Empire and succeeded large parts of Russian territory to them. It was your Bolsheviks that gave the German's a fighting chance to succeed in Europe.

You try and paint a picture of the LSRs being some kind of lackies for British and French imperialism, conveniently missing out the fact that it was the Bolsheviks that actually gave concessions to one of the most anti-working class, conservative imperialist powers in the world.

But of course when the Bolsheviks do it, it's just "necessary political reality."

And it would be better to not mention Ukraine, as the Esers there were part of Petlyura's pogromist, pro-Entente government.

Ugh.

Well, that makes starting a new war for the benefit of Entente imperialism alright I guess.

It wasn't starting a new war, it was continuing a conflict that already existed -- only this time waged by revolutionary workers in the pursuit of a communist program.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 16:29

The first world war was all but over[...]

That's fairly easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but for people living in the period, there was no certainty of the war being over. That, and the various wars that were the direct consequence of the First World War lasted until the mid-twenties.

[...]and the Russian state was already -- or at least about to be -- at war with the British and French, so I don't really understand the logic here.

The Russian state was at war with the Entente because it refused to continue the imperialist war. If the PLSR central committee had their way, there would probably be no war between Russia and the Entente (not at that point anyway), as Russia would be a de facto member.

Trotskyists have a traditional habit of just accusing their detractors of being on the side of imperialists or capitalists.

Well, no. The Left Communist group around Bukharin opposed the Brest-Litovsk treaty as well, but they were not on the side of the Entente - they were merely horribly stupid.

It's an old trick and really fucking boring. Especially when you consider the fact the Bolsheviks not only conceded parts of revolutionary Russia to an imperialist country, they gave that imperialist country the opportunity to bolster and strengthen their Western front.

So how does this differ from the actual rhetoric of the social-chauvinists in that period? "The Bolsheviks are giving away parts of the Fatherland, they are endangering the Western Front". The Western Front of what? Of the conflict between German imperialism and Anglo-French imperialism! Who cares who wins there? Not socialists, that's for certain.

As far as they were concerned, there shouldn't have been peace negotiations in the first place. Imperialist occupiers of a socialist country shouldn't be given concessions and protection from the fucking revolutionary socialist government.

There are no socialist countries. The task of Russia was not to build socialism in one country - a Stalinist invention that is apparently quite popular among the anarchists - but to hold out until revolution broke out in the more advanced countries, principally Germany as Germany was and remains the key to the political situation in Europe.

With that in mind, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was absolutely correct. The Bolsheviks might as well have given more territory to the Germans - it didn't matter. What was important was extricating Russia from an imperialist war (imagine the embarrassment and demoralisation that would have followed in a Bolshevik Russia continued to fight in the First World War! that would have been a greater gift to Ludendorff and Groener than a thousand miles of mud in the Ukraine). When the German Revolution broke out - and it was strangled, not because of the Bolsheviks but because of the social-democrats to which your beloved left Eser terrorists were dear - the German government would have torn the treaty of Brest-Litovsk to pieces.

Their extrajudicial and terrorist tactics are well documented.

Their tactics hinged on the supposed willingness of the masses to revolt given the right starting signal (and then people moan about Bolshevik "vanguardism"). If the PLSR central committee thought that the masses were eager to fight the Germans, they had completely lost it and were living in their own little la-la land. More than half of their own party turned their backs on them! No, the idea was probably to goad (as some of the captured PLSR CheKists admitted) Germany into attacking.

I'm also not going to get dragged into some non-sequitur bullshit. The fact that Germany was a target of this particular policy does not mean that the "Entente" was somehow tacitly supported or ignored as irrelevant.

Yes, yes it does. If I claim to oppose X and Y equally but, in a position where I could attack both, attack only X, it is obvious I support Y at least tacitly. I mean, Kautsky also opposed both Entente and German imperialism - it's just that he only attacked Entente imperialism. He was going to get around to attacking German imperialism one day. Honest.

The Entente was also occupying parts of Russia, from the railways under the Czechs, to Anadyr and so on. Why not kill Noulens, then, and if you're going to be a God's fool at least be an honest God's fool and not a shame-faced supporter of one imperialism over the other?

And let's not forget that it was your Bolsheviks that signed a peace deal with the German Empire and succeeded large parts of Russian territory to them. It was your Bolsheviks that gave the German's a fighting chance to succeed in Europe.

Oh no, if the Germans succeeded in Europe things would have... been the same actually. When it comes to intra-imperialist wars, we fight for both sides to lose, and if that can't happen we don't have a toss who wins.

You try and paint a picture of the LSRs being some kind of lackies for British and French imperialism, conveniently missing out the fact that it was the Bolsheviks that actually gave concessions to one of the most anti-working class, conservative imperialist powers in the world.

Are you really saying German imperialism was somehow worse than British or French imperialism?

Ugh.

Yes, "ugh" is a good response to the sniveling, anti-Semite, pro-Entente little wretch like Petlyura. Yet the Ukrainian Esers were part of the cabinet of his Directorate government. In opposition, one might add, to actual Ukrainian anarchists.

It wasn't starting a new war, it was continuing a conflict that already existed -- only this time waged by revolutionary workers in the pursuit of a communist program.

The communist program is not "hate the German, kill the German" but "down with imperialist war!". The communist program is for world revolution, not defence of the fatherland. The communist program is to learn from the Germans and to rely on the proletariat of the advanced countries, not drag a half-dead peasantry back into war on behalf of the London Stock Exchange.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 16:46

The Left Communist group around Bukharin opposed the Brest-Litovsk treaty as well, but they were not on the side of the Entente

Can you show me the documentary evidence you are using to make the claim that the SLRs took an open position of support for Britain and France? I would like to read it.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 16:50

Can you show me the documentary evidence you are using to make the claim that the SLRs took an open position of support for Britain and France? I would like to read it.

Can you show me the documentary evidence you are using to make the claim I made that claim? In fact I called them "shame-faced" supporters of the Entente - they didn't have the resolve to come out with crap about bayoneting Germans like Plekhanov.

Now, how about you answer at least one of my questions: do you think German imperialism was worse than the British or French imperialism?

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 16:51

Can you show me the documentary evidence you are using to make the claim I made that claim? In fact I called them "shame-faced" supporters of the Entente - they didn't have the resolve to come out with crap about bayoneting Germans like Plekhanov.

So you admit you're extrapolating?

Now, how about you answer at least one of my questions: do you think German imperialism was worse than the British or French imperialism?

I don't know, you tell me. You're the one claiming that not supporting a peace deal with Germany was somehow aiding and abetting British and French imperialism...

I have no interest in furthering this discussion with you. I always forget how much I hate Trotskyists until I start talking to them. Talking to you people is always deeply unpleasant and I want to avoid it as much as possible.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 16:55

So you admit you're extrapolating?

As much as people extrapolate when they say Kautsky supported the German war effort, or when the same is said of Huysmans for example.

I have no interest in furthering this discussion with you. I always forget how much I hate Trotskyists until I start talking to them. Talking to you people is always deeply unpleasant and I want to avoid it as much as possible.

Haha, wow. Anarchist social-patriotism. I would say that's new, but that was pretty much Kropotkin's position, wasn't it? That is why he was roundly rejected by younger Russian anarchists. What amazes me is that, a hundred years later, political consciousness has regressed to the level that people are piously repeating the slogans of social-chauvinists and no one bats an eyelid.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 16:57

As much as people extrapolate when they say Kautsky supported the German war effort, or when the same is said of Huysmans for example.

So yes. In that case, I refer you back to my original post.

Haha, wow. Anarchist social-patriotism. I would say that's new, but that was pretty much Kropotkin's position, wasn't it? That is why he was roundly rejected by younger Russian anarchists. What amazes me is that, a hundred years later, political consciousness has regressed to the level that people are piously repeating the slogans of social-chauvinists and no one bats an eyelid.

Case in point. Apparently if I don't agree with your point-of-view this means I'm a social-patriot. Remember when I said, "Trotskyists have a traditional habit of just accusing their detractors of being on the side of imperialists or capitalists. It's an old trick and really fucking boring"...

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 17:03

So yes. In that case, I refer you back to my original post.

What original post?

Case in point. Apparently if I don't agree with your point-of-view this means I'm a social-patriot. Remember when I said, "Trotskyists have a traditional habit of just accusing their detractors of being on the side of imperialists or capitalists. It's an old trick and really fucking boring"...

What you don't seem to understand is that you are in no way representative of the "detractors of Trotskyism" (or Trotskyists). Left Communists, for example, would find much about Trotskyism objectionable. Yet I wouldn't dream of saying they are social-patriots. Why? Because they don't post laments about how the evil Bolsheviks were endangering the Western Front of Anglo-French imperialism or about how evil Germany was "one of the most anti-working class, conservative imperial powers" (as opposed to those relatively pro-working class, liberal imperial powers I guess).

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 17:18

What you don't seem to understand is that you are in no way representative of the "detractors of Trotskyism" (or Trotskyists). Left Communists, for example, would find much about Trotskyism objectionable. Yet I wouldn't dream of saying they are social-patriots. Why? Because they don't post laments about how the evil Bolsheviks were endangering the Western Front of Anglo-French imperialism or about how evil Germany was "one of the most anti-working class, conservative imperial powers"

:rolleyes:

Oh for pity sake. I didn't post a lament of how the "evil Bolsheviks were endangering the Western Front of Anglo-French imperialism" you strange, strange man.

You are the one who set up the differences between imperialist powers. You're the one who began the reductive accusations of aiding and abetting imperialist states. I was merely following your logic and highlighting how the same argument could easily be applied to what you're saying...Shall we now come to an agreement that maybe, actually, these arguments are nonsense, which was kinda the point I was making?

(as opposed to those relatively pro-working class, liberal imperial powers I guess).

Not opposed to anything. They're all shitty. Supporting a peace deal and not supporting a peace deal was invariably going to benefit some imperialist powers. So if you're going to extrapolate from events that the SLRs were aiding and abetting British and French imperialism then you also have to concede that signing a peace deal with Germany benefited Germany...Or we could just agree that actually the real-politik of these decisions came down to other things rather than some inherent desire to support imperialism, which is what your accusation is essentially about.

It's not one rule for the Bolsheviks and another for everyone else.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 17:26

Basically what 870 is saying is that when the Bolsheviks sign a deal with an imperialist power that actually benefits that imperialist power, it's just political necessity and we should support it, but if opponents of the Bolsheviks don't want to sign a peace deal with Germany that miraculously means they're aiding and abetting imperialism, despite the fact that's precisely what the peace deal actually does in practical terms.

I mean, what kind of fucked up logic is that?...It's Bolshevik logic, that's what it is. It's just the same arrogant, entitled bullshit that any minority political power gives when they want to justify their political domination and ideological hegemony.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 17:36

:rolleyes:

Oh for pity sake. I didn't post a lament of how the "evil Bolsheviks were endangering the Western Front of Anglo-French imperialism" you strange, strange man.

So then you did not post the following:

it was the Bolsheviks that actually gave concessions to one of the most anti-working class, conservative imperialist powers in the world.

It was your Bolsheviks that gave the German's a fighting chance to succeed in Europe.

the Bolsheviks not only conceded parts of revolutionary Russia to an imperialist country, they gave that imperialist country the opportunity to bolster and strengthen their Western front.

You are the one who set up the differences between imperialist powers.

No, I haven't. I mentioned the Entente because the PLSR central committee wanted to drag Russia back into the intra-imperialist war on the side of the Entente. If we were talking about Zhordania's Menshevik government in Georgia, I would mention the Germans, as Zhordania was effectively a German puppet.

You're the one who began the reductive accusations of aiding and abetting imperialist states. I was merely following your logic and highlighting how the same argument could easily be applied to what you're saying...Shall we now come to an agreement that maybe, actually, these arguments are nonsense, which was kinda the point I was making?

No, because there is no comparison between the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the attempt to start the war against Germany again. One withdrew a country from an imperialist war, the other was an attempt to drag it back in, kicking and screaming. That is the basic socialist line - we don't care if the German Emperor or his cousin wins the intra-imperialist war, we fight for the defeat of our own bourgeoisie and withdrawal from the war. If tomorrow Russia attacks the European Union, we would not fight for victory of Moscow or Bruxelles, but for the defeat of both, for each of our countries to withdraw from the war.

PhoenixAsh

4th November 2014, 17:40

Except we won't of course actually be fighting and instead giving them the workers the territory we give them contains so they will leave us alone.

We will be mostly protesting with flags around an embassy and then go home and post angry posts on facebook and twitter and decry everybody who isn't waving a flag as counter revolutionary.

Or did I misread what you just said?

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 17:48

So then you did not post the following

If you want to characterise that as me "lamenting evil Bolsheviks endangering the Western Front of Anglo-French imperialism" then go right ahead. It's certainly more convenient to your point-of-view. But I have explained the point I was making to you twice now, so unless you're accusing me of lying, there's nothing more to say to you.

If tomorrow Russia attacks the European Union, we would not fight for victory of Moscow or Bruxelles, but for the defeat of both, for each of our countries to withdraw from the war.

Unless of course it was a revolutionary socialist government that was implementing socialist political and economic policies and trying to avoid conceding large parts of its territory to a foreign imperialist power. Were the Ukrainian peasantry and working class just not that important? Or are you comparing the Bolshevik Soviet government with modern Putinist Russia...?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 18:00

Unless of course it was a revolutionary socialist government that was implementing socialist political and economic policies and trying to avoid conceding large parts of its territory to a foreign imperialist power. Were the Ukrainian peasantry and working class just not that important?

Of course they weren't.

Neither was the working class (the peasantry can go rot) in Moscow, or in Berlin, or anywhere. No group of the working class is more important than the world victory of the revolution. If territory has to be ceded to Germany today so that the revolution in Germany tomorrow becomes more likely, and the revolutionary authorities in Russia are more likely to survive to the point where they can receive help from the victorious German proletariat, so be it. If the entire revolution in Russia was to perish, it would have been a positive outcome if it enabled the revolution in Germany or in another highly-advanced capitalist state.

To balk at territorial concessions in such circumstances is nothing more than pig-headed defencism.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 18:15

No group of the working class is more important than the world victory of the revolution.

Vile.

This instrumentalist arrogance is yet another fundamental difference, born from a deep-seated contempt for the working class.

If the entire revolution in Russia was to perish, it would have been a positive outcome if it enabled the revolution in Germany or in another highly-advanced capitalist state.

What qualification do you consider yourself having that gives you legitimacy to make such decisions at the expense of millions of workers? Why do you think you and your ilk are entitled to make such assessments and decisions?

To balk at territorial concessions in such circumstances is nothing more than pig-headed defencism.

It's not about territory, it's about the working class liberating themselves from the bourgeoisie. I don't regard the revolutionary objectives of the working class to be something that can be justifiably abandoned or conceded for political expedience of the self-appointed minority. That's not defencism, it's called unity and solidarity with my class.

Geiseric

4th November 2014, 18:48

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 19:14

Except that's not what I did, so I don't really understand what you're talking about.

Yes, saying "The main difference is that Trotskyism is a statist ideology and libertarian socialism is anti-state. Trotskyism also advocates for democratic centralism and liberatian socialism rejects centralism and hierarchy" sounds an awful lot to me like "reducing it [the difference between Trots and anarchists] down to authoritarian vs. libertarian."

Again, that's not what I did, is it? The two or three people Leninists or Leninist sympathisers in this thread who are saying the opposite of what you're saying don't constitute "everybody who isn't virulently anti-Leninist."Sure, you didn't imply that fetus is my friend because you assume that I am a Leninist or Trotskyist or both. I must be mistaken.

Look, if you're going to participate in a discussion, at least have the courtesy to understand what people are actually saying.Another directive. You're on a roll now, aren't you?

PhoenixAsh

4th November 2014, 19:18

Anarchists are democratic until they lose the vote. Then they are just as ruthless, if not more so, than the bolsheviks. Face it the people who tried to kill lenin were helping the international bourgeois. They had a chance to go along with the treaty but they fucking blew it and did all they know how to do: bomb and shoot people who are more right than them and join a front with the whites. Against the fully democratic workers state which propelled the bolsheviks into power.

They even worked with scumbags like Savinkov to sabotage the workers, and nobody shed a tear when they were locked up for it.

That is of course unless you consider Lenin as a revolutionary....

And lets face it. If your revolution is dependend on 1 person....well...

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 19:27

Vile.

This instrumentalist arrogance is yet another fundamental difference, born from a deep-seated contempt for the working class.

What qualification do you consider yourself having that gives you legitimacy to make such decisions at the expense of millions of workers? Why do you think you and your ilk are entitled to make such assessments and decisions?

It's not about territory, it's about the working class liberating themselves from the bourgeoisie. I don't regard the revolutionary objectives of the working class to be something that can be justifiably abandoned or conceded for political expedience of the self-appointed minority. That's not defencism, it's called unity and solidarity with my class.

I'm not even going to bother with the creepy moralism, it's par for the course when it comes to anarchists of your type. I'm not making any sort of assessment, I'm merely repeating a basic point of socialist politics. If you don't like that, well that's too bad. What you propose is outright opportunism - ignoring the historical tasks of the proletariat in favour of temporary, local gains.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 19:30

I'm not even going to bother with the creepy moralism, it's par for the course when it comes to anarchists of your type. I'm not making any sort of assessment, I'm merely repeating a basic point of socialist politics. If you don't like that, well that's too bad. What you propose is outright opportunism - ignoring the historical tasks of the proletariat in favour of temporary, local gains.

That's a nice little way to evade some tricky questions.

You know why people use terms like "creepy moralism" to describe interactions with working class people? It's because they have absolutely no practical experience of actual struggle and so depend on abstract theoretical posturing to justify their politics. Your positions come from no practical engagement with the class, they're not grounded in actual interaction with human beings. I am perfectly comfortable with being called moralist if to be a moralist is not to consider other working class people as nothing but instruments in my political power games. If you cannot see the inherent requirements for communists to build unity, solidarity, trust and respect amongst your fellow workers then you are fundamentally fucked.

PhoenixAsh

4th November 2014, 19:32

I'm not even going to bother with the creepy moralism, it's par for the course when it comes to anarchists of your type. I'm not making any sort of assessment, I'm merely repeating a basic point of socialist politics. If you don't like that, well that's too bad. What you propose is outright opportunism - ignoring the historical tasks of the proletariat in favour of temporary, local gains.

Your post was the litteral definition of opportunism...yet you accuse somebody else of being opportunistic.

So basically whether or not something is or isn't opportunistic in your opinion (and how you actually use the word) is based on your subjective interpretation on whether that position is convenient for you...

That is rich,...and hugely ironic.

Either way. Refusing to hand over workers to the imeprialist bourgeois should be a no-brainer for the socialist movement. The idea that we hand over or sacrifice swats of the working class is opportunism of the highest form. You package it nicely as "the historic task"...but basically the goal justifies the means....even at the expense of the class itself.

The Idler

4th November 2014, 19:34

In this whole thread, I have not once mentioned authoritarianism as part of my criticisms of the Bolsheviks.

I really don't understand why people think I'm this great proponent of anti-authoritarianism. I don't have some universal opposition to authority as a matter of principle. What I will say though, is that I reject this toy-town, dictionary.com definition of 'authoritarian'. I'm fairly confident that neither the literal nor political definitions of the term 'authoritarian' really applies to assassination. That strikes me as a moralist position more than anything else.
If you don't oppose authoritarianism, then in what sense does the Libertarian Communist Initiative use the word Libertarian?

Bala Perdida

4th November 2014, 19:35

Anarchists are democratic until they lose the vote. Then they are just as ruthless, if not more so, than the bolsheviks. Face it the people who tried to kill lenin were helping the international bourgeois. They had a chance to go along with the treaty but they fucking blew it and did all they know how to do: bomb and shoot people who are more right than them and join a front with the whites. Against the fully democratic workers state which propelled the bolsheviks into power.

They even worked with scumbags like Savinkov to sabotage the workers, and nobody shed a tear when they were locked up for it.
Good job pulling out the 'if you're not with us you're against us logic'. I guess the bolsheviks also helped the international bourgeoisie jailing and executing socialists they didn't get along with.
If I remember correctly bolsheviks also used white generals to put down worker uprisings.
Just as ruthless, I can't imagine. It's hard to be that ruthless without state power. When did anarchists even try for the vote?

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 19:43

Yes, saying "The main difference is that Trotskyism is a statist ideology and libertarian socialism is anti-state. Trotskyism also advocates for democratic centralism and liberatian socialism rejects centralism and hierarchy" sounds an awful lot to me like "reducing it [the difference between Trots and anarchists] down to authoritarian vs. libertarian."

But being anti-state and rejecting centralism and hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean a rejection of all authority...

Sure, you didn't imply that fetus is my friend because you assume that I am a Leninist or Trotskyist or both. I must be mistaken.

Am I wrong?

Another directive. You're on a roll now, aren't you?

You criticise me for assuming you're a Leninist, but you feel perfectly comfortable with making assumptions about my politics. I'm not an anarchist, and as I said in this thread already I don't even accept anti-authoritarianism as a point of principle. So what is the actual point you're trying to make?

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 19:44

If you don't oppose authoritarianism, then in what sense does the Libertarian Communist Initiative use the word Libertarian?

I didn't say I didn't oppose authoritarianism though, did I? And I'm not a member of LCI (nor would I be the sum of it either, even if I was), so if you have questions about their politics I suggest you direct them to someone who is.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 19:46

Am I wrong?

Only you would know who you were referring to when you claimed I had buddies in this thread. I was assuming it was the other primary person you were having a disagreement with: Fetuses. Was that an incorrect assumption?

You criticise me for assuming you're a Leninist, but you feel perfectly comfortable with making assumptions about my politics. I'm not an anarchist, and as I said in this thread already I don't even accept anti-authoritarianism as a point of principle. So what is the actual point you're trying to make?

Where have I assumed you are an anarchist?

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 19:48

Only you would know who you were referring to when you claimed I had buddies in this thread. I was assuming it was the other primary person you were having a disagreement with: Fetuses. Was that an incorrect assumption?

Are you a Leninist? Yes or no.

Where have I assumed you are an anarchist?

If you haven't assumed I'm an anarchist then why do you keep making trollish comments about me issuing "directives"? I don't really understand what the purpose of your comments are, especially if you don't think I'm an anarchist. Are you just trying to be antagonistic?

I mean the intellectual level of your contribution to this discussion has just been pathetic, so I'm hoping you have some point to all of your nonsense...

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 19:53

If you haven't assumed I'm an anarchist then why do you keep making trollish comments about me issuing "directives"? I don't really understand what the purpose of your comments are, especially if you don't think I'm an anarchist. Are you just trying to be antagonistic?

I asked you whether my assumption was wrong when I inferred that your reference to my supposed buddies was a reference to Fetuses. Fetuses isn't my buddy, and though I don't know much about his politics, I can safely say we don't share the same politics.

Rather than assuming you are an anarchist, I pointed out that the frequency with which you presume the authority to issue commandments almost surpasses the frequency of your denunciations of authoritarianism. That implies nothing about your being, or not being, an anarchist. It does suggest an interesting juxtaposition between your politics and your personal conduct.

At this point our exchanges have gotten pretty far from the main point, so in the interests of maintaining an atmosphere appropriate for learning, it might me best if we try to stick to the topic at hand.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 19:53

I asked you whether my assumption was wrong when I inferred that your reference to my supposed buddies was a reference to Fetuses. Fetuses isn't my buddy, and though I don't know much about his politics, I can safely say we don't share the same politics.

Are you on the spectrum? I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just trying to udnerstand why you're having difficulty conceptualising the social, flippant nature of that turn of phrase? You appear to take things extremely literally and then fail to understand the concept once it's explained to you. I'm confused about why that is. Maybe English isn't your first language?

I pointed out the frequency with which you issue commandments almost surpasses your denunciations of authoritarianism.

And the point of that is what?

That implies nothing about your being, or not being, an anarchist.

Well actually it does, since surely a reason for pointing it out would be to imply I was a hypocrite, and the only way I could be a hypocrite is if I were an anarchist.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 20:02

Are you on the spectrum? I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just trying to udnerstand why you're having difficulty conceptualising the social, flippant nature of that turn of phrase? You appear to take things extremely literally and then fail to understand the concept once it's explained to you. I'm confused about why that is.

You must have missed the post where I explained I understood the point you make here, but that I used a more literal interpretation as a way of underscoring the fact that your comment was still infused with traits we associate with authoritarianism. Your reference to being "on the spectrum" is in keeping with the way you approach discussions on the forum: ad hominem attacks, bullying, and other deplorable tactics that are generally the ruse of the authoritiarian types you regularly denounce. I suppose you think this is how you are able to get what you want in life?

Well actually it does, since surely a reason for pointing it out would be to imply I was a hypocrite.Surely hypocrisy isn't limited to anarchism (or Trotskyism or left communism). No, nothing I have said suggested I identify you as an anarchist, or think you self-identify as one.

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 20:05

Surely hypocrisy isn't limited to anarchism (or Trotskyism or left communism). No, nothing I have said suggested I identify you as an anarchist, or think you self-identify as one.

:confused:

Hmm, but by your own claim being anti-state, anti-hierarchy and anti-centralist that makes you an anti-authoritarian and since Trotkyism and left communism aren't those things, why would giving directives as an anti-authoritarian be applicable to anything other than anarchism? :unsure:

Yeaaah...I'm going to stop talking to you now. (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/122/3/a/what_the_fuck__by_stevesjobes-d4yckx9.jpg)

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 20:08

:confused:

Hmm, but by your own claim being anti-state, anti-hierarchy and anti-centralist that makes you an anti-authoritarian and since Trotkyism and left communism aren't those things, why would giving directives as an anti-authoritarian be applicable to anything other than anarchism? :unsure:

Yeaaah...I'm going to stop talking to you now. (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/122/3/a/what_the_fuck__by_stevesjobes-d4yckx9.jpg)

This would be a brilliant post if it included a single example of me trying to tell you or anybody else what to do, without even getting into the question of how a single example doesn't amount to the kind of predisposition that your body of work on the forum evinces.

PhoenixAsh

4th November 2014, 20:23

Illegalitarian

4th November 2014, 20:28

Anarchists are democratic until they lose the vote. Then they are just as ruthless, if not more so, than the bolsheviks. Face it the people who tried to kill lenin were helping the international bourgeois. They had a chance to go along with the treaty but they fucking blew it and did all they know how to do: bomb and shoot people who are more right than them and join a front with the whites. Against the fully democratic workers state which propelled the bolsheviks into power.

They even worked with scumbags like Savinkov to sabotage the workers, and nobody shed a tear when they were locked up for it.

It's almost as if anarchists have a strange aversion to being fucked over by counter-revolutionary goons, right?

What a bunch of authoritarian cry-babies

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 20:34

Just to be sure...authoritatianism isn't the same thing as being directive...or authoritative

But I like how we are discussing how authoritative TFU is based on the premise that he is using directive language. And while he is authoritative in some aspects...with respect to authorative in the other sense...are we saying TFU has any actual power....much less one given by a state or by any institution that has any relevant meaning in this context? Because that would open entirely new dimensions into this debate.

It just seems to me to be a whole load of subterfuge to direct attention onto my personality and avoid actually discussing the issues.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 20:36

Just to be sure...authoritatianism isn't the same thing as being directive...or authoritative

But I like how we are discussing how authoritative TFU is based on the premise that he is using directive language. And while he is authoritative in some aspects...with respect to authorative in the other sense...are we saying TFU has any actual power....much less one given by a state or by any institution that has any relevant meaning in this context? Because that would open entirely new dimensions into this debate.

The wielding of authority and authoritarianism are not the same, but they are linked. Obviously TFU has no authority here, but the juxtaposition was with what his behavior demonstrates a disposition to do should he ever be in a position of authority, not with authority he actually wields in the present.

Lord Testicles

4th November 2014, 20:41

I get the impression that Izvestia might have a crush, since he doesn't want to actually discuss the topic at hand, he just wants to talk about TFU. :wub:

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 20:44

I get the impression that Izvestia might have a crush, since he doesn't want to actually discuss anything, he just wants to talk about TFU. :wub:

A review of my participation in this thread shows that my interest in discussion originated far from, and extends well beyond, TFU's behavior. Bad behavior is bad behavior, though, and I'll draw attention to it if I hope that a little initial investment of time can pay long-term benefits with more civility, or at least self-restraint, down the road.

What would you rather discuss? My romantic interests?

Lord Testicles

4th November 2014, 20:47

A review of my participation in this thread shows that my interest in discussion originated in, and extends far beyond, TFU's behavior. Bad behavior is bad behavior, though, and I'll draw attention to it if I hope that a little initial investment of time can pay long-term benefits with more civility, or at least self-restraint, down the road.
What would you rather discuss? My romantic interests?

I'd prefer if you fucked off and practised being lonely somewhere else.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 20:48

I'd prefer if you fucked off and practised being lonely somewhere else.

This adds a lot of intellectual substance and civility to the discussion. Thanks.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

4th November 2014, 20:57

They even worked with scumbags like Savinkov to sabotage the workers, and nobody shed a tear when they were locked up for it.

Eh? I hadn't heard this.
Which anarchists when?

Illegalitarian

4th November 2014, 21:01

There's no such thing as anarchists during the Russian Revolution to dishonest leninists, just agents of imperialism and white terror.

Because "if you're against us, you're with the terrorists" :laugh:

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 21:02

This adds a lot of intellectual substance and civility to the discussion. Thanks.

Most of your contributions in this thread have been about the fact I flippantly said "try telling that to your buddies." That has been the focus of your intervention here...I don't think you're in any position to talk about "intellectual substance."

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 21:06

Eh? I hadn't heard this.
Which anarchists when?

Don't do it!

What you have to remember is for people like Geiseric, anyone who was part of organising against the Bolsheviks was "sabotaging workers." For folks like him fighting the state is synonymous with sabotaging workers. They're the same thing.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

4th November 2014, 21:08

Your post was the litteral definition of opportunism...

No, it wasn't. I know RevLeft has a thing for using terms of the socialist movement ("sectarian", "centrist" etc.) in its own, ah, "endearing" way, but try to keep up, will you lads? Opportunism means sacrificing the long-term strategic goals of the proletariat to short-term, limited gains.

People have this bizarre delusion that it is the job of socialists to secure every single worker and save the Kurds and save Excalibur the dog and cut carbon emissions and whatever - it's not. Socialists aim to overthrow capitalism. If you find that objectionable, or if you'd rather build "socialism" in one country (I am starting to believe all our anarchists with few exceptions are effectively anarcho-Stalinists), well, good luck.

Illegalitarian

4th November 2014, 21:16

Those crazy anarchists wanting a revolution that doesn't slaughter its own workers and puts society on the path to a stateless, classless society, fucking anarcho-stalinist trash!!!!11

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 21:24

People have this bizarre delusion that it is the job of socialists to secure every single worker and save the Kurds and save Excalibur the dog and cut carbon emissions and whatever - it's not. Socialists aim to overthrow capitalism. If you find that objectionable, or if you'd rather build "socialism" in one country (I am starting to believe all our anarchists with few exceptions are effectively anarcho-Stalinists), well, good luck.

Why does rejecting your instrumentalist view of the class mean we're not anti-capitalists or internationalists?

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 21:24

Those crazy anarchists wanting a revolution that doesn't slaughter its own workers and puts society on the path to a stateless, classless society, fucking anarcho-stalinist trash!!!!11

Can you on principle rule out the possible necessity of employing violence against some workers in a socialist revolution?

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 21:25

Most of your contributions in this thread have been about the fact I flippantly said "try telling that to your buddies." That has been the focus of your intervention here...I don't think you're in any position to talk about "intellectual substance."

Isn't it customary to stop talking to a person after announcing you'll stop talking to them?

The Feral Underclass

4th November 2014, 21:27

Isn't it customary to stop talking to a person after announcing you'll stop talking to them?

Usually, yes. Pointing that out isn't going to make your contribution in this thread any less shit though.

PhoenixAsh

4th November 2014, 21:36

No, it wasn't. I know RevLeft has a thing for using terms of the socialist movement ("sectarian", "centrist" etc.) in its own, ah, "endearing" way, but try to keep up, will you lads? Opportunism means sacrificing the long-term strategic goals of the proletariat to short-term, limited gains.

People have this bizarre delusion that it is the job of socialists to secure every single worker and save the Kurds and save Excalibur the dog and cut carbon emissions and whatever - it's not. Socialists aim to overthrow capitalism. If you find that objectionable, or if you'd rather build "socialism" in one country (I am starting to believe all our anarchists with few exceptions are effectively anarcho-Stalinists), well, good luck.

Well. First off I am not your lad. Second off all the argument comming from somebody who argued in the past that killing the wifes and children of workers who striked against food privileges held by party members you consider to be revolutionaries...is kind of pittyfull.

The fact of the matter is that you subjectivelt decided that that are actually short term goals and therefore you not only deem workers unimportant but that you deem the working class unimportant. What you just decided is that millions of workers equates to "saving every single worker".

We on the other hand uphold the idea that the class is of vital long term importance. So rather than trampling over workers and sacrificing them with the brush of a pen our entire argument is based on the fact that your long term goals are a load of horse shit rethorics and that you do not actually care for workers nor for the working class and that you are just using code for what you actually mean: the power of the party elite...and fuck the workers and the working class if necessary.

And what is even more pittyfull is that you argue this in the face of implementing state capitalism. Wauw.

Your argument is both dishonest and is completely opportunistic over the backs of the working class in its entirety. But you keep telling yourself that making peace with the imperialist powers isn't actually aiding said imperialist powers...simply because it suits your narrative.

And pray..do tell what your precious Bolsheviks did with the peace they so altruisticly sacrificed the Ukarain working class for in order to advance world revolution...because that splendidly failed to materialize and they didn't actually put an effort into it. I guess they were far to bussy consolidating their power over the working class and implementing state capitalism and creating a beaucratic elite.

So try to keep up and stop playing revolutionary.

Zoroaster

4th November 2014, 21:40

But oh no, muh petty moralism...

These bolshebabies are hilarious.

BIXX

4th November 2014, 22:34

Damn dudes. Why even bother arguing with the bokshevists/that idiot who is obsessed with TFU's behavior?

Illegalitarian

4th November 2014, 22:50

Can you on principle rule out the possible necessity of employing violence against some workers in a socialist revolution?

It's not on principle it is in the very specific context of slaughtering fellow communists and anarchists for having legitimate demands from a group claiming to represent the interests of the working class, and then acting like bitter babies 100 years later when people say that shooting bald dictators in the chest was probably an appropriate response.

Sharia Lawn

4th November 2014, 23:06

It's not on principle it is in the very specific context of slaughtering fellow communists and anarchists for having legitimate demands from a group claiming to represent the interests of the working class, and then acting like bitter babies 100 years later when people say that shooting bald dictators in the chest was probably an appropriate response.

To which context and demands are you referring?

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 00:41

I said what context.

The re-democratization of the soviets and the demands by the Kronstdat sailors, which were an extension of the demands being made by those in petrograd.

Forced requisitions, mass arrests, torture, and quelling attempts at autonomy in the Ukraine and elsewhere probably didn't help, either.

annnd the claims of white agents and white propaganda and a giant white anti-communist snow man crushing the revolution with bags of money beginnnnnns now!

The Garbage Disposal Unit

5th November 2014, 04:22

Don't do it!

What you have to remember is for people like Geiseric, anyone who was part of organising against the Bolsheviks was "sabotaging workers." For folks like him fighting the state is synonymous with sabotaging workers. They're the same thing.

I want to at least give it a fair airing.
Unlike some people, who are willing to uncritically defend the wretched counter-revolutionary activities of their blessed icons (But Trotsky had betray Maknho!), I do believe anarchists likely made very real mistakes during the revolution and civil war, some of which were likely counter-revolutionary. I would prefer to know about them and learn from them. Just because I share a political heritage with someone doesn't mean I need to deify them, or stake my own politics on some imagined historical purity.

Speaking of differences between Trotskyists and anarchists . . .

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 04:32

The biggest mistake made by anarchists was not taking a more assertive role early on during the revolution.

Ultimately, the same thing that marked the downfall of anarchists in Spain: not knowing when to act.

Geiseric

5th November 2014, 05:51

Eh? I hadn't heard this.
Which anarchists when?

The SRs, including TFU's own example he brought up earlier, worked with agents of imperialism to arm themselves. That included Savinkov, an ex tsarist agent. They worked togather as a united front against the soviet state.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

5th November 2014, 06:02

The SRs, including TFU's own example he brought up earlier, worked with agents of imperialism to arm themselves. That included Savinkov, an ex tsarist agent. They worked togather as a united front against the soviet state.

OK, but really, which anarchists? How did they have contact with Savinkov?

I mean, hell, the Essers kicked him out.

Just because two groups of people happen to be fighting the same enemy doesn't make them a "united front". By that logic, the Bolsheviks had a "united front" with the Whites against Mahkno. The Bolsheviks had a "united front" with the Germans against the Entente. i.e. It's utter nonsense.

I don't want to say definitively that some (dumb) anarchists didn't work with Savinkov - it's not impossible. But if your basis for this comment is, "Well, the were both against the Bolsheviks!" Ima call bullshit.

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 06:45

The old claim is that they directly worked with and aided Savinkov but it's not based on anything but blatantly false Bolshevik propaganda years after the fact, Savinkov's anti-Bolshevik rebellions came way after he was kicked by the Essers.

Remember the United Front Trotsky had with the Committee on UnAmerican activities where he was busted for feeding informatioon about communist movements in Latin America, yucking it up with Robert G McGregor? Yeah, me neither.

Oh but that's Stalinist propaganda :o

Fourth Internationalist

5th November 2014, 14:35

Remember the United Front Trotsky had with the Committee on UnAmerican activities where he was busted for feeding informatioon about communist movements in Latin America, yucking it up with Robert G McGregor? Yeah, me neither.

Oh but that's Stalinist propaganda :o

What information did Trotsky reveal to the committee? When was this? Who found him out?

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 16:17

Fourth Internationalist

5th November 2014, 16:46

I believe the poster is referencing this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/03/dies.htm

Scandalous, especially when compared with not opposing American bombing campaigns in the Middle East.

Yes, that is why I am awaiting information about what he revealed, when he did so, and how he was found out and by who.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 17:14

Yes, that is why I am awaiting information about what he revealed, when he did so, and how he was found out and by who.

*Whom.

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 21:11

I believe the poster is referencing this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/03/dies.htm

Scandalous, especially when compared with not opposing American bombing campaigns in the Middle East.

Not opposing American bombing campaigns in the Middle East? What? :confused:

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv20n1/trotskyintro.htm

Trotsky denied statements in the Mexican press which suggested that he intended to submit information to the Dies Committee on the Latin American communist movement, arguing that he had not a single document on this and would only confine himself to presenting a ‘History of Stalinism’.3 The documents published here do establish that, whether Trotsky possessed such documents as he could present to the Dies Committee or not, he was passing on information to the US state about the Latin American communist parties. In the meeting between Trotsky and Robert G McGregor Jr. of the US Consulate in Mexico which was held on 25 June 1940, US archival documents record (No. 4) that the former Soviet leader indicated that the Comintern had been subsidising the foreign press including the progressive Mexican press. Furthermore, he named particular leaders in Spain and Mexico.

Fourth Internationalist

5th November 2014, 21:16

Not opposing American bombing campaigns in the Middle East? What? :confused:

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv20n1/trotskyintro.htm

That same source also talks about Trotksy's alliance with the Nazi Gestapo. Do you agree with that as well?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th November 2014, 21:20

Good old Revolutionary Democracy, don't they publish poems? They're great to read drunk.

Anyway, you know what, let's not even get into the perennial debate about people remembering signs that once stood over hotels and other minutiae, do the people who use Revolutionary Democracy's arguments against Trotsky also accept the arguments the same paper puts out against anarchism? Or their beloved POUM?

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 21:22

Not opposing American bombing campaigns in the Middle East? What? :confused:

http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv20n1/trotskyintro.htm

I am beginning to think 870 is right. Most of the anarchists on this forum seem to be closet Stalinists. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that they find Stalinist spin useful, while effusing about the possibility of building socialism in a single country.

There are intelligent ways to critique Trotsky's ideas, and there are many more intelligent ways to critique his followers. This isn't it. The paragraph you quoted establishes 3 facts: Trotsky denied having documents relating to the Latin American communist movement; that Trotsky told the Dies committee information about the stalinized, official communist parties in Latin America; and that part of his information included names of some of the leaders in those parties.

All of this is consistent with Trotsky's professed purpose for speaking to the committee. I don't find that purpose anymore controversial than giving an interview to a bourgeois media outlet.

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 21:35

That same source also talks about Trotksy's alliance with the Nazi Gestapo. Do you agree with that as well?

I've never read anything on the subject. It could be true, it probably isn't. Trotsky's association with the committee of unamerican activities is quite well known, however, as is the reason he was establishing communication with these people.

I am beginning to think 870 is right. Most of the anarchists on this forum seem to be closet Stalinists. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that they find Stalinist spin useful, while effusing about the possibility of building socialism in a single country.

Could be! :o

Having an honest discussion would be nice. Unfortunately someone shot that horse in the face earlier on by touting out ridiculous Bolshevik propaganda.

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 21:37

Unfortunately someone shot that horse in the face earlier on by touting out ridiculous Bolshevik propaganda.

You mean like posting a string of speculations published in a "journal of anti-revisionism"? If that doesn't count as Bolshevik propaganda, I don't know what does. You seem confused.

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 22:10

PhoenixAsh

5th November 2014, 22:15

I see you are up to your old tricks here again Izvestia. How surprising :rolleyes:

Let us put it this way...to make clear how some people here view Bolshevism. And make a note that I am speaking here as a user.

Some people, and I am one of them, do not think Bolshevism is actually a revolutionary theory that advances the class interests of the proletariat. Rather we find that, based on theory and on the subsequent results of trying to implement that theory, that Bolshevism is diametrically opposed to the interests of the working class and (some will even go so far to say this is intentionally) will infantilize the the proletariat rather than empower it and serves its own interests rather than that of the working class. This view is illustrated splendidly in this thread by some of its members and will regularly be echoed in the arguments of individual Bolshevists.

Regardless how hard Bolshevists (in all their sub-divisions) will try to justify their actions, and blame other sub sections of Bolshevism. The cold hard facts are that the results of Bolshevism in all phases of the revolution and the so called workers state before, leading up to and after Stalin....have shown the deep betrayal of the working class and the revolution.

Make a note however...that while we reject the theory and the implementation of that theory...this does not extend to each and every Bolshevist individual and I make no suggestions here about individual intentions, honesty, genuinity or intent. What I am however saying is that some revolutionaries have this concept of Bolshevism: Bolshevism is not a theory that serves the interests of the proletariat.

And that while from time to time opportunism and strategic necessity dictate that we work with Bolshivist parties...we have no illusion that when there will be a revolution...that revolution will have not only the bourgeoisie and counter revolutionary factions opposing the working class but also the Bolshevists trying to muzzle it and bend them to their will at their own expense and the expense of revolutionaries.

So it doesn't actually matter if Trotsky gave information to some bourgeois committee....or if he is more or less authoritarian or statist. The end result is that Trotsky advanced a theory and worked to actively implement a theory that directly works in the detriment of the working class. That is all that matters.

I hope this clears up why from our part....left unity is a pipe dream.

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 22:31

Do I really have to spell out the point of that article?

I guess so: There is tons of idiot clearly false propaganda out there based on next to nothing that should have been buried long ago. Using any of it is dishonest wankery

My point is not to forget to add Revolutionary Democracy to the pile of buried wortheless propaganda items.

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 22:33

Art Vandelay

5th November 2014, 22:44

I hope this clears up why from our part....left unity is a pipe dream.

But who here is arguing in favor of left unity? Bolshevism was born out of a rejection of the party of the whole class, as was traditionally advocated by the 2nd international. We want unity neither with the opportunists, who have a material basis within the workers movement, nor the ultra-lefts, unless of course we prove capable of winning them to the program of revolutionary Marxism.

You view us as counter-revolutionary, we view you as a dangerously misguided petty-bourgeois tendency, which seeks to rob the revolution of its strength due to an inability to form a proper analysis of the state and take it to its logical conclusion. I neither see how unity would be possible or desirable, nor where anyone here is advocating it.

PhoenixAsh

5th November 2014, 22:47

If I call the police when somebody is breaking into my apartment, does that mean I am forming a bloc with the police as an informant? If I give an interview to RT television, does that mean I am forming a bloc with Putin? This is the reasoning that the Stalinists, the Bolsheviks, who wrote that article are employing. If you want to group yourself with them, I am not going to stop you.

You fail to underdstand the argument.

This focus on individual acts or individuals and who did what when and supported or not supported who when is a red herring....regardless of who makes it...unless it pertains to that individual.

Anarchists and other revolutionaries do not oppose Trotskyism because of Trotsky....although the man certainly didn't help at all.

It is not that if it was called Harryism because some sod named Harry thought it up...that we would find it suddenly agreeable. It is because of the theory and the practical results of implementing that theory.

Whether or not Trotsky testified is a complete waste of space and time for the working class. Not only is it purely of interest to the Bolshevik streams and perhaps to the relatives of Trotsky....but it doesn't matter.

Let me put it this way.

Do you think Trotskyists would suddenly stop being Trotskyists if it turned out he DID do all the things Stalin accused him of? If so..then obviously the theory doesn't amount to anything. If not. Then perhaps it is the theory that is important in deciding of somebody is a Trotskyist or not.

Now...it is that theory that is the problem.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 22:48

You view us as counter-revolutionary, we view you as a dangerously misguided petty-bourgeois tendency, which seeks to rob the revolution of its strength due to an inability to form a proper analysis of the state and take it to its logical conclusion. I neither see how unity would be possible or desirable, nor where anyone here is advocating it.

The difference is, you're viewed as counter-revolutionary because that's precisely what your ideas lead to in practice, and you view us as petite-bourgeois because you don't understand our politics...So...I mean, do you actually know what the anarchist or "ultraleft" analysis of the state is?

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 22:49

Whether or not Trotsky testified is a complete waste of space and time for the working class. Not only is it purely of interest to the Bolshevik streams and perhaps to the relatives of Trotsky....but it doesn't matter.

Then what do you think you have to add in a discussion that has clearly moved on to a focus about his willingness to testify and the contents of what that testimony would likely have been?

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 22:50

Art Vandelay

5th November 2014, 22:52

The difference is, you're viewed as counter-revolutionary because that's precisely what your ideas lead to in practice, and you view us as petite-bourgeois because you don't understand our politics...So...

How compelling, an argument with all of the theoretical robustness of a kid on a playground sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting I'm right and you're wrong.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 22:53

A great demonstration of question begging.

And this is a great demonstration of delusion.

PhoenixAsh

5th November 2014, 22:55

Then what do you think you have to add in a discussion that has clearly moved on to a focus about his willingness to testify and the contents of what that testimony would likely have been?

What I have to add is that the debate topic you moved on to sucks and that we (as in non-Bolshevists) can ultimately always completely rely on Bolshevists taking the bait of individualism.

Now...to remind you of WHY we moved here....that was because some of the Bolshevists in this thread saw it necessary to personify Anarchism and reduce it to one single example.

Kind off like always happens....

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 22:56

And this is a great demonstration of delusion.

I don't think it's delusional to point out that your post boiled down to a series of claims for which you did not provide an argument. 9mm's post, which pointed out that PhoenixAsh was decrying a position -- left unity -- nobody in this post was arguing in support of, is self-evident.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 22:56

How compelling, an argument with all of the theoretical robustness of a kid on a playground sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting I'm right and you're wrong.

Aside from the fact I am right and you are wrong, in your whole time on this forum, you have consistently failed to grasp the nuances of anarchist politics. You are great at making rhetorical statements, but I've never seen you attempt to navigate the ideology of anarchism in any honest or serious way.

I'm sorry, but you have no credibility to make pronouncements on what anarchism's analysis of the state is. None whatsoever.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 22:56

i don't think it's delusional to point out that your post boiled down to a series of claims for which you did not provide an argument.

1917 - 1991.

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 22:56

What I have to add is that the debate topic you moved on to sucks and that we (as in non-Bolshevists) can ultimately always completely rely on Bolshevists taking the bait of individualism.

Now...to remind you of WHY we moved here....that was because some of the Bolshevists in this thread saw it necessary to personify Anarchism and reduce it to one single example.

Kind off like always happens....

And yet the person who raised the issue in the first place was...an anarchist.

PhoenixAsh

5th November 2014, 22:58

How compelling, an argument with all of the theoretical robustness of a kid on a playground sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting I'm right and you're wrong.

Well...fair enough.

What have you come up with to not have the revolution degrade into either Stalinism or a dictatorship of the party/bureaucracy and complete infantilization of the proletariat in the last few decades?

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 22:59

1917 - 1991.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that I am a Leninist or a Bolshevik or a Trotskyist. Quite humorous, in that Stalin shared the same tendency of grouping all his opposition under the label Trotskyite.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th November 2014, 23:02

Aside from the fact I am right and you are wrong, in your whole time on this forum, you have consistently failed to grasp the nuances of anarchist politics. You are great at making rhetorical statements, but I've never seen you attempt to navigate the ideology of anarchism in any honest or serious way.

I'm sorry, but you have no credibility to make pronouncements on what anarchism's analysis of the state is. None whatsoever.

Oh, but we thought you weren't an anarchist. After all, you sounded pretty offended when you thought someone implied that you were one a few pages ago. And yet here you are implicitly grouping yourself with anarchists ("you view us..."). This would be little more than a jab if the entire discussion weren't already stupidly personal, with the anarkids, as always, crying because of mean old authoritarian Trotsky. God, people could set their watches according to you, that's how predictable you are. What you should realise is that no one cares, and these great big cry-wanks you have in every thread where good old L. D. is mentioned just make you seem bad. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you aren't fair to anarchist thought by presenting it like this.

PhoenixAsh

5th November 2014, 23:03

And yet the person who raised the issue in the first place was...an anarchist.

Ehhh. no. Reread the thread. Unless you are refering to the specific instance of the testimony...the whole reducing things to individuals came from a Trotskyist.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that I am a Leninist or a Bolshevik or a Trotskyist. Quite humorous, in that Stalin shared the same tendency of grouping all his opposition under the label Trotskyite.

Trotskyists claim to be Bolshevists. Stalinists claim to be Bolshevists. Basically...we agree.

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 23:10

Ehhh. no. Reread the thread. Unless you are refering to the specific instance of the testimony...the whole reducing things to individuals came from a Trotskyist.

The person who raised the issue of Trotsky's testimony before the Dies committee -- the subject you are criticizing for being overly focused on individuals -- identifies as an anarchist. That is verifiable by looking through the posts.

Art Vandelay

5th November 2014, 23:12

I'm sorry, but you have no credibility to make pronouncements on what anarchism's analysis of the state is. None whatsoever
Eh, whatever, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Well...fair enough.

What have you come up with to not have the revolution degrade into either Stalinism or a dictatorship of the party/bureaucracy and complete infantilization of the proletariat in the last few decades?
This argument presupposes that Stalinism logically grew from Bolshevism; what we contend is that while Stalinism certainly grew out of Bolshevism, it did so not logically but dialectically, not as a revolutionary affirmation, but as a thermidorian negation.

Anyways there is a reason I only briefly jumped into this thread. These discussions are pointless. I'm fairly confident that the posters that have been predominantly participating in this thread (PA,TFU, 870, Izvestia) are all fairly solidified in their political perspectives. Nothing productive ever comes from these discussions.

PhoenixAsh

5th November 2014, 23:13

The person who raised the issue of Trotsky's testimony before the Dies committee -- the subject you are criticizing for being overly focused on individuals -- identifies as an anarchist. That is verifiable by looking through the posts.

Yes. Except I didn't actually limit it to this specific instance when I said:

Now...to remind you of WHY we moved here....that was because some of the Bolshevists in this thread saw it necessary to personify Anarchism and reduce it to one single example.

or

This focus on individual acts or individuals and who did what when and supported or not supported who when is a red herring....regardless of who makes it...unless it pertains to that individual.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 23:15

Eh, whatever, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

You think you're an expert on anarchism, do you?

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 23:15

Yes. Except I didn't actually limit it to this specific instance when I said:

or

Yes, you were unhappy that we had moved to a discussion about the Dies committee, a shift you faulted for being overly concerned with the acts of individuals. I actually agree with you. I was just reminding you that the reason we moved "here" to a discussion of Trotsky's willingness to testify was that an anarchist raised the issue by, funnily enough, quoting a stalinist publication approvingly. None of this is complicated enough to warrant five exchanges. This is easily verifiable by reading brief posts in the past two pages of the thread.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 23:16

You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that I am a Leninist or a Bolshevik or a Trotskyist. Quite humorous, in that Stalin shared the same tendency of grouping all his opposition under the label Trotskyite.

I have no idea what you're gibbering on about.

Sharia Lawn

5th November 2014, 23:17

You think you're an expert on anarchism, do you?

To be fair, he's probably better informed about anarchism than you are about Trostalibolshevism.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 23:21

To be fair, he's probably better informed about anarchism than you are about Trostalibolshevism.

:rolleyes:

Zoroaster

5th November 2014, 23:23

Well this thread went in the shitter quickly.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 23:24

Oh, but we thought you weren't an anarchist. After all, you sounded pretty offended when you thought someone implied that you were one a few pages ago. And yet here you are implicitly grouping yourself with anarchists ("you view us..."). This would be little more than a jab if the entire discussion weren't already stupidly personal, with the anarkids, as always, crying because of mean old authoritarian Trotsky. God, people could set their watches according to you, that's how predictable you are. What you should realise is that no one cares, and these great big cry-wanks you have in every thread where good old L. D. is mentioned just make you seem bad. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you aren't fair to anarchist thought by presenting it like this.

If you find me some tiresome, perhaps you might want to acquaint yourself with the ignore options, rather than have to endure my triteness. It would save you the trouble of having a little tantrum about it :) (https://www.marxists.org/francais/trotsky/gallery/lt11.jpg)

Ciao, ciao.

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 23:26

Yes, you were unhappy that we had moved to a discussion about the Dies committee, a shift you faulted for being overly concerned with the acts of individuals. I actually agree with you. I was just reminding you that the reason we moved "here" to a discussion of Trotsky's willingness to testify was that an anarchist raised the issue by, funnily enough, quoting a stalinist publication approvingly. None of this is complicated enough to warrant five exchanges. This is easily verifiable by reading brief posts in the past two pages of the thread.

I was mocking your ilks cry baby parade throughout this entire thread and focusing on individual anarchists based on what was clearly propaganda, it's not my fault that you saw this as an out from the shitty politics being displayed ITT and decided to ride that train into strawman town.

I like how everyone is forgetting what happened literally just a few pages ago when the bolshebabies started waxing fallaciously about white terror. Yeah, we're being petty and child like, completely spot on :o

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

5th November 2014, 23:27

If you find me some tiresome, perhaps you might want to acquaint yourself with the ignore options rather than have a little tantrum about it :) (https://www.marxists.org/francais/trotsky/gallery/lt11.jpg)

Ciao, ciao.

I don't find you tiresome, I find you amusing, particularly looking at how much you try to be offensive and how no one rises to the bait is pure comedy gold. And this isn't about you - good grief, it was never about you, can you for once not talk about yourself? - but the tendency of the more vocal RL anarchists to turn every thread where Trotsky is mentioned into one big cry wank over how bwaaah evil Trotsky did this and that to anarchists and "anarchists" (Esers anarchists, really? drunkposting is bad for you). If Trotskyist users reacted the same way every time Stalin was mentioned - well, some do, and they're generally considered nuisances.

Illegalitarian

5th November 2014, 23:30

I don't find you tiresome, I find you amusing, particularly looking at how much you try to be offensive and how no one rises to the bait is pure comedy gold. And this isn't about you - good grief, it was never about you, can you for once not talk about yourself? - but the tendency of the more vocal RL anarchists to turn every thread where Trotsky is mentioned into one big cry wank over how bwaaah evil Trotsky did this and that to anarchists and "anarchists" (Esers anarchists, really? drunkposting is bad for you). If Trotskyist users reacted the same way every time Stalin was mentioned - well, some do, and they're generally considered nuisances.

You are either being willfully delusional or did not read this threat at all.

It was you lot who started whipping out the tired Bolshevik propaganda about obscure white generals being tied in with the anti-bolshevik left, no one started jumping on Trotsky as an individual out of no where in the way you seem to be implying

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 23:32

I don't find you tiresome, I find you amusing, particularly looking at how much you try to be offensive and how no one rises to the bait is pure comedy gold.

You're offended. Don't pretend you're not.

And this isn't about you

Then why did you make it about me?

good grief, it was never about you, can you for once not talk about yourself?

As soon as you stop talking about me, sure.

but the tendency of the more vocal RL anarchists to turn every thread where Trotsky is mentioned into one big cry wank over how bwaaah evil Trotsky did this and that to anarchists and "anarchists" (Esers anarchists, really? drunkposting is bad for you). If Trotskyist users reacted the same way every time Stalin was mentioned - well, some do, and they're generally considered nuisances.

Here you go again...You and your insane interpretations of events.

The Feral Underclass

5th November 2014, 23:33

PhoenixAsh

6th November 2014, 00:14

Wait...what? We are not supposed to talk about what we think of Trotskyism and Trotsky in a thread especially about the subject? :confused:

This seems to now be a Fight Club thread. First rule is...

Sharia Lawn

6th November 2014, 01:12

I was mocking your ilks cry baby parade throughout this entire thread and focusing on individual anarchists based on what was clearly propaganda, it's not my fault that you saw this as an out from the shitty politics being displayed ITT and decided to ride that train into strawman town.

I like how everyone is forgetting what happened literally just a few pages ago when the bolshebabies started waxing fallaciously about white terror. Yeah, we're being petty and child like, completely spot on :o

Who is my ilk? You're making the same assumptions TFU has.

Zoroaster

6th November 2014, 01:18

This seems to now be a Fight Club thread. First rule is...

Don't talk about Fight Club.....

Yeah, I said it.

Rule number two: do not....

Zoroaster

6th November 2014, 01:21

Also, whoah. My insult "bolshebabies" is catching on. I'm happy.

Illegalitarian

6th November 2014, 01:24

His Name Was Ramon Mercader

Also, whoah. My insult "bolshebabies" is catching on. I'm happy.

It rolls off the tongue and is extremely apt, I couldn't help myself :D

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 08:50

I love that Izvestia keeps pretending he's not a Leninist.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th November 2014, 11:50

You are either being willfully delusional or did not read this threat at all.

It was you lot who started whipping out the tired Bolshevik propaganda about obscure white generals being tied in with the anti-bolshevik left, no one started jumping on Trotsky as an individual out of no where in the way you seem to be implying

Having re-read the thread - wasting minutes of my life I am never going to get back - I couldn't find any mention of "obscure white generals". I did notice Geiseric mentioned Savinkov, a man the good Orthodox Emperor and Autocrat did not appoint to the rank of a general, although he was part of the White movement. The claim was that certain anarchists associated with Savinkov. I have no idea if it's true or not, and Geiseric presumably hasn't given us any evidence (I wouldn't know; I have him on ignore). In fact I suspect the mistake (if it is a mistake) comes from the same source as TFU's praise of Spiridonova: a conflation of Esers with anarchists.

In fact that is something I've noticed a lot of supposed anarchists do; they ignore actual Russian anarchists in favour of Esers. The political background of this is the close relation of the Bolsheviks and actual anarchists, barring Makhno's group and the traitors Kropotkin, Burtsev and so on.

So if you can't find anti-Bolshevik anarchists outside the Ukraine, you make them up, using as material one of the most pro-state parties in Russia!

As for the claim that "no one started jumping on Trotsky as an individual out of no where", the usual hired mourners were first heard on page two. Two out of ten as of time of writing. In fact this thread is a little compendium of the usual RevLeft fallacies, misinterpretations and outright lies - from the claim that the Esers were anarchists, to some imagined golden age of the Soviets, usually placed in the time of the fucking Provisional Government, that the evil Bolsheviks put an end to, to the old claims about Bolsheviks being German agents (ignoring of course that the same was said of anarchists - and repeating without blushing the worst crap of the social-chauvinists as the latest in socialist thought) and so on.

You're offended. Don't pretend you're not.

Boy, you couldn't begin to offend me with your kindergarten antics. It is obvious, though, that this is very important to you, which makes your abject failure all the more entertaining.

Here you go again...You and your insane interpretations of events.

Apparently you've run out of imagined "libertarians" to grieve over, so now you're just repeating "interpretation, interpretation" as if that was ever an argument. Of course you don't say what I'm misinterpreting, and in fact you can't.

Sharia Lawn

6th November 2014, 11:52

I love that Izvestia keeps pretending he's not a Leninist.

Based on your normal level of participation on the forum, it is not surprising that you would have a hard time understanding how somebody could know so much about a tendency they don't belong to.

You can continue taking guesses about my politics in your de rigueur efforts at derailing discussions, issuing ad hominem attacks, and trolling. Or if you have any questions about my politics, I will be more than happy to answer.

One thing that I hope is obvious is that I do not define my politics on the basis of a single person. I am not a Leninist, a Trotskyist, a Bakuninist, or any other Great Personist.

In contrast to you, I am more interested in arguments than in worshiping or tearing down individuals, living or dead.

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 11:55

Boy, you couldn't begin to offend me with your kindergarten antics. It is obvious, though, that this is very important to you, which makes your abject failure all the more entertaining.

Apparently you've run out of imagined "libertarians" to grieve over, so now you're just repeating "interpretation, interpretation" as if that was ever an argument. Of course you don't say what I'm misinterpreting, and in fact you can't.

Awww, don't cry. It's gonna be okay :crying:

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th November 2014, 11:58

Awww, don't cry. It's gonna be okay :crying:

I think you were supposed to say that facing a mirror. But don't worry, even when it's posted here everyone knows the intention so there will be no confusion on the matter.

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 12:05

I think you were supposed to say that facing a mirror. But don't worry, even when it's posted here everyone knows the intention so there will be no confusion on the matter.

You realise you never responded to my claim that you don't actually do any practical politics and that you're basically a theory-book revolutionary (like an armchair revolutionary, but one that gets their theory down to make them look like they know what they're talking about).

Sharia Lawn

6th November 2014, 12:09

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th November 2014, 12:25

You realise you never responded to my claim that you don't actually do any practical politics and that you're basically a theory-book revolutionary (like an armchair revolutionary, but one that gets their theory down to make them look like they know what they're talking about).

Apparently you're taking points from PhoenixAsh now. Congratulations on understanding his Anglo-Dutch.

It doesn't matter, really, because my personal circumstances don't affect my argument one iota. But I am going to answer it anyway, since I'm a bit tired of the same accusation being dragged out. Come on, I want to see new, interesting ones, like how I'm an agent of the Mukhabharat or how I'm personally responsible for the death of Pavluško Imširović or something like that.

Let's get one thing straight: I live in Croatia. Do you know where that is? It's the arse end of the universe, and I don't have the money to move out, nor do my personal circumstances allow for moving. As such, I am limited in what I can do, politically. I mean, I go to the gay pride parade once a year. I could also go join our Mandelists in waving their ridiculous flags and calling for victory to the "revolution" in Rojava, if I didn't think that was a betrayal of all the socialist left stands for.

I do political work - I translate articles and I talk to people and so on. But I am probably the only Trotskyist here who is not affiliated with the former United Secretariat group, who are effectively social-democrats. I would love it if I could snap my fingers and summon 5-10 Trotskyist cadre, but it's not going to happen. What the other "left" groups are doing is either nothing or is not something I would want to support as a united front action - for example, holding demonstrations in favour of the PKK and American intervention, or throwing paint at the offices of one of the bourgeois parties (that'll learn them, lads, that'll learn them).

If we add to that the fact that I have a job, and that my health hasn't been as good for the last year or so, and it's not just that I don't have to explain myself to you, there is nothing to explain. I would ask about what the LCI is doing, but I notice you've cut ties with them (or them with you, who knows).

PhoenixAsh, who is the most biased excuse for a moderator I've ever seen, and that's saying quite a lot, will also refer to one of my posts in the PYHO thread (should I start dredging up some other things that people have said there? no? didn't think so); the gist of the post was that in periods of demoralisation I'm not even sure I want socialism. I want the world to burn, not to get better. Yeah, wangsty wankery, but that's how it is. If you've never been demoralised in the present period, then you're a God's fool.

Sharia Lawn

6th November 2014, 12:25

In fact that is something I've noticed a lot of supposed anarchists do; they ignore actual Russian anarchists in favour of Esers. The political background of this is the close relation of the Bolsheviks and actual anarchists, barring Makhno's group and the traitors Kropotkin, Burtsev and so on.

I think your decision to preface anarchists with supposed is wise. I have worked with many anarchists in real life, and some of them as individuals have taught me more than all the Trotskyists I have ever known, who are admittedly fewer in number. Those anarchists are incredibly intelligent, fair-minded, and passionate about their politics. I'm not sure why they avoid revleft, but they could do nothing but raise the level if they ever chose to join, as this thread more than amply bears out. They would be embarrassed at many of the things being posted here.

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 12:42

This is a classic example of an ad hominem attack. Why should anybody dignify it with a serious response?

It may be considered an ad hominem attack, but I contend it's also true. I think it requires a serious response because 870 is proposing a course of action whereby it is politically justified to abandon sections of the class for political expedience.

I want to know, in that case, what experience 870 has with interacting with working class people, what campaigns he has fought, what struggles has he waged with working class people to move the objectives of communism forward? What practice has he done with fellow workers that has allowed him to arrive at a decision that their hopes, dreams and lives mean nothing?

If he can't demonstrate that, which is what I am contending, then what credibility does he have? What difference does 870 have with any bourgeois politician who uses the working class as instruments for their own political success?

Now, you can very easily reject what I'm saying as some kind of appeal to emotion or "creepy" moralism, but someone can only really be that heartless if they've never had to actually witness working class people in struggle for themselves, first hand. That can only really be possible if someone has never had to sit with angry, depressed, despairing workers and worked out how to fight. Because any one who has actually been in a situation where they have been fighting with those people to make their lives better could not reasonably arrive at a decision that relegates them to nothing put lumps of flesh to be used in political power games.

Mao said "communism is not love. It is a weapon which we crush our enemies with" and I sympathise with that view. But if we are not capable of some basic empathy, respect and dedication to our class, then what and who are we really fighting for?

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 12:46

It doesn't matter, really, because my personal circumstances don't affect my argument one iota.

Well it does as a matter of fact.

Let's get one thing straight: I live in Croatia. Do you know where that is? It's the arse end of the universe, and I don't have the money to move out, nor do my personal circumstances allow for moving. As such, I am limited in what I can do, politically. I mean, I go to the gay pride parade once a year. I could also go join our Mandelists in waving their ridiculous flags and calling for victory to the "revolution" in Rojava, if I didn't think that was a betrayal of all the socialist left stands for.

I do political work - I translate articles and I talk to people and so on. But I am probably the only Trotskyist here who is not affiliated with the former United Secretariat group, who are effectively social-democrats. I would love it if I could snap my fingers and summon 5-10 Trotskyist cadre, but it's not going to happen. What the other "left" groups are doing is either nothing or is not something I would want to support as a united front action - for example, holding demonstrations in favour of the PKK and American intervention, or throwing paint at the offices of one of the bourgeois parties (that'll learn them, lads, that'll learn them).

If we add to that the fact that I have a job, and that my health hasn't been as good for the last year or so, and it's not just that I don't have to explain myself to you, there is nothing to explain.

I'm not asking you to justify why you don't do any activity; I don't actually care. I'm simply asking what activity you do that has allowed you to formulate your politics. The answer is none. So my accusation stands true. You are a theory-book revolutionary and therefore have no credibility to determine good practice, since you have never experienced any.

But thank you for being honest.

I would ask about what the LCI is doing, but I notice you've cut ties with them (or them with you, who knows).

Nothing, that's why I left...And I haven't cut ties with them, I'm just not a member any more.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th November 2014, 12:57

It may be considered an ad hominem attack, but I contend it's also true. I think it requires a serious response because 870 is proposing a course of action whereby it is politically justified to abandon sections of the class for political expedience.

I want to know, in that case, what experience 870 has with interacting with working class people, what campaigns he has fought, what struggles has he waged with working class people to move the objectives of communism forward? What practice has he done with fellow workers that has allowed him to arrive at a decision that their hopes, dreams and lives mean nothing?

If he can't demonstrate that, which is what I am contending, then what credibility does he have? What difference does 870 have with any bourgeois politician who uses the working class as instruments for their own political success?

Now, you can very easily reject what I'm saying as some kind of appeal to emotion or "creepy" moralism, but someone can only really be that heartless if they've never had to actually witness working class people in struggle for themselves, first hand. That can only really be possible if someone has never had to sit with angry, depressed, despairing workers and worked out how to fight. Because any one who has actually been in a situation where they have been fighting with those people to make their lives better could not reasonably arrive at a decision that relegates them to nothing put lumps of flesh to be used in political power games.

Mao said "communism is not love. It is a weapon which we crush our enemies with" and I sympathise with that view. But if we are not capable of some basic empathy, respect and dedication to our class, then what and who are we really fighting for?

It is an appeal to emotion, and not an entirely convincing one, either. See, you made the leap from the fact that my political activity is limited by my circumstances to the inference that I've "never had to actually witness working class people in struggle for themselves", which is wrong. Of course I have witnessed working-class struggle, both in my own workplaces and in those of friends and family. It's just that I don't have the boundless arrogance to be a one-man organisation and go to the striking workers in order to teach them how to fight. If I don't have anything to bring to the workers, I will respectfully stay out.

Not to mention that your new-found empathy for the workers rings hollow, as just a few pages ago you were willing to sacrifice any number of them to stop "one of the most conservative anti-worker imperialist powers". As socialists we do uphold the historic tasks of the proletariat above temporary gains. But this does not mean that we do not have empathy. Merely that we understand that only socialism, only the end of class society, is going to secure a better future for the workers.

Sharia Lawn

6th November 2014, 13:02

Well it does as a matter of fact.

How do the political activities 870 might or might not pursue outside of this forum, which are really nobody's business but his, affect the validity of the arguments he presents on it? It's almost as if you don't want to talk about the arguments, and change the topic to 870 as a person, because you lack confidence in your own arguments.

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 13:03

It is an appeal to emotion, and not an entirely convincing one, either. See, you made the leap from the fact that my political activity is limited by my circumstances to the inference that I've "never had to actually witness working class people in struggle for themselves", which is wrong. Of course I have witnessed working-class struggle, both in my own workplaces and in those of friends and family. It's just that I don't have the boundless arrogance to be a one-man organisation and go to the striking workers in order to teach them how to fight. If I don't have anything to bring to the workers, I will respectfully stay out.

You really do love building those strawmen, don't you?

Whatever, so you are just heartless. Suit yourself.

Not to mention that your new-found empathy for the workers rings hollow, as just a few pages ago you were willing to sacrifice any number of them to stop "one of the most conservative anti-worker imperialist powers". As socialists we do uphold the historic tasks of the proletariat above temporary gains.

Well, that could only be true if you foolishly assume that I agree with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries. I don't remember ever saying that I did, only that your interpretation of events were wrong. Which they were. Just like I defend anarchists against misrepresentation from snotty little Trots like you, so I do with the LSRs when the same snotty little Trots wish to revise history.

If you want to know my opinion on the matter, you only have to ask.

But this does not mean that we do not have empathy. Merely that we understand that only socialism, only the end of class society, is going to secure a better future for the workers.

Not if we do it your way it isn't.

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 13:04

How do the political activities 870 might or might not pursue outside of this forum, which are really nobody's business but his, affect the validity of the arguments he presents on it? It's almost as if you don't want to talk about the arguments, and change the topic to 870 as a person, because you lack confidence in your own arguments.

Here's another directive for you: Pay more attention.

Sharia Lawn

6th November 2014, 13:11

Here's another directive for you: Pay more attention.

I have paid attention, and haven't seen a sufficient response. You claimed that people can't take 870 seriously if he didn't a certain amount of political work around the working class. I find that to be a ridiculous argument. Firstly, not all the arguments here are directly related to workers' experiences but are just a matter of historical record and interpretation. Secondly, it is possible for people to arrive at knowledge through many avenues, not necessarily just through experience. As I said, I have learned much from anarchists without having to replicate those anarchists' experience.

Illegalitarian

6th November 2014, 22:18

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th November 2014, 22:45

The few anarchists who sided with the Boles are the "true anarchists" and Makhno and Kropotkin are traitors. Could you No True Scotsman any harder at all?

And Goldman, and . . . right, like, every significant organization of Russian anarchists.

Plus, like, a significant part of the international communist left.

motion denied

6th November 2014, 22:54

A part of the communist left considered the Russian revolution a bourgeois one much later, though, no?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th November 2014, 22:58

The few anarchists who sided with the Boles are the "true anarchists" and Makhno and Kropotkin are traitors. Could you No True Scotsman any harder at all?

It seems you don't quite get it: most anarchists sided with the Bolsheviks, from the sailor anarchists around Zheleznyak, to the Black Flag group. The Red Army contained a lot of anarchists, anarchists sailors closed the sacred Constituent Assembly etc. The situation with Makhno caused some of the anarchists to break with the Bolsheviks, but not all.

Kropotkin was a traitor, yes, he betrayed the class by supporting Entente imperialism. I thought this was common knowledge, but I look forward to the hand-wringing and special pleading that is likely to follow.

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 23:28

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

6th November 2014, 23:33

You say "most anarchists," but I think that's somewhat of an exaggeration. Soviet anarchists were not a majority of the entire Russian anarchist movement.

That might depend on how you count things. Generally dismissing them as "few anarchists" is absurd.

Kropotkin certainly fucked up by giving critical support to the allies.

He didn't just fuck up, which would imply this was a single error that he came to regret, he betrayed completely, just as Plekhanov, Chernov and others did. That was certainly how both the Bolsheviks (Lenin calling Kropotkin a "sad case") and anarchists like Malatesta saw it.

The Feral Underclass

6th November 2014, 23:50

He didn't just fuck up, which would imply this was a single error that he came to regret, he betrayed completely, just as Plekhanov, Chernov and others did. That was certainly how both the Bolsheviks (Lenin calling Kropotkin a "sad case") and anarchists like Malatesta saw it.

I don't accept any narrative that positions Kropotkin as some kind of nefarious imperialist character. He fucked up and he never saw the error of his way. Was that a betrayal? I suppose you could characterise it that way, but I think it would be unfair. He was heavily criticised for it and rightly so, but as Malatesta said, "I have said what I had to say. I do not think my strictures on him can diminish Kropotkin, the person, who remains, in spite of everything one of the shining lights of our movement. If they are just, they will serve to show that no man is free from error, not even when he is gifted with the great intelligence and the generous heart of a Kropotkin. In any case anarchists will always find in his writings a treasury of fertile ideas and in his life an example and an incentive in the struggle for all that is good." (Peter Kropotkin -- Recollections and Criticisms of an Old Friend)

BIXX

7th November 2014, 01:30

...to the Black Flag group.
Which one? There were a couple.

But yeah it cannot be said that the majority of anarchists supported the bolesheviks.

Bala Perdida

7th November 2014, 02:50

Didn't Berkman and Emma work for the SU before they were exiled. Or was that just Berkman who was exiled? Either way, they didn't like the Bolsheviks either.

PhoenixAsh

7th November 2014, 08:57

PhoenixAsh, will also refer to one of my posts in the PYHO thread (should I start dredging up some other things that people have said there? no? didn't think so); the gist of the post was that in periods of demoralisation I'm not even sure I want socialism. I want the world to burn, not to get better. Yeah, wangsty wankery, but that's how it is. If you've never been demoralised in the present period, then you're a God's fool.

The post lamented your lack of activist experience.

That was hugely relevant because not one day before you felt yourself in a position to not only criticize but completely reject and dismis actual activists and the communist resistance fighters based on their activism during WWII in your usual contemptuous method.

And yes. In such cases it is hugely relevant if your knowledge and experience is limited to, as I called it in that context, an ivory tower of theory and the benefit of safety and hidsight.

PhoenixAsh, who is the most biased excuse for a moderator I've ever seen, and that's saying quite a lot

To put it extremely blunt:

I don't like your politics. But most of all I don't like your contemptuous, dismissive, judgemental, callous and highly duplicitous methods with which you apply them. Personally I think your position on the working class and how they should be treated by the supposed vanguard that supposedly works in their interests (say...like taking wives and children hostage and executing them as punishment for striking workers. Or your callous surrendering of swats of the working class to fascists and imperialist entities) is beyond dispicable.

Beyond that I have nothing but contemtp for the strawman debates you create, the red herrings you use and the way your prosecutionist mentality penetrates almost everything you do on this forum.

I am indeed biased against your political position. And I do not like you as a person.

That is not to say you do not have a huge amount of theoretical knowledge. It says nothing about whether or not you actually manage to make highly usefull contributions at times (even when I do not agree with them). But it says everything about you as a person and your political position.

Do NOT pretend you are not biased against Anarchists because you have repeatedly voiced your utmost contempt for the Anarchist movement as well as a whole host of different users from different tendencies on this forum. You are in fact..one of the most judgmental and biased individuals on this forum at the moment. So you calling me out for being biased...is kind of deeply ironic.

So I hope this clarifies this for you.

You insist on bringing up my moderator status however. So lets put that "OMG but he is a moderator and now I feel intimidated"- whine you seem to be cultivating in perpsective.

While I have hugely heated debates and I most certainly can be and do not shy away from being abrasive or even insulting at times...I give as good as I get. And while I most definately have my opinions about certain tendencies and certain members, you will be extremely hard pressed to find cases I used my moderator position against you or against those tendencies....ever. OR find cases in which I used my position against members who insulted me, flamed me or whom I flamed or insulted.

So no. That shit simply doesn't fly and it sure as hell has never stopped you from venting your often highly insulting thoughts about me and my politics or my tendency.

Illegalitarian

7th November 2014, 08:59

It seems you don't quite get it: most anarchists sided with the Bolsheviks, from the sailor anarchists around Zheleznyak, to the Black Flag group. The Red Army contained a lot of anarchists, anarchists sailors closed the sacred Constituent Assembly etc. The situation with Makhno caused some of the anarchists to break with the Bolsheviks, but not all.

Kropotkin was a traitor, yes, he betrayed the class by supporting Entente imperialism. I thought this was common knowledge, but I look forward to the hand-wringing and special pleading that is likely to follow.

There were many black flag groups, and anarchist sailors were certainly an exception to the rule. The majority of anarchist organizations, individuals, and many other communists of the day did, indeed, not side with the Bolsheviks, this is simply false.

Kropotkin's support for the Entente was problematic to say the least, but he was certainly not a 'non-real anarchist' because of it.

Though one must wonder: if Kropotkin is a traitor for his support of the allies, what did that make Lenin and friends who went into full siege mentality during the revolution and started violently suppressing and killing out other communists, and in the end simply implementing capitalist reform.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th November 2014, 10:53

There were many black flag groups, and anarchist sailors were certainly an exception to the rule. The majority of anarchist organizations, individuals, and many other communists of the day did, indeed, not side with the Bolsheviks, this is simply false.

I was under the impression that Roshchin's pro-Soviet group was the most important of the various splinters and remnants of the old Black Flag group. But alright - who were these anarchists who did not side with the Bolsheviks? Who were these "other communists"? On the side of "Soviet anarchism" I can name Roshchin, Shatov, Zheleznyak, Ges, Novomirsky, Sandomirsky and so on - on the side of anti-soviet anarchism I can think of only the Maknovtsy, the social-chauvinists like Kropotkin, and some Tuckerites (and yes, I do think the status of Tuckerites, Mutualists etc. as anarchists is questionable to say the least). As for "other communists", I have no idea. Perhaps you mean pond scum like the remnants of the Mensheviks after anyone with relatively decent politics departed. Some communists.

Kropotkin's support for the Entente was problematic to say the least, but he was certainly not a 'non-real anarchist' because of it.

Alright, let's make something clear: Kropotkin, of his own free will, several times, endorsed Anglo-French and Russian imperialism. If that doesn't call his anarchism at that point into question, then it seems that anarchism has nothing to do with the internationalist struggle of the working class to overthrow class society. A position I am not willing to take as, PhoenixAsh's claims aside, I don't dislike anarchists. I dislike the sort of weird anarcho-Stalinism that is oddly popular on RevLeft, but when it comes to things like opposition to imperialist war, I trust the actual anarchists more than I trust many self-proclaimed Leninists (not that you could tell from RevLeft). Anyway, it doesn't matter if Kropotkin dreamed of an anarchist society that would somehow be established after an Entente victory. Plekhanov would have likewise said that socialism will be established at some point in the future after all that bayoneting Germans business has been taken care of.

Why do people make excuses for Kropotkin? The anarchist movement of the time certainly didn't. It just shows the political degeneration of some currents. I wonder if people are going to start making excuses for Petlyura next. I mean, he was opposed to Bolsheviks, and was nominally a "socialist". He even had Eser members in his cabinet. Or maybe Zhordania. It's all a bit weird.

Though one must wonder: if Kropotkin is a traitor for his support of the allies, what did that make Lenin and friends who went into full siege mentality during the revolution and started violently suppressing and killing out other communists, and in the end simply implementing capitalist reform.

I don't know, what does that make people who repeat the same baseless assertions over and over? What leftists did "Lenin and friends" (surely you mean the CheKa, which included Esers and anarchists, and was led by a former member of the Social-Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania close to Luxemburg, and a former Menshevik in Petrograd)? Makhno was suppressed for endangering the grain requisition; the Left SR central committee for trying to drag the country back into an imperialist war. The Moscow Tuckerites bombed the headquarters of the Bolsheviks. So, it's alright for the anarchists to bomb the Bolsheviks, but not for the Bolsheviks to shoot back? I see.

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 10:57

So, it's alright for the anarchists to bomb the Bolsheviks, but not for the Bolsheviks to shoot back? I see.

Why do you imagine they felt the need to "bomb" Bolsheviks in the first place? I mean, if they were such a home to anarchists as you imply, why was it that others felt the need to actively resist?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th November 2014, 11:02

Why do you imagine they felt the need to "bomb" Bolsheviks in the first place? I mean, if they were such a home to anarchists as you imply, why was it that others felt the need to actively resist?

Because the Tuckerites and the Makhnovtsy, unlike most of the urban, Jewish and Polish anarchist groups, represented the interests of the ruined petite bourgeoisie and particularly the peasantry that was being bled dry by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This much is obvious from their own words - the constant complaints about the food dictatorship etc. The Tuckerites also had no concept of civil war, apparently, and complained every time a Kadet or Menshevik rag was shut down.

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 11:12

Didn't Berkman and Emma work for the SU before they were exiled. Or was that just Berkman who was exiled? Either way, they didn't like the Bolsheviks either.

Initially they were both very excited and supportive of the Bolsheviks. While they obviously felt uneasy about the role of the state, they believed it was a turning point.

That changed fairly quickly, and they fast became disillusioned with the revolution. After the events of 1921, with the defeat of Makhno at the hands of the Red Army as well as the breaking of the Petrograd strike and the attack on Kronstadat, they left.

You can read Emma Goldman's report on her experiences in My Disillusionment in Russia. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/)

Art Vandelay

7th November 2014, 11:25

Why do people make excuses for Kropotkin?
It really is odd, given the fact that the Marxist equivalent (Kautsky), was essentially tarred and feathered (rightfully so), for his similar social-chauvinist position.

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 11:28

Because the Tuckerites and the Makhnovtsy, unlike most of the urban, Jewish and Polish anarchist groups, represented the interests of the ruined petite bourgeoisie and particularly the peasantry that was being bled dry by the dictatorship of the proletariat. This much is obvious from their own words - the constant complaints about the food dictatorship etc. The Tuckerites also had no concept of civil war, apparently, and complained every time a Kadet or Menshevik rag was shut down.

Putting aside your bullshit about the anarchist communists in Ukraine, how do you account for the resistance of anarchist communists and anarcho-syndicalists in urban centres?

If the social anarchists and Bolsheviks in urban areas were so supportive of one another, why is it that the Bolsheviks saw the need to brutally repress them? Are you saying that this had nothing to do with the anarchist response to the Bolsheviks? Or is Emma Goldman just a liar?

In April, 1918, came another blow. By order of Trotsky the Anarchist headquarters in Moscow were attacked with artillery, some Anarchists wounded, a large number arrested, and all Anarchist activities "liquidated."

The undersigned Anarcho-syndicalist organizations after having carefully considered the situation that has developed lately in connection with the persecution of Anarchists in Moscow, Petrograd, Kharkov, and other cities of Russia and the Ukraine, including the forcible suppression of Anarchist organizations, clubs, publications, etc., hereby express their decisive and energetic protest against this despotic crushing of not only every agitational and propagandistic activity, but even of all purely cultural work by Anarchist organizations.

The systematic man-hunt of Anarchists in general, and of Anarcho-syndicalists in particular, with the result that every prison and jail in Soviet Russia is filled with our comrades, fully coincided in time and spirit with Lenin's speech at the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party. On that occasion Lenin announced that the most merciless war must be declared against what he termed "petty bourgeois Anarchist elements" which, according to him, are developing even within the Communist Party itself owing to the "anarcho-syndicalist tendencies of the Labour Opposition." On that very day that Lenin made the above statements numbers of Anarchists were arrested all over the country, without the least cause or explanation. No charges have been preferred against any one of the imprisoned comrades, though some of them have already been condemned to long terms without hearing or trial, and in their absence. The conditions of their imprisonment are exceptionally vile and brutal. Thus one of the arrested, Comrade Maximov, after numerous vain protests against the incredibly unhygienic conditions in which he was forced to exist, was driven to the only means of protest left him-a hunger strike. Another comrade, Yarchuk, released after an imprisonment of six days, was soon rearrested without any charges being preferred against him on either occasion.

According to reliable information received by us, some of the arrested Anarchists are being sent to the prisons of Samara, far away from home and friends, and thus deprived of what little comradely assistance they might have been able to receive nearer home. A number of other comrades have been forced by the terrible conditions of their imprisonment to declare a hunger strike. One of them, after hungering twelve days, became dangerously ill.

Even physical violence is practised upon our comrades in prison. The statement of the Anarchists in the Butyrki prison in Moscow, signed by thirty-eight comrades, and sent to the Executive Committee of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission on March 16th, contains, among other things, the following statement: "On March 15th Comrade T. Kashirin was brutally attacked and beaten in the prison of the Special Department of the Extraordinary Commission by your agent Mago and assistants, in the presence of the prison warden Dookiss."

Besides the wholesale arrests of and the physical violence toward our comrades, the Government is waging systematic war against our educational work. It has closed a number of our clubs, as well as the Moscow office of the publishing establishment of the Anarcho-syndicalist organization Golos Truda. A similar man-hunt took place in Petrograd on March 15th. Numbers of Anarchists were arrested, without cause, the printing house of Golos Truda was closed, and its workers imprisoned. No charges have been preferred against the arrested comrades, all of whom are still in prison.

These unbearably autocratic tactics of the Government towards the Anarchists are unquestionably the result of the general policy of the Bolshevik State in the exclusive control of the Communist Party in regard to Anarchism, Syndicalism, and their adherents.

Persecution Of Anarchists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/ch28.htm)

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 11:32

It really is odd, given the fact that the Marxist equivalent (Kautsky), was essentially tarred and feathered (rightfully so), for his similar social-chauvinist position.

To make an excuse for someone you have to actually provide a justification for their actions. Since neither I nor Illegalitarian have done that, instead pointedly acknowledging his deviation, what are you guys actually talking about?

Can you actually identify what this excuse is that's been made? Can you show it in a post?

Art Vandelay

7th November 2014, 11:44

To make an excuse for someone you have to actually provide a justification for what their actions. Since neither I nor Illegalitarian have done that, instead pointedly acknowledging his deviation, what are you guys actually talking about?

Can you actually identify what this excuse is that's been made? Can you show it in a post?

Nah, I don't have to, especially since the dictionary seems to disagree with you.

ex·cuse
verb
ikˈskyo͞oz/
1.
attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

2.
release (someone) from a duty or requirement.

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 11:49

Nah, I don't have to, especially since the dictionary seems to disagree with you.

Oh dear. Erm, using the verb to excuse and the verb to make an excuse are two different uses of the verb. When you make an excuse for someone you attempt to justify their actions, when you excuse someone, you give them permission to leave. They're two very different uses of the verb.

When 870 said, "Why do people make excuses for Kropotkin?" he was using the verb as defined in the first definition (i.e. the one I used). If he had said "why do people attempt to excuse Kropotkin" then the second definition would have applied.

In any case, even if you were right, can you show where either myself or Illegalitarian "released Kropotkin from a duty or requirement"?

Devrim

7th November 2014, 11:54

I don't accept any narrative that positions Kropotkin as some kind of nefarious imperialist character. He fucked up and he never saw the error of his way. Was that a betrayal? I suppose you could characterise it that way, but I think it would be unfair.

Those who took sides in the first imperialist war betrayed. It's as simple as that.

Whether or not some people thinks it's unfair is irrelevant.

Devrim

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 12:07

I made a post and then I deleted it.

I deleted it because I think it's only right to concede that it was a betrayal. It was a betrayal of his ideas and of the working class. But I find it completely tacky and disingenuous for two Trots to be holding up this line about a man they politically reject. Especially when you consider they support the brutal suppression of those who struggled for his ideas that was meted out in Russia. They don't feel betrayed at all, they are just attempting to score political points against an eminent figure in the anarchist movement.

Devrim

7th November 2014, 12:10

I want to know, in that case, what experience 870 has with interacting with working class people, what campaigns he has fought, what struggles has he waged with working class people to move the objectives of communism forward? What practice has he done with fellow workers that has allowed him to arrive at a decision that their hopes, dreams and lives mean nothing?

I presume as you have demanded it of somebody else you are going to give us a long list of your great proletarian credentials.

It doesn't mean anything though. Somebody's arguments are not proved right by the fact that they have been involved in more things. By that type of thinking Trotsky would be right by definition on the degeneration of the Russian revolution.

I'd also presume that I have more involvement in workplace struggle than the vast majority of people on here. I don't think though that that makes me right on workplaces issues though, and I'd think that behaving like it does is the worse form of arrogance.

The vast majority of people on here including yourself, with the exception of people from a few countries, are simply not old enough to have taken part in large scale struggles. For somebody to accuse someone from a region where the working class was so utterly defeated that it butchered itself in a series of wars of not taking part in enough class struggle is, in my humble opinion, particularly offensive.

Devrim

Art Vandelay

7th November 2014, 12:11

Oh dear. Erm, using the verb to excuse and the verb to make an excuse are two different uses of the verb. When you make an excuse for someone you attempt to justify their actions, when you excuse someone, you give them permission to leave. They're two very different uses of the verb.

That is quite an interesting interpretation of the english lamguage; once again, the dictionary would appear to disagree. To 'excuse' someone isn't limited to the notion of providing a narrative for their choices, or giving someone permission 'to leave,' but rather also applies to letting someone off the hook, so to speak.

regard or judge with forgiveness or indulgence; pardon or forgive; overlook (a fault, error, etc.)

When 870 said, "Why do people make excuses for Kropotkin?" he was using the verb as defined in the first definition (i.e. the one I used). If he had said "why do people attempt to excuse Kropotkin" then the second definition would have applied.

Again, I'd suggest brushing off the dust of that dictionary sitting in your bookshelf.

In any case, even if you were right, can you show where either myself or Illegalitarian "released Kropotkin from a duty or requirement"?

The fact that you consider the man an anarchist (regardless of the fact that he wrote some interesting pieces of political theory at one point in his life), despite the fact that he chose sides in an inter imperialist conflict, where workers were being gutted by members of their class, really speaks for itself.

The fact remains that in the pantheon of radical politics, he stands on the same side of the barricade as Kautsky, Plekhanov, etc...he stands with the folks who fell to the pressure of their own national bourgeoisie when it came time to put their money where their mouth was. Call him an 'anarchist' all you like, but I think it would be an insult to be the proper ones; at the very least, it certainly would be to the anarchists I know and occasionally organize with. The man was a traitor to the proletarian cause.

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 12:24

That is quite an interesting interpretation of the english lamguage; once again, the dictionary would appear to disagree.

This is coming from someone who misspells the word 'English' and 'language' and doesn't know how to use a semi-colon.

Dude, the definitions you provided, one of which you claim is correct, are two different uses of the verb. That's not an interpretation, it's literally what they mean. There's nothing incorrect about what I said.

To 'excuse' someone isn't limited to the notion of providing a narrative for their choices, or giving someone permission 'to leave,' but rather also applies to letting someone off the hook, so to speak.

A definition you didn't provide as being correct...You said that 870 meant, "release (someone) from a duty or requirement." I can't be held responsible for the fact you're not able to articulate yourself effectively.

And in any case, neither I nor Illegalitarian have done that...

The fact that you consider the man an anarchist (regardless of the fact that he wrote some interesting pieces of political theory at one point in his life), despite the fact that he chose sides in an inter imperialist conflict, where workers were being gutted by members of their class, really speaks for itself.

Not just at one point in his life, through his entire life.

He was an anarchist. He was an anarchist that was fundamentally wrong about the first world war. I don't see why any one should brush aside his contribution to anarchist thought because of this fact.

And you're a fucking Trot. I don't see what right you have to criticise someone for making a politically misguided decision on a particular issue when you support a man who actually murdered and suppressed anarchists...Not to mention the fact you've come to the defence of 870 who himself said it was perfectly acceptable to abandon sections of the working class to German imperialist domination because it was politically expedient. So is 870 a traitor too? Does it mean he's not a Trotskyist?

The fact remains that in the pantheon of radical politics, he stands on the same side of the barricade as Kautsky, Plekhanov, etc...he stands with the folks who fell to the pressure of their own national bourgeoisie when it came time to put their money where their mouth was. Call him an 'anarchist' all you like, but I think it would be an insult to be the proper ones; at the very least, it certainly would be to the anarchists I know and occasionally organize with.

:rolleyes:

Well, those anarchists you "occasionally" organise with need to grow up.

Sharia Lawn

7th November 2014, 12:33

In any case, even if you were right, can you show where either myself or Illegalitarian "released Kropotkin from a duty or requirement"?

*where either Illegalitarian or I...

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 12:35

I presume as you have demanded it of somebody else you are going to give us a long list of your great proletarian credentials.

It doesn't mean anything though. Somebody's arguments are not proved right by the fact that they have been involved in more things. By that type of thinking Trotsky would be right by definition on the degeneration of the Russian revolution.

I'd also presume that I have more involvement in workplace struggle than the vast majority of people on here. I don't think though that that makes me right on workplaces issues though, and I'd think that behaving like it does is the worse form of arrogance.

The vast majority of people on here including yourself, with the exception of people from a few countries, are simply not old enough to have taken part in large scale struggles. For somebody to accuse someone from a region where the working class was so utterly defeated that it butchered itself in a series of wars of not taking part in enough class struggle is, in my humble opinion, particularly offensive.

Devrim

:rolleyes:

A) I didn't say that someone's ideas are proven right because they've been involved in "more things." The fact you read my point as some kind of competition is a testament to your insecurities more than anything else.

B) I didn't talk about large scale struggle as a prerequisite for anything. I didn't use "large scale struggle" as a qualifier at all in fact.

C) I didn't accuse him of not taking part in "enough class struggle." As I said very clearly, the reasons for why he hasn't isn't the issue. I'm not castigating 870 for not being part of class struggle.

What I was doing was pointing out that it's very easy for someone who has never been involved with interacting with working class people and been part of their struggles to dismiss entire sections of the working class abstractly.

I mean, it's all very interesting that you and 9mm reject Kropotkin and call him a traitor for not opposing the first world war that saw millions of workers die, but 870 very proudly exclaimed in this thread that abandoning entire sections of the working class -- in revolution -- to their domination by imperialist powers was perfectly justified if it was politically expedient. So why isn't he being criticised?

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 12:40

*where either Illegalitarian or I...

I can't tell if you're making a joke or not...

Sharia Lawn

7th November 2014, 12:43

I can't tell if you're making a joke or not...

You have been punctilious in drawing attention to and correcting other people's grammar and spelling errors, so I didn't think it was out of place to return the favor. You should know the proper usage of reflexive pronouns. In case you didn't, I figured I would assist.

Art Vandelay

7th November 2014, 12:44

This is coming from someone who misspells the word 'English' and 'language' and doesn't know how to use a semi-colon.

You caught me! I did forget to capitalize English and spelled language with an m, however I am going to excuse myself for that, given the fact that I am typing on a phone. Fixate on it as much as you would like though.

Dude, the definitions you provided, one of which you claim is correct, are two different uses of the verb. That's not an interpretation, it's literally what they mean. There's nothing incorrect about what I said.

It is pretty common knowledge what the term means, I figured it was clear what 870 meant in his post, I guess not. I think it is humorous though, that someone who has used their university credentials to lecture me on the English language in the past, apparently forgot one of the ways in which the word in question in used.

A definition you didn't provide as being correct...

You are absolutely right, however, I felt like it was quite clear what was (and is meant in general) by the term. It is true that I did not provide the proper definition, the first time around, but it does not make 870s comment any less accurate.

And you're a fucking Trot. I don't see what right you have to criticise someone for making a politically misguided decision on a particular issue when you support a man who actually murdered and suppressed anarchists.
Ouch.

Well, those anarchists you "occasionally" organise with need to grow up.

I will be sure to let them know. I am bored by this point, feel free to have the last word.

PhoenixAsh

7th November 2014, 12:46

I presume as you have demanded it of somebody else you are going to give us a long list of your great proletarian credentials.

It doesn't mean anything though. Somebody's arguments are not proved right by the fact that they have been involved in more things. By that type of thinking Trotsky would be right by definition on the degeneration of the Russian revolution.

I'd also presume that I have more involvement in workplace struggle than the vast majority of people on here. I don't think though that that makes me right on workplaces issues though, and I'd think that behaving like it does is the worse form of arrogance.

The vast majority of people on here including yourself, with the exception of people from a few countries, are simply not old enough to have taken part in large scale struggles. For somebody to accuse someone from a region where the working class was so utterly defeated that it butchered itself in a series of wars of not taking part in enough class struggle is, in my humble opinion, particularly offensive.

Devrim

So basically you haven't had the time to actually read the thread and just jumped in on the basis of "presumption".

Because what we have here is the argument that people are "proved" wrong based on one instance....and everybody who is vaguely associated with that individual in whatever connection, no matter how tenuous, is therefore also wrong and evil by proxy. THAT is essentially the line of argument the debate evolved from and Anarchists were presented with here. And it is the usual tactics the Bolsheviks use.

**

Now whether or not you are right in your assumption on your position relative to other users involvement in workplace stuggle...you are absolutely right that that experience doesn't automatically mean you are right on all issues. It DOES however mean that you speak from experience giving gravity to your arguments.

**

Ahhh...so there is nothing wrong with somebody with NO practical experience completely rejecting, dismissing and slandering people who are actual activists purely based on the convenience of the theory book , benefit of hindsight and unhampered by how activism actually works in reality. And this is not offensive and must be glossed over.

But it is offensive for those activists to actually ask that person in their ivory tower of theoretical arrogance to actually ligitimize their judgement beyond their lack of actual experience.

Double standards much?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th November 2014, 12:47

Putting aside your bullshit about the anarchist communists in Ukraine, how do you account for the resistance of anarchist communists and anarcho-syndicalists in urban centres?

If the social anarchists and Bolsheviks in urban areas were so supportive of one another, why is it that the Bolsheviks saw the need to brutally repress them? Are you saying that this had nothing to do with the anarchist response to the Bolsheviks? Or is Emma Goldman just a liar?

[...]

Persecution Of Anarchists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/ch28.htm)

E. Goldman was writing based on her personal impressions, and some years after the fact. On that account alone, we need to approach her writing critically, just as we would with Reed for example (e.g. Reed seriously overestimates the influence of United Internationalists, based on his partial knowledge of the situation). And yes, her writing does contain errors and some, well, interesting passages, such as when she discusses the seriously ill Balabanova going to recuperate in Italy, and deduces that she (Balabanova) was "spiritually sick" of the Revolution, it's just that she didn't know that (!). Or when she talks about Bukharin calling anarchists bandits, when the speech in question went to great lengths to distinguish

The incident you mention appears to have been a response of the CheKa (so, a formation not under the command of Trotsky, not that Trotsky would have disagreed with that course of actions, and in fact the CheKa in Moscow was mainly composed of Left SRs you so adore) to some wannabe-expropriators. That they thought of themselves as anarchists had nothing to do with the action.

The Workers' Opposition was attacked as "anarcho-syndicalist", but they weren't dragged outside and shot. They were ordered to dissolve and many of their demands were met. Lenin's speech concerned the anarcho-syndicalist deviation in the Bolshevik Party, not anarcho-syndicalists in general.

To make an excuse for someone you have to actually provide a justification for their actions. Since neither I nor Illegalitarian have done that, instead pointedly acknowledging his deviation, what are you guys actually talking about?

No, that doesn't follow. People make excuses for other people by downplaying the severity of their actions, brushing them aside as mere "mistakes" and so on. Which both you and Illegalitarian have done. I wonder if you actually grasp the principle at stake here - the opposition to imperialist war and the independence of the working class from various bourgeois factions. I mean, I wonder if you would make the same excuses for Bombacci. Oh, he just made a mistake. He was still a socialist.

He was an anarchist. He was an anarchist that was fundamentally wrong about the first world war. I don't see why any one should brush aside his contribution to anarchist thought because of this fact.

Plekhanov made contributions to Marxist thought, major ones.

Then the First World War came, Plekhanov sided with the Entente, and lost any right to call himself a revolutionary socialist.

That doesn't negate his previous contributions, but it isn't something that can be dismissed.

And you're a fucking Trot. I don't see what right you have to criticise someone for making a politically misguided decision on a particular issue when you support a man who actually murdered and suppressed anarchists.

:rolleyes: You can't help yourself, can you?

PhoenixAsh

7th November 2014, 12:52

I wonder if you actually grasp the principle at stake here - the opposition to imperialist war and the independence of the working class from various bourgeois factions. I mean, I wonder if you would make the same excuses for Bombacci. Oh, he just made a mistake. He was still a socialist.

Ahh so this is of course entirely different of surrendering huge swats of the proletariat to imperialist forces....or defending the murder of women and children of striking workers in order to break a strike.

Plekhanov made contributions to Marxist thought, major ones.

Then the First World War came, Plekhanov sided with the Entente, and lost any right to call himself a revolutionary socialist.

That doesn't negate his previous contributions, but it isn't something that can be dismissed.

Kind of like that surrendering of terrotory and large swats of the working class to consolidate power over the working class....

Yet you seem to not heed your own words here consistently. So individuals of other tendencies delegitimize those tendencies and their theory...but not when it woujld do the same to your tendency. Hmmm....

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 12:53

It is pretty common knowledge what the term means, I figured it was clear what 870 meant in his post, I guess not.

It was perfectly clear what he meant. I'm not the one having problems with it.

I think it is humorous though, that someone who has used their university credentials to lecture me on the English language in the past, apparently forgot one of the ways in which the word in question in used.

Wait a minute. You presented a definition for how 870 used the word "excuse" by saying that 870 meant to excuse someone, giving the definition "release from duty or requirement." That's what you said.

When you say you mean something and give the definition, emboldening it to make sure I know very clearly what you mean, I don't understand why it is then my responsibility to instinctively know that you actually meant something else...Nutjob.

And you realise, right, that you've still not actually demonstrated how either myself or Illegalitarian have made an excuse or excused Kropotkin based on any of the definitions of that word.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th November 2014, 12:56

Ahh so this is of course entirely different of surrendering huge swats of the proletariat to imperialist forces....

Yes, in fact it is, when the intention is to withdraw a badly bruised proletarian dictatorship from an intra-imperialist war or to strengthen the possibility of a revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. It boggles the mind that you can't see the difference, but as you seem to be in the habit of treating bourgeois war as some game where the goal is for the "good" side to win...

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2014, 13:00

E. Goldman was writing based on her personal impressions, and some years after the fact. On that account alone, we need to approach her writing critically, just as we would with Reed for example (e.g. Reed seriously overestimates the influence of United Internationalists, based on his partial knowledge of the situation). And yes, her writing does contain errors and some, well, interesting passages, such as when she discusses the seriously ill Balabanova going to recuperate in Italy, and deduces that she (Balabanova) was "spiritually sick" of the Revolution, it's just that she didn't know that (!). Or when she talks about Bukharin calling anarchists bandits, when the speech in question went to great lengths to distinguish

She left Russia in December 1921 and began writing the account in 1922, so when you say "some years" what you mean is "some months"...

The incident you mention appears to have been a response of the CheKa (so, a formation not under the command of Trotsky, not that Trotsky would have disagreed with that course of actions, and in fact the CheKa in Moscow was mainly composed of Left SRs you so adore) to some wannabe-expropriators. That they thought of themselves as anarchists had nothing to do with the action.

The Workers' Opposition was attacked as "anarcho-syndicalist", but they weren't dragged outside and shot. They were ordered to dissolve and many of their demands were met. Lenin's speech concerned the anarcho-syndicalist deviation in the Bolshevik Party, not anarcho-syndicalists in general.

Is this what you would normally call "making excuses"?

No, that doesn't follow. People make excuses for other people by downplaying the severity of their actions, brushing them aside as mere "mistakes" and so on. Which both you and Illegalitarian have done. I wonder if you actually grasp the principle at stake here - the opposition to imperialist war and the independence of the working class from various bourgeois factions. I mean, I wonder if you would make the same excuses for Bombacci. Oh, he just made a mistake. He was still a socialist.

Plekhanov made contributions to Marxist thought, major ones.

Then the First World War came, Plekhanov sided with the Entente, and lost any right to call himself a revolutionary socialist.

That doesn't negate his previous contributions, but it isn't something that can be dismissed.

The only way that Kropotkin didn't make a mistake was if we are to accept that Kroptokin was always some clandestine supporter of imperialism. His views on WW1 were not consistent with all of his other views, so unless all of his other views were lies, and this one view was actually the sum of everything Kropotkin thought, it is fair and right to call it a mistake.

In any case, I think I was clear when I said: "I think it's only right to concede that it was a betrayal. It was a betrayal of his ideas and of the working class."

:rolleyes: You can't help yourself, can you?

I'm a warrior for the truth, what can I say?

PhoenixAsh

7th November 2014, 14:52

Yes, in fact it is, when the intention is to withdraw a badly bruised proletarian dictatorship from an intra-imperialist war or to strengthen the possibility of a revolution in the advanced capitalist countries. It boggles the mind that you can't see the difference, but as you seem to be in the habit of treating bourgeois war as some game where the goal is for the "good" side to win...

No, it in fact isn't. In fact the peace treaty was a huge threat to the "proletarian dictatorship" and the only reason the Germans did not march on Moscow a few weeks later was because of the pressure on the Western Front. In the meantime the treaty, and the preceeding month of unilateral cease fire, cost more than a quarter of the workers and enabled the entente to pour half a million soldiers into a new offensive on the Western Front. Not to mention the fact that it only lasted for two months before the Bolsheviks could shrug their shoulders when the Turks started yet another imperialist war against the working class in former Revolutionary territory. And this is without even considering the abohorrent strategic loss during the civil war.

All the while the Germans were openly speaking of a follow up war against Russia....which ws the basis for their terrtorial demands.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

7th November 2014, 15:58

She left Russia in December 1921 and began writing the account in 1922, so when you say "some years" what you mean is "some months"...

She arrived in Russia in 1920, and the final version of her account dates to 1923, so yes, when I say "some years", I mean some years.

Is this what you would normally call "making excuses"?

No, this is what we would call "pointing out things that Goldman got wrong".

The only way that Kropotkin didn't make a mistake was if we are to accept that Kroptokin was always some clandestine supporter of imperialism. His views on WW1 were not consistent with all of his other views, so unless all of his other views were lies, and this one view was actually the sum of everything Kropotkin thought, it is fair and right to call it a mistake.

Of course Kropotkin was mistaken to support the Entente. But it was not merely a mistake, as when Bukharin seriously overestimated the ability of the RSFSR to defend itself against Germans. Mistakes can be serious - but a mistake made in seriously pursuing a programme of revolutionary internationalism is not the same as a capitulation to chauvinism. Kropotkin capitulated. Kropotkin betrayed. Criticising Kropotkin might seem pointless now, but given that statements that are identical to those of the social-chauvinists are once again being made... I could have mentioned Plekhanov if we were talking about Marxists, or Tsereteli.

I mean, you haven't answered the question: would you call what Zhordania did just "a mistake"? Bombacci?

I'm a warrior for the truth, what can I say?

"Moon prism power, make-up!", apparently.

No, it in fact isn't. In fact the peace treaty was a huge threat to the "proletarian dictatorship" and the only reason the Germans did not march on Moscow a few weeks later was because of the pressure on the Western Front. In the meantime the treaty, and the preceeding month of unilateral cease fire, cost more than a quarter of the workers and enabled the entente to pour half a million soldiers into a new offensive on the Western Front. Not to mention the fact that it only lasted for two months before the Bolsheviks could shrug their shoulders when the Turks started yet another imperialist war against the working class in former Revolutionary territory. And this is without even considering the abohorrent strategic loss during the civil war.

All the while the Germans were openly speaking of a follow up war against Russia....which ws the basis for their terrtorial demands.

M-hm, and then people accuse me of being an "armchair intellectual". With what forces would you have had the RSFSR fight the Germans, comrade Internet KomDiv? With the workers, soldiers and peasantry who spent four years fighting against the war, and who turned against the aventurists in the PLSR central committee as soon as the question of a renewed war against Germany was raised? Sailor detachments, which couldn't face the organised German Army? This is roleplaying of the worst sort, and it was roleplaying when Spiridonova and her buddies decided to recreate the glory days and force Germany's hand - which other Left SRs like Natanson understood.

The Ottoman Army of Islam started their offensive against the Transcaucasian Mensheviks. I'm sure it made such a difference to the Caucasian workers, whether they were under the German puppets of the Georgian Democratic Republic, the Entente puppets of the Centrocaspian Dictatorship, or the Ottoman puppets of the Azeri Democratic Republic. The Army of Islam did threaten Baku, and here again, there was little that the RSFSR could have done - the only reason the Ottomans didn't advance further was German opposition.

As for the Western Front, for the fourth or fifth time, who cares? In an imperialist war, communists are not concerned with the victory of the "better" imperialist side (just how the Entente was "better" is something that I leave to the people who are experts in finding "the lesser evil"), but the defeat of imperialism in general. If that is not a possibility, we don't care if the German Emperor or the British King-Emperor is victorious, the working class loses either way.