Bakunin vs Marx. What is a solution to their conflict?

[tuwix]

There was a dispute between Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx abut future of socialism. Bakunin proposed dissolving a state firstly and then to build socialism. Marx raised in Germany with strong state proposed to maintain a state. Bakunin argued that if a state will be maintained, then there will emerge a red bureaucracy who will be an equivalent of bourgeoisie. Marx argued that dissolving a state will cause a return of capitalism.

History showed that Bakunin was right. Attempts to build a socialism under a state supervision failed badly. Even Marxists call them a state capitalism. But history was not able to show, if Marx was right, because state was not dissolved anywhere yet.

However, the conflict remains unsolved. Even if under a state, all workplaces will be given a power to decide what to do, what to produce, then a will and aims of state can be completely different. If a state will impose their will on a workplace, then there is nothing else than state capitalism. If not, then what is role of such state?

And there are other problems. If there is a state where is a direct democracy, is this still a state? If not, then what state should we have in transitory period? Normal state with ruling elite will create a stet capitalism undoubtedly. Fidel with Che wanted very good things for Cuban society, but only Fidel and his family got what they wanted for all society and they've never given a power o the people. I think all other elites will behave the same way.

Then what is your opinion what is a solution of the conflict between Marx and Bakunin?

[RedWorker]

1) Marxists temporarily support the state as much as they support oxygen by needing to breath it.

2) What Bakunin said was that Marx's state would suffer from the same weaknesses as the bourgeois republic, NOT that there would be a Stalin's USSR. "The Marxist theory solves this dilemma very simply. By the people’s rule, they mean the rule of a small number of representatives elected by the people. The general, and every man’s, right to elect the representatives of the people and the rulers of the State is the latest word of the Marxists, as well as of the democrats" [...] "No state, however democratic – not even the reddest republic – can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above, because every state, even the pseudo-People’s State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above". - Bakunin

3) Marx did not argue that dissolving a state will cause a return of capitalism; in fact, he was in favour of destroying the state. He simply said that establishing communism requires the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

4) "Attempts to build a socialism under a state supervision failed badly" -> What Marxism suggests is not putting a few politicians in control who preach socialism while dictating which laws are to be used but rather doing a social revolution which establishes a dictatorship of the proletariat.

5) Anarchists, wherever they have taken power, such as in Spain, have established a state (which does not mean that they have taken over the existing one, something which, by the way, is not what Marxism means by the DOTP). And, funnily enough, in this case, instead of declaring the supremacy of the DOTP, they joined the Republic's bourgeois government! So history shows that Bakunin was wrong, and that Marx was right: any serious proletarian revolution requires a proletarian state. And it better be the DOTP rather than having the revolutionaries become ministers.

6) If workplaces simply can do what they want, the result is capitalism, no different from cooperatives. The proletarian state, which is nothing but the organized workers put together, however, is able to root out such individualism.

7) Yes, a state with direct democracy is still a state. And representatives are needed in any society, let alone state; the opposite notion is ridiculous.

[Creative Destruction]

5) Anarchists, wherever they have taken power, such as in Spain, have established a proto-state. And, funnily enough, in this case, instead of declaring the supremacy of the DOTP, they joined the Republic's bourgeois government! So history shows that Bakunin was wrong, and that Marx was right: any serious proletarian revolution requires a proletarian state. And it better be the DOTP rather than having the revolutionaries become ministers.

To this point, I think anarchists -- from Bakunin on -- had greatly misread or willfully misinterpreted Marx when he was talking about what the state would mean vis a vis the dictatorship of the proletariat (which Marx covered in his break down of Bakunin's book here (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm).) Of course, the gold standard essay that goes through all of this is David Adam's essay "Karl Marx and the state." I suspect hindsight is 20/20 here and if anarchists and Marxists were able to sit down and honestly deal with these differences (which, between non-Leninist Marxists and most anarchists, I'd bet is a lot less pronounced than thought), and move past the historical animosity, a lot of common ground could be covered with regards to this question.

There were also personal grudges that, for some ungodly reason that I can't really imagine or muster up the ability to care, extend from Bakunin and Marx's personal sniping of each other. Both Marxists and anarchists seem intent on upholding this dumb feud.

[Ravn]

History showed that Bakunin was right. Attempts to build a socialism under a state supervision failed badly.

That's because they turned away from socialism & took the capitalist road. (the proverbial path of least resistance). But you're tacitly ignoring the successes of socialism. & resurrecting Bakunin's ideas are a sure way to make sure socialism will get detoured again. This kind of thinking is a reflection of the malaise encouraged by the capitalists themselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's all fine and well for Marxists to say that Bakunin misinterpreted Marx's position the state, but do these Marxists actually understand Bakunin's position on the state in the first place? It seems not.

When Bakunin talked about "the state," he wasn't talking about some abstract notion that is applicable to anything any one calls a state, as if Bakunin just fetishised the word "state." He was rejecting centralised political authority specifically. Centralisation was never something Marx rejected and in fact he argued for it in The Communist Manifesto, as well as practised in the IWMA.

So the solution to the conflict is: Don't centralise political authority.

[Asero]

Well, whenever I read anarchist texts on marxism, and marxist texts on anarchism, both seem to have misinterpretations on the other's ideology. Ideological blindness and historical anachronism are intrinsic to ideology.

[tuwix]

6) If workplaces simply can do what they want, the result is capitalism, no different from cooperatives. The proletarian state, which is nothing but the organized workers put together, however, is able to root out such individualism.



It's crucial point of Bakunin vs. Marx conflict. Marxists say that it will be capitalism, but history shows that when a state impose their will on workplace, then a state capitalism emerges. Lenin exactly did so. He didn't tolerate a democracy in workplace but imposed a will of state on it...


And you haven't provided a solution of that problem, but just presented Marxist perspective which is known to most of us.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I will forgive tuwix for his ignorance, because he's a hopeless liberal spouting his bullshit all the time. But I won't forgive TFU - you should know better than that.

If there is such a huge debate over the understanding of the state between Marxists and Anarchists, why is that that when Lenin published "The State and Revolution" Anarchists pretty much agreed with the understanding and exposition of the state in that work, which is rooted in Marxist orthodoxy? Well, maybe because there is no controversy over this questions after all?

Marxists have a broad definition of the state, which Engels and Lenin called "semi-state" and Engels, as far as I recall, in one of his writings called it "anti-state". Precisely because it's not a state in any meaningful way. Anarchists and other "libertarian" strands of communists describe the state as "centralized political authority", which should be "abolished". And by "centralized political authority" they mean political authority centralized in the hands of an individual, the Party of what have you. In principle, who the fuck disagrees with that?

Marxists don't support centralized political authority in some hands, they support centralized political authority in the hands of the entire class! That's what the dictatorship of the proletariat is about, that's what Marx is talking about when he talks about centralization - he means centralization in the hands of the proletariat, i.e. in the state, which for him is a proletariat organized as a ruling class! How will this "centralization" be carried out and organized? Well, through the workers' organisations - soviets, factory committees or what have you. This is Marxist orthodoxy, how the fuck is this any different from Anarchists wanting to "abolish the state"?

Of course, if your anarchist paradise consists of separate and independent factories or communes interacting with one another on a "voluntary" basis, if your anarchist paradise is simply capitalism with workers "owning" "their" business, then yeah, Marxists - as ought any other genuine revolutionary - cry against such reactionary nonsense, which is capitalism all the same. Then of course we would want to centralize all the factories and communes in one place - in the hands of the proletariat organised as a ruling class. This is precisely what Anarchists in agrarian communes understood during the Spanish Revolution of 1936 and that's precisely what they moved towards.

If people were only to look beyond their ridiculous prejudices for once...

[The Feral Underclass]

And by "centralized political authority" they mean political authority centralized in the hands of an individual, the Party of what have you. In principle, who the fuck disagrees with that?

Well, Marxists and Marx. I mean, in "principle" they might agree (debatable), but in practice it is entirely different. One only has to look at the way that pretty much every Marxist organisation as well as Marx and the Bolsheviks implemented their theories in practice to get an understanding of what Marxists are about.

Marx was a pre-eminent centralist in the IWMA and sat on its central decision making body, as did Lenin in Soviet Russia. Most Marxist organisations also have a central decision making body i.e. central committee, executive committee etcetera.

No where in Marx's theories does it prohibit a central decision making body and since that's not what Marxists do in practice, why should any one believe what you say?


Marxists don't support centralized political authority in some hands, they support centralized political authority in the hands of the entire class!

Which is completely meaningless phrase-mongering. The structural application of central decision making necessarily prohibits mass participation -- that's the point. You cannot have a decision making process that is centralised that also includes the "entire class" simultaneously.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Well, Marxists and Marx. I mean, in "principle" they might agree (debatable), but in practice it is entirely different. One only has to look at the way Marx and the Bolsheviks implemented their theories in practice to get an understanding of what Marxists are about.

Marx was a pre-eminent centralist in the IWMA and sat on its central decision making body, as did Lenin in Soviet Russia.

Yes, this nonsense that you keep saying all the time. Because Bolsheviks implemented what they implemented just because! Because they were power-hungry dictators? No, that's too simplistic for you taste, right? You would rather go "it was in their ideology, in their understanding of how society should go from capitalism to communism!", no? It's always amusing how revolutionaries - even self-proclaimed Marxists - abandon materialism at the smallest pretext, when it starts affecting their emotional sensitivities.

We aren't debating how Bolsheviks implemented something in practice - as if all Marxists are Bolsheviks! - we are debating how Marxists understand the state in theory.


Which is completely meaningless phrase-mongering. The structural application of central decision making necessarily prohibits mass participation -- that's the point. You cannot have a decision making process that is centralised that also includes the "entire class" simultaneously.

It doesn't "necessarily" prohibit mass participation. You don't know what you are talking about. But tell me TFU, how does your Anarchist paradise looks like - do you have means of production centralised in a sense that entire proletariat gets to decide how to use it or is it separate and independent communes or factories interacting with one another on a voluntary basis?

[Gepetto]

It's crucial point of Bakunin vs. Marx conflict. Marxists say that it will be capitalism, but history shows that when a state impose their will on workplace, then a state capitalism emerges. Lenin exactly did so. He didn't tolerate a democracy in workplace but imposed a will of state on it...


And you haven't provided a solution of that problem, but just presented Marxist perspective which is known to most of us.
Well, I don't think that factory committees would bring about communist paradise in Russia either.

Centralising of the means of production in hands of proletariat constituted into a ruling class (which is what the term "proletarian state" amounts to) doesn't preclude self-management. However, the latter is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of planning. Communism is not about giving enterprises (which will be abolished) to workers. You already have enterprises deciding what they will produce under capitalism. Communism's essence is basically production serving the needs of the whole society. Of course you will have control over your working conditions, but on the other hand, you and your workmates would have to abide by the generally agreed upon plan. Not producing whatever you fancy and in what quantity and doing whatever you want with it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I've pointed this out before, but I'll repeat it since it's relevant. The central theme in anarchist critiques of Marxist 'behavior' lets say, is the habit of saying or writing one thing while in practice, when given the chance, almost always doing something different, generally the opposite. It doesn't do any good to try to have an argument where the actions of the most high profile Marxists that were ever given the reins of power should be dismissed and we should only talk about what the pure theory said they really really wanted to do instead. If we do that you may as well just settle in for some ideological masturbation from both sides.

[Tim Cornelis]

To solve the conflict is to do what all anarchists do when faced with a revolutionary crisis: abandoned core principles of anarchism. Anarchists in Paris supported the formation of a workers' government. Anarchists in Russia initially sided with the aim of forming a soviet government. Anarchists in Bulgaria supported the aim of establishing a workers' and peasants government. Anarchists in Bavaria joined the Bavarian Soviet Republic. And anarchists in Spain used coercive authority and hierarchy and joined a popular front government.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Hehe displaying the same dishonesty deployed in 90% of anarchist attacks on marxism. Oh boy what a thread we have in store for us.

[Tim Cornelis]

Where's the dishonesty?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The bumbling idiots who have joined state enterprises certainly are a part of the anarchist tradition, but to suggest they make up the defining or even a major part of anarchism is ridiculous and I think you know that. Surely the most venerated anarchist traditions lie in terrorism and general criminality. I will also say that the musty academic persona you've affected lately leaves something to be desired Tim.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, this nonsense that you keep saying all the time. Because Bolsheviks implemented what they implemented just because! Because they were power-hungry dictators? No, that's too simplistic for you taste, right? You would rather go "it was in their ideology, in their understanding of how society should go from capitalism to communism!", no? It's always amusing how revolutionaries - even self-proclaimed Marxists - abandon materialism at the smallest pretext, when it starts affecting their emotional sensitivities.

Either your argument is that decentralised decision making is a fundamentally necessary condition to be implemented in a revolution or you take an instrumentalist line and argue that material conditions should dictate whatever is necessary -- there is no middle ground in this debate.

Trying to claim that Marx and Lenin both advocated decentralised decision making, but that this is some kind of abstract principle dependent upon what the situation dictates at the time isn't really a coherent position on the subject, or at the very least renders the view on decentralistion practically meaningless. I realise that the mantra of "material conditions" seems to be the default position for Marxists, and it's not one without merits, but if that's your position you have to stick to it. Either material conditions dictate all, or you uphold an analysis and fight for it. Using "material conditions" as some kind of get-out-of-jail free card ignores the fact that rejecting centralised decision making isn't just some principle that can be abandoned when ever the going gets tough, it's a fundamental requirement in the working classes economic and political struggle for liberation.

It seems though, that on this issue Marxists are unable to get their stories straight. Some argue that Russia could never have not had central decision making because material conditions would never have allowed it and some argue that they wanted to reject central decision making, but that material conditions wouldn't permit it. Well which is it? Did Lenin and the Bolsheviks never intended to prohibit central decision making or did they incompetently attempted to implement Marx's alleged theories onto a situation they could never be implemented on?

But to answer your question, no. I don't think they "implemented what they implemented just because" nor do I think they were "power-hungry," I think that central decision making was never something that Marx, Lenin or the Bolsheviks ever saw a need to question. Since both of them never actually rejected central decision making and in fact practised as an organisational method, it seems clear to me what their position was.


We aren't debating how Bolsheviks implemented something in practice - as if all Marxists are Bolsheviks! - we are debating how Marxists understand the state in theory.

That might be what you're discussing, but what I'm discussing is the reason why Bakunin felt his critique of centralised political authority was necessary. This point of instrumentalism that seems to inhabit your "material conditions" argument being chief among them. It is precisely this view that is the problem; that decentralised decision making can be abandoned when it's no longer convenient.


It doesn't "necessarily" prohibit mass participation. You don't know what you are talking about.

Actually I do know what I'm talking about, not least of all because I have a command of the English language. The word centralisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralisation), by definition, means to draw decision-making into the centre and away from the mass. Here is a nifty pictorial representation: Centralise (http://www.mrgoodacre.com/uploads/1/0/5/3/10539489/5161994_orig.jpg)

The system that Marx congratulated the Paris Commune for attempting to implement was one where decisions were made decentrally and were fed back into regional and national bodies using the imperative mandate model. That means that those regional and national bodies don't make decisions, which is what makes them decentralised. Centralised means the opposite of that.


But tell me TFU, how does your Anarchist paradise looks like - do you have means of production centralised in a sense that entire proletariat gets to decide how to use it or is it separate and independent communes or factories interacting with one another on a voluntary basis?

I don't know what an anarchist paradise is or why I would know what it looked like.

[Creative Destruction]

To the centralization question, this is what Adam had to say about it:


Many people think of Marx as an advocate of socialism-from-above because they hear the word “centralization” and assume that Marx advocated some sort of authoritarian arrangement.67 Marx did not view the functions of a central government as a pure limitation on autonomy, but rather saw the “unity of the nation” as being realized (not destroyed) by uprooting those who administer the state as a sphere separate from civil society.68 Bakunin’s approach, for example, lacks this critique, as he praised the Parisian workers for proclaiming “the complete abolition of the French state, the dissolution of France’s state unity as incompatible with the autonomy of France’s communes.”69 Here we can see Bakunin’s debt to the Proudhonian socialism with which Marx so vehemently disagreed. While Bakunin was a sworn enemy of all political and economic centralization, Marx had a very different perspective, but one that was in no way more “authoritarian”: “National centralization of the means of production will become the natural basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.”70 Marx thought that both centralism (a common plan) and democratic control from below were necessary for building socialism.

http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

Just throwing that out there for consideration.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Marxists [. . .] support centralized political authority in the hands of the entire class!

I think this right here basically sums up some people's grasp of class . . . though, to be fair, I suppose this could be a linguistic issue. To give you the opportunity to clarify, how does one centralize authority across an entire class? It sounds like a bit of nonsense.

[QueerVanguard]

I think the best way to resolve the conflict would be to flush Bakunin's insanely stupid writings down the toilet along with your everyday shitrags. Just my .02 cents.

[BIXX]

On the flip side I think people should drop their Marx and read something actually enjoyable instead of that dry shit. Hell, of he had spiced it up more maybe some more folks would actually understand him. And then they'd get rid of all their volumes of capital and TCM etc... Because its stupid.

[Atsumari]

And RIP Thread. Good run while it lasted.

[tuwix]

Well, I don't think that factory committees would bring about communist paradise in Russia either.

Centralising of the means of production in hands of proletariat constituted into a ruling class (which is what the term "proletarian state" amounts to) doesn't preclude self-management. However, the latter is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of planning. Communism is not about giving enterprises (which will be abolished) to workers. You already have enterprises deciding what they will produce under capitalism. Communism's essence is basically production serving the needs of the whole society. Of course you will have control over your working conditions, but on the other hand, you and your workmates would have to abide by the generally agreed upon plan. Not producing whatever you fancy and in what quantity and doing whatever you want with it.

I could agree with you. But you rather don't see that there is an inevitable conflict. Some workers in some workplaces will not obey a plan due to various reasons. And if a state enforces them to do such plan, then the who is the owner of the means of production? Surely, the workers of that workplace are not. The state is. So there is a state capitalism again. And my question remains really unanswered: What is solution to this conflict? That is exactly a conflict between Marx and Bakunin...

[Creative Destruction]

I could agree with you. But you rather don't see that there is an inevitable conflict. Some workers in some workplaces will not obey a plan due to various reasons. And if a state enforces them to do such plan, then the who is the owner of the means of production? Surely, the workers of that workplace are not. The state is. So there is a state capitalism again. And my question remains really unanswered: What is solution to this conflict? That is exactly a conflict between Marx and Bakunin...

"Some workers in some workplaces will not obey a plan due to various reasons" I guess could happen, but that is incredibly vague -- vague enough to be almost meaningless. You have to provide a reasoning for why you think this would be such a huge issue.

A common plan implies that there is an agreement between consumers and workers to have this production plan. It's not stripping autonomy from workers, to be at the will of the masses-at-large. If there are issues that obstruct production, then you negotiate them until they're resolved to a point where production can begin again.

Regardless, it was never about worker ownership. It was about freely cooperative labor. Ownership of the means of production is picked up by society -- that's the meaning of socialization of the means of production. Worker take-over of the means of production is something that needs to happen during the revolutionary period so workers can abolish themselves as the proletarian class. It does not mean that the workers of a given cooperative themselves retain "ownership" over the means of production. If that were the case, then you have absurdities like market "socialism."

[BIXX]

And RIP Thread. Good run while it lasted.

Any thread that brings up the Marx-Bakunin bullshit is doomed. It contains the seed of its own negation, one might say.

But when it comes to my understanding of this whole debate, my honest opinion is that there can be no solution. And neither should there be. In fact I'd argue we need to remove what elements of Marx there is in Bakunin and bring it further.

[The Feral Underclass]

Any thread that brings up the Marx-Bakunin bullshit is doomed. It contains the seed of its own negation, one might say.

It wouldn't have to be doomed if people tried harder not to contribute such crappy posts in debates, or stopped themselves from throwing around recriminations as if it was a matter of honour. And calling Capital "stupid"? I see the allure of anti-intellectualism but that is just ridiculous.

I mean, what is this...


I think the best way to resolve the conflict would be to flush Bakunin's insanely stupid writings down the toilet along with your everyday shitrags. Just my .02 cents.

I mean honestly, is this really what passes as RevLeft theory substance nowadays? It's tragic.

[tuwix]

"Some workers in some workplaces will not obey a plan due to various reasons" I guess could happen, but that is incredibly vague -- vague enough to be almost meaningless. You have to provide a reasoning for why you think this would be such a huge issue.


OK. There is an nuclear energy plant. The plan says that there must be an increase in energy production. The workers of the plant says no because it will blow up a plant. But a state is "wiser" and enforces energy production increase. It's obvious that energy plant is no longer property of its workers, but property of state, despite irrelevant fact that plant will blow up...



A common plan implies that there is an agreement between consumers and workers to have this production plan. It's not stripping autonomy from workers, to be at the will of the masses-at-large.

But the question is: will workers in "masses-at-large" ever able to determine such things in detail. It reminds me a central planning in exact soviet style when Moscow decide what about village Pierdolnichka in deep Belarus knowing nothing about it. It's just obvious that workers in Pierdolnichka know better what is needed there...

But from purely theoretical perspective, when all decision are made on state level even if it is a proletarian state, it's still state capitalism because all belong to state then...

[Tim Cornelis]

The bumbling idiots who have joined state enterprises certainly are a part of the anarchist tradition, but to suggest they make up the defining or even a major part of anarchism is ridiculous and I think you know that. Surely the most venerated anarchist traditions lie in terrorism and general criminality. I will also say that the musty academic persona you've affected lately leaves something to be desired Tim.

Well, recently in a private group discussion I commented on how Devrim always remains reserved and never uses insults, etc. and I noticed how, because of that, no one really antagonised him because apparently they don't feel the need to. I thought that such respectful conduct would enable a more hospitable and productive discussion climate. With me, frustrations, annoyances, and sometimes anger leak into my posts through insults or ridicule, which I tried to correct. Apparently you noticed and construed that this was some “musty academic persona” I adopted and felt the need to use that some underhanded insult, as well as arguing that I was deliberately dishonest, and I suspect this is because you partially misconstrued what I said, which may have been because of the mentioning of the joining of the popular front government in the Spanish Revolution. Presumably, you took this to mean that I also referred to the 'Soviet anarchists' that joined the Bolsheviks and similar minorities of anarchists that sided with the, what anarchists would call, 'authoritarian socialists' in revolutionary situations – and then of course me generalising this to anarchist movements as a whole.

Anyway, let's look at the examples I gave: the Paris Commune; The Russian Revolution; The September Uprising; the November Revolution and the Bavarian Council Republic; and the Spanish Revolution. I forgot Makhno's Free Territory. My argument is that anarchists of relevance and significance always abandon core anarchist principles when faced with a revolutionary crisis.

Paris Commune

The Paris Commune had significant anarchist involvement via the Proudhonists, including 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' Proudhonists, the left-wing of which were close to Bakunin's collectivism. It's pretty straightforward that they joined and supported a workers' government. Bumbling idiots Kropotkin and Bakunin supported this revolutionary government, and at the same time criticised it for being a government. Of course, they didn't participate in the uprising itself so they fall outside the argument I was making.

The Russian Revolution

From what I can gather, virtually all anarchists supported the formation of soviet government (lower-case s) in 1917 up until 1918 (this included bumbling idiots like Berkman and Goldman), when the Bolshevik takeover of power had become intolerable, at which point only the so-called “Soviet anarchists” (upper-case S) supported the Soviet government (upper-case S).

German Revolution

From what I can gather, there were two strands of anarchism and the position toward the revolution coincided largely with this. The 'political' anarchists and the 'economistic' anarchists (anarcho-syndicalists). The political ones were overall and generally supportive of the course of the Revolution and joined the KPD (not as members), this included notable bumbling idiots like Gustav Landauer and Erich Mühsam.

The syndicalist union (LVDG?), with a large anarcho-syndicalist membership, support the KPD as well. Eventually, during the course of the revolution, the anarchists split into the FAUD under Rocker's leadership. This leadership was centralised and hierarchical, with the leadership, at some point, consisting of anarcho-syndicalists with the rank-and-file membership in disagremeent. They sought to establish a united front still with the KPD and others, but opposed joining the Bavarian Council Republic. Nevertheless, Rocker stated: “If … it means that the proletariat compels the propertied classes to renounce their privileges, if it is not a dictatorship top to bottom, but that the revolutionary impact is from the bottom up, then the revolutionary syndicalists are the supporters and representatives of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Free Territory

The Free Territory had for all intends and purposes a peasant and workers' government. Anarchist historian Paul Avrich: “The question which dominated the Regional Congresses was that of defending the area from those who might seek to establish their control over it. The Second Congress, meeting on February 12, 1919, voted in favour of "voluntary mobilization," which in reality meant outright conscription, as all able-bodied men were required to serve when called up. The delegates also elected a Regional Military Revolutionary Council of Peasants, Workers, and Insurgents to carry out the decisions of the periodic congresses. The new council encouraged the election of "free" Soviets in the towns and villages - that is, Soviets from which members of political parties were excluded. Although Makhno's aim in setting up these bodies was to do away with political authority, the Military Revolutionary Council, acting in conjunction with the Regional Congresses and the local Soviets, in effect formed a loose-knit government in the territory surrounding Gulyai-Pole.

Like the Military Revolutionary Council, the Insurgent Army of the Ukraine, as the Makhnovist forces were called, was in theory subject to the supervision of the Regional Congresses. In practice, however, the reins of authority rested with Makhno and his staff. Despite his efforts to avoid anything that smacked of regimentation, Makhno appointed his key officers (the rest were elected by the men themselves) and subjected his troops to the stern military discipline traditional among the Cossack legions of the nearby Zaporozhian region. Yet the Insurgent Army never lost its plebeian character. All its officers were peasants or, in a few cases, factory or shop workers. One looks in vain for a commander who sprang from the upper or middle classes, or even from the radical intelligentsia.”
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/av-makhno-manmyth.htm

Spanish Revolution

Aside from the actual idiots joining the popular front government, the anarchists in general used coercive instruments to consolidate workers' power, particularly in rural areas, including being pressured (although often not outright coerced) into collectivisation from above, levying taxes, land rent (unless they joined the collective), executions of unarmed opponents, hierarchy in the CNT's control over the economy, etc. etc. etc. Essentially, the anarchists erected a revolutionary government that contested the bourgeois popular front government.

September Uprising

There's not much information about anarchist involvement in the 1923 September Uprising in Bulgaria. Essentially, the Comintern pressured its local section into an uprising to establish a peasant and workers' government, which reportedly anarcho-syndicalists joined (one source stating that they initiated it, which doesn't conform to the facts). But I suppose that without enough sources, my comment was not sufficiently grounded.

Bonus: Rojava

Here it's not so much facing a revolutionary crisis that makes anarchists abandon core anarchist principles but more wishful thinking.

------------
Perhaps these facts are skewed because the anarchists that abandoned core anarchist principles in favour of some sort of revolutionary pragmatism rose to prominence and there ones that remained loyal to such principles remained obscure, which would give some credence to your suggestion that significant numbers of anarchists did not abandon core anarchist principles. Of course, that would further prove my point: commitment to anarchism in a revolutionary crisis leads to impotency and obscurity. It would seem that anarchist principles are not configuration for revolution, making them useless in those contexts.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists who abandon "core anarchist principles" aren't anarchists by definition, so what this argument is about (I didn't read all your post) is how some people who used to be anarchists stopped being anarchists...I don't really see what worth that has as a discussion topic.

[Thirsty Crow]

On the flip side I think people should drop their Marx and read something actually enjoyable instead of that dry shit. Hell, of he had spiced it up more maybe some more folks would actually understand him. And then they'd get rid of all their volumes of capital and TCM etc... Because its stupid.
I'm not sure if I'm just weird, but I do enjoy Marx's writing style, and I also find him a clear and concise a writer. Capital is hell not because of the style, but because the subject matter is hellish.

Anyway. As for the conflict between Marx and Bakunin, that stuff is best left to Marxology and Bakuninology and complementary historical studies. The current conflict is what can be solved and in that way communists might move forward.

As for that conflict, I don't think there is a fundamental antagonism between the revolutionary class politics of (strands of) anarchism and (strands of) Marxism. In fact, I firmly believe this to be the case.

Traditional dividing issues like organizational centralization aren't a real issue, in a specific way. For instance, I don't think there is grounds in what I consider revolutionary Marxism to advocate for the central committee as a supreme political body, a decision making one. But that is completely besides the point, apart from a general principle of organizational politics, in situations where there are only tiny groups of communists without any concrete and significant link with the class. In other words, in such a situation we simply don't need a "central committee". Actually, we don't need any specific organizational bodies; the division of tasks can proceed on healthy informal grounds.

[Tim Cornelis]

Anarchists who abandon "core anarchist principles" aren't anarchists by definition, so what this argument is about (I didn't read all your post) is how some people who used to be anarchists stopped being anarchists...I don't really see what worth that has as a discussion topic.

Saying that it's not worth a discussion topic seems a major cop out. Besides, you're basically making my point (except that it's not "some people", it's anarchists en mass, and anarchists of significance and relevance). Anarchists have historically abandoned core anarchist principles whenever faced with a revolutionary crisis, therefore ceasing to be anarchists. What point, then, is it to be an anarchist in non-revolutionary situations when these principles go out of the window when any revolution is set in motion? 'Abandon anarchism or remain irrelevant in any revolutionary situation': seems a pretty worthwhile discussion.

[The Feral Underclass]

Saying that it's not worth a discussion topic seems a major cop out. Besides, you're basically making my point (except that it's not "some people", it's anarchists en mass, and anarchists of significance and relevance). Anarchists have historically abandoned core anarchist principles whenever faced with a revolutionary crisis, therefore ceasing to be anarchists. What point, then, is it to be an anarchist in non-revolutionary situations when these principles go out of the window when any revolution is set in motion? 'Abandon anarchism or remain irrelevant in any revolutionary situation': seems a pretty worthwhile discussion.

:rolleyes:

There is nothing of worth for any one to seriously pursue with the argument you are trying to frame. They should reject entirely the narrative that you're trying to construct, as well as the biased interpretation you have of history. This isn't an honest debate you're having about the flaws (and there are many) and history of anarchism, it's an attempt to undermine and belittle those traditions. What worth is there in that? It's utterly petty. But even if what you say is true it doesn't alter the validity of anarchism's objection to centralised political authority, especially when you consider how these revolutions transpired at the hands of "Marxists." Those anarchists that abandon their principles should have stuck to them and perhaps those revolutions would not have been betrayed, resulting in reaction and an eventual return to capitalism. If anarchists can be blamed for anything, it's their complicity with those who destroyed the classes chance at liberation.

[Thirsty Crow]

This isn't an honest debate you're having about the flaws (and there are many) and history of anarchism, it's an attempt to undermine and belittle those traditions.
I think both Marxist and anarchist traditions need some belittling (more a serious and uncompromising critique, but still). There's a whole heap of strictily traditional features and (pseudo)problems that weigh like nightmare on our living brains.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think both Marxist and anarchist traditions need some belittling (more a serious and uncompromising critique, but still). There's a whole heap of strictily traditional features and (pseudo)problems that weigh like nightmare on our living brains.

Ruthless criticism of everything! :)

The word "belittle" means to dismiss as unimportant. I agree, both traditions need "serious and uncompromising critiques"; I am all for that. But those serious critiques cannot happen in an environment where people are trying to dismiss as unimportant a tradition based on the fact that sections of the tradition didn't maintain their principles. What value does that add to anything?

[Thirsty Crow]

Ruthless criticism of everything! :)

The word "belittle" means to dismiss as unimportant. I agree, both traditions need "serious and uncompromising critiques"; I am all for that. But those serious critiques cannot happen in an environment where people are trying to dismiss as unimportant a tradition based on the fact that sections of the tradition didn't maintain their principles. What value does that add to anything?
Definitely, though I should add that I italicized the word "tradition" because I tend to use it in an altogether peculiar way (which may or may not be productive; criticism applies here as well), so as to denote petrified a) rules and customs of interpersonal behavior and inter-organizational communication and b) sets of political positions. The petrification itself wouldn't be problematic were these productive and meaningful - but they're not, in my opinion, on both sides. So I'm tempted to conclude that they did come to constitute traditions by virtue of precisely these deficiencies (which themselves need explaining as well).

In short, I don't see a healthy political-organizational tradition. Not one. Now, theoretical traditions and frameworks are a different matter to an extent, but I think they deserve special treatment as this discussion mostly concerns the former.

I should also add that much of what I say here is influenced by the concrete socio-economic and political conditions I immediately face as a person living where I do. One particular aspect of it I'd highlight is the state of the revolutionary left here, in relation to the broader class movement. Or to be more precise, in relation to the lack of a class movement, and even a lack of a union movement. The practical task for myself and a handful of comrades, apart from getting our shit together as people who need to make a living, is to go about the very basic rudiments of political organizing, and I'm convinced this is best performed on a basis of comradely debate and connection with other preexisting groups. Maybe this will come to nothing, but that's another matter.

[Tim Cornelis]

:rolleyes:

There is nothing of worth for any one to seriously pursue with the argument you are trying to frame. They should reject entirely the narrative that you're trying to construct, as well as the biased interpretation you have of history. This isn't an honest debate you're having about the flaws (and there are many) and history of anarchism, it's an attempt to undermine and belittle those traditions. What worth is there in that? It's utterly petty. But even if what you say is true it doesn't alter the validity of anarchism's objection to centralised political authority, especially when you consider how these revolutions transpired at the hands of "Marxists." Those anarchists that abandon their principles should have stuck to them and perhaps those revolutions would not have been betrayed, resulting in reaction and an eventual return to capitalism. If anarchists can be blamed for anything, it's their complicity with those who destroyed the classes chance at liberation.

You can role your eyes what you want, but that doesn't really change that this is a thinly veiled cop out, the first part at least. You criticise QueerVanguard for lack of substance, yet look at the nonsense you pen down as poor excuse for an argument. I can't criticise anarchism because, what amounts to, having a different perspective. Criticise that perspective then.

My criticism of anarchism is that it's not configured for a period of revolutionary reconstruction which therefore compels anarchist organisations when faced with a revolutionary crisis to abandon core anarchist principles. That seems straightforward and suitable for discussion. Rather than address my arguments, trying to refute it by focussing on the content, you choose slander me as dishonest without backing this up. And then you pull out this emotional appeal of me 'belittling' anarchist traditions. Poor you, having your politics criticised -- are above criticism? It's ridiculous to say that I'm "belittling" them as if I'm some sort of hysterical anti-anarchistic Marxist. I'm supporting to a large extend what the anarchists did in the Free Territory, the Spanish Revolution, the Paris Commune. I'm merely making the observation that they abandoned core anarchist principles and conclude that they could have used their time more efficiently in a non-revolutionary situation in preparation if they hadn't been hung up on those principles which turned out to be detached from the reality of revolutionary reconstruction. This is not some cheap shot or belittling, this concerns the crucial aspect of preparing for revolution.

If you want to reject the narrative I'm trying to construct then do it rather than state you do it: explain what's wrong with the narrative I'm trying to construct. But I'm betting that if you could you wouldn't have used this cop out in the first place.

You say that the anarchists that abandoned their principles should have stuck with them. Why do you think they didn't? Is it accidental that anarchists en masse in every revolutionary situation that they played a role in abandoned their principles? If not, what was the reason? How would the course of the examples I used have been affected if they had stuck with them?

I guess this would be the most crucial question:
You downplay the abandonment of core anarchist principles by saying that this was done by "sections" of the anarchist movement, can you point out to anarchists that stuck with their principles? I tried to explain in the post (which you didn't really read as you admitted yourself -- yet had no problem dismissing nonetheless), quite explicitly, that it was more than just a minority of anarchists.

I hope you are willing engage this time.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I think this right here basically sums up some people's grasp of class . . . though, to be fair, I suppose this could be a linguistic issue. To give you the opportunity to clarify, how does one centralize authority across an entire class? It sounds like a bit of nonsense.

Centralisation, in this case, is only relevant in the context of there existing other classes, of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You centralise authority across an entire class in a sense that you deprive other classes of having any sort of say in your decision making as a class.

Maybe it's a useless way of putting it, I don't know, but I am merely explaining what is meant of this term in this specific context, because this position is being misrepresented by TFU et al.


Either your argument is that decentralised decision making is a fundamentally necessary condition to be implemented in a revolution or you take an instrumentalist line and argue that material conditions should dictate whatever is necessary -- there is no middle ground in this debate.

Trying to claim that Marx and Lenin both advocated decentralised decision making, but that this is some kind of abstract principle dependent upon what the situation dictates at the time isn't really a coherent position on the subject, or at the very least renders the view on decentralistion practically meaningless. I realise that the mantra of "material conditions" seems to be the default position for Marxists, and it's not one without merits, but if that's your position you have to stick to it. Either material conditions dictate all, or you uphold an analysis and fight for it. Using "material conditions" as some kind of get-out-of-jail free card ignores the fact that rejecting centralised decision making isn't just some principle that can be abandoned when ever the going gets tough, it's a fundamental requirement in the working classes economic and political struggle for liberation.

Material conditions should dictate? SHOULD dictate? Like materialism is something we choose to abide or we choose not to! As if materialism is some bogeyman we choose to fight or run away from! I mean, are you even being serious?

When Marxists and Leninists in particular argue for a material analysis in the context of Bolsheviks' actions (and in general), i.e. when they appeal to "material conditions", they don't mean anything more than understanding the actions of the Bolsheviks in the context of material conditions they faced (civil war, massacre of the most class conscious elements of the proletariat, massive peasantry el al.). To give a concrete example, it's one thing to say "Bolsheviks are counter-revolutionary, look they implemented the NEP! etc", it's a different thing altogether when one tries to understand the implementation of the NEP in the context of circumstances that Bolsheviks faced. "Material conditions" isn't some abstract nonsense, some phrase-mongering, that Leninists use to justify the actions of Bolsheviks just like that (although, some do), it's simply an appeal to an actual analysis of events, actions and reasons for them. But it doesn't necessarily provide a justification for any actions, let alone those of Bolsheviks.

And usually that's precisely what is missing from these ridiculous critiques of Bolsheviks that some people make here: "Listen guys, we really think that Bolsheviks were counter-revolutionary all along. Why? Well, the NEP, Kronstdadt etc."


It seems though, that on this issue Marxists are unable to get their stories straight. Some argue that Russia could never have not had central decision making because material conditions would never have allowed it and some argue that they wanted to reject central decision making, but that material conditions wouldn't permit it. Well which is it? Did Lenin and the Bolsheviks never intended to prohibit central decision making or did they incompetently attempted to implement Marx's alleged theories onto a situation they could never be implemented on?

But to answer your question, no. I don't think they "implemented what they implemented just because" nor do I think they were "power-hungry," I think that central decision making was never something that Marx, Lenin or the Bolsheviks ever saw a need to question. Since both of them never actually rejected central decision making and in fact practised as an organisational method, it seems clear to me what their position was.

Yes, again, you keep repeating the same drivel about how Marx was this authoritarian douche, who didn't question centralised decision making, despite the fact that people explain to you what is meant by that and give you quotes explaining it...

But let's talk about decentralisation.

The point is that sometimes circumstances doesn't allow that to happen. Not because of anybody's will, but because it is simply not possible to abide by the principle. Can't you imagine circumstances where your "liberatrian" principles couldn't be brought about and you need to act against them, at least temporarily? I mean really, you couldn't come up with such circumstances in your head? What if the entire proletariat is fighting in the trenches and there wasn't developed a working model of councils, soviets or what have you? What if the entire proletariat is looking at you for leadership? What do you do? Do you say "well, fuck the civil war, we need to build soviets otherwise this isn't a socialist revolution!". Tell me, isn't that a genuine revolution simply because there are no soviets and no "decentralised" decision making as of yet even if such a situation is temporary?

Decentralisation as you mean it, is a necessary part of a communist society, but revolution? Really? If we could choose how revolutions occur and what sort of circumstances we are gonna face then sure - all power to the soviets! - but there are circumstances when that principle might simply be impossible temporarily. Not impossible in a sense that "oh, fuck it, we might as well just get rid of it, because implementing it is pretty damn hard", but impossible because the situation prevents it from taking place at that specific moment in time.



I don't know what an anarchist paradise is or why I would know what it looked like.

Yes, I knew you are gonna run away from the question like a child. I am merely asking how you envision the society you are fighting for - are means of productions controlled on a societal level or on a regional/commune/enterprise level, where there is "voluntary" interaction between them?

[Tim Cornelis]

Material conditions should dictate? SHOULD dictate? Like materialism is something we choose to abide or we choose not to! As if materialism is some bogeyman we choose to fight or run away from! I mean, are you even being serious?


In a previous discussion TFU used 'material conditions' to mean facts on the grounds or something similar. That may be the source of confusion here.

[Thirsty Crow]

"Material conditions" isn't some abstract nonsense, some phrase-mongering, that Leninists use to justify the actions of Bolsheviks just like that (although, some do), it's simply an appeal to an actual analysis of events, actions and reasons for them.
And here's a part of the tradition I speak of.

The particular problem here is that the usual invocation of material conditions isn't problematic on its own, but that it functions almost exclusively as a part in confusing justification and analysis. It's a nice trick, one that seemingly fuses explanation and justification. But shit doesn't and cannot work that way.

Long story short, explaining the causes of the degeneration of revolution can't be understood as justification of "Leninism", especially when that same Leninism is based on a disastruous affirmation of degeneration as some kind of a revolutionary gain. The point isn't that Lenin was perverse or an agent of the bourgeoisie because of the NEP - rather it is that the NEP is a clear symptom of counter-revolution. Any further question "but what would you have Bolsheviks do, renounce power?" is meaningless - I wouldn't change history but have communist militants today clearly grasp both the historical conditions and gross inadequacy of particular ideological assessments and evaluations of said conditions.

I don't mean to imply that you do what I briefly described above; just that you're severely underestimating the extent of this confusion.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

And here's a part of the tradition I speak of.

The particular problem here is that the usual invocation of material conditions isn't problematic on its own, but that it functions almost exclusively as a part in confusing justification and analysis. It's a nice trick, one that seemingly fuses explanation and justification. But shit doesn't and cannot work that way.

Long story short, explaining the causes of the degeneration of revolution can't be understood as justification of "Leninism", especially when that same Leninism is based on a disastruous affirmation of degeneration as some kind of a revolutionary gain. The point isn't that Lenin was perverse or an agent of the bourgeoisie because of the NEP - rather it is that the NEP is a clear symptom of counter-revolution. Any further question "but what would you have Bolsheviks do, renounce power?" is meaningless - I wouldn't change history but have communist militants today clearly grasp both the historical conditions and gross inadequacy of particular ideological assessments and evaluations of said conditions.

Sure, but I am not justifying Bolsheviks, I am merely saying that it's grossly inadequate to say "Marxists might say they like workers' self-organisation, but look at Bolsheviks! This clearly means that they don't actually care about self-organisation". Do you get what I mean?

Well, but here's the thing - I don't think the NEP is "a clear symptom of counter-revolution". A clear symptom of degenerating revolution? Most probably, but these are different things. If, say, the best Bolsheviks could do at that moment was implementation of the NEP, then how can it be counter-revolutionary?

But that's the point I am making - do we understand policies in their context or do we not. Do we claim that things are counter-revolutionary, because they seems so on the first glance or do we try to understand what conditions created these policies?

[The Feral Underclass]

I hope you are willing engage this time.

I'm not willing to engage with you, no. There are many reasons for that, some of which I have already explained to you in my post above, but chiefly I have no interest in defending anarchism. I honestly don't care what you think about anarchism and I am not an anarchist stalwart who is here to protect it. Your criticisms may very well be right.

What I have a problem with is the way you conduct yourself. This sort of attitude you have about discussion, as if it were a competition is problematic to me. The way you seek to qualify your views, picking out the most petty thing to focus on is not useful. The fact that you see this as a "cop-out" is precisely the problem. I don't owe you anything and I'm not here to win. I am here to learn and to clarify my views and if all you have to offer is petty point-scoring, then why would I bother engaging with that? If that has not been your intention, it is certainly how it is perceived.

But perhaps this is my fault. Perhaps I have encouraged this kind of debate in the past with my bluntness and for that I apologise. But I am not going to engage in what will undoubtedly be a lengthy conversation, taking up a great deal of my time, with someone whose primary interest in debate is simply to win. Kill all the fetuses! being another example.


In a previous discussion TFU used 'material conditions' to mean facts on the grounds or something similar. That may be the source of confusion here.

Perhaps there is a language issue, but when I said "observation of facts" I did not mean "facts on the ground", which in English means "things as they are unfolding in a certain situation." It's something a journalist would say.

I admit that the phrase "observation of facts" isn't particularly clear, but it's not an inaccurate description of a material condition. The measure of our economic and social organisation of society are observable facts, are they not?

[Tim Cornelis]

I provide my opinion, which I thought I did in a normal way, and every step of the way I get my personality, motivation, and integrity questioned and slandered. I'm not sure why this is, whether it's me or other people, but either way it doesn't do good to my state of mind or self-image. Fuck this.

(You'll probably interpret this as some attempt at trying to guilt trip you again, but recently I tried to express myself instead of having frustration pen up. And I don't intend this to be some sort of dramatic 'oh poor me, everyone's out to get me', it's just not worth the shit-tier level discussions)

[The Feral Underclass]

I think what's coming out of this debate is interesting. In particular the narrative that decentralised political authority is seemingly a "principle" or "policy" of inferiority to centralised decision making (which is apparently not a principle or policy?), ergo it should be used only when necessary and abandoned if needs be. What is that argument predicated on? Why is decentralised decision making beholden to these "material conditions" but centralised decision making apparently can withstand anything?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it would be interesting if someone did.

[The Feral Underclass]

I provide my opinion, which I thought I did in a normal way, and every step of the way I get my personality, motivation, and integrity questioned and slandered. I'm not sure why this is, whether it's me or other people, but either way it doesn't do good to my state of mind or self-image. Fuck this.

I have no comment on your personality or integrity, I don't know you. All I know is how you debate and the way you present your arguments. I don't mean any offence by it, I just don't enjoy talking to you and clearly you feel the same. Perhaps then, it would be better if we just avoided each other.

[L.A.P.]

I provide my opinion, which I thought I did in a normal way, and every step of the way I get my personality, motivation, and integrity questioned and slandered. I'm not sure why this is, whether it's me or other people, but either way it doesn't do good to my state of mind or self-image. Fuck this.

(You'll probably interpret this as some attempt at trying to guilt trip you again, but recently I tried to express myself instead of having frustration pen up. And I don't intend this to be some sort of dramatic 'oh poor me, everyone's out to get me', it's just not worth the shit-tier level discussions)


, yet look at the nonsense you pen down as poor excuse for an argument.

Poor you, having your politics criticised -- are above criticism?

Saying shit like that makes you come off as an asshole, though. Especially when you just said you were making the effort to be more civil.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Oh god it happened. Tim the musty academic jab was a joke. I see people antagonize Devrim pretty regularly, he just ignores it which is the real trick imo.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh god it happened. Tim the musty academic jab was a joke. I see people antagonize Devrim pretty regularly, he just ignores it which is the real trick imo.

I need to learn this trick.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I recall Khad legitimately pissing me off once, the rest of you NPCs have so far failed in your attempts ;-)

[Subversive]

I think it's apparent from the history of the Free Territory after the Ukrainian Revolution that a true anarchist society cannot last.
The fact that they wish to completely abolish State from the beginning with no means to support an infrastructural development leads to the dissolution of such a system from both external and internal forces.

They have no means to quickly and properly respond to threats, either internal or external. It is up to the individuals themselves, and militia, to dedicate themselves to these sort of responses, often times all having their own solutions and there being no cohesive strategy.

This is an ideological flaw in Anarchism and has nothing to do with the absolute practice of Anarchism. The Free Territory is but one real-world example of this ideological flaw. It is therefore flawed in the same way as Capitalism - a society based on Anarchy would only work for so long. And it can easily be argued that an anarchist society is even less stable than Capitalism itself. It is a self-oppressive system. The individuals give themselves no relief from the demands of external society because they reject natural political representation. All people are burdened with all problems, but have no power to deal with them or truly unite in a front against those problems. They are only oppressing themselves through the fact they lack the infrastructure necessary to be a unified people.

On the other hand, there is no inherent flaw within the Socialist ideology of a temporary centralized State which is used to build an infrastructure for society. The 'corruption', which is the main and only counter-point I've seen argued, is only a circumstantial existence and therefore could be excluded by introducing counter-measures or systematic processes to exclude them.
In other words, repeated attempts at a Socialist society would eventually result in a successful Socialist State. This Socialist State then builds the infrastructure necessary for society to function without the State. This State therefore unifies society. A unified society is the Anarchist's ultimate goal, and ultimate error, which cannot be realized without the infrastructure developed by a unified society, and therefore an established Socialist State.

Anarchism itself has no means to establish this infrastructure or unite people. It is only under a State guidance that such a thing can be done. Anarchism is, by definition, a de-unification of people.
Capitalism is more stable only because it has a unified bourgeois ruling class. Their unification is what allows Capitalist societies to survive.
Therefore an Anarchist society will only last as long as it can unify its people against its problems. But being human beings with varying self-interests which will inevitably conflict, this can absolutely never be a long period of time. It is an unrealistic pipe-dream.
Bakunin was a day-dreamer. Marx was a realist.

[BIXX]

I think it's apparent from the history of the USSR after the Russian Revolution that a true communist society cannot last.
The fact that they wish to completely abolish capitalism from the beginning with no means to motivate people to work leads to the dissolution of such a system from both external and internal forces.

They have no means to quickly and properly respond to economic demands, either internal or external. It is up to the individuals themselves, and militia, to dedicate themselves to these economic solutions, often times leading to heavy state repression of the individual.

This is an ideological flaw in communism and has nothing to do with the absolute practice of communism. The USSR is but one real-world example of this ideological flaw. It is therefore flawed in the same way as Capitalism - a society based on communism would only work for so long. And it can easily be argued that a communist society is even less stable than Capitalism itself. It is a self-oppressive system. The individuals give themselves no relief from the demands of external society because they reject wage labor as motivation. All people are burdened with economic problems, but have no power to deal with them or truly unite in a front against the state. They are only oppressing themselves through the fact they lack the motivation necessary to be a unified people....


I'm getting bored but you get the idea. I think what you have said is ridiculous, and a mid representation of anarchist thought.

[robot]

to me it's more a matter of pragmatism

the biggest problem is not that one of the approaches is wrong or right, but that people doctrinally subscribe to one or the other approach, and then proceed to fight against the other side. This creates conflict between revolutionary organizations that can be exploited by the capitalist system to prevent revolution.

the greatest irony is that if Marx's state or Bakunin's anarchy were ever to come about, and the people supported the other thinker, it the system would quickly be changed to the other. both system has its problems, but the systems we use to progress along the road to communism will inevitably not be perfect, if they were there would be no need for communism and we could simply halt all social progress in a socialist or anarchic society.

to get into the specifics of the criticisms a bit more, i would certianly agree that a monolithic, powerful state creates for itself a ruling elite even if it has proletarian origins. this can be seen in pretty much every socialist state that has come into existence and has centralized power. those at the top, even if democratically elected, will inevitably end up using their control over production to aggrandize their own wealth, they will then use their wealth and influence to ensure their children receive the best possible education and then give those children a head start in the political system so they can go on to be the next generation of powerful officials. The system in many ways resembles the current methods used by the bourgeoisie to ensure they have control over the government despite fairly democratic elections.

however the criticisms of the anarchist state or lack thereof are equally valid. even if workplace democracy is instituted, if someone is able to hoard any form of material wealth they can use it as capital and essentially start to rebuild the capitalist system within the anarchist one.

the solution in my view lies in a reconciliation of the two, libertarian socialism if you will, but ultimately whatever system serves the interests of the working class best at the moment is the best system, so long as that system can be later changed as circumstances change. subscription to a doctrinal ideology which specifies a specific system has always seemed strange to me, there are thousands of different forms of capitalist state, so why is there only one 'correct' form of socialist state or society? this and the conflict between communists and anarchists are in my view among the main reasons for the failure, so far, of both of those and other proletarian movements.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I think what's coming out of this debate is interesting. In particular the narrative that decentralised political authority is seemingly a "principle" or "policy" of inferiority to centralised decision making (which is apparently not a principle or policy?), ergo it should be used only when necessary and abandoned if needs be. What is that argument predicated on? Why is decentralised decision making beholden to these "material conditions" but centralised decision making apparently can withstand anything?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it would be interesting if someone did.

Apparently, I am too rude for the rudest person on revleft to debate with me, but I will answer nevertheless, since I guess you attribute this argument to me.

I have never said that centralised decision making is in any meaningful sense superior to decentralised decision making in the abstract. That wasn't my point. What I did say and did imply was that there are circumstances when decentralised decision making can't work, because of the circumstances. To give a very crude example - if you are in a battle and have a group of soldiers to lead as a general (whether democratically elected or not), you can't have decentralised decision making process at that point, you can't just gather people around and attempt to decide democratically what course of action would be best to take if there is literally a bunch of soldiers shooting at you. At these points you, as a leader, substitute for the whole group and make a decision. Any attempt to have decentralised decision making under such circumstances would negate itself. I think you can easily extrapolate the above example to some other circumstances where centralised decision making is simply the only game in town, whether during civil war or immediately afterwards.

It's not that decentralised or centralised decision making is some policy or principle that you shrug off when you don't like it - that's not my point. My point is that there are circumstances when one does work and the other one doesn't. There are circumstances when one is more effective than the other. For instance, I don't think that in a post-civil war society, post-class society centralised decision making is in any way better - I think it's obviously detrimental (e.g. Soviet production inefficiencies under Stalinism) and should be discarded.

The point is to recognise that you can't have decentralised decision making at all points during and even after the revolution, because of the circumstances that you find yourself in. Not because one doesn't like decentralised decision making or because centralisation of political authority is better in some abstract sense, but simply because decentralisation might lead to negation of itself, i.e. to losing the revolution. If history teaches us anything it is that we don't have revolutions as we would like them to have and some risky decisions have to be taken.

I think we ought to be very critical of any manifestation of hierarchy or centralisation - even when it is necessary - especially institutionalised one, but there is a thin line between being critical of hierarchy and dismissing all manifestation of hierarchy or centralisation of political authority as counter-revolutionary actions. For instance, I think that Bolsheviks ought to be criticised viciously for decisions they made, but they ought to be criticised as one of us, i.e. they ought to be criticised having the conditions under which they made these decision in mind and reasons for them, as opposed to dismissing them as counter-revolutionary, power-hungry, authoritarian dickheads, which, from my experience, is precisely what most of the "libertarian" strands of communists do here.

[John Nada]

I think what's coming out of this debate is interesting. In particular the narrative that decentralised political authority is seemingly a "principle" or "policy" of inferiority to centralised decision making (which is apparently not a principle or policy?), ergo it should be used only when necessary and abandoned if needs be. What is that argument predicated on? Why is decentralised decision making beholden to these "material conditions" but centralised decision making apparently can withstand anything?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it would be interesting if someone did.

That's an interesting question. I think that the "material conditions"(yeah, this is often an excuse for opportunism) can make centralized decision making inferior. In a primitive society, if someone were to start acting like a capitalist boss, everyone would look at them like they were high! Likewise sometimes autonomy is more effective. The people on the ground obviously have better knowledge of the situation than a few leaders. It's less likely that there will be a bind spot, and the people won't be depended on the strengths and flaws of one person. One or a few people won't fuck it up.

However, a flaw is that it can be hard to get a quick consensus, particularly over a large area. There might be several different ideas floating around, some might be stepping on the other ones' toes. By centralizing the process, it could acquire more consistency, more quickly, with less contradictions.

I think the thing that seems to get lost is that both decentralism of Bakunin and centralism of Marx are both revolutionary theories, for specific reasons.

[The Feral Underclass]

However, a flaw is that it can be hard to get a quick consensus, particularly over a large area. There might be several different ideas floating around, some might be stepping on the other ones' toes. By centralizing the process, it could acquire more consistency, more quickly, with less contradictions.

I think a consensus and a decision are two different things. I don't see any reason why making a decision using the imperative mandate system has to take any more time or be any more complicated than a central body doing it. If the imperative mandate system is badly organised, then it could be a problem, but that's the case with anything.

[The Feral Underclass]

To give a very crude example - if you are in a battle and have a group of soldiers to lead as a general (whether democratically elected or not), you can't have decentralised decision making process at that point, you can't just gather people around and attempt to decide democratically what course of action would be best to take if there is literally a bunch of soldiers shooting at you. At these points you, as a leader, substitute for the whole group and make a decision. Any attempt to have decentralised decision making under such circumstances would negate itself. I think you can easily extrapolate the above example to some other circumstances where centralised decision making is simply the only game in town, whether during civil war or immediately afterwards.

That isn't an example of political authority.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

That isn't an example of political authority.

Yes, the point of that example wasn't to show a concrete example of political authority, but to show an example where circumstances necessitate concentration of power. Then the logic of that example could be extrapolated to the sphere of politics and the actions of Bolsheviks etc.

Try again.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, the point of that example wasn't to show a concrete example of political authority, but to show an example where circumstances necessitate concentration of power. Then the logic of that example could be extrapolated to the sphere of politics and the actions of Bolsheviks etc.

Try again.

Try again at what? We're talking specifically about the centralisation of political authority. It could be extrapolated, but why would anyone do that? It would be entirely dishonest to do so.

Extrapolating a conclusion from a false premise is called a non-sequitor logical fallacy. Just because an example of centralisation works in a set of circumstances unrelated to political authority does not mean that the same is true of a set of circumstances relating to it.

In a specific situation in which life-and-death decisions need to be made, a group of volunteers submitting to the expert advise of a comrade in that instance, is not in any way remotely similar to political decisions affecting the entire class being made by a central decision making body. You cannot conflate military and political. They are not the same thing.

Err, "try again" :rolleyes:

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Try again at what? We're talking specifically about the centralisation of political authority. It could be extrapolated, but why would anyone do that? It would be entirely dishonest to do so.

Extrapolating a conclusion from a false premise is called a non-sequitor logical fallacy. Just because an example of centralisation works in a set of circumstances unrelated to political authority does not mean that the same is true of a set of circumstances relating to it.

In a specific situation in which life-and-death decisions need to be made a group of volunteers submitting to the expert advise of a comrade is not in any way remotely similar to political decisions affecting the entire class being made by a central decision making body.

Err, "try again" :rolleyes:

You are deliberately trying to not understand, right? Then again, you always do that, so I am not sure.

But yeah, let's not "try again", we would be just wasting each others' time.

[The Feral Underclass]

You are deliberately trying to not understand, right? Then again, you always do that, so I am not sure.

But yeah, let's not "try again", we would be just wasting each others' time.

I understand what you're saying and what you're saying is wrong, as I highlighted.