Anarchism and Communism in the revolution

[Heretek]

I didn't know if I should put this in theory or politics, so here it is in theory.

Say the anarchists rise up in revolution. Would communists support them, join them but subvert them, try their own revolt elsewhere, or try to repress them with the capitalists? If you're an anarchist, just reverse anarchists and communists.

Personally, depending on the dominant anarchist group, I would probably join in with them, possibly attempting to sway some to communism but fighting the capitalists all the way. We all stand for the workers, with the exception of some I would never support (easiest ones are the stalinists or anarcho-capitalists).

[John Nada]

I don't even think a lot of Marxists would support other Marxists, let alone anarchists. Nor would a lot of anarchists support other anarchists, let alone Marxists. Not even within the same tendency. Sadly that's just how it's likely going to be. It's probably contingent on a lot of things(location, history, international situation, how it's playing out in practice, theoretical compatibility, individual personalities, pre-revolution scene, demographics, victories, defeats, ect.)

Yet I could imagine even some Leninist supporting an anarchist revolution that's succeeding(a lot seem to be ex-anarchist who just don't think it'll work or support anything anti-imperialist/pro-workers anyway). Or to a lesser degree anarchists supporting a Leninist insurrection that's not going all Great Purge police state(bar set too high?:unsure: ). It sounds outlandish, but consider the absolutely sketchy shit that's had the support of either over the years that's anti-capitalist/anti-fascist/anti-state/anti-imperialist/pro-democratic/progressive/opportunist. Though some seem to have higher standards than others, or different ones altogether.

Me personally, I'm open to whatever is working towards communism asap. It's not about dogmas or rituals that must work, but communism and the liberation of the world. I'd actually prefer an anarchist revolution. I just currently think something like Maoism applied to an imperialist-capitalist context is more likely to succeed, as outlandish and obsurd as that probably sounds:laugh:. I view it as a science, so if a peaceful, spontaneous general strike provoked by the reformist, entryist tactics of some professional affinity groups chanting the correct slogans after one riot resulted in a revolution, the feasibility of that route goes up. I'd have to reconsider my own opinions that are likely to be irrelevant anyway.

[Blake's Baby]

'The Anarchists' aren't going to 'rise up in revolution'. Neither are 'the Communists' (I assume you mean 'the Marxists'). Anarchists mostly are communists (except for some syndicalists and a few individualist Anarchists who take their cue from Stirner).

It's the working class that will rise up in a revolution.

And if the working class starts to massively struggle against capitalism then of course Marxists and Anarchists should support it. Will they? If they don't, they're not revolutionaries.

Will some people and groups try to subvert the process for their own ends? Probably. Some of them might even do it from some misguided sense that they know better than the working class or other revolutionaries.

[Exterminatus]

I would hope that majority of Anarchists during the revolution or civil war recognize the importance of a strongly centralized proletarian dictatorship.

[Guardia Rossa]

I would hope that majority of Anarchists during the revolution or civil war recognize the importance of a strongly centralized proletarian dictatorship.

I hope the majority of Marxists too recognize the importance of a proletarian dictatorship. I'm not sure if they will. Apparently some are more interested in bourgeois politics.

As for the OP, I personally like more Platformists, Left-communists and perhaps even some "regular" anarchists than, for example, "Marxists"-Leninists or some "Trotskyst" factions, so this Anarchist vs Marxist opposition is a false opposition. Both sides have marker socialists, clearly pro-capitalist factions, some weird petit-bourgeois factions (Anarcho-Nationalists anyone?) and etc...

But, more than that, I believe that when a real revolution comes most revolutionary groups will be forced to work together. A man can hope, yes?

[Aslan]

I'd work together with most anarchists ( Anarcho-syndicalists, Feminists, Libertarian socialists, Primitivists, etc.), Hell I'd even work with Syndicalists and other non-communists as long as they share my views. I'd work with Trotskyists and Leninists (even though the vanguard thing is not preferable). Social-Democrats are also workable people, along with Democratic Socialists (whats the difference?) in the early stages of revolution. I guess Scandinavian Socialists could be helpful too. I'd even say some liberals on the left spectrum (Youtube Athiest types) could be convinced to help as well, buut I don't count on them...

Edit: I'll have to explain why these people are useful in my blog...

I wouldn't work with Fascists, Stalinists, Hoxhaists, Some branches of Trotskyists which flirt with authoritarianism, Marxist-Leninists, Thirdworldists, Unruhists (lol), nationalists, Socialist nationalists, AnCaps, RonPaul-ists, Paleoconservatives, American gun wielding morons, Anarcho-monarchists (whatever that means), Anarcho-Nationalists, Strasserists, Neo-Nazis, etc.

[Guardia Rossa]

(whats the difference?)

AFAIK One quotes Marx and the other repels Marx, but they speak the same language. A Democratic Socialist is a Social-Democrat not yet elected.
At least that's what happens every time here in Brazil.

[Heretek]

'The Anarchists' aren't going to 'rise up in revolution'. Neither are 'the Communists' (I assume you mean 'the Marxists'). Anarchists mostly are communists (except for some syndicalists and a few individualist Anarchists who take their cue from Stirner).

It's the working class that will rise up in a revolution.

And if the working class starts to massively struggle against capitalism then of course Marxists and Anarchists should support it. Will they? If they don't, they're not revolutionaries.

Will some people and groups try to subvert the process for their own ends? Probably. Some of them might even do it from some misguided sense that they know better than the working class or other revolutionaries.

What I mostly mean is the form of organization. Each group has its own way of saying the revolution will occur, and what needs to happen in order to succeed. For example, if the workers all rise up espousing some primitivist or Stalinist line, I would not support them, and while these groups may consider themselves fighting for the workers, others may not.

You say others may try to subvert the revolution for their own ends. That may be true, but say the world is in turmoil with some trotskyist or Stalinist revolt. They think they're fighting the good fight, but other groups come to the conclusion their methods will somehow doom or subvert the revolution back to capitalism, via bureaucratic decay or bourgeoise fraternising or whatever argument groups have against one another's program. Some anarchists would never support Marxists, which who I was implying yes, some Marxists would never support anarchists. Even if the whole of the world is rising up, what various groups see as the outcome is still up for grabs. Subversion to dictatorship or state capitalism, destruction of the revolution, etc.

[Ismail]

Historically, Communists have sought to work with anarchists. For example, in Spain during the Civil War the Communists worked with Durruti, who called for uniting all anti-fascists forces. Durruti's death was mourned by the Communist press both in Spain and abroad, because even though they obviously didn't agree with his anarchist views they still regarded him as a working-class leader. The same could not be said of many other figures in the FAI who hated Communism.

There were anarchists who joined the Red Army during the Russian Civil War, the most obvious example being the sailor Zhelezniakov. When Kropotkin died the Bolsheviks wanted to hold a state funeral, although anti-Bolshevik anarchists prevented them from going through with this.

As a result of the October Revolution numerous American anarchists and syndicalists (like William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn) learned of the doctrines of Marxism-Leninism and either helped found or joined the Communist Party. I think in any revolutionary situation there will be a similar occurrence of people from other segments of the left rallying around Marxism-Leninism. If not, such a revolution will suffer the same fate as the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution of 1905, the uprising in Asturias in 1934, etc., devoid of sufficient organization and leadership and thus defeated by reaction.

[Blake's Baby]

What I mostly mean is the form of organization. Each group has its own way of saying the revolution will occur, and what needs to happen in order to succeed. For example, if the workers all rise up espousing some primitivist or Stalinist line, I would not support them, and while these groups may consider themselves fighting for the workers, others may not...

But the working class in struggle, even if it has all sorts of illusions in Stalinism, or nationalism, or religion, or whatever else, is the whole point. We can't postulate a working class purged of bourgeois ideology and start from there. First, it's not possible, and even if it were, it still wouldn't happen. The working class wil begin the revolution in a state of uneven confusion.


... You say others may try to subvert the revolution for their own ends. That may be true, but say the world is in turmoil with some trotskyist or Stalinist revolt. They think they're fighting the good fight, but other groups come to the conclusion their methods will somehow doom or subvert the revolution back to capitalism, via bureaucratic decay or bourgeoise fraternising or whatever argument groups have against one another's program. Some anarchists would never support Marxists, which who I was implying yes, some Marxists would never support anarchists. Even if the whole of the world is rising up, what various groups see as the outcome is still up for grabs. Subversion to dictatorship or state capitalism, destruction of the revolution, etc.

As long as the revolution is a proletarian revolution - as long as it's a revolution, where the working class is in control - then what we should be doing if we are serious is being involved and arguing what we think is the correct line. It's up to the working class to actually make the revolution, not some politics nerds. If the working class starts listening to the wrong politics nerds (such as Ismail) then I'll continue arguing until Ismail organises a Cheka to come and shoot me.

That means 'the revolution' has become 'the counter-revolution'. It is no longer the working class in control, it is some self-appointed revolutionary leadership. Why should Marxists support the counter-revolution? Why should Anarchists?

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry, double post.

[Heretek]

But the working class in struggle, even if it has all sorts of illusions in Stalinism, or nationalism, or religion, or whatever else, is the whole point. We can't postulate a working class purged of bourgeois ideology and start from there. First, it's not possible, and even if it were, it still wouldn't happen. The working class will begin the revolution in a state of uneven confusion.



As long as the revolution is a proletarian revolution - as long as it's a revolution, where the working class is in control - then what we should be doing if we are serious is being involved and arguing what we think is the correct line. It's up to the working class to actually make the revolution, not some politics nerds. If the working class starts listening to the wrong politics nerds (such as Ismail) then I'll continue arguing until Ismail organises a Cheka to come and shoot me.

That means 'the revolution' has become 'the counter-revolution'. It is no longer the working class in control, it is some self-appointed revolutionary leadership. Why should Marxists support the counter-revolution? Why should Anarchists?

Wouldn't certain groups that such and such oppose potentially start and have the counterrevolution ongoing at the same time as the revolution? Isn't there potential for civil war among the workers during the revolution? (Not likely near the beggining, hopefully, but more so towards the middle and end point). You said it yourself, the workers spring from bourgeois ideological roots. And those roots involve fratricide.

Our end goal is a socialist(communist, whatever you want to call it) society. Free associating producers and equality without a state. We are already willing to start a revolution over it (I hope), why would we bow to something we view as completely antithical to that end from within the working class? Not all workers would be red, some would simply join so they can be the new ruling class and oppress someone else. Of course we would not appease counterrevolutionaries. But that doesn't mean they don't belong to the socialist tradition, or lack the ability to gain traction.

You said you would speak out until silenced. But against who (Ismail, apparently)? What's the line? And what groups would you not oppose so vehemently? Would you or can you see certain groups blurring together, either temporarily or permanently? That's really the original point I've been getting at. The why could be interesting as well.

[Blake's Baby]

I see the process of revolution as being a real melting-pot. We're all going to be in the workers' councils and we're all at first going to be arguing our own (personal, organisational, tendential if that's the word for 'relating to tendency') points of view - while also trying to assimilate the new (and constantly-changing) situation we find ourselves in as the revolution progresses.

In that case I expect that existing groups will mutate probably out of recognition. Groups and individuals will come together, others will split apart. Look at how the war followed by the revolution in Russia a) caused the SRs to split; b) caused the Mensheviks to split c) Caused Trotsky's tiny group to join the Bolsheviks d) led to the formation of the ComIntern... or look at what happened to the SPD in Germany in the same period.

As to the other question, I'd be speaking out against any individual or party seeking to get the workers to hand its power over to any other bodies (as happened in Germany with catastrophic consequences).