Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

[OnFire]

Troskyism, in the fight for working class, is to be exposed and fought against as an unscientific and reactionary thought. Leon Trotsky himself was an arrogant petty-bourgeois who was expelled from the Communist Party and the Soviet Union for attempting to form factions within Soviet society. As an ideology, Trotskyism is revisionism; it is the perversion of Marxism-Leninism to suit the needs of the exploiters as well as Leon Trotsky. Trotskyites claim that Lenin and Trotsky were comrades before the Russian Revolution who were very much in agreement with one another. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Trotsky’s arrogance in his own claims of ideological superiority can be summed up by Trotsky himself the best:


“Among the Russian comrades, there was not one from whom I could learn anything…The errors which I have committed . . always referred to questions that were not fundamental or strategic. . . In all conscientiousness I cannot, in the appreciation of the political situation and of its revolutionary perspectives, accuse myself of any serious errors of judgment”.


“At the moment when it seized the power and created the Soviet republic, Bolshevism drew to itself all the best elements in the currents of Socialist thought that were nearest to it’. Can there be even a shadow of doubt that when he spoke so deliberately of the best representatives of the currents closest to Bolshevism, Lenin had foremost in mind what is now called ‘historical Trotskyism?’ . . Whom else could he have had in mind?” (Trotsky, 353).


Lenin also saw through Trotsky’s arrogance:


“Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events . . in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky”
“What a swine this Trotsky is — Left phrases and a bloc with the Right! He ought to be exposed”


Trotskyism is not a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views like those that make up the world outlook of the working class. It must be asserted that the theory and practice of Trotskyism is diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views that make up the world outlook of the working class. It is a science of revolutionary transformation of the world, concerned with the laws that form the development of nature, society, thought and class society. It provides a guide to action to overthrow capitalism. It is the ideology that has had the only proven success to build socialism. It is a living and breathing theory, a theory forged from the experience of the struggle and creative actions of the masses, and an indispensable guide to action.
Trotskyites do not uphold the the scientific theories pounded by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, nor do they hold onto any unity or principles, as can be shown in their political parties which are known and famous throughout the world for forming factions within factions. Marxist-Leninists, unlike Trotskyites, have never, at any point of history or today, recognized the Trotskyite “Fourth International” as a body of communists. Trotsky was extremely adventurist and his advocacy for spreading revolution by foreign intervention would have inevitably been to the detriment of the working class.


His false political line against the socialist Soviet Union is echoed to this day by all reactionaries in the capitalist media, television and in the CIA and Washington. Even in the few short years after Trotsky’s counterrevolutionary scribbles were published it became fashionable for big capitalists to abandon open hatred of communism and instead adopt the position of Trotsky, or criticizing the Russian Revolution “from the left.” While the world faced the full onslaught of blitzkrieg and the genocidal bombing campaigns of the Nazi forces in World War II, and when the USSR with the guidance of the Communist Party and Joseph Stalin was almost single-handedly fighting this threat on behalf of all of humanity, the left-opposition led by the exiled Trotsky did all they possibly could to sabotage and wreck the USSR, even openly advocating terrorism and massive military attacks against the Soviet Union to destroy the Bolsheviks. Trotsky in his own public pronouncements openly called for the overthrow of the Soviet state and speculated that a foreign invasion might provide the catalyst for a takeover by himself. Yes, he wanted to ride to power on the back of German tanks.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Oh yes, and marxism-leninism is SO it. Stop following leaders, and especially leaders from a hundred years ago. But yes, you are right, we should fight Trotskism because it advocates state power.

[OnFire]

Oh yes, and marxism-leninism is SO it. Stop following leaders, and especially leaders from a hundred years ago. But yes, you are right, we should fight Trotskism because it advocates state power.

Comrade, in sharp contrast to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, your anarchism stands, first of all, for the elimination of every kind of state, including the state of working class political power, the dictatorship of the proletariat. You Anarchists preach abstention from political activity, and since anarchism rejects the principles of scientific socialism and dialectical materialism, it can play only a negative, reactionary, disruptive role in the struggle for socialism.

This is well illustrated by the activity of the anarchist Makhno Movement in Soviet Russia after the socialist revolution of November 1917. It was led by the Nestor Makhno (Anarchism wants to abolish hierarchies and still has leaders and idols like Bakunin and Makhno?), and from 1918 to 1921, fought the Red Army without respite.

The development of the ideal side, the development of consciousness, is preceded by the development of the material side, the development of the external conditions: first the external conditions change, first the material side changes, and then consciousness, the ideal side, changes accordingly.

Thus, the history of the development of nature utterly refutes so-called idealism.

The same thing must be said about the history of the development of human society. So first we must abolish the conditions that lead to the formation of a bourgeois capitalist state before states at all can be abolished, first the state under the rule of the workers vanguard must grow stronger before it can be allowed to wither away. This stage which leads to communism is what we call socialism.
Comrade, I do not doubt your committment to the cause of overthrowing the filthy capitalists, but Anarchism never led a successful revolution and never will. Anarchism is a tool of anti-socialism.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

[(A)]

Marxist Leninist are ridiculous. You worship a idea half written by a racist nationalist who believed that the English working class would rule a socialist empire and wanted to exterminate the Slavs (engles) but call it scientific socialism and insist despite over 100 years of hard evidence on the contrary that it would work.

Not only was Marx's works not meant for Russia/China or anywhere at the time but Lenin's ideas amount to nothing more then state capitalism.

So at this point we can prove you adore a book written by a German philosopher and a racist national "socialist" who belied in English superiority and was then misused my a Russian madman who called for a capitalist totalitarian state.

Yall are super smart and totally will bring about the socialist revolution and communism any day now. Fucking jokes the lot of you.

[Ale Brider]

OP openly identifies with a hierarchical repressive organization of violence that has always acted on the behalf of the bureucratic elites of a fallen capitalist state that was not established as a consequence of an authentic proletarian revolution. Liberalism at its finest. (But it's red so it must be good)

(On both sides here, actually. I mean come on (A), I think you know too that you are either blatantly misreading or exaggerating the views of Engels. He indeed rambled a bit about how the Slavic people were "reactionary", and even contrasted them to the "revolutionary" Hungarians and whatnot, but these were just temporary ramblings and not his serious theoretical work. Of course these kind of things are unacceptable today, but it is you, not Engels, who takes it to the extremes now.)

[IbelieveInanarchy]

Comrade, in sharp contrast to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, your anarchism stands, first of all, for the elimination of every kind of state, including the state of working class political power, the dictatorship of the proletariat. You Anarchists preach abstention from political activity, and since anarchism rejects the principles of scientific socialism and dialectical materialism, it can play only a negative, reactionary, disruptive role in the struggle for socialism.

This is well illustrated by the activity of the anarchist Makhno Movement in Soviet Russia after the socialist revolution of November 1917. It was led by the Nestor Makhno (Anarchism wants to abolish hierarchies and still has leaders and idols like Bakunin and Makhno?), and from 1918 to 1921, fought the Red Army without respite.

The development of the ideal side, the development of consciousness, is preceded by the development of the material side, the development of the external conditions: first the external conditions change, first the material side changes, and then consciousness, the ideal side, changes accordingly.

Thus, the history of the development of nature utterly refutes so-called idealism.

The same thing must be said about the history of the development of human society. So first we must abolish the conditions that lead to the formation of a bourgeois capitalist state before states at all can be abolished, first the state under the rule of the workers vanguard must grow stronger before it can be allowed to wither away. This stage which leads to communism is what we call socialism.
Comrade, I do not doubt your committment to the cause of overthrowing the filthy capitalists, but Anarchism never led a successful revolution and never will. Anarchism is a tool of anti-socialism.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. You say this while promoting your ideology which is named after two idols. Anarchists constantly and consequently say that there should be no leader and no hierarchy, just because there was a group who called themselves anarchists had an hierarchy(while at war against totalitarians) does not mean that anarchist actually DO want hierarchy. Marxism-leninism has been tried and utterly failed because it sets up a system for exploitation of the working class just like capitalism does. Anarchist societies don't collapse because of inherent contradictions in their practice, they collapse because totalitarians, be they nazi, stalinist or capitalist, come with an army and kill them. Examples are the paris commune and anarchists in spain. All statists come together when anarchists rise up, because they inherently are against worker self-control. I am sure a big part of Marxist-leninists are genuine in their struggle for the working class, but their struggle is in vain.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH2pFTx_8VE

[(A)]

OP openly identifies with a hierarchical repressive organization of violence that has always acted on the behalf of the bureucratic elites of a fallen capitalist state that was not established as a consequence of an authentic proletarian revolution. Liberalism at its finest. (But it's red so it must be good)

(On both sides here, actually. I mean come on (A), I think you know too that you are either blatantly misreading or exaggerating the views of Engels. He indeed rambled a bit about how the Slavic people were "reactionary", and even contrasted them to the "revolutionary" Hungarians and whatnot, but these were just temporary ramblings and not his serious theoretical work. Of course these kind of things are unacceptable today, but it is you, not Engels, who takes it to the extremes now.)

I am whole hardheartedly tired of online authoritarians zealously spreading the holy words of Marx and Lenin; completely devoid of any scientific evidence despite their claim of "scientific socialism".
What an insult to use the word science in such a way. Pretending to have an intellectual authority over humanity while doing nothing more then mindlessly agreeing with Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin or Castro.
The saints of the "soviet" empire are sad heroes to worship. When talking about the "Soviet" empire I cant even rightly use the term soviet which means workers counsel.

The Soviet Union was neither a Union of Soviets nor a socialist state. It was a capitalist state founded by social democrats that like all Liberal republics fell to corruption and precipitated the rise of a fascist dictatorship under the rule of the KGB. The same has occurred or is occurring in every state that was founded on the principles of Marxist-leninism.

Marxist-Leninism was an abject failure.

All it is good for now is proving that Anarchism is the only path to communism.


It is only by the abolition of the state, by the conquest of perfect liberty by the individual, by free agreement, association, and absolute free federation that we can reach Communism - the possession in common of our social inheritance, and the production in common of all riches.



—
Peter Kropotkin

[comrada]

I am whole hardheartedly tired of online authoritarians zealously spreading the holy words of Marx and Lenin; completely devoid of any scientific evidence despite their claim of "scientific socialism".
What an insult to use the word science in such a way. Pretending to have an intellectual authority over humanity while doing nothing more then mindlessly agreeing with Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin or Castro.
The saints of the "soviet" empire are sad heroes to worship. When talking about the "Soviet" empire I cant even rightly use the term soviet which means workers counsel.

The Soviet Union was neither a Union of Soviets nor a socialist state. It was a capitalist state founded by social democrats that like all Liberal republics fell to corruption and precipitated the rise of a fascist dictatorship under the rule of the KGB. The same has occurred or is occurring in every state that was founded on the principles of Marxist-leninism.

Marxist-Leninism was an abject failure.

All it is good for now is proving that Anarchism is the only path to communism.


19620

[Antiochus]

Its a shame the moderators are no longer active/useless. If they had done their work IBiA and (A) would be banned. But never mind that. I find it absolutely hysterical that you cry and cry about Stalin's "totalitarianism" (just FYI I am by no means a Stalinist), as if those noble Chomskykite scum-fucking trashheaps did not kill (proportionally) more people in Catalonia than the "evil Bolsheviks" did in 1917-1921, lmao. The "worker's self-control" totally "non-state" the CNT (1 party rule; but that only matters when the Judeo-Bolsheviks are in power) that made masturbation a capital offense and forced nuns and priests to fuck each other so they wouldn't be killed.

What a bad fucking joke. And Noam Chomsky. LOL! Noam Chomsky. That says it all. A liberal telling these clowns they are the "true" Socialists. That Lenin is nothing more than a "Capitalist" while Bertrand Russel and Adam Smith and all the other cretins he idolizes are the "real progressives". Cringe-worthy.


So at this point we can prove you adore a book written by a German philosopher and a racist national "socialist" who belied in English superiority and was then misused my a Russian madman who called for a capitalist totalitarian state.

Well mate, if Engels was a "racist" (first time I've heard this charge tbh; why not just accuse him of killing your precious foxes?) then your god-king Bakunin was a motherfucking anti-christ incarnate. Yes, Bakunin, the same monkey Chomsky idolizes and intellectually spearheaded the Anarchists in Spain. The same one that called, openly, for an extermination of Jews and is still, to this day, quoted vociferously by Neo-Nazis. Let me actually quote good Bakunin, lover of freedom and predictor of Marxist slavery! :


This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other...

Cute how a motherfucker that spewed the 'Jewish-Communism'/Nazi line avant la lettre is the "true" Communist.

[(A)]

Its a shame the moderators are no longer active/useless. If they had done their work IBiA and (A) would be banned. But never mind that. I find it absolutely hysterical that you cry and cry about Stalin's "totalitarianism" (just FYI I am by no means a Stalinist), as if those noble Chomskykite scum-fucking trashheaps did not kill (proportionally) more people in Catalonia than the "evil Bolsheviks" did in 1917-1921, lmao. The "worker's self-control" totally "non-state" the CNT (1 party rule; but that only matters when the Judeo-Bolsheviks are in power) that made masturbation a capital offense and forced nuns and priests to fuck each other so they wouldn't be killed.

What a bad fucking joke. And Noam Chomsky. LOL! Noam Chomsky. That says it all. A liberal telling these clowns they are the "true" Socialists. That Lenin is nothing more than a "Capitalist" while Bertrand Russel and Adam Smith and all the other cretins he idolizes are the "real progressives". Cringe-worthy.

There is a big difference between casualty's of war and building a prison complex that ground threw an untold amount of Soviet citizens and innocent people; not to mention true socialist political prisoners.
More people died in the war because it was a war against nationalism; the same fascism that Stalin was perpetrating in the name of communism.
Lenin held a small coup on an already defeated monarchy. There is no comparison between the two.



Well mate, if Engels was a "racist" (first time I've heard this charge tbh; why not just accuse him of killing your precious foxes?) then your god-king Bakunin was a motherfucking anti-christ incarnate. Yes, Bakunin, the same monkey Chomsky idolizes and intellectually spearheaded the Anarchists in Spain. The same one that called, openly, for an extermination of Jews and is still, to this day, quoted vociferously by Neo-Nazis. Let me actually quote good Bakunin, lover of freedom and predictor of Marxist slavery! :



Cute how a motherfucker that spewed the 'Jewish-Communism'/Nazi line avant la lettre is the "true" Communist.

Never read his work; I think Bakunin was a stupid shit. Does not mean he did not have a grasp of oppressive hierarchy's... him being a nationalist and all.

I dont go around calling myself a Kroptkinite because I dont worship people like saints. Leninists, Maoists, Stalinainsts, Trots or whatever; you are the problem. Sectarianism and reaction is all you will get from Liberals; socialist or otherwise.

[comrada]

Stalin did nothing wrong.

[Antiochus]

There is a big difference between casualty's of war and building a prison complex that ground threw an untold amount of Soviet citizens and innocent people; not to mention true socialist political prisoners.

HAHAHA. Casualties of "war"? I just explained to you the Anarchists in Spain EXECUTED over 8,000+ people (Catalonia had a population of around 2.3 million back then), this is by their OWN admission, and that was in 1 (!) year (1936), as opposed to the period of 1918-1921. Do the math. It would be the equivalent of the Bolsheviks killing 700,000+ people, a number even conservative historians don't try to put forward at this point.

And how cute! You must be the interlocutor from the sky that determines who is guilty (the people killed by Anarchists in Spain) vs the innocent (Those killed by the Bolsheviks). Pathetic.


not to mention true socialist political prisoners.

A canard. I mean, Kerensky claimed he was a 'true socialist'. So did Atlee in 1945. Besides their words, what proof could one have of whether they were "true" socialists or not? Are you forgetting that significant numbers of Anarchists eventually joined the Bolsheviks anyway? You are also pretending as if large numbers of these Mensheviks and SRs didn't literally fight alongside the Whites, you are pretending as if they merely stood around picking daisies until they were cruelly guillotined.



I dont go around calling myself a Kroptkinite because I dont worship people like saints. Leninists, Maoists, Stalinainsts, Trots or whatever; you are the problem. Sectarianism and reaction is all you will get from Liberals;

I don't follow a stupid religion like Christianity or Islam. I only listen to the wise words for L. Ron Hubbard. As if people like Kroptopkin and Bakunin didn't, during their lifetimes, have cults of personalities among their cliques.

[(A)]

The Soviet empire killed over a Million people in its prison system. 8000 people killed during a revolution Vs millions killed by the soviet prison system.
Huge fucking difference.

You willfully follow the stupid religion of Marxist-Leninism. An idea that has no bearing on today. I have no problem with Marxism on its own but Leninism and its fellow Liberal socialists need to go away.
It is worth nothing more today then a guideline as what NOT to do.
Luckily modern revolutionary's are abandoning it for real social revolution in the form of Libertarianism.

[willowtooth]

Luckily modern revolutionary's are abandoning it for real social revolution in the form of Libertarianism.

Ha! I knew it


not the way your defining it... fuck man ive been reading a lot of the shit youve been posting and your one of those ron paul libertarians maybe just starting to get over it types.. but thats what you are man... ancap libertaryan shit

I still love u though :)

[OnFire]

What are we supposed to do? Be just as idealist as the anarchists and throw away the revolution? One has to safeguard the revolution and that takes hard choices. The other result would be the total destruction of socialism and the eradication of the peoples republic. The Paris commune and the Spanish "revolution" were crushed bc of their unwillingness to defend the revolution against the capitalists. The anarchist Makhno Movement in Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1921 fought the Red Army without respite and was allied in this fight against the Red Army with Kulaks and Black Hundreds of White Russia.

One may believe that socialism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two. This is a mistake as communists believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly Marxists-Leninists hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. After the proletariat has conquered political power it has to destroy the old state machine and substitute for it a new one consisting of the organisation of armed workers while tthe anarchists deny that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state power, its revolutionary dictatorship.

Karl Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward by Bakunin. The whole internal history of the IWA is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International - the main hindrance in their way were Marx and Engels. Anarchism rejects the principles of scientific socialism (Marxism-Leninism) and has only a very disruptive role in the struggle for socialism. It is an reactionary ally of imperialist capitalism.

According to the founding statement of the Communist International in January 1919, the aims of Marxist-Leninists are that the working class must seize political power, establish its rule (‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’) and proceed to build a socialist society. The working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew.

The cornerstone of Marxism-Leninism is the proletariat, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: ‘Everything for the masses'.

[(A)]

Ha! I knew it

Libertarianism as in the Zapatista, Kurdish democratic confederalism and other such Libertarian movements closely related to Anarchism and Libertarian socialism.
I would not say Anarchists because neither of the two mentioned are self-described Anarchist movements; tho their anti-authoritarian stances against their respective states and the goal of creating self-managed community's makes them Libertarian.

Not surprised you think libertarianism has anything to do with what you see in the U.S.

[(A)]

What are we supposed to do? Be just as idealist as the anarchists and throw away the revolution? One has to safeguard the revolution and that takes hard choices. The other result would be the total destruction of socialism and the eradication of the peoples republic. The Paris commune and the Spanish "revolution" were crushed bc of their unwillingness to defend the revolution against the capitalists. The anarchist Makhno Movement in Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1921 fought the Red Army without respite and was allied in this fight against the Red Army with Kulaks and Black Hundreds of White Russia.

One may believe that socialism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two. This is a mistake as communists believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly Marxists-Leninists hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. After the proletariat has conquered political power it has to destroy the old state machine and substitute for it a new one consisting of the organisation of armed workers while tthe anarchists deny that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state power, its revolutionary dictatorship.

Karl Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward by Bakunin. The whole internal history of the IWA is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International - the main hindrance in their way were Marx and Engels. Anarchism rejects the principles of scientific socialism (Marxism-Leninism) and has only a very disruptive role in the struggle for socialism. It is an reactionary ally of imperialist capitalism.

According to the founding statement of the Communist International in January 1919, the aims of Marxist-Leninists are that the working class must seize political power, establish its rule (‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’) and proceed to build a socialist society. The working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew.

The cornerstone of Marxism-Leninism is the proletariat, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: ‘Everything for the masses'.


You are so wrong Its like you are from a backwards reality or something. Is Trump a socialist in your imaginary backwards world where the U.S.S.R was a good idea?
Even Marx thought it was a stupid idea. The entire idea of Marxist Leninism; seizing the state is flawed.

If you use a oppressive machine (state/law) against your own community you become the bourgeoisie and need to be eliminated. Soviet cops for instance prove that the U.S.S.R. was not in any way revolutionary.
If you need police to oppress your own community then they have not had a revolution against the capitalist state but a political coup to replace it with a new one.

Leninism only proves that you CANT retain the use of the state during a socialist revolution. It finally proved that reformism (using the state mechanism to make political change) can not lead to communism!

Leninist's are Reformers and revisionists. Completely abandoning Marxs works in favor of a social democrat who was far more akin to the founding fathers of the U.S. then any revolutionary I would call Comrade. Leninism is reformism and has no place on a revolutionary form. We are not here for shit ass political coups but for revolution against capitalism.

[(A)]

No government in the world fights fascism to destroy it. When the bourgeoisie sees power slipping from its grasp, it has recourse to fascism to maintain itself.
~Durruti
This pretty much sums up the fate of the U.S.S.R.

[willowtooth]

What are we supposed to do? Be just as idealist as the anarchists and throw away the revolution? One has to safeguard the revolution and that takes hard choices. The other result would be the total destruction of socialism and the eradication of the peoples republic. The Paris commune and the Spanish "revolution" were crushed bc of their unwillingness to defend the revolution against the capitalists. The anarchist Makhno Movement in Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1921 fought the Red Army without respite and was allied in this fight against the Red Army with Kulaks and Black Hundreds of White Russia.

One may believe that socialism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two. This is a mistake as communists believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly Marxists-Leninists hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. After the proletariat has conquered political power it has to destroy the old state machine and substitute for it a new one consisting of the organisation of armed workers while tthe anarchists deny that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state power, its revolutionary dictatorship.

Karl Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward by Bakunin. The whole internal history of the IWA is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International - the main hindrance in their way were Marx and Engels. Anarchism rejects the principles of scientific socialism (Marxism-Leninism) and has only a very disruptive role in the struggle for socialism. It is an reactionary ally of imperialist capitalism.

According to the founding statement of the Communist International in January 1919, the aims of Marxist-Leninists are that the working class must seize political power, establish its rule (‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’) and proceed to build a socialist society. The working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew.

The cornerstone of Marxism-Leninism is the proletariat, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: ‘Everything for the masses'.


What your saying is mostly correct but I think your missing his point of what should we do today. our friend (A) here is not an anarchist, he's not even a liberal, he's a right-libertarian, similar to the strasserites. The american libertarian movement basically describes fascism but leaves out anything that might be deemed offensive. So by explaining the core principles of fascism but leaving out any comparison to a government or leader in the past, usually simply enough by saying just all governments are bad therefore anyone thats ever attempted fascism just didn't do it right. You too can respond in kind with nobody has ever tried communism anyone like stalin or mao just didn't do it right.

Otherwise you just end up entrapped in a never ending spiral of historical apologia with measuring body counts, and war crimes with endless analysis on which ideology allowed this to occur the most. You end up discussing which ideology (or faith) is the least violent. You can describe Jesus as the original anarchist if you want, or even Lao tzu.

So we end up really just discussing which political ideology and/or leader is the most christian. Which is not something any revolutionary leftist should be discussing. So while some of your argument might make real anarchists and trotskyist furious until they are red in the face. You really aren't having that discussion right now. You have too identify who you are arguing with before you can make a coherent argument.

You would be much better off simply explaining the tenets of marxist leninism without labeling it as such or bringing up stalin or whoever these people have been brainwashed to fear more than anyone. Who Americans for generations have lived in fear of a nuclear holocaust from, who would train how to quickly crawl under their wooden desks in case the ruskies let the big one go. Who considered the berlin wall collapse to be the victory of american capitalism over soviet oppression, who are still taught to this day that socialism is evil in high school, and that capitalism is the only real choice. Until, if theyre lucky enough, they get some dem-soc professor who makes them read howard zinn and noam chomsky for the first time. who's parents and grandparents fought in vietnam and korea against what they feel was communism, who grew up watching movies from the original james bond to iron man 2 where russians and KGB spies are always behind some villainous plot to destroy them, or the world. That the american protagonist must fight righteously against in the name of freedom, democracy, justice, and children's laughter and smiles.

You cant just have a historical argument with whoever you want, and if someone just read "stalin good" and then goes into some hysterical rant about stalin being the devil, you can't respond with "no stalin is not the devil he is god. The person responding wont accept responsibility for anything from the wealthiest robber baron to hitler to the sultan of oman because they are all a state/government so they didn't do fascism/capitalism right. Just respond with theory because their theory is incoherent and inconsistent, and if someone truly believes stalin ate the blood of innocent christian babies while sitting on a thrown of bloody skulls and you say "stalin was good", all they hear is "eating babies on a bloody skull thrown is good".


there's a difference between these guys

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/03/07/young_republicans_ap_328.jpg

and these guys...

https://tomfernandez28.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/screen-shot-2014-11-17-at-4-00-17-pm.png

and these guys.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Westboro-Babtist-Church-has-Secret-they-Dont-Want-You-to-Know.jpg

[Raul Castro]

how about you actually read the revolution betrayed before critiscising trotsky I read the results of the first five year plan

[Antiochus]

The Soviet empire killed over a Million people in its prison system. 8000 people killed during a revolution Vs millions killed by the soviet prison system.
Huge fucking difference.

At this point you must be pretending to be stupid. Yes, 8,000. In Catalonia (population of 2.5 million maximum in 1936) in one (1) year.

[(A)]

Your point is still flawed.
If the same numbers died during the February coup you would defend it as necessary for revolution.
However I am not defending the actions of the C.N.T. I am not a supporter of a organization that I am trying to defend.
You however are trying to defend the U.S.S.R. and the actions of the "Soviet Union".

I am saying that there is no defense that a socialist can make for the system of slavery; wage and prison, enacted by the U.S.S.R.
We are completely opposed to the prison system, wage labor and oppressive systems of authority.

The U.S.S.R. for all the good intentions of its supporters; simply recreated capitalism and in failure ruined the name of socialism for generations to come.
Lenin may have been the worst thing to ever happen to socialism as an idea. He took something beautiful and ruined it by being such a fucking Liberal.

Also when I call you A liberal its because you believe in a socialist republic (the U.S.S.R.) which is in itself liberalist; Liberalism being the support for a "Democratic" republic.
When you call me a Right-Libertarian (a misnomer unto itself) you are doing it because you have no defense for your own ideas contractions and so must attack me by blatantly lying about my political ideology.

Communism is Anarchy. You can't regulate or reform your way to communism; it can only be achieved by direct action against state, class and capital.

[Antiochus]

*Yawn* Ok Ron Paul.

[(A)]

Proving me right one post at a time anti.

I mean you JUST proved what I said to be true. You cant defend the Soviet Prison complex; slave labor or wage slavery without exposing you are nothing but a Liberal who would rather his government persecute Gays, invade smaller nations, Enforce totalitarian laws with secret police, Murder Workers and Union members; Not to mention the ultimate failure of the state to do the one thing you insist it is needed for; to combat reaction and imperialism.

Since you cant actually defend you argument you call me Ron Paul insinuating that I believe in stupid things.
The humor of this being that I am not a Right Libertarian but you are a Liberal shit-head.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

To be honest, conversations get boring when the statist brings up some person who lived 100 years ago and then say "but that person, who said he was an anarchist, did something bad. You say you are an anarchist, therefore you are bad" This is only used as a distraction and is not actually attacking the position your adversary is holding. If (A) would say, 'i am a kroptokin(or whatever the fucking name is)' then you could attack him on following a certain person who is evil. However as we clearly state, we are anarchists, against all forms of authority and hierarchy. Just because someone else likes hierarchy does not mean we want hierarchy. Attack our non-hierarchical views all you want, that would actually constitute a discussion. Stop using straw mans and misrepresenting what we are saying. I don't care what an anarchist 100 years ago did, I propose a non-hierchical society without leaders, attack MY idea not someone elses.

When someone says they are a stalinist, they imply that they follow stalins praxis and methods, so you can attack these premises. If someone says they are an anarchist, they propose anarchy, not non-anarchy as happened under kroptkin.

[ckaihatsu]

I think the reason why this anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist standoff is such a recurring dynamic is because both stances are set-in-stone *prescriptions* for future events, regardless of how actual conditions of revolution actually play out.

I see the anarchist stance as being more optimistic, to the point of idealism -- sure everyone could rise up almost simultaneously everywhere in the world, and that would be the best, 'fast track' to a communist-type society, but I also think it would be most unlikely due to the sheer logistics of it. It would have to all happen within a *year*, tops, or else it wouldn't be 'simultaneous', and so conditions would call for a *different* vehicle, one that *could* bring the working class revolution to worldwide completion -- the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a workers state.

(A) has concerns with *internal* administration, which is a fair point -- but I'd like to juxtapose that a revolution, by definition, is supposed to be *mass participation*, so the dynamics should really strive to be more bottom-up to begin with. If there's some counterrevolutionary hold-out somewhere fomenting sabotage, for example, that should be dealt with foremostly by the revolutionary workers themselves, with information also being distributed publicly and through any vanguard-type organizations that would be generalizing such developments into the larger narrative of current events.

Given that a workers state would just be a collectivization / coordination of political-logistical efforts, as appropriate, to generalize common work efforts at the greatest scales possible, for the greatest social good, the only *repression* needed -- historical treatments aside -- would be that of the bourgeoisie / counterrevolutionaries, so as to open-up new terrain for newly self-liberated collective workers' efforts and directions.

Certainly the hazard of backsliding to reliance on conventional authoritarian state structures will always be there -- varying according to actual conditions -- but, again, a genuine 'bottom-up' everyday process of liberated-work and concomitant liberated-distributed-administration would solidly cut against any such attempted re-accumulations of concentrated 'power'. A collective revolutionary workers administration should not be oriented to *any* fixed, standing, specialized bureaucratic personnel but should instead be an *emergent* process of mass administration that simply accompanies whatever work roles people are actually doing, so as to organically coordinate all productive efforts over the whole as best as possible. Time and social norms would allow for this worker-administrative component alongside the actual work role because of the ongoing revolutionary socio-political environment.

I also have to address the 'libertarian' issue on its own -- the concern here is with a too-socially-unaccountable general attitude that simply wouldn't correspond to prevailing social conditions. For example, consider *right now* -- in terms of a needed revolutionary movement current social attitudes are *too libertarian* because people have been socialized into highly individualized habits of everyday life. The material world, as it currently exists, is meant to be interfaced-with by individuals for ultimately individual gain, beyond that of the basic necessities for life and living. I think that revolutionizing social production would also revolutionize social *consumption*, so that privatization of the work product becomes defunct, in favor of a 'human-natural' material landscape (with environmental protections) that is simply *accessible* to all as needed, utterly without exchange values of any kind.

In other words consumption would mechanically still be individualized, of course, as for food, but the overall 'environment' of how it's made available would be entirely communized since the prerequisite production of it would be from communized efforts / work as well.

My point is that this general approach would inherently cut-against a conceived 'free-wheeling' kind of libertarianism, especially during any necessary transitional period -- in socio-political terms everyone would inherently be on-the-same-page of rapid historical social development, and, depending on actual conditions, one person's practiced 'libertarianism' could very well be seen by another person as being 'counterrevolutionary' if the revolution was still actively facing conditions of antagonism and duress. These kinds of social particulars of daily life would *have* to be discussed and sorted out on a formal basis so that general norms for the scales / levels of 'politics - logistics - lifestyle' would be agreeable in common over the whole world's population.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle



http://s6.postimg.org/44rloql0x/160309_History_Macro_Micro_politics_logistic.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/r686uhkod/full/)

[(A)]

No government fight fascism to end it.

Anarchism is Hard nosed realism Chris. What is idealistic is thinking you can become a bourgeoisie; using the oppressive systems of totalitarian government and still be considered revolutionary.
No one is saying that the oppressed masses will rise up simultaneously and over throw the state. That is absurd and clearly your misconceptions of anarchism; not reality.

Oppressive systems are not necessary and can be defeated via direct action; that struggle creates the seeds for the future society that will replace them.
You cant use oppressive systems without becoming the oppressor.
Instead of fighting capitalism; seizing the state as even Lenin said is the creation of capitalism.

Who here wants to create a new capitalist state in the year 2017? Anyone?

No we are looking to end capitalism. That can only be done by the direct action of revolutionary's against state, capital and class.
No state can end capitalism because it is the state that ensures capitalism. Without the state there can be no protection for private property; Oppressive laws enforced and revolutionary thrown into prison.

"But who will fight the reactionary's!"

Anyone who attackes the state is fighting reactionary's. Lenin; by seizing state power ended the revolution proper that the soviets had striven for. As Liberals tend to do he co-opted the revolutionary momentum; gave power to himself and his cabal (bolsheviks) and like a good social democrat promised socialism and gave capitalism. The idol worship over the U.S.S.R. and its leaders is the great reaction on the left. Once removed direct action; not social oppression will be known as the only means of revolution.

[OnFire]

Historically, the Anarchist movement and the Communists were initially close comrades. The two split because of differing viewpoints; anarchists disagreed with the notion of dictatorship of the proletariat. Many anarchists today also disagree with the theory, but their conceptions are false and inaccurate. Anarchism, like Communism, has broad implications. Mutualists for example support market economies, which of course is revisionist and contradictory and not truly socialist. Most importantly, anarcho-communists may believe immediate transition to Communism is necessary, which demonstrates a lack of understanding and maturity; the results of attempting to jump ahead into Communism without first establishing a proper revolutionary party, a proper socialist nation, and then expanding socialism throughout nations, and all without understanding Marxist theories (e.g. dialectical materialism) will result in potential failure. Anarcho-syndicalists believe that labor unions are the organizations that help achieve Communist society. While Communists and anarchists have been seen cooperating in riots, protests, strikes and so forth to weaken capitalism, the vanguard party will ultimately suppress anarchism as a left form of petty-bourgeois ideology, however, and ultimately anarchism remains immature and idealistic when compared to Marxism.

Marxism-Leninism is the extension of Marxism through Lenin’s ideas, but also through Stalin. This calls for a vanguard party, or a revolutionary party of highly organized revolutionaries to help spearhead class consciousness and organize the people in order to better achieve a socialist society. Lenin knew that Russia’s conditions were not suitable for a “pure Marxist” approach, and therefore scientific correction to Marxist theory that could be applied to better suit changing conditions of society was necessary. Like “pure” Marxism, Leninism is against reformism as the means of achieving Communism because of its inherent contradictory nature. Only through revolution can Communism be achieved under the leadership of the vanguard party. In the Soviet Union, the dictatorship of the proletariat was governed through decentralized direct democracy practiced through councils called Soviets. The workers themselves retained political power in the form of Soviet proletarian democracy. As Lenin called it in The State and Revolution: “An immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich... Suppression by force from democracy for the exploiters and oppressors of the people.” The Bolsheviks took the leading role in the struggle for the working class. They were against nationalism and exploitative elements. Stalin further expanded on Lenin’s ideas with the belief of socialism in one country and the theory that exploitative elements can arise within socialism and must be combated against via the theory of aggravation of class struggle under socialism. Not only did Stalin show how socialism could work in the Soviet Union, he developed Marxism-Leninism into the period of transition from socialism "in one" country to socialism on a global scale, in general, and the victory of the people`s revolution against the forces of fascism and capitalism. Marxism-Leninism marks the most scientific and correct theory of communism, and in practice it means an increased focus on agriculture and industry in order to sustain the socialist society.

[(A)]

There is no difference between an Anarchist and a Communist. A communist is someone who is trying to create communism which by even Marx's definition is Anarchy.
Marx's works where based off of Proudhon's (the father of Anarchy as a political ideal) ideas expressed via the Paris commune.

What you mean to say is that Communists and Marxists where once the same thing until Marxist thought was taken over by Russian Liberals.

[Ale Brider]

There is no difference between an Anarchist and a Communist. A communist is someone who is trying to create communism which by even Marx's definition is Anarchy.
Marx's works where based off of Proudhon's (the father of Anarchy as a political ideal) ideas expressed via the Paris commune.

What you mean to say is that Communists and Marxists where once the same thing until Marxist thought was taken over by Russian Liberals.

Marx had a particularly harsh critique of Proudhon, however. I don't see where Marx's work was based on anything Proudhon wrote. Their whole approach is very different. Marx had a background in German Idealism and Materialism, his critique of economics was based on the English economists, and he drw some of his ideas from earlier utopian socialists (while criticizing them, too) but I don't see where Proudhon influenced Marx.

[(A)]

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/proudhon-marx-and-the-paris-commune (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/proudhon-marx-and-the-paris-commune)

[ckaihatsu]

No government fight fascism to end it.


Well, this is the crux of it -- you maintain that *any* singular expansive organization of revolutionary workers will *inevitably* lead to corruption and elitism, while blithely ignoring that a coordinated mass presence -- like a vanguard -- is *objectively* necessary to tackle the worldwide scale of the ongoing bourgeois occupation.

This is really a *disservice* to all those who would *be* revolutionary, as in a vanguard -- I have to reiterate that we should see these various sets of revolutionary politics as being potential revolutionary *strategies*, and not as fixed ideological *prescriptions* no matter what the real-world circumstances give us.

Yes, of course we need to fight fascism, as the embodiment of social reaction, but you're also being fatalistic (as ever) in your conception of what a potential *workers* state could accomplish by filling in the vacuum left by the receding bourgeoisie.





This calls for a vanguard party, or a revolutionary party of highly organized revolutionaries to help spearhead class consciousness and organize the people in order to better achieve a socialist society.


My *reservation*, though, to this, sides towards (A)'s position of possible *structural*-based corruption and elitism if we don't proactively structure a vanguard / party in such a way as to *preclude* a top-heavy class-like bureaucracy.

I'll again conceive of this workers state / dotp / revolutionary administration as being one that needs to be *massively participatory* on the part of the revolutionary workers themselves, with their liberated-coordination (collective administration) simply being an outgrowth of their constituent work roles. (So, for example, if some area is producing steel, those workers would not just be laboring for the production of steel but would also be putting in the time and effort to be informed about the greater steel-producing social environment, possibly all the way up to the *global* scale, and would also have proportionate socio-political input into *how* their factory produced steel, *where* the steel goes, what *projects* it feeds into, and how it aids ongoing *revolutionary* efforts, as for warfare, etc.)


---





I see the anarchist stance as being more optimistic, to the point of idealism





Anarchism is Hard nosed realism Chris. What is idealistic is thinking you can become a bourgeoisie;


*Where* is this coming from -- ? -- ! What gives you any indication that I would purportedly want to become a bourgeoisie, personally -- ? This is back to your bad habit of hurling vacuous accusations, which I'd prefer that you check yourself on.

Also, instead of side-stepping my content as usual, try *addressing* it first before you introduce a new line of your own.





using the oppressive systems of totalitarian government and still be considered revolutionary.




No one is saying that the oppressed masses will rise up simultaneously and over throw the state. That is absurd and clearly your misconceptions of anarchism; not reality.


I see a worldwide upheaval as being a distinct *possibility*, though -- already there have been a series of anti-Trump protests around the world, which haven't been explicitly *revolutionary*, but which do show a lot of potential for populist-type organizing and maybe more.





Oppressive systems are not necessary and can be defeated via direct action; that struggle creates the seeds for the future society that will replace them.
You cant use oppressive systems without becoming the oppressor.


But this is your own typical stereotyping, as usual -- as if *any* workers state, regardless of actual composition, would 'necessarily' be internally repressive and wouldn't be able to stay focused on its class enemy, the bourgeoisie. This is fatalism.

[(A)]

I am not as educated as you Chris; I hold no bachelors degree nor could I hope to as I am not adapt at school (conformity makes me unconformable).
That being said I figured that you know a semicolon is not a period. Why then would you cut my sentence off mid way and pretend I was implying that you personally want to become a Bourgeoisie?

If you properly represented my statement it would read; and I quote


What is idealistic is thinking you can become a bourgeoisie; using the oppressive systems of totalitarian government and still be considered revolutionary.

I dont believe as a graphic designer you actually have seized a state and have become a member of the oppressive bourgeoisie.

The "You" in my statement was not directed at you personally but at those who would seek to form a repressive dictatorship and pretend to call themselves socialists.

[ckaihatsu]

I am not as educated as you Chris; I hold no bachelors degree nor could I hope to as I am not adapt at school (conformity makes me unconformable).


Well my degree is not in 'revolutionary politics' -- that was, and is, outside of any formal / institutional education.

I'm glad to have the mainstream Internet and RevLeft since they allow for full, unfiltered participation on revolutionary matters, such as from yourself.





That being said I figured that you know a semicolon is not a period. Why then would you cut my sentence off mid way and pretend I was implying that you personally want to become a Bourgeoisie?

If you properly represented my statement it would read; and I quote





What is idealistic is thinking you can become a bourgeoisie; using the oppressive systems of totalitarian government and still be considered revolutionary.


Okay, yes, I misinterpreted your meaning.

The question here -- and I think I would tend to agree with your concerns -- is *what structure* would this proposed 'workers state' take.

It's worth reviewing, I think, as to particulars -- in my conception the revolutionary workers would be numerous enough worldwide to kick out current politicians and bureaucrats, to assume such offices for the common good and to collapse others that would then be irrelevant, such as for finance, etc.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your conception of a potential 'totalitarian government' in the context of a bottom-up workers state.





I dont believe as a graphic designer you actually have seized a state and have become a member of the oppressive bourgeoisie.


That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me. It must be Valentine's Day or something.... (grin)





The "You" in my statement was not directed at you personally but at those who would seek to form a repressive dictatorship and pretend to call themselves socialists.


Yes.

[(A)]

Yes.

So you agree that "socialists" who seek to form a repressive dictatorship (As seen in the Soviet Union) are in fact Liberal Bourgeoisie who are NOT revolutionary.

At the very very best Lenin can be considered a Social Democrat and reformist that proved a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in the form of a polity is not capable of leading to communism when faced with Counter-revolution and Imperial competition. At worst he is a Liberal that absolutely destroyed the Russian workers movement by co-opting it and installing himself as Party-dictator.

[ckaihatsu]

So you agree that "socialists" who seek to form a repressive dictatorship (As seen in the Soviet Union) are in fact Liberal Bourgeoisie who are NOT revolutionary.

At the very very best Lenin can be considered a Social Democrat and reformist that proved a "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in the form of a polity is not capable of leading to communism when faced with Counter-revolution and Imperial competition. At worst he is a Liberal that absolutely destroyed the Russian workers movement by co-opting it and installing himself as Party-dictator.


No, I don't agree with your take on Lenin -- you may recall from our past exchanges that I said you're adopting the 'Great Man' approach to history which leftists wouldn't do in the first place regarding *any* segment of historical analysis. Your ideological line of the anarchist-brand causes you to ignore the *social conditions* of Lenin's time, particularly the invasion of the October Revolution by several capitalist militaries. I think Lenin was trying to make the best of a bad and devolving situation by consolidating and centralizing quasi-revolutionary political policy. If very similar circumstances happened all over again I think someone doing the same things that Lenin did would be the correct response, all over again.





The Bolsheviks took the leading role in the struggle for the working class. They were against nationalism and exploitative elements. Stalin further expanded on Lenin’s ideas with the belief of socialism in one country [...]


*This* part, though, is inadvisable -- just because historical conditions happened to lead into a devolved revolution in one country doesn't mean that we need to *emulate* those emergent circumstances of history. Socialism, by definition, needs to be worldwide.

I prefer a process of increasing *de-commodification*, by end-products and/or industries, so that people's most-humanely-needed goods will be collectively produced worldwide for the common good as a priority, while more-specialty / lesser-demanded goods can stay commodified until the revolution spreads to the extent of addressing them, and all social production, to full communism.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy



http://s6.postimg.org/q2scney29/10_Supply_prioritization_in_a_socialist_transi.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/9rs8r3lkd/full/)

[(A)]

No, I don't agree with your take on Lenin -- you may recall from our past exchanges that I said you're adopting the 'Great Man' approach to history which leftists wouldn't do in the first place regarding *any* segment of historical analysis. Your ideological line of the anarchist-brand causes you to ignore the *social conditions* of Lenin's time, particularly the invasion of the October Revolution by several capitalist militaries. I think Lenin was trying to make the best of a bad and devolving situation by consolidating and centralizing quasi-revolutionary political policy. If very similar circumstances happened all over again I think someone doing the same things that Lenin did would be the correct response, all over again.

*This* part, though, is inadvisable -- just because historical conditions happened to lead into a devolved revolution in one country doesn't mean that we need to *emulate* those emergent circumstances of history. Socialism, by definition, needs to be worldwide.

I actually dont blame Lenin alone for everything. He is simply the figure head for your ideology. Trump is not the only person in the U.S. administration pushing fascists laws; yet he as the figure head will bear the blame. Its not that Trump is to solely blame; he is simply the face of the beast for the next 4 years.

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro and so on all made "contributions" to Marxism. They all had central hands to play in the formation and rule of their respective nation states. They all where figure heads of the state. They bear the responsibility as officials to bear the blame for their governments misdeeds in the eyes of History.

No I dont believe in the great man theory; I believe that These men had bad ideas and ended up proving how bad their ideas where; Despite their peers warning them.


Also I am NOT Ignoring the "social conditions"; I specifically mentioned them above. The failure of Liberal socialism is that it is unable to deal with counterrevolution and Imperialism.
The U.S.S.R. failed due to its internal inability to combat reaction within its own bureaucracy (again they where warned) nor to function successfully in the face of capitalist imperialism.
Despite any good intentions the social inequality created by a rigid social hierarchy (government) is unable to combat these things internally or externally. We have seen this happen the world over thanks to the scale. I mean internally the U.S.S.R. fostered reaction and vie the KGB birthed a reactionary totalitarian president who had a platform to take power.

Statism causes Inequality. Statism is incompatible with socialism. This wont change no matter what is said; and we can see it proven time and time again.

[ckaihatsu]

I actually dont blame Lenin alone for everything. He is simply the figure head for your ideology.


'My' ideology -- ?

You're demonstrating that you're not even *bothering* to try to understand where I'm coming from politically -- you simply pass-over my content in favor of continuing your rant so that you can repeat your own skewed interpretations over and over again.

This is supposed to be a *discussion* board, so, as before, if you're not going to make it a two-way street, please don't bother following my posts with *your* posts.





Trump is not the only person in the U.S. administration pushing fascists laws; yet he as the figure head will bear the blame. Its not that Trump is to solely blame; he is simply the face of the beast for the next 4 years.

Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro and so on all made "contributions" to Marxism. They all had central hands to play in the formation and rule of their respective nation states. They all where figure heads of the state. They bear the responsibility as elected officials to bear the blame for their governments misdeeds in the eyes of History.

No I dont believe in the great man theory; I believe that These men has bad ideas and ended up proving how bad their ideas where; Despite their peers warning them.


It *doesn't matter* what you 'believe' -- you *are* using 'Great Man Theory' to lay all responsibility at the feet of Lenin, effectively making him into a scapegoat by ignoring all surrounding socio-political circumstances.

This, by the way, is the same pattern of treatment for victim-blaming, if one is going to direct blame at *individuals* for social circumstances that apply to *everyone*, like austerity measures, counter-revolutionary forces, etc.





Also I am NOT Ignoring the "social conditions"; I specifically mentioned them above. The failure of Liberal socialism is that it is unable to deal with counterrevolution and Imperialism.


Now you're attempting to *leverage* your caricature of Lenin as a purported 'liberal', to indict the devolved October Revolution as being some sort of 'liberal socialism' (a horrible and faulty line for a revolutionary, btw) (the context was one of *revolutionary soviets*, and not bourgeois government social services).

The emerging bureaucratic-collectivist state dealt with the counterrevolution and imperialism just fine -- inspiring revolutionaries worldwide -- but it eventually took a toll, world-economically, leading into revisionism and collapse.





The U.S.S.R. failed due to its internal inability to combat reaction within its own bureaucracy (again they where warned) nor to function successfully in the face of capitalist imperialism.
Despite any good intentions the social inequality created by a rigid social hierarchy (government) is unable to combat these things internally or externally. We have seen this happen the world over thanks to the scale. I mean internally the U.S.S.R. fostered reaction and vie the KGB birthed a reactionary totalitarian president who had a platform to take power.

Statism causes Inequality. Statism is incompatible with socialism. This wont change no matter what is said; and we can see it proven time and time again.


I don't disagree with your critiques of the insulated state formulation, and/or imperialism -- but your approach to *history* sucks, and is uninformed.

[(A)]

You are blame shifting. You see the failure of the U.S.S.R. to accomplish it goals in the face of capitalism and blame the capitalism for the internal contradictions of state "Socialism"

You are an admitted vanguardists who continually defends the state system as necessary when it has been proven time and again that it wont work. You blame capitalism for attacking the U.S.S.R. and causing it to fail while simultaneously saying the state is necessary to combat reaction. The state cant combat reaction or imperialism. It has failed to do so on every occasion and believing it can still work is foolish.

"In order to defeat capitalism we need a government to command us!"
"Can the government defeat capitalism?"
"No; but its capitalism's fault, not the governments."
"So no socialist state has ever been able to combat reaction or imperialism?"
"No but I am sure it will work next time!"

You are a losing minority is a growing majority. From day one even other Marxists told Lenin how stupid his idea was and how disastrous it would end and they where proven right.
What does that make people who still believe it can work?
You deny history and the works of Marxists; where over twenty Marxist Leninist states tried and failed.
But hey; it will work next time right!

[ckaihatsu]

You are blame shifting. You see the failure of the U.S.S.R. to accomplish it goals in the face of capitalism and blame the capitalism for the internal contradictions of state "Socialism"


No, this *isn't* 'blame shifting' -- it's the correct conclusion to draw from that historical period, post-October-Revolution.

Again, your entire approach to empirical reality is incorrect because you're being myopic and only looking at the subjective *subject*, artificially separated from its context, that of larger social conditions (the global 'capitalism' surrounding the USSR's 'socialism-in-one-country', such as it was). Yes, the USSR had internal class-like contradictions due to the Party's substitutionist rule, but it was the country's relative isolation in a sea of bourgeois capitalism that created the geopolitical friction-from-without.


Worldview Diagram



http://s6.postimg.org/qjdaikuwh/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/axvyymiy5/full/)





You are an admitted vanguardists who continually defends the state system as necessary when it has been proven time and again that it wont work.


No, that's not correct -- I'll reproduce my line here from post #32:





[Y]ou're [being] fatalistic (as ever) in your conception of what a potential *workers* state could accomplish by filling in the vacuum left by the receding bourgeoisie.




My *reservation* [...] sides towards (A)'s position of possible *structural*-based corruption and elitism if we don't proactively structure a vanguard / party in such a way as to *preclude* a top-heavy class-like bureaucracy.

I'll again conceive of this workers state / dotp / revolutionary administration as being one that needs to be *massively participatory* on the part of the revolutionary workers themselves, with their liberated-coordination (collective administration) simply being an outgrowth of their constituent work roles. (So, for example, if some area is producing steel, those workers would not just be laboring for the production of steel but would also be putting in the time and effort to be informed about the greater steel-producing social environment, possibly all the way up to the *global* scale, and would also have proportionate socio-political input into *how* their factory produced steel, *where* the steel goes, what *projects* it feeds into, and how it aids ongoing *revolutionary* efforts, as for warfare, etc.)


---





You blame capitalism for attacking the U.S.S.R. and causing it to fail while simultaneously saying the state is necessary to combat reaction.


This actually *isn't* a contradiction, because there are *two* contexts at-play, that of history (the USSR), and that of a future *potential*. (Historically the USSR *did* rebuff the West, and rather well, but at a price.) (A bourgeois-state formulation is *not* necessary for working class revolution and the movement towards a communist-type society.)

That said, it's at this point where your strict anti-state position is *valuable*, going-forward -- the remaining ambiguity, though, is about what actual *structure* a potential workers state / administration could, and/or *shouldn't* take, your forte.

I already raised this point, at post #34:





The question here -- and I think I would tend to agree with your concerns -- is *what structure* would this proposed 'workers state' take.

It's worth reviewing, I think, as to particulars -- in my conception the revolutionary workers would be numerous enough worldwide to kick out current politicians and bureaucrats, to assume such offices for the common good and to collapse others that would then be irrelevant, such as for finance, etc.


The ambiguity is about how a proposed workers administration would function, exactly -- would it be as I just described, or would it be more-institutional, a standing relatively-fixed pool of specialized personnel that do nothing but expedite the administrative tasks resulting from the collectivization of social production -- ?

If it's more the *latter*, then I agree with you that this formulation would be inappropriate because it would be too politically *specialized* and institutionally separatist from all other (regular) kinds of work that go on in the world.

But if it's the *former* (the 'numerous revolutionary workers doing administrative tasks as a component part of their regular work, collectively cooperatively'), then I think *this* kind of 'workers state' would be far more appropriate and valid, a *good* revolutionary-transitional vehicle towards communism).





The state cant combat reaction or imperialism. It has failed to do so on every occasion and believing it can still work is foolish.


Agreed -- I assure you I don't give my confidence to bourgeois or reformist operations.





"In order to defeat capitalism we need a government to command us!"
"Can the government defeat capitalism?"
"No; but its capitalism's fault, not the governments."
"So no socialist state has ever been able to combat reaction or imperialism?"
"No but I am sure it will work next time!"


Understood.





You are a losing minority is a growing majority.


You're misinterpreting my politics -- please see the clarification in this post and do your best to understand it as my position.





From day one even other Marxists told Lenin how stupid his idea was and how disastrous it would end and they where proven right.
What does that make people who still believe it can work?
You deny history and the works of Marxists; where over twenty Marxist Leninist states tried and failed.
But hey; it will work next time right!


I'm not a Marxist-Leninist / Stalinist, and I don't advocate socialism-in-one-country, not even as a starting point for spreading socialism worldwide. Socialism should take hold as broadly as possible, given the prevailing socio-political conditions that it begins in. If your anarchist approach of 'revolts everywhere' -- a rather *best-case* or *optimistic* scenario -- were possible, then I would advocate that given such favorable overall conditions.

[(A)]

but it was the country's relative isolation in a sea of bourgeois capitalism that created the geopolitical friction-from-without.

And this will happen again and again and again. Insanity I believe is the word; doing the same thing over and over despite knowing it will fail.

Lets look at Kurdistan. Do you think that 31 million Kurds can form a socialist government that can combat reaction?
Blame Turky; Blame the US; blame god it does not change the fact that socialism in that country cant last without support from the people who reside in the states that oppose the Kurds

Only a genuine international revolution against our respective governments can hope to achieve socialism because states will NEVER allow socialism to grow.

Externally it means war; internally it means oppression.
Only when the governments of the world are abolished can socialism grow without oppressive resistance; only social reaction which is far far easier to combat then organized totalitarians.
Without the state capital and reaction has no power.

Its like racism. Without power racism is just hate; with power hatred becomes systematic and dangerous. States give power to reaction.
The U.S.S.R. ultimately fell to internal reaction; not external pressure. This is the expected response.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you create a platform for reaction your will fail. Government is that platform,

What happened in Russia will never happen again because we socialist learn that you cant trust a Leninist. Historically you Vangardists have murdered and imprisoned us. Next time we wont abide you taking power. Next time the revolution will be against politicians and cops and the state. It really does not matter who sits on the thrown; we will burn down the castle regardless. I am here in hopes that you wont be sitting in it when I light the fire.

[KaneLives]

What are we supposed to do? Be just as idealist as the anarchists and throw away the revolution? One has to safeguard the revolution and that takes hard choices. The other result would be the total destruction of socialism and the eradication of the peoples republic. The Paris commune and the Spanish "revolution" were crushed bc of their unwillingness to defend the revolution against the capitalists. The anarchist Makhno Movement in Soviet Russia from 1918 to 1921 fought the Red Army without respite and was allied in this fight against the Red Army with Kulaks and Black Hundreds of White Russia.

One may believe that socialism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two. This is a mistake as communists believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly Marxists-Leninists hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. After the proletariat has conquered political power it has to destroy the old state machine and substitute for it a new one consisting of the organisation of armed workers while tthe anarchists deny that the revolutionary proletariat should utilise its state power, its revolutionary dictatorship.

Karl Marx opposed this anarchist nonsense from the first day it was put forward by Bakunin. The whole internal history of the IWA is evidence of this. From 1867 onwards the anarchists were trying, by the most infamous methods, to conquer the leadership of the International - the main hindrance in their way were Marx and Engels. Anarchism rejects the principles of scientific socialism (Marxism-Leninism) and has only a very disruptive role in the struggle for socialism. It is an reactionary ally of imperialist capitalism.

According to the founding statement of the Communist International in January 1919, the aims of Marxist-Leninists are that the working class must seize political power, establish its rule (‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’) and proceed to build a socialist society. The working class must first take possession of the organised political power of the state and by its aid crush the resistance of the capitalist class and organise society anew.

The cornerstone of Marxism-Leninism is the proletariat, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: ‘Everything for the masses'.



ZZZZZZZ. You also want to defend and justify the killings of anarchists too, or endorse them? You may aswell when you come out with writing like this. It would not be the first time I have heard it. Marxist-Leninists, true heroes of the working people, killing any working people who do not like them or their glorious leader Stalin who I might add whilst the topic came up on the Spanish civil war, really helped those anarchists "throw away the revolution" as you put it BY KILLING A TON OF THEM AND HELPING THE FUCKING FASCIST. Communists believe that anarchists are the enemies of the revolution? And you speak for all communists/marxist now? Not all marxists follow what you do, and I really do not believe that Marx would like it either, in fact i'm convinced he wouldn't. Remember this - workers make the revolution, not fucking Stalin or anyone else, none of this shit even matter to working people today they don't give a fuck and won't be "won over" by preaching to them about Stalin or the socialist bastion of hope fucking North Korea. Yeah, there are differences between marxists and anarchists, but what you fail to understand is that there are obviously many similarities, the obvious thing to do is to work towards the common goal of helping the workers in class struggle. That is it. I cannot stand it when I see these views which just completely throw aside all of the efforts, contributions and sacrifices by anarchists and make claims like anarchists are not real socialists and are the apparent "real enemies of marxism". What "marxism" is this exactly? One which endorsed killing other workers who are organizing and trying to help in class struggle? That's not marxism. No communist would kill workers and neither should they. I mean fucking seriously, what is next what you are going to come out with? That we are wanting jewish domination of the world and the destruction of the white race? Keeping on with these age old problems and arguments in this manner is not helping anything.

[(A)]

Slogan: ‘Everything for the masses'.

Actuality: "Lets murder workers for demanding equality." "Lets form a centralized bureaucracy that only members of my party can be elected.

An ACTUAL example of this is a Russian Anarchist was Imprisoned for taking Soviet arms and distributing them to the masses.

If ‘Everything for the masses' is to be believed then the why was the person providing for the people imprisoned? Because the guns where the private property of the communist party and we all know what happens when you steal from a capitalist; you go to prison and become a slave laborer.

The true history of the U.S.S.R. is a lot sadder then the B.S. they teach in school.


the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

Yet against the words of Marx himself the government attempted to disarm the working class. This act unto itself proves the Marxist part of Marxist Leninism is a lie. Stalin also continued this Liberal practice of Anti-communist gun control.

Marxist_leninism is shit socialism for wankers.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Not sure how a thread by some old school Stalinist bashing Trotsky based on some out-of-context quotes turned into a thread between the same old suspects (i.e antiochus and (a)) bashing each other over how many people the CNT killed during the Spanish Civil War.

Also, I really wish this forum had some of the old school Trot hardliners left to dispute the claims made by the OP, it would make this thread more interesting.


Marx had a particularly harsh critique of Proudhon, however. I don't see where Marx's work was based on anything Proudhon wrote. Their whole approach is very different. Marx had a background in German Idealism and Materialism, his critique of economics was based on the English economists, and he drw some of his ideas from earlier utopian socialists (while criticizing them, too) but I don't see where Proudhon influenced Marx.

Marx was generally pretty harsh to everyone he critiqued. Also, Proudhon had some pretty problematic views like his antisemitism (as did Bakunin).

[John Nada]

OnFire, this isn't your work. Why didn't you post a source? https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/trotskyism/

I really don't like these history battles over personalities. I'd prefer discussing their ideas that are relevant in modern practice. For example, critiques of permanent revolution, transitional programs, ect., but I guess this the history forum. Still, this thread is mildly amusing.
Also, I really wish this forum had some of the old school Trot hardliners left to dispute the claims made by the OP, it would make this thread more interesting.Nothing like a good old tendency war. This would probably be like fifteen pages now if they were still around.

[ckaihatsu]

And this will happen again and again and again. Insanity I believe is the word; doing the same thing over and over despite knowing it will fail.

Lets look at Kurdistan. Do you think that 31 million Kurds can form a socialist government that can combat reaction?
Blame Turky; Blame the US; blame god it does not change the fact that socialism in that country cant last without support from the people who reside in the states that oppose the Kurds

Only a genuine international revolution against our respective governments can hope to achieve socialism because states will NEVER allow socialism to grow.

Externally it means war; internally it means oppression.
Only when the governments of the world are abolished can socialism grow without oppressive resistance; only social reaction which is far far easier to combat then organized totalitarians.
Without the state capital and reaction has no power.

Its like racism. Without power racism is just hate; with power hatred becomes systematic and dangerous. States give power to reaction.
The U.S.S.R. ultimately fell to internal reaction; not external pressure. This is the expected response.




For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you create a platform for reaction your will fail. Government is that platform,

What happened in Russia will never happen again because we socialist learn that you cant trust a Leninist. Historically you Vangardists have murdered and imprisoned us. Next time we wont abide you taking power. Next time the revolution will be against politicians and cops and the state. It really does not matter who sits on the thrown; we will burn down the castle regardless. I am here in hopes that you wont be sitting in it when I light the fire.


You're being one-sided yet again and not addressing any of my points -- this is bad etiquette.

You're showing that you'd rather ignore my politics and demonize me into some stereotype of your choosing than to acknowledge what I'm actually saying.


I'll invoke this line from IBIA, which pertains here:





To be honest, conversations get boring when the statist brings up some person who lived 100 years ago and then say "but that person, who said he was an anarchist, did something bad. You say you are an anarchist, therefore you are bad" This is only used as a distraction and is not actually attacking the position your adversary is holding.




When someone says they are a stalinist, they imply that they follow stalins praxis and methods, so you can attack these premises. If someone says they are an anarchist, they propose anarchy, not non-anarchy as happened under kroptkin.


(And I'm not a Stalinist, as I've already mentioned.)


---


(A), the main topic that you're unable to address is how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated -- participants tend to throw around terminology (generalizations) without specifying what those entities actually could or should look like.

[(A)]

I have already addressed it on several threads with you but OK.

"how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

The reason I hate the "Soviet Union" is because it was not a Union of Soviets. If it where I would be a hardline Leninist and we would all be living in fully automated luxury Leninism by now.
Unfortunately Leninism turned out to be Liberalism and here we are.

The formulation that the Soviet Union should have taken is to form a Union of Soviets. A free association between all workers within Russia and internationally.

As Marx had insisted was necessary ALL workers would be at once armed and organized to defend their community's against internal reaction and external invasion.

Instead of a Class of Politicians demanding Obedience the Dictatorship of the proletariat would rule.

I have not read it all but here is an example of what the Syndicalists in Spain worked towards.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-confederal-concept-of-libertarian-communism

(http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-confederal-concept-of-libertarian-communism)I mean just go to the Anarchist Library and look up "organization" or "praxis" or whatever. You are asking me to teach you when the actual books are all available for free.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

(http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index)

[ckaihatsu]

I have already addressed it on several threads with you but OK.

"how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

The reason I hate the "Soviet Union" is because it was not a Union of Soviets. If it where I would be a hardline Leninist and we would all be living in fully automated luxury Leninism by now.
Unfortunately Leninism turned out to be Liberalism and here we are.


No, Leninism consolidated state power and then gave way to Stalinism -- you keep ignoring the revolutionary *foundations* and initial shaping of that society. It was never 'liberalism' because 'liberalism' implies a democratic process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.





The formulation that the Soviet Union should have taken is to form a Union of Soviets. A free association between all workers within Russia and internationally.


Well, this is a formulation -- council communism, basically, that I find to be problematic. With today's Internet-based communications there's no longer any real logistical need for representatives of any kind.

I find it strange that you rail against any kind of state-like elitism / substitutionism, but then see no problem with using a fixed, standing institution of worker-elected representatives, to specially handle higher and broader expanses of responsibility for socio-political policy.

Certainly all people involved in whatever specific projects, as with their own work-effort inputs, could just all co-participate with an administrative side from each of them, for collective, cooperative results.


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms



http://s6.postimg.org/a6jq3ear5/2374201420046342459e_NEwo_V_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/xxj3liay5/full/)





As Marx had insisted was necessary ALL workers would be at once armed and organized to defend their community's against internal reaction and external invasion.

Instead of a Class of Politicians demanding Obedience the Dictatorship of the proletariat would rule.


This is a *shift* for you since you've been consistently arguing *against* any kind of workers administration, which is exactly what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is. You may want to elaborate on what the 'dotp' would entail, according to your own conception of this newfound position of yours.





I have not read it all but here is an example of what the Syndicalists in Spain worked towards.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-confederal-concept-of-libertarian-communism

(http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-confederal-concept-of-libertarian-communism)I mean just go to the Anarchist Library and look up "organization" or "praxis" or whatever.




You are asking me to teach you when the actual books are all available for free.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index

(http://theanarchistlibrary.org/special/index)


No, you're exaggerating -- I'm not *requesting* that you 'teach', I'm saying that you should be able to specify what the particulars of your chosen politics are, without any internal contradictions within. Otherwise, what's the point of revolution if people don't know what direction they're headed in -- ?

[(A)]

No, Leninism consolidated state power and then gave way to Stalinism -- you keep ignoring the revolutionary *foundations* and initial shaping of that society. It was never 'liberalism' because 'liberalism' implies a democratic process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.

That is only true if Liberalism is the process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.
The U.S.S.R. HAD elections.
No more or less fraudulent/legitimate then any other. Liberalism is the ideology that founded the modern "democratic" Republic. Republican/Liberal; still Liberalism.

The U.S.S.R. was a socialist republic with duly elected officials; law and order; all the good stuff that the U.SofA had.
Liberalism; Capitalistic or socialistic are both just the preface to fascism.



Well, this is a formulation -- council communism, basically, that I find to be problematic. With today's Internet-based communications there's no longer any real logistical need for representatives of any kind.

I find it strange that you rail against any kind of state-like elitism / substitutionism, but then see no problem with using a fixed, standing institution of worker-elected representatives, to specially handle higher and broader expanses of responsibility for socio-political policy.

Certainly all people involved in whatever specific projects, as with their own work-effort inputs, could just all co-participate with an administrative side from each of them, for collective, cooperative results.


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms



http://s6.postimg.org/a6jq3ear5/2374201420046342459e_NEwo_V_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/xxj3liay5/full/)


Free association. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_%28communism_and_anarchism%29)

Did you miss this part or just Ignore it?



This is a *shift* for you since you've been consistently arguing *against* any kind of workers administration, which is exactly what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is. You may want to elaborate on what the 'dotp' would entail, according to your own conception of this newfound position of yours.

It depends on your interpretation of the term "Dictatorship of the proletariat"

A dictatorship is absolute rule of one. Meaning one person is the ruler. Now if the term was "Dictatorship >OVER< the proletariat; lenin would have been right on the money; however the term is Dictatorship >OF< the proletariat. If looked at from an Anarchist perspective this means that each Proletariat would rule himself individually; not at all collective rule.

Dictatorship=Rule of one
Of the = in respect to
proletariat = Working class

The rule of the individual worker. Worker self rule = the dictatorship of the proletariat.



No, you're exaggerating -- I'm not *requesting* that you 'teach', I'm saying that you should be able to specify what the particulars of your chosen politics are, without any internal contradictions within. Otherwise, what's the point of revolution if people don't know what direction they're headed in -- ?

"(A), the main topic that you're unable to address is how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

I have done so time and time again. I have provided links to information relating to your query.

Their would be NO collective administration. A non-consensual collective (those under the administration of others) is a Class relation that is unneeded and detrimental.
How hard is it to get.

The free association of Workers is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

If the workers rule themselves; Seize the means of production; Protect each other and work together to provide for themselves as equals; then we have achieved communism. Complete and total Anarchy!
A society free of Rulers. How we get there is via the direct action of the working class against state, class and capital.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nothing like a good old tendency war. This would probably be like fifteen pages now if they were still around.


This forum used to be full of crazy tendency debates ... the good old days ...

[Ale Brider]

Marx was generally pretty harsh to everyone he critiqued.

Actually that's why I started to like his writings in the first place.

[(A)]

Did you get a chance Ale to read that link on Proudhon and Marx?

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

(http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html)I am still interested in your response.

[Ale Brider]

Did you get a chance Ale to read that link on Proudhon and Marx?

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html

(http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/appendix-proudhon-and-marx.html)I am still interested in your response.

Checked the link, not read the full article yet, but I will. It's not really long but it seems it has some interesting points. It's the references, I always like to read up on them too if they are available, just to be sure but that takes time. I will probably not be shaken in my core thoughts about the most important influences of Marx, but it never hurts to look at what other tendencies have to offer.

[ckaihatsu]

That is only true if Liberalism is the process of electing politicians who then may or may not regulate business appropriately.
The U.S.S.R. HAD elections.
No more or less fraudulent/legitimate then any other. Liberalism is the ideology that founded the modern "democratic" Republic. Republican/Liberal; still Liberalism.

The U.S.S.R. was a socialist republic with duly elected officials; law and order; all the good stuff that the U.SofA had.
Liberalism; Capitalistic or socialistic are both just the preface to fascism.


Well, I'm not going to bicker. I think a better, more-appropriate term, though, would be 'revisionism'. (You still haven't addressed my point that the society had proletarian-revolution *origins* that shaped it fundamentally differently than a typical Western bourgeois liberal democracy, as with direct bureaucratic control over mass industrial production. It's *still* different on the world stage as we can discern through current politics -- the Democratic Party anti-Russia hysteria.)





Free association. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_association_%28communism_and_anarchism%29)

Did you miss this part or just Ignore it?



It depends on your interpretation of the term "Dictatorship of the proletariat"

A dictatorship is absolute rule of one. Meaning one person is the ruler. Now if the term was "Dictatorship >OVER< the proletariat; lenin would have been right on the money; however the term is Dictatorship >OF< the proletariat. If looked at from an Anarchist perspective this means that each Proletariat would rule himself individually; not at all collective rule.

Dictatorship=Rule of one
Of the = in respect to
proletariat = Working class

The rule of the individual worker. Worker self rule = the dictatorship of the proletariat.


I just happen to be looking for an addressing of *particulars* of the post-capitalist political economy -- I find 'free association' to be far too vague when actual *materials* have to be controlled, administrated, and distributed to those who need or want them.

I have my own model, of course, but I'm always interested in what others conceptualize as the 'post-capitalist economics of a freely liberated mass production'.





"(A), the main topic that you're unable to address is how a revolutionary workers collective administration could be formulated"

I have done so time and time again. I have provided links to information relating to your query.

Their would be NO collective administration. A non-consensual collective (those under the administration of others) is a Class relation that is unneeded and detrimental.
How hard is it to get.


It's not that I don't 'get' it, it's that I *disagree* -- you can say 'dotp' all you like but if material production is stuck within circumscribed separatist communes then it's *not* communism. And if you rely on trades / exchanges *among* the separatist communes then you're using exchange values that take on a life of their own, rising to prominence over actual human need.





The free association of Workers is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

If the workers rule themselves; Seize the means of production; Protect each other and work together to provide for themselves as equals; then we have achieved communism. Complete and total Anarchy!
A society free of Rulers. How we get there is via the direct action of the working class against state, class and capital.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Also, I really wish this forum had some of the old school Trot hardliners left to dispute the claims made by the OP, it would make this thread more interesting.
I was really tempted to give it a good smash - I mean, it's not hard to quote Lenin to point out all the times he argued with Stalin and praised Trotsky. But it kind of just seems petty and irrelevant. Plus I'm not really 'orthodox' in my general support of Trotsky over Stalin.

[(A)]

Chris you cant say


t's not that I don't 'get' it, it's that I *disagree*

And then say


if material production is stuck within circumscribed separatist communes then it's *not* communism.

This proves the first statement to be Incorrect.

You clearly dont understand free association if you see people being split up into administrative regions that are inherently separate from each other; Free association is not just of communes working together as a voluntary confederation; its all of society and every member of the society that is federated in such a way. With our globalized market system it would be easy for several worker collectives or idnvidual workers to work together or "freely associate" for their mutual benefit; which is communism.

You would police that cause; Regulating and administering the association between individuals; That is NOT communism and IS totalitarianism and requires in no small way a class based hierarchy.
An administrator class that regulates the working class is not significantly different from social democratic Capitalism (I mean the ideology did come from a social democrat after all). A top down economic and social hierarchy that put the haves on top and the have not's on the bottom; That separates the ones who make the rules and the ones who have the rules enforced upon them. This will never happen again if there is to be an honest revolution.

Again I will repeat myself; The administration of material goods will be up to the worker/s that produced the good. The production of goods when controlled by workers; will be designated for the good of the community's that produce them. We have SEEN THIS WORK Autonomously during the Spanish civil war. Left without administration the community's voluntarily federated to meet multiple community's demands.

The Unions in the city drove out and made deals with the farmers. Goods produced in the city that farmers need to live in exchange for food that would have been sold to the supermarkets that the farmers cant eat. My working to gather as a larger community (community; the root of communism) you create the material conditions for socialism; worker control over production.

Without Administration the community's free associated to meet there respective needs. No government needed.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RFro3dk78)To make it short and simple; the workers will administer their own production based on the need of the people they produce for.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RFro3dk78)

[ckaihatsu]

Chris you cant say





It's not that I don't 'get' it, it's that I *disagree*





And then say





if material production is stuck within circumscribed separatist communes then it's *not* communism.


Yes, (A), I can -- these are apples-and-oranges. The first statement is my own subjective opinion and value-judgment, and it has nothing to do with the second statement which makes an *empirical* estimation ('separatist communes') in relation to standing theory ('communism').





This proves the first statement to be Incorrect.


No, this is horseshit reasoning on your part.





You clearly dont understand free association if you see people being split up into administrative regions that are inherently separate from each other; Free association is not just of communes working together as a voluntary confederation; its all of society and every member of the society that is federated in such a way. With our globalized market system it would be easy for several worker collectives or idnvidual workers to work together or "freely associate" for their mutual benefit; which is communism.


Your conception is *dependent* on [1] the scope of federation, and [2] the market system. Conceivably the federation as it is interdependently formed could pick-up-the-slack for wherever market relations fail to adequately supply goods and services to unmet human need, but then this is just like capitalism's existing dichotomy between the public and private sectors.

I have no doubt that liberated workers would be able to (physically, socially) 'freely associate', but this isn't the *difficult* part -- the reason I pursue this issue is because the *material world* of production of goods and services would have to *correlate* to organic human demand (need, want), and also to any currency in use under your 'market' economics.

Here's a diagram to yet-again illustrate this point / argument comprehensively:


Pies Must Line Up



http://s6.postimg.org/5wpihv9ip/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf_jpg.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/full/)





You would police that cause; Regulating and administering the association between individuals; That is NOT communism and IS totalitarianism and requires in no small way a class based hierarchy.


No, I have no interest in any power-structure-type government or institution for any kind of 'policing' purpose -- I agree that such would not be necessary, post-capitalism, and post-commodity-production. Here's my framework to refresh your memory:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)





An administrator class that regulates the working class is not significantly different from social democratic Capitalism (I mean the ideology did come from a social democrat after all). A top down economic and social hierarchy that put the haves on top and the have not's on the bottom; That separates the ones who make the rules and the ones who have the rules enforced upon them. This will never happen again if there is to be an honest revolution.


Agreed.





Again I will repeat myself; The administration of material goods will be up to the worker/s that produced the good. The production of goods when controlled by workers; will be designated for the good of the community's that produce them.





We have SEEN THIS WORK Autonomously during the Spanish civil war. Left without administration the community's voluntarily federated to meet multiple community's demands.


Source -- ?





The Unions in the city drove out and made deals with the farmers. Goods produced in the city that farmers need to live in exchange for food that would have been sold to the supermarkets that the farmers cant eat. My working to gather as a larger community (community; the root of communism) you create the material conditions for socialism; worker control over production.


I don't have any *principled* difference with this bottom-up approach to a post-capitalist collective production. My concern is a sheerly *logistical* one -- that localist communes, and even a 'larger [federated] community' of several communes, would be *insufficient* and *too varying* over the whole to meet and surpass the functionality (such as it is) of present-day capitalism.

In other words we need a social infrastructure of liberated-production that far supersedes today's patchwork of favoritist international relations and corporate commerce, by using liberated mass industrial production at the *global* scale, ultimately. *Getting* there could certainly be bottom-up, per-item, at varying scales depending on each good / service and the organic demand for it.

But I see too much abstract social-network-making in the 'federated' proposal, as though new diplomatic relations have to be formally / officially built, to cover standards for exchanges of goods and services across any two communes. This is the very definition of the professional hierarchical bureaucratic state-like apparatus that you abhor, and I don't favor this anarchist flavor of such, either.





Without Administration the community's free associated to meet there respective needs. No government needed.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RFro3dk78)To make it short and simple; the workers will administer their own production based on the need of the people they produce for.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6RFro3dk78)


Yes, I *agree* on the principles, roughly, but I've expressed realistic concerns regarding your particular favored *implementation* of such, and will continue to do so. You may want to eventually respond on some of these.

[(A)]

Still stuck on free association huh.

I cited my source (red text are links you know) and you misunderstood what I meant by Market again.
What I was referring to is the global inter-connectivity of production that already exists due to the Global marketplace.

In Spain the workers where able to seize production and provide for there community's using a system of Labor backed currency and Free exchange of Mutual aid.
Thanks to Global Capitalism we already have a global market place. When the workers control production they will logically and fairly demand a fair trade for their labor if they are to send the product of it over seas or across the world until a long lasting exchange of labor can be agreed upon by all members of the deal.

Economic Democracy must be the active decision making of the participants at the source of the production. I being the Liberated Laborer have 100% autonomy and decision making over my own labor.
I do not exclusively own capital so my only authority is over my own labor. Democracy being my impact on the world via my own labor.

Equality means not having authority over others. Economic equality is free access to the means of production; Communism is the society of autonomous individuals using that access to voluntary benefit their community.

[ckaihatsu]

Still stuck on free association huh.


No, what I said was this:





I have no doubt that liberated workers would be able to (physically, socially) 'freely associate', but this isn't the *difficult* part


---





I cited my source (red text are links you know) and you misunderstood what I meant by Market again.
What I was referring to is the global inter-connectivity of production that already exists due to the Global marketplace.

In Spain the workers where able to seize production and provide for there community's using a system of Labor backed currency and Free exchange of Mutual aid.
Thanks to Global Capitalism we already have a global market place. When the workers control production they will logically and fairly demand a fair trade for their labor if they are to send the product of it over seas or across the world until a long lasting exchange of labor can be agreed upon by all members of the deal.


But where does communism offer a system that requires *deal-making* -- ?

The very definition of 'deal' implies 'transfers of materials in exchange for monetary compensation', and that means some kind of *exchange value* is being embodied in whatever currency is being used, even if the societal infrastructure is all collectivized and somehow detached from the active economy of monetary exchanges.

Yes, the collectivization of the means of production would be a significant step, but I don't see any evidence or reasoning from you that shows the *viability* / feasibility / functioning of a patchwork-communal landscape in the direction of communism since you insist on retaining exchange values for inter-communal material cooperation.





Economic Democracy must be the active decision making of the participants at the source of the production. I being the Liberated Laborer have 100% autonomy and decision making over my own labor.
I do not exclusively own capital so my only authority is over my own labor. Democracy being my impact on the world via my own labor.

Equality means not having authority over others. Economic equality is free access to the means of production; Communism is the society of autonomous individuals using that access to voluntary benefit their community.


Yes, nothing here is controversial -- I've phrased my own position on this as follows, from another thread:





[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196538-Several-Questions?p=2879529#post2879529


But -- to me, anyway -- your description still sounds too *vague* and doesn't attempt to specify how such a system would be moving towards an ultimate communism.

In our past discussions you've been unable to say how *priorities* for the use of collectivized machinery (factories) would be handled, except to say 'it's anarchy -- let them fight it out', which is just *ridiculous*.

You've been unable to specify how personal property would be distinguished from collectivized production goods (factories), so I maintain that you haven't resolved the dichotomy between the public sector and the private sector. (How would liberated laborers be compensated for their work inputs towards the construction of new, public infrastructure -- ?)

[(A)]

But where does communism offer a system that requires *deal-making* -- ?

A Liberated laborer ONLY has his labor. Whether he voluntarily gives it to his community or keeps his labor all to himself.
If you take away a workers right to labor on his own accord for his own interests (self,family,community) then he is NOT liberated and just a worker; A class of subservient producers who have no say in their own productive powers.

Without autonomy their is no communism.

The stateless community of free people, that is communism; the solidarity of equals in freedom; that is Anarchy.
If the workers cant/dont voluntarily work together for their mutual aid and benefit then there will never be communism.

The deal is the free exchange of labor between equals.
"I will help you build your fence if you help me lay my new floor"

This is a free exchange of labor... would this be Illegal in your polity?
Because this is the basis for socialism. Working together as a unified class for our own benefit instead of the benefit of our exploiters.

Lets expand the scope.

"Will you farmers grow us city folk our food? in exchange we will provide for you items that we manufacture only in the city's that you need/want.
Again; a free exchange of labor that we saw WORK in Spain DURING the civil war. During a time of Upheaval the free exchange of labor was still used by communists seeking to create a new society.

Theory is meaningless without bread. Unless the producing class is able to provide for itself freely their can be no revolution. Without "Deal-making" their can be no revolution.

"Anarchy is freedom from coercion, violence, servitude, law, centralization and the state. An anarchic society rests on voluntariness, communication, contract, agreement, alliance and people."

AKA the free association of workers who work together for there Mutual aid and benefit or "communism."

[(A)]

(How would liberated laborers be compensated for their work inputs towards the construction of new, public infrastructure -- ?)

How will laborers be compensated???

I am asking you. Because your labor credits have >0< value they wont be worth exchanging labor for... Unless they do have a value (use or exchange) in which case they are defined as a currency.

So how then Chris; in your system with no currency; where Labor credits are Unwanted peaces of paper that are not even worth burning; as they have >0< value as they are not a currency...
Will you compensate workers who build roads?

The workers wont take the valueless labor credits as they have no value... as they are not currency so have no value. So how would liberated laborers be compensated for their work inputs towards the construction of new, public infrastructure without the use of labor credits; them being worth nothing so unwanted.

[ckaihatsu]

A Liberated laborer ONLY has his labor. Whether he voluntarily gives it to his community or keeps his labor all to himself.
If you take away a workers right to labor on his own accord for his own interests (self,family,community) then he is NOT liberated and just a worker; A class of subservient producers who have no say in their own productive powers.

Without autonomy their is no communism.

The stateless community of free people, that is communism; the solidarity of equals in freedom; that is Anarchy.
If the workers cant/dont voluntarily work together for their mutual aid and benefit then there will never be communism.


No contention.





The deal is the free exchange of labor between equals.
"I will help you build your fence if you help me lay my new floor"

This is a free exchange of labor... would this be Illegal in your polity?


This is a loaded question -- I would hope that by now, after all of our efforts at communication and discussion you would have a better grasp of where I'm coming from with my politics.

There's no 'illegal' because there's no *grounds* in a post-capitalist context for 'illegality' unless there's a fixed, standing, bureaucratic-type institution / state to specialize in such a function of naming what's 'illegal' and what's not. Note that in my 'labor credits framework' at post #57 there's no provision for any standing bureaucracy.

The *problem* with your *barter*-type arrangement is that it's small-scale, localist, and implies exchange values (the one who needs a new floor could 'shop around' for someone else who would not only lay down a new floor but would also fix the roof as well, in exchange for the building of a fence).





Because this is the basis for socialism. Working together as a unified class for our own benefit instead of the benefit of our exploiters.


Yes.





Lets expand the scope.

"Will you farmers grow us city folk our food? in exchange we will provide for you items that we manufacture only in the city's that you need/want.
Again; a free exchange of labor that we saw WORK in Spain DURING the civil war. During a time of Upheaval the free exchange of labor was still used by communists seeking to create a new society.

Theory is meaningless without bread. Unless the producing class is able to provide for itself freely their can be no revolution. Without "Deal-making" their can be no revolution.

"Anarchy is freedom from coercion, violence, servitude, law, centralization and the state. An anarchic society rests on voluntariness, communication, contract, agreement, alliance and people."

AKA the free association of workers who work together for there Mutual aid and benefit or "communism."


Yes -- my own *reservation* with this approach is that it's not nearly *flexible* enough or consistently *fair* enough with its 'exchanges' to be viable.

Even if a certain subset of the population was able and willing to clean out municipal sewers when needed, that doesn't mean that that subset *should* always be the sewer-cleaners. And whoever *does* clean sewers (for example) should not be considered as merely *equivalent* to laborers who happen to do *mental* labor, such as with artistry or computer programming, for example. Work roles (and their accompanying co-administrative component) are *not* all the same, and should *not* all be considered as equivalent in hazard and/or difficulty.


---





(How would liberated laborers be compensated for their work inputs towards the construction of new, public infrastructure -- ?)





How will laborers be compensated???


Yes, that was my question to *you*, with what you propose.

My understanding is that you would have all production goods (factories) collectivized, circumscribed by locality / commune. People could voluntarily become liberated-workers and use these means of mass production for the production of goods, to potentially sell those goods to other communes in exchange for (exchange-value) currency.

Since money is being used, according to you, some / many people would find it easier to focus on *increasing exchange values*, by finding particularly advantageous market exchanges, thus pre-empting the *ethos* of communism -- collectivist production for common humane need.





I am asking you. Because your labor credits have >0< value they wont be worth exchanging labor for...


Then that would mean they're superfluous since people would be willing to do *every* kind of work role / task for *zero* labor credits, meaning that it would be a pure voluntary communist-type gift economy, which would be fine. I happen to think such a scenario would be *unrealistic*, and that's why I developed the labor credits framework.





Unless they do have a value (use or exchange) in which case they are defined as a currency.



My 'labor credits' are based on liberated-labor *hours*, so there are *no* abstracted / exchange values, either explicit or implicit. (The labor credits provide a fundamental lowest-common-denominator for all work roles of all kinds, so that labor hours for one kind of work can be 'ratioed' and 'paid-forward' in appropriate quantities for the activation and completion of *other*, new planned work roles going-forward.)





So how then Chris; in your system with no currency; where Labor credits are Unwanted peaces of paper that are not even worth burning;


Now you're just wantonly editorializing, which is just being flippant on your part.





as they have >0< value as they are not a currency...
Will you compensate workers who build roads?

The workers wont take the valueless labor credits as they have no value... as they are not currency so have no value. So how would liberated laborers be compensated for their work inputs towards the construction of new, public infrastructure without the use of labor credits; them being worth nothing so unwanted.


Tell you what -- since you're making yourself into a bad example of cooperation why don't *you* catch-up with your responses so that things aren't so one-sided. Then I'll see what I can do about your rude request.

[(A)]

Since money is being used, according to you

Please tell me where in this thread I explicitly argued for currency?
Cite your source.

You are the only person explicitly arguing for the exchange of currency (labor credits) instead of the free exchange of labor (with or without the use of a labor credits).

I am saying that during and after a revolution; the workers; liberated from their state will willingly and most efficiently manage their own production based on the principles of Mutual aid and benefit.
That unless this is true no revolution will have occurred. Only when the working class is ready to self manage there own production will they be able to abolish the state and seize their means of production.

You are arguing for a system that includes a currency exchange for labor.
A currency is "something that is used as a medium of exchange".

In your words you propose to "compensate" labors for their labor with credits that are worth an equivalent exchange in labor. An exchange of labor for a labor backed currency that is equivalent to the standard.

Firstly who sets this standard?
Who prints your currency?
Who ensures people are not using their Labor credits in unapproved ways?
Who stops people from issuing there own credits?

[OnFire]

Let me quote my main man Engels:

"Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction."

- On Authority, 1872

Anarchism represents a reactionary anti-socialist political trend. Because of this, us Communists believe that the Anarchists are enemies of Marxism. It is why we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against enemies.


The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the individual.” The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the masses.”


Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.
One is the science of socialism, Marxism-Leninism, the other a revisionist form of petty-bourgeois liberalism, Anarchism.

[ckaihatsu]

Please tell me where in this post I explicitly argued for currency?
Cite your source.


Post #58:





In Spain the workers where able to seize production and provide for there community's using a system of Labor backed currency and Free exchange of Mutual aid.


---





You are the only person explicitly arguing for the exchange of currency (labor credits)


Again, it's *not* currency:





My 'labor credits' are based on liberated-labor *hours*, so there are *no* abstracted / exchange values, either explicit or implicit. (The labor credits provide a fundamental lowest-common-denominator for all work roles of all kinds, so that labor hours for one kind of work can be 'ratioed' and 'paid-forward' in appropriate quantities for the activation and completion of *other*, new planned work roles going-forward.)


---





instead of the free exchange of labor (with or without the use of a labor credits).


There's no 'either-or':





[Labor credits could be] superfluous since people would be willing to do *every* kind of work role / task for *zero* labor credits, meaning that it would be a pure voluntary communist-type gift economy, which would be fine. I happen to think such a scenario would be *unrealistic*, and that's why I developed the labor credits framework.


You're trying to depict a rosy, neighborly over-the-backyard-fence swapping of this-for-that, which wouldn't be *proscribed* in a post-capitalist societal context, but it *would* be petty and not-much about collectivism (since the same thing could be accomplish on far greater, industrial scales for far better material output per labor-hour).





A currency is "something that is used as a medium of exchange".


But you're missing that there's *no commodification*, or coercion / duress -- and no exchange values, either.

People could put-forth their liberated-labor for any given project, on whatever terms, but if they did or didn't it wouldn't affect their own well-being in the least because there would no longer be any obligation to work for *commodities* -- all goods and services would be from the communistic *gift economy*, and available by request regardless of work status.





In your words you propose to "compensate" labors for their labor with credits that are worth an equivalent exchange in labor. An exchange of labor for a labor backed currency that is equivalent to the standard.


You'll have to cease using the term 'currency' since the labor credits are *not* currency (no commodity production, and no abstracted / exchange values).





Firstly who sets this standard?





While I'm at it I may as well address another aspect of this approach -- one might retort 'What would stop Person A and Person B from reaching an arrangement where 'A' pays 'B' to pick their nose for a million labor credits per hour while 'B' pays 'A' a million labor credits an hour to scratch their butt -- ? (The 2 million labor credits would have to be a debt issuance of 1 million + 1 million, but after the transaction the debts would cancel each other out leaving neither person in debt, and each with a million labor credits.)

For this I'll just note that *individuals* wouldn't be able to issue debts -- it would always have to be on the basis of a local population, or locality, and it would be a public event, would invariably be socially newsworthy, and would exist in the public record for the world to see.

If a locality did a debt issuance of 2 million LCs for 'A' to scratch their butt and 'B' to pick their nose, that would be on the public record and it would be up to others from anywhere else in the world to decide whether those particular labor credits (by serial numbers) really should be valued as legitimate for subsequent economic activity.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/192713-labour-credits?p=2826232#post2826232


---





Who prints your currency?


Yet again, it's *not* currency. Call them 'labor credits' or 'labor-hour credits'.





The people of any locality can collectively decide to issue *any number* of labor credits -- but it's a *political* act since they're expecting their "local brand" (by serial numbers) to be honored at face value by everyone else in the world. The people of that issuing locality haven't done *any work* for their issuing of those labor credits, and everybody knows it because it's all part of the public record.

What that locality *could* do is send enough of its own people out to anywhere else, to do work and bring labor credits from outside back to their own locality, so as to show real backing for the batch of labor credits that they issued from debt. That, too, would be part of the public record.





The 'locality debt' aspect would be in *political* terms -- 'reputation' -- since a locality's act of issuing a new batch of labor credits through debt issuance would effectively be the *direct exploitation* of liberated labor since there's no reciprocity of labor effort on the part of those in that locality.

All that the locality's population would have to do to correct things would be to search out opportunities to earn labor credits from *outside* their own locality, and then to bring that 'x' amount of labor credits back to their locality to cancel out the debt.

Similarly, two localities could coordinate to issue identical numbers of labor credits at the same time, and then to 'earn' each other's labor credits at about the same time, thus nullifying both respective debts at once. (The physical labor credits would then remain in general circulation afterwards, unencumbered by any underlying debt.)


---





Who ensures people are not using their Labor credits in unapproved ways?


Generally / meaningfully labor credits would be part of a mass-collective *planned* initiative / project / production run:





Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]




Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits

consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


---





Who stops people from issuing there own credits?


(See above.)

[(A)]

A revolution is more than the destruction of a political system. It implies the awakening of human intelligence, the increasing of the inventive spirit tenfold, a hundredfold; it is the dawn of a new, science — the science of men like Laplace, Lamarck, Lavoisier. It is a revolution in the minds of men, more than in their institutions.



—
The Conquest of Bread, Pëtr Kropotkin




On currency:
Again the credits ether have a value of some kind.; and are currency; or they will not be used at all.
Without value they will have no meaning. They must posses a value in their use; such as commanding labor or "Planning" in some political sense; in which case they have a use-value and if exchanged become currency. Even the act of burning them for heat may be considered a use-value; seeing as they will most likely ONLY be used for burning for heat.

An example would be the Cincinnati Time Store (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store) where three hours of work was worth three-twelve pounds of corn. Labor-credits have a value = to the labor they are exchanged for or the function they use in society. This meets the definition and spirit of currency; that is a Medium of Exchange.

Building a Labor-credit based market (Democratic economy; yah) is fine and all; and I hope it works well for you. But I will be issuing my own Labor credit to compete with yours.
It will be called a IOU and it will become the basis for all of society's production.

Chris: I was not arguing for a recreation of the Spanish Civil war... That would be sick. I am saying that that is what they did. It is a historical example of what happens during social revolution.
Some people used labor credits; Some worked for Mutual aid and benefit. Did you watch the video?

OnFire. Engels was a genocidal racist who believed in English supremacy post revolution. He is a poor example of how "progressive" Marxism is in comparison to Anarchism.
If anything he proves that Marx's works; which he had a hand in developing; are influenced in part by reactionary thought.

Marxisms authoritarian nature is the main Reaction of the Left.

[OnFire]

On currency:
Again the credits ether have a value of some kind.; and are currency; or they will not be used at all.
Without value they will have no meaning. They must posses a value in their use; such as commanding labor or "Planning" in some political sense; in which case they have a use-value and if exchanged become currency. Even the act of burning them for heat may be considered a use-value; seeing as they will most likely ONLY be used for burning for heat.

An example would be the Cincinnati Time Store (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store) where three hours of work was worth three-twelve pounds of corn. Labor-credits have a value = to the labor they are exchanged for or the function they use in society. This meets the definition and spirit of currency; that is a Medium of Exchange.

Building a Labor-credit based market (Democratic economy; yah) is fine and all; and I hope it works well for you. But I will be issuing my own Labor credit to compete with yours.
It will be called a IOU and it will become the basis for all of society's production.

Chris: I was not arguing for a recreation of the Spanish Civil war... That would be sick. I am saying that that is what they did. It is a historical example of what happens during social revolution.
Some people used labor credits; Some worked for Mutual aid and benefit. Did you watch the video?

OnFire. Engels was a genocidal racist who believed in English supremacy post revolution. He is a poor example of how "progressive" Marxism is in comparison to Anarchism.
If anything he proves that Marx's works; which he had a hand in developing; are influenced in part by reactionary thought.

In fact it is the reactionary part of Marxism; that separates it from where Marx originally found his inspiration; In the works of Proudhon; who himself was an chauvinist.
Marxisms authoritarian nature is the main Reaction of the Left.

100 years after the victory of the great proletarian October revolution everyone who claims to be a socialist and every organisation around the world will have to decide on which side of the barricade they will want to fight: for or against the Socialist revolution, for or against the dictatorship of the proletariat, for or against immortal teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin: Marxism-Leninism. It is not only the theory of socialism, it is an integral world outlook, a philosophical system, from which Marx’s proletarian socialism logically follows. This philosophical system is called dialectical materialism. Clearly, to expound Marxism-Leninism means to expound also dialectical materialism.

First the external conditions change, first the material conditions change, and then the ideas of men, their habits, customs and their world outlook change accordingly.


That is why Marx says:"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”


If we can call the material side, the external conditions, being, and other phenomena of the same kind, the content, then we can call the ideal side, consciousness and other phenomena of the same kind, the form. Hence arose the well-known materialist proposition: in the process of development content precedes form, form lags behind content.



Kropotkin smugly asserts in his words that anarchism rests on “the awakening of human intelligence” but he does not utter a single word to explain on which “materialist philosophy” anarchism rests: on vulgar, monistic, or some other. Evidently he is ignorant of the fact that there are fundamental contradictions between the different trends of materialism, and he fails to understand that to confuse these trends means not “regenerating science,” but displaying one’s own downright ignorance.

Anarchists suffer from a certain ailment: they are very fond of criticising their opponents, but they do not take the trouble to make themselves in the least familiar with Marxism-Leninism. They are reactionary allies of the anti-communist imperialists.

[(A)]

See how disgustingly religious this zealot sounds.
"victory of the great proletarian October revolution", "immortal teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.".
If religion is the opiate of the masses; you have been chasing the dragon.

Your Dogma would be laughable if it where not so harmful.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

That is why Marx says:"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”

But if you're aware that social being determines your consciousness can't you change your consciousness irregardless of it?

[OnFire]

See how disgustingly religious this zealot sounds.
"victory of the great proletarian October revolution", "immortal teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin.".
If religion is the opiate of the masses; you have been chasing the dragon.

Your Dogma would be laughable if it where not so harmful.

Marxism-Leninism, or as you call it, "dogma", is a scientific worldview, and has led numerous sucessful revolutions. Marxists-Leninists know that religion is a tool of the capitalists and thus fight this obscure middle ages bullshit.

Not only were the destroyers of fascism adherents of Marxism-Leninism, under its guiding hand a nation of peasants was the first into space in under 40 years. How was toppling the tyrannical Tsar, defeating Hitler and building schools, hospitals and funding science harmful? It is easy for you to criticise the October Revolution and revolutionaries when your anarchism has never even contributed to even ONE revolution and always only played a disruptive, minor role.

[(A)]

"and has led numerous sucessful revolutions."

Name one currently existing socialist state that had a Marxist-Leninist inspired origin that you would call "sucessful".


"toppling the tyrannical Tsar"

The Tsar of Russia had already abdicated the throne Months before the workers' Soviets overthrew the Provisional Government in Petrograd; the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin then established the Russian SFSR. So no, Lenin did not "topple a tyrannical Tsar" He took advantage of a weakened provisional government with a mutinous army and led a political coup to replace one set of rulers with himself. Eventually even taking the power from the Soviets who had fought the revolution; creating a centralized hierarchy with himself and his friends at the top.


"anarchism has never even contributed to even ONE revolution and always only played a disruptive, minor role."

I am not even going to bother proving you wrong. I am just going to take a toke and pretend people are not this stupid.

[Antiochus]

(A) is a worthless animal with no sentience. I suggest completely ignoring his filthy kind.

[ckaihatsu]

On currency:
Again the credits ether have a value of some kind.; and are currency; or they will not be used at all.


No, 'currency' *necessarily* implies exchange values, but my 'labor credits' do *not* confer abstracted / exchange values -- they only keep track of people's completed labor-hours, with a multiplier on those hours according to the hazard and/or difficulty of the work role(s).

Here's from the model:





labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174





Without value they will have no meaning. They must posses a value in their use; such as commanding labor or "Planning" in some political sense; in which case they have a use-value and if exchanged become currency. Even the act of burning them for heat may be considered a use-value; seeing as they will most likely ONLY be used for burning for heat.


Cute, but you've raised this point in the past and I've responded that the labor credits have the *full labor value*, per hour, of liberated-laborers' work inputs into whatever the project is.

Here's from the intro:





A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits




[It's] a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


---





An example would be the Cincinnati Time Store (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Time_Store) where three hours of work was worth three-twelve pounds of corn. Labor-credits have a value = to the labor they are exchanged for or the function they use in society. This meets the definition and spirit of currency; that is a Medium of Exchange.


Nope -- you're either purposely or forgettingly misinterpreting the *functioning* of the circulating labor credits. Here's from the intro again:





[It's] a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind.


In other words a post-capitalist political economy should be *beyond* exchanges of rewards-for-labor, because that's simply a process of *commodification* of labor. One person, depending on the actual conditions, might be somewhat under duress or just otherwise *willing* to do *four* hours of work for the corn instead of three. This is the dynamic of buying-and-selling, which really has *nothing* to do with the goal or ethos of communism (which can be free-access and direct-distribution).

Rewards-for-labor predicates the receiving of needed goods and services on the *work* being put-in, and *not* on the actual available supply of goods and services that's produced and ready for consumption -- this approach / philosophy lends itself to moralism all over again instead of concentrating on what people need and want, and the material *capacity* for fulfilling those humane demands.





Building a Labor-credit based market (Democratic economy; yah) is fine and all; and I hope it works well for you. But I will be issuing my own Labor credit to compete with yours.
It will be called a IOU and it will become the basis for all of society's production.


You're still not understanding the *material dynamics* that are enabled or prevented by whatever system is being examined. My point about rewards-for-labor, above, is what you need to approach and address.





Chris: I was not arguing for a recreation of the Spanish Civil war... That would be sick. I am saying that that is what they did. It is a historical example of what happens during social revolution.
Some people used labor credits; Some worked for Mutual aid and benefit. Did you watch the video?


I think you're intentionally misrepresenting the premise and function of my labor credits framework. See the intro and please get it right.

[KaneLives]

Anarchism represents a reactionary anti-socialist political trend. Because of this, us Communists believe that the Anarchists are enemies of Marxism. It is why we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against enemies

Again, you do not speak for all communists, so do not write as though ‘communist’ is one universal term which simply equates to Marxism-Leninism. I am certain Marx would not be supportive of the actions what some "communists" have done in the past, and what some "communists" are now doing and advocating. And the real struggle is against the capitalists and fascists, NOT those who are helping in all sorts of ways in class struggle. You are really wanting to repeat history aren’t you?


The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the individual.” The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the masses.”

Clearly, we have here two principles, one negating the other, and not merely disagreements on tactics.
One is the science of socialism, Marxism-Leninism, the other a revisionist form of petty-bourgeois liberalism, Anarchism.

So yes you have read some Stalin, and? Stalin obviously did not understand what anarchism is when he wrote this and now it seems that based on what you have wrote neither do you. But you just follow him in seemingly everything and this is the problem. You can come into the 21st century now and forget about all of this divisive talk which holds no basis, because it does not make any sense when you observe actual anarchist theory and what anarchists actually do to help the workers. It completely contradicts what you are saying.

What is bizarre about this is that you have pushed this nonsense about individualism completely encompassing all aspects of anarchism, yet you have previously mentioned Kropotkin, a SOCIAL anarchist. If you bothered to read Kropotkin you would see how ignorant you look. Just look at this for instance from the Conquest of Bread:


“The means of production being the collective work of humanity, the product should be the collective property of the race. Individual appropriation is neither just nor serviceable. All belongs to all. All things are for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men have worked in the measure of their strength to produce them, and since it is not possible to evaluate every one's part in the production of the world's wealth.
All things are for all. Here is an immense stock of tools and implements; here are all those iron slaves which we call machines, which saw and plane, spin and weave for us, unmaking and remaking, working up raw matter to produce the marvels of our time. But nobody has the right to seize a single one of these machines and say, "This is mine; if you want to use it you must pay me a tax on each of your products," any more than the feudal lord of medieval times had the right to say to the peasant, "This hill, this meadow belong to me, and you must pay me a tax on every sheaf of corn you reap, on every rick you build.
All is for all! If the man and the woman bear their fair share of work, they have a right to their fair share of all that is produced by all, and that share is enough to secure them well-being. No more of such vague formulas as "The Right to work," or "To each the whole result of his labour." What we proclaim is The Right to Well-Being: Well-Being for All!”

"Everything for the individual” Right?

And “petty-bourgeois liberalism” really? what are you talking about?

Maybe you would be better talking to "anarchist"-capitalists because it seems it is them who your words would be more suited to.

[Ale Brider]

So, reflecting to (A) and the link he provided earlier: I admit that I have underestimated the influence of Proudhon, but I have the suspicion that the article in return grossly overestimates it while downplaying on how Marx drew his influences from other early French socialists and how his theoretical framework rests on a basis where Proudhon is not even close to being one of the most important sources.

On the other hand, I plan to react to what OnFire writes in this thread since the beginning, because it is just awful, even by ML standards. I just don't have the time yet, but I certainly will.

[KaneLives]

On the other hand, I plan to react to what OnFire writes in this thread since the beginning, because it is just awful, even by ML standards. I just don't have the time yet, but I certainly will.


I would say I am surprised but sadly, I am not. I have heard similar(and worse) types of talk before. It is one thing to have disagreements on issues and discuss them, but(to me at least) , another thing to make writings which show blatant political distortion and revisionism to suit individual heavy biases. It really is just a big ‘fuck you’ to so many.))

[ckaihatsu]

I'll suggest, and would welcome, any contributions from the M-Lers regarding the topic of the vanguard and/or vanguard party, since (A) and others have categorically rejected such an approach as a potential vehicle for proletarian revolution.

Here's my stance, from post #26:





I think the reason why this anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist standoff is such a recurring dynamic is because both stances are set-in-stone *prescriptions* for future events, regardless of how actual conditions of revolution actually play out.

I see the anarchist stance as being more optimistic, to the point of idealism -- sure everyone could rise up almost simultaneously everywhere in the world, and that would be the best, 'fast track' to a communist-type society, but I also think it would be most unlikely due to the sheer logistics of it. It would have to all happen within a *year*, tops, or else it wouldn't be 'simultaneous', and so conditions would call for a *different* vehicle, one that *could* bring the working class revolution to worldwide completion -- the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a workers state.

[OnFire]

Marxist-Leninists know that it is necessary to build a revolutionary vanguard party as the ideological, political and organisational leadership of the proletariat. Revolutionary work must be carried out in a way that steadily develops the political consciousness of the workers and peasants. Political consciousness will empowre workers to understand the economic and political reality of their particular society, their class position in that society ,and the need to ultimately overthrow the dominant class rulers of the society.-
To provide the necessary leadership for this to happen party members must study and really grasp the essence of Marxist-Leninist ideology and philosophy. It is not enough just to be ‘progressive’ or ‘left’ or even ‘militant’ without a depth of understanding of Marxism. Depth does not mean theoretical understanding alone ,it means being able to interpret events from a class standpoint, being able to apply the Marxist-Leninist method of dialectical analysis to all sorts of struggles, situations and people. It means findin ways to advance the political awareness of workers in struggle and the class as a whole. It means finding ways to mobilise workers into activities and actions where they can learn from their own experience the real nature of the class system that exploits and oppresses them. People who are serious about the need for revolutionary change all agree that the working class is the main force, and that the it needs its own revolutionary organisation, the vanguard party, making it abke to act decisively against the enemies of the people. In the vanguard every comrade is an active contributor, taking responsibility and being accountable to the collective.

[(A)]

So, reflecting to (A) and the link he provided earlier: I admit that I have underestimated the influence of Proudhon, but I have the suspicion that the article in return grossly overestimates it while downplaying on how Marx drew his influences from other early French socialists and how his theoretical framework rests on a basis where Proudhon is not even close to being one of the most important sources.

On the other hand, I plan to react to what OnFire writes in this thread since the beginning, because it is just awful, even by ML standards. I just don't have the time yet, but I certainly will.

Thank you for taking the time to look it over. I am sure Marx had other inspirations; How works where inspired by the Paris commune and Proudhon was NOT the only person to have an influence on it. I makes sense that Marx would draw from many sources that relate. But by comparing their works it is clear to see Proudhon is a very strong influence on Marxism.

Marxist-Leninists like Onfire Prove to me Anarchism is ABSOLUTELY necessary. If people like him have power; we are all doomed. Only a world without idiots like him in power can we hope to achieve anything. Communism is the destruction of all forms of Authority; Authoritarianism has no place in communist thought and should be considered reaction.
Authoritarianism in Marxism is a reaction to capitalism; "Capitalism being bad we must regress ourselves to the state of barbarism to fight it."
I am sure fascists feel the same way about Immigrants and progressive forces; that they must be authoritarian to stop the loss of their nuclear" family and their "freedoms" under capitalism.


I think the reason why this anarchist vs. Marxist-Leninist standoff is such a recurring dynamic is because both stances are set-in-stone *prescriptions* for future events, regardless of how actual conditions of revolution actually play out.

I see the anarchist stance as being more optimistic, to the point of idealism -- sure everyone could rise up almost simultaneously everywhere in the world, and that would be the best, 'fast track' to a communist-type society, but I also think it would be most unlikely due to the sheer logistics of it. It would have to all happen within a *year*, tops, or else it wouldn't be 'simultaneous', and so conditions would call for a *different* vehicle, one that *could* bring the working class revolution to worldwide completion -- the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a workers state.

And that's the point of Anarchism. Unlike the limitations of Vanguardism; Anarchism recognizes the autonomy of every struggle. Leninist's see one problem and one solution to that problem; hammering away regardless of the tool needed at the time. This is true with modern reactionary-leftists like onfire here. He proves himself a reactionary by idolizing a failed political coup and prescribing the same solution to our modern struggles.

Clearly every one of us has a different struggle yet according to living Leninist's like Onfire; we should all just give up our struggles and obey the Neo-Bolsheviks and their second coming.

[ckaihatsu]

Marxist-Leninists know that it is necessary to build a revolutionary vanguard party as the ideological, political and organisational leadership of the proletariat. Revolutionary work must be carried out in a way that steadily develops the political consciousness of the workers and peasants. Political consciousness will empowre workers to understand the economic and political reality of their particular society, their class position in that society ,and the need to ultimately overthrow the dominant class rulers of the society.-
To provide the necessary leadership for this to happen party members must study and really grasp the essence of Marxist-Leninist ideology and philosophy. It is not enough just to be ‘progressive’ or ‘left’ or even ‘militant’ without a depth of understanding of Marxism. Depth does not mean theoretical understanding alone ,it means being able to interpret events from a class standpoint, being able to apply the Marxist-Leninist method of dialectical analysis to all sorts of struggles, situations and people. It means findin ways to advance the political awareness of workers in struggle and the class as a whole. It means finding ways to mobilise workers into activities and actions where they can learn from their own experience the real nature of the class system that exploits and oppresses them. People who are serious about the need for revolutionary change all agree that the working class is the main force, and that the it needs its own revolutionary organisation, the vanguard party, making it abke to act decisively against the enemies of the people. In the vanguard every comrade is an active contributor, taking responsibility and being accountable to the collective.


Thanks. Btw, I happen to have a statement on vanguardism at tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism.

At this point, if you'll indulge me further, there's a rather critical issue that I raised on this thread at post #40:





My *reservation* [...] sides towards (A)'s position of possible *structural*-based corruption and elitism if we don't proactively structure a vanguard / party in such a way as to *preclude* a top-heavy class-like bureaucracy.

I'll again conceive of this workers state / dotp / revolutionary administration as being one that needs to be *massively participatory* on the part of the revolutionary workers themselves, with their liberated-coordination (collective administration) simply being an outgrowth of their constituent work roles. (So, for example, if some area is producing steel, those workers would not just be laboring for the production of steel but would also be putting in the time and effort to be informed about the greater steel-producing social environment, possibly all the way up to the *global* scale, and would also have proportionate socio-political input into *how* their factory produced steel, *where* the steel goes, what *projects* it feeds into, and how it aids ongoing *revolutionary* efforts, as for warfare, etc.)




The question here [...] is *what structure* would this proposed 'workers state' take.

It's worth reviewing, I think, as to particulars -- in my conception the revolutionary workers would be numerous enough worldwide to kick out current politicians and bureaucrats, to assume such offices for the common good and to collapse others that would then be irrelevant, such as for finance, etc.




The ambiguity is about how a proposed workers administration would function, exactly -- would it be as I just described, or would it be more-institutional, a standing relatively-fixed pool of specialized personnel that do nothing but expedite the administrative tasks resulting from the collectivization of social production -- ?

If it's more the *latter*, then I agree with you that this formulation would be inappropriate because it would be too politically *specialized* and institutionally separatist from all other (regular) kinds of work that go on in the world.

But if it's the *former* (the 'numerous revolutionary workers doing administrative tasks as a component part of their regular work, collectively cooperatively'), then I think *this* kind of 'workers state' would be far more appropriate and valid, a *good* revolutionary-transitional vehicle towards communism).

[ckaihatsu]

And that's the point of Anarchism. Unlike the limitations of Vanguardism; Anarchism recognizes the autonomy of every struggle. Leninist's see one problem and one solution to that problem; hammering away regardless of the tool needed at the time. This is true with modern reactionary-leftists like onfire here. He proves himself a reactionary by idolizing a failed political coup and prescribing the same solution to our modern struggles.

Clearly every one of us has a different struggle yet according to living Leninist's like Onfire; we should all just give up our struggles and obey the Neo-Bolsheviks and their second coming.


I just can't be as dismissive -- per my statement, I would *like* to see an evenly broad-based worldwide mass uprising and an instantaneous, decisive overthrow of the bourgeoisie so that we can go straight to Day One of communism, *but* I don't think that will be likely since it's the best-case-scenario.

*More* likely is that revolutionaries will have to 'shoehorn' and 'lever-up' from anything significant that *does* happen, most-likely constrained to one country or another, and then that's where the M-L-to-Trotskyist line becomes roundly relevant. How *would* workers collectively self-administrate during a partial-gain, transitional period to bring the worldwide proletarian revolution to completion -- ?

(And I still have differences with you on post-capitalist economics.)

[(A)]

Shit Chris you missed the whole point.

The point is that UNLIKE vanguardism that demands a "evenly broad-based worldwide mass uprising" (Internationalism)
Anarchism does not. Anarchism starts on a Individual basis and then like Individualism relies on the social aspect of the individual.

"If I am to be free so must my society."

Anarchism relies not on Political boundary's for social revolution (Internal/External) but a fundamental change in society itself. That the individual member of society must become revolutionary before a revolution is capable of being social and not simply a political coup. Anarchists are not "waiting for a revolution" we are revolutionary in our actions against the systems of oppression that exist now.
Anarchism is not theoretical; it is the practice of communism now. Fighting against class; capital & state by taking our autonomy back directly in our daily lives.

Material change is impossible without the social will to revolt against the system that binds capital to a class of capitalists.

[ckaihatsu]

Shit Chris you missed the whole point.

The point is that UNLIKE vanguardism that demands a "evenly broad-based worldwide mass uprising" (Internationalism)


I don't think this characterization of yours is correct -- vanguardism more-implies a 'cutting-edge' *in lieu* of a more-desirable, broad-based worldwide bottom-up revolt.





Anarchism does not. Anarchism starts on a Individual basis and then like Individualism relies on the social aspect of the individual.

"If I am to be free so must my society."

Anarchism relies not on Political boundary's for social revolution (Internal/External) but a fundamental change in society itself. That the individual member of society must become revolutionary before a revolution is capable of being social and not simply a political coup. Anarchists are not "waiting for a revolution" we are revolutionary in our actions against the systems of oppression that exist now.
Anarchism is not theoretical; it is the practice of communism now. Fighting against class; capital & state by taking our autonomy back directly in our daily lives.

Material change is impossible without the social will to revolt against the system that binds capital to a class of capitalists.


No problems here, but I have to reiterate that the question of a revolutionary *social administration* needs to be addressed. I have no problem if that happens to take place in a bottom-up, *emergent* way, as you're describing, but I don't think a workers-administration / dotp can just be *dismissed*, *especially* if uprisings *don't* all happen simultaneously. Some 'interim' vehicle / organization should be able to facilitate the revolution spreading, as well as being the definitive word for broad-based decision-making (policy) and an optimization of material production and usage.

You seem to be saying that a revolution needs to 'free up capital', and if so, then that's *definitely* not on-point -- workers should be controlling the means of mass industrial production, for people's common benefit, and without resorting to the economics of exchange-values, if at all possible.

[(A)]

And in every post I have addressed it.
Administrate yourself.

[ckaihatsu]

And in every post I have addressed it.
Administrate yourself.


Yes, this is all well-and-good, and I appreciate the 'bottom-up' approach since workplaces have to be collectively controlled at specific sites on-the-ground, regardless.

I mean, though, to highlight any potential *shortcomings* in any revolutionary / post-capitalist approach so that they can be soundly addressed and resolved sooner rather than later.

From another current thread:





[O]ver the years I've developed a more 'hybrid' (by scale) approach, which is here, below. I'll leave it to you to figure out how to categorize my politics, based on what I advocate.

Here's a brief summation, in one line, from a fairly recent thread:





[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196538-Several-Questions?p=2879529#post2879529


And here's an illustration of a potential geographically-flexible *layout*, covering all possible scales, per-item:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy



http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)


At this point, (A), and everyone, I'd appreciate any clarification that can be given about the *composition* of a 'workers co-administrative' / dictatorship-of-the-proletariat, for a transitional period towards communism.

By some accounts it sounds as though *existing* bureaucrats would be pressed-into-service at their same administrative roles, but with all of them being under socialist direction (from some kind of revolutionary body).

By *your* account, (A), all governmental institutions would fall away immediately in favor of these *emergent* networks of liberated-labor and concomitant co-administration, to collective scales (though I still think the post-capitalist material-economics issue hasn't been adequately formulated by yourself and others).

[(A)]

By some accounts it sounds as though *existing* bureaucrats would be pressed-into-service at their same administrative roles, but with all of them being under socialist direction (from some kind of revolutionary body).

You mean put up against a wall and shot right? You actually think a revolution will retain the very same bureaucrats that ran the capitalist system?
What kind of Reformist shit is that. "Lets let Trump keep administrating the U.S. despite the revolution to overthrow capitalism!"; Makes sense to me.


By *your* account, (A), all governmental institutions would fall away immediately in favor of these *emergent* networks of liberated-labor and concomitant co-administration, to collective scales (though I still think the post-capitalist material-economics issue hasn't been adequately formulated by yourself and others).

I never said "all governmental institutions would fall away immediately". That is a near impossibility. The workers need to first replace the need for a state with their own self-administration.
There is no revolution without bread; Unless the workers are able to provide for themselves (access to food and arms) their can be no revolution. That is why it is necessary to Unionize and work together against the state, to grow food; provide shelter and arms. Only a fool would think that the state will just "Fall away"; that's what revolution is for; ABOLISHING the state. Not just blowing it up but replacing the NEED for a government all together. That is why Marxist-Leninism is Obsolete; because worker self-administration will replace the NEED for an administrative authority.

All your charts are useless as their will never be a "socialist" administration to implement it on a meaningful scale. Any social revolution will replace the need for an administration.

[ckaihatsu]

You mean put up against a wall and shot right? You actually think a revolution will retain the very same bureaucrats that ran the capitalist system?
What kind of Reformist shit is that. "Lets let Trump keep administrating the U.S. despite the revolution to overthrow capitalism!"; Makes sense to me.


Well, I *was* asking for a clarification.

I think this kind of scenario would depend greatly on actual prevailing conditions. Perhaps there's a solid revolt that carries on for several months or years, and the existing bourgeois state in most countries is polarized but not quite crumbling -- in this case the revolution may look to *direct* those personnel who are sympathetic to the revolution to *displace* from their posts all others who show themselves to be *counter*-revolutionary.

The government staff itself may or may not be in a position to develop *general* revolutionary policy (perhaps a vanguard / party would exist for that), but it *could* aid the revolution with their polarized professional positions, maybe even decisively for the revolution as a whole.





I never said "all governmental institutions would fall away immediately". That is a near impossibility. The workers need to first replace the need for a state with their own self-administration.


Do you understand that your position is *unclear* on this -- ?

You rail against any kind of 'state', which is understandable, but here you're allowing for a 'worker self-administration', while you've also been dismissive of any kind of 'workers state'. What exactly do you see as the material distinction between a 'worker self-administration', and a 'workers state' -- ?





There is no revolution without bread; Unless the workers are able to provide for themselves (access to food and arms) their can be no revolution. That is why it is necessary to Unionize and work together against the state, to grow food; provide shelter and arms. Only a fool would think that the state will just "Fall away"; that's what revolution is for; ABOLISHING the state. Not just blowing it up but replacing the NEED for a government all together. That is why Marxist-Leninism is Obsolete; because worker self-administration will replace the NEED for an administrative authority.

All your charts are useless as their will never be a "socialist" administration to implement it on a meaningful scale. Any social revolution will replace the need for an administration.


If 'any social revolution will replace the need for an administration', then what about 'worker self-administration will replace the NEED for an administrative authority' -- ?

You seem to take exception to any implementation of 'authority', in favor of bottom-up *emergent* processes of social aggregation, but at some point there will have to be a prevailing-*policy* regarding certain forks-in-the-road / crossroads where a *diffuse* composition of the revolutionary working class may not be quick- or decisive-enough to be meaningful.

For this I'll raise my realistic potential scenario of two groups that both want to use a single particular local factory for the production of some commonly needed item -- how would it be determined *which* group should go *first* with the immediate use of the factory -- ? (Or deciding on certain solidarity-type maneuverings against bourgeois counterrevolutionary forces, etc.)

[(A)]

Well, I *was* asking for a clarification.

I think this kind of scenario would depend greatly on actual prevailing conditions. Perhaps there's a solid revolt that carries on for several months or years, and the existing bourgeois state in most countries is polarized but not quite crumbling -- in this case the revolution may look to *direct* those personnel who are sympathetic to the revolution to *displace* from their posts all others who show themselves to be *counter*-revolutionary.

The government staff itself may or may not be in a position to develop *general* revolutionary policy (perhaps a vanguard / party would exist for that), but it *could* aid the revolution with their polarized professional positions, maybe even decisively for the revolution as a whole.

Can you show an example of this ever happening?


Do you understand that your position is *unclear* on this -- ?
You rail against any kind of 'state', which is understandable, but here you're allowing for a 'worker self-administration', while you've also been dismissive of any kind of 'workers state'. What exactly do you see as the material distinction between a 'worker self-administration', and a 'workers state' -- ?


"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State."

All external government is tyranny. It is not hard to comprehend what is meant by this.
Worker self-administration is the individual workers right to manage his own productive power.
Democracy in a communist society is not a legal authority over a collective of workers (the state) but the actions of each worker and what those actions accomplish.

"The power they took from the people will be returned to the people"

This power is the power of Democracy. The power to influence the world by ones individual capability to labor. When one loses the right to control his work he becomes alternated from society and loses his political power; his right to have a voice.

You need an administration to create your ideal Utopia using the Labor of others.
Those who work NEED NO ADMINISTRATION BESIDES THEIR OWN SELF-RULE.
Anything besides this is a destruction of socialism which is the rule of the workers themselves; the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Anarchism; the self-rule of the individual worker is the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

I will be the dictator of my own labor and you will be the dictator of yours. Only then can we freely associate as equals.


For this I'll raise my realistic potential scenario of two groups that both want to use a single particular local factory for the production of some commonly needed item -- how would it be determined *which* group should go *first* with the immediate use of the factory -- ? (Or deciding on certain solidarity-type maneuverings against bourgeois counterrevolutionary forces, etc.)

I would suggest a foot race.
Kidding aside this example is not realistic at all.
So your saying that two groups will show up at a fully functioning factory that has no one using it; then both at the very same time yell out... "US FIRST!"
This is ridiculous.
First if two groups need something they can most likely find a already productive factory instead; however lets say this did happen and both groups demanded use of a machine shop.
Only in a capitalists world would the two unions not work together for their mutual aid (or be able to find space on a shop floor). Two groups that require the same tools clearly have the same skills and would work well together for both of their needs. Why are their empty factorys to begin with? Every means of production should be in use by anyone who wants it.
If I need a forge it should be as simple as finding a forge that is not in use or asking for the final product by the person who is using it (or to use it next).

How about first come first served? The first worker to use the means gets to use it first. Then the next person and so on.

However factory's dont work like that. I cant use a CNC machine like others i know can... why should I even bother to work at the factory when people skilled in the use of CNC machines can just do the work. Its not a question of who should use the factory first but who the factory should produce for first. The answer being whoever the fuck they want to because its their labor to do with what they will.

But this is silly as you have no good answer either. Your answer is that A) the government decides and the loser obeys or gets shot; or B) labor credits decide who gets priority; meaning that the credit has a value that makes it a currency and you are back to capitalism where the ones with the most credits have the most rights; and if the poor dont obey; they get shot.
The rich will get their way and the poor will lose out.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Social production in a communist society would not be decided by the whims of individuals in a vacuum. That is ridiculous and would lead to dysfunctional economic chaos. At least for a transitional period, we need some kind of central aggregation of information and some form of common management to ensure we know who's producing what and where. This would be an economic convention, distinct from legal fetishism. We don't want workers producing steel with guns pointed at their backs, but we don't want every region producing more steel than necessary because they aren't sure how much neighbouring regions are making ("administrative" work could be done by workers themselves, who would put out production figures...it's not about a vast bureaucracy, but the point is there's a distinction between individuality and some kind of liberal individualistic notion that "all external government is tyranny." Even Bakunin never claimed every kind of authority was such ("On the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker," which you acknowleged in your point about a CNC machine).

This especially applies to a revolutionary situation. Individual workers may not like it, but certain productive priorities will be necessary in the early period for defense of worker's control of means of production. Treating every struggle as autonomous to the point of failing to form a common defense also limits the scope of revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Spanish anarchists' revolution was confined to struggling in one country, as was the Black Army in Ukraine. Leninist revolutions were stopped short, but they spread far more widely than any spark of anarchist revolution of which I'm aware. Of course the Leninist approach could be counterproductive, as well, but one thing we can take from it is struggles are interconnected, not "autonomous" in a segmented, atomized sense.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

CYou need an administration to create your ideal Utopia using the Labor of others.
Those who work NEED NO ADMINISTRATION BESIDES THEIR OWN SELF-RULE.
Anything besides this is a destruction of socialism which is the rule of the workers themselves; the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Anarchism; the self-rule of the individual worker is the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

I will be the dictator of my own labor and you will be the dictator of yours. Only then can we freely associate as equals.
The reason, the very reason, that capitalism as a system has made communism possible is because of the collective labour of the working class. Gone are the peasant workers tending to individual plots, the artisans producing commodities individually, with advances in technology capitalism has proved to be the economic system in which workers collectively produce the goods needed by society. It is because of this collective and social production that it becomes apparent that workers could collectively organise to better serve themselves as opposed to the capitalist class that exploits their labour. But this can only happen on a collective basis and, although it might offend your delicate sensibilities, an aspect of democratic decision making is inevitably on occasion going against what a minority might want.

It's not tyranny to ensure that all the workers working together to produce a bridge are working to the same specifications and none have decided that they think it would be better with larger supports that don't mesh with the rest of the design. It's not the state exploiting the workers if a democratic discussion leads to the resources of a community being directed towards one project as opposed to another. 'Free association' isn't doing whatever the fuck you want - you seem to just throw out expressions without any understanding of what they actually mean.

[(A)]

Social production in a communist society would not be decided by the whims of individuals in a vacuum. That is ridiculous and would lead to dysfunctional economic chaos. At least for a transitional period, we need some kind of central aggregation of information and some form of common management to ensure we know who's producing what and where. This would be an economic convention, distinct from legal fetishism. We don't want workers producing steel with guns pointed at their backs, but we don't want every region producing more steel than necessary because they aren't sure how much neighbouring regions are making ("administrative" work could be done by workers themselves, who would put out production figures...it's not about a vast bureaucracy, but the point is there's a distinction between individuality and some kind of liberal individualistic notion that "all external government is tyranny." Even Bakunin never claimed every kind of authority was such ("On the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker," which you acknowleged in your point about a CNC machine).

This especially applies to a revolutionary situation. Individual workers may not like it, but certain productive priorities will be necessary in the early period for defense of worker's control of means of production. Treating every struggle as autonomous to the point of failing to form a common defense also limits the scope of revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Spanish anarchists' revolution was confined to struggling in one country, as was the Black Army in Ukraine. Leninist revolutions were stopped short, but they spread far more widely than any spark of anarchist revolution of which I'm aware. Of course the Leninist approach could be counterproductive, as well, but one thing we can take from it is struggles are interconnected, not "autonomous" in a segmented, atomized sense.


There is nothing Liberal about the idea that government is inherently Tyrannical... That's is literally the opposite of liberalism which holds the supposedly democratic republic as the ideal. Hence the reason that anyone who supports the socialist republics (Marxist_leninists) is a Liberals they support a supposedly democratic republic.

On the economy I am totally in agreement that the workers will administrate their own activity.
It really is the difference between a gun in the back or not.
The difference between Slavery and Liberation.

I am not saying that workers should not work together collectively; I am saying that the workers working together collectively is the only legitimate form of administration. The free association of all workers. That DOES mean that the work is voluntary and if you dont want to produce for the "War effort" you are free to produce for yourself. If it is not a voluntary relationship it is not acceptable. Its not a matter of debate but an absolute like the fight against fascism. We dont debate fascism; we know its wrong and we will fight against it regardless of what reactionary's say.

Oppressive and Exploitative social relations are not acceptable and as long as I labor I will labor against them.

https://robertgraham.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/anarchism_defined_by_ztk2006.jpg



The reason, the very reason, that capitalism as a system has made communism possible is because of the collective labour of the working class. Gone are the peasant workers tending to individual plots, the artisans producing commodities individually, with advances in technology capitalism has proved to be the economic system in which workers collectively produce the goods needed by society. It is because of this collective and social production that it becomes apparent that workers could collectively organise to better serve themselves as opposed to the capitalist class that exploits their labour. But this can only happen on a collective basis and, although it might offend your delicate sensibilities, an aspect of democratic decision making is inevitably on occasion going against what a minority might want.

It's not tyranny to ensure that all the workers working together to produce a bridge are working to the same specifications and none have decided that they think it would be better with larger supports that don't mesh with the rest of the design. It's not the state exploiting the workers if a democratic discussion leads to the resources of a community being directed towards one project as opposed to another. 'Free association' isn't doing whatever the fuck you want - you seem to just throw out expressions without any understanding of what they actually mean.

I know society has the ability to cooperatively produce more then enough for everyone collectively... that is why I know that the collective we call society will manage its own production without the need for a political administration over the means of production.

The dictatorship of the proletariat demands that ONLY the worker is the Dictator of production. No administrative class can enforce its rule and still be considered collective as without consent it is not a collective decision but a authoritative one that must be enforced with violence. It is this Monopoly of power that we seek to end. The ability for one person to command the labor of others under the threat of death.

Democracy in socialism is the direct action of the workers. The workers; via their Unionization and free association among each other IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!
If the workers collectively decide to do something no authority exists that should stop them. Economic Democracy is Anarchy; It is the democratic action of the worker.

[ckaihatsu]

Can you show an example of this ever happening?


Your question isn't relevant -- history has given us a number of examples, but that's not enough for us in the here-and-now. In proactively *planning* we need to be cognizant of all realistic possibilities and plan for them as best we can.





"If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny. Hence the necessity of abolishing the State."

All external government is tyranny. It is not hard to comprehend what is meant by this.
Worker self-administration is the individual workers right to manage his own productive power.


This is good, and necessary, of course, but you're addressing the wrong *scale* of things. I was asking about *co-administration* and you're telling me about individuals.

Sure, I understand that beyond individualistic participation in societal production you see all dynamics to be *organic* and *emergent*, and that's fair.

Unfortunately you're unable to suggest how liberated-workers *might* be able to co-administrate, beyond being circumscribed within a single commune.





Democracy in a communist society is not a legal authority over a collective of workers (the state) but the actions of each worker and what those actions accomplish.

"The power they took from the people will be returned to the people"

This power is the power of Democracy. The power to influence the world by ones individual capability to labor. When one loses the right to control his work he becomes alternated from society and loses his political power; his right to have a voice.




You need an administration to create your ideal Utopia using the Labor of others.


No, this is another of your spurious accusations -- just because you demean with the term 'utopia' and make reckless accusations doesn't mean that you're correct. You're unable to point to anything from me that's inherently hierarchical over the population of a post-capitalist social order.





Those who work NEED NO ADMINISTRATION BESIDES THEIR OWN SELF-RULE.
Anything besides this is a destruction of socialism which is the rule of the workers themselves; the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Anarchism; the self-rule of the individual worker is the Dictatorship of the proletariat.

I will be the dictator of my own labor and you will be the dictator of yours. Only then can we freely associate as equals.


If you don't want to extrapolate from your politics to the possibilities for a workers collective administration, that's fine. I just happen to be more interested in the possible *implementations* of such.





I would suggest a foot race.
Kidding aside this example is not realistic at all.
So your saying that two groups will show up at a fully functioning factory that has no one using it; then both at the very same time yell out... "US FIRST!"
This is ridiculous.
First if two groups need something they can most likely find a already productive factory instead; however lets say this did happen and both groups demanded use of a machine shop.
Only in a capitalists world would the two unions not work together for their mutual aid (or be able to find space on a shop floor). Two groups that require the same tools clearly have the same skills and would work well together for both of their needs. Why are their empty factorys to begin with? Every means of production should be in use by anyone who wants it.
If I need a forge it should be as simple as finding a forge that is not in use or asking for the final product by the person who is using it (or to use it next).


I'm trying to introduce the possibility of 'scarcity of production goods', post-capitalism. Sure, maybe there's nothing substantive to worry about, and liberated laborers would easily cooperate to make the best of a tight situation.

I've learned from experience, though, that it's better to have things planned-out in advance, whenever possible, so that there are no surprises. If there was some go-to way of addressing this kind of situation then I think everyone would be better-prepared as a result.





How about first come first served? The first worker to use the means gets to use it first. Then the next person and so on.


Yeah, this is more along the lines I'm thinking of. The only problem with 'first-come first-served' is that it's quite 'hands-off', in the context of what's supposed to be a *planned* political economy.

Wouldn't it be better to have a more socially-conscious approach that can take all relevant factors into account in a conscious, proactive way -- ? (My model allows for unlimited 'proposals', and variations, to be circulating, discussed, and mass-prioritized for any given issue.)





However factory's dont work like that. I cant use a CNC machine like others i know can... why should I even bother to work at the factory when people skilled in the use of CNC machines can just do the work.


Yes to this part -- you're indicating a *complex* array of work roles so that everyone isn't having to know how to do *everything* themselves.





Its not a question of who should use the factory first but who the factory should produce for first. The answer being whoever the fuck they want to because its their labor to do with what they will.


Yes, *this* part is easy and uncontroversial.





But this is silly as you have no good answer either. Your answer is that A) the government decides and the loser obeys or gets shot;


No, I've said nothing like this at all -- you're misconstruing my politics yet again.





or B) labor credits decide who gets priority; meaning that the credit has a value that makes it a currency


No, you're just repeating your false claims -- labor credits are *not* currency because they're not exchangeable for the goods themselves. They have no exchange value.





and you are back to capitalism where the ones with the most credits have the most rights; and if the poor dont obey; they get shot.
The rich will get their way and the poor will lose out.


There's no summary executions going on, contrary to your anxieties, because there's no provision for any standing institution of authority in my model -- you won't find any. The socio-political aspect of my 'communist supply and demand' model is wide-open and unprescribed.

The labor credits, not being monetary, are not financial and cannot be subjected to finance-type manipulations -- which are the cause of rich and poor under capitalism.

You're fabricating a nightmare scenario to falsely ascribe to my approach that isn't supported by the composition of the model framework itself. In other words you're just making up bullshit again.

Yes, one of the built-in features of the system of labor credits is that it implicitly *prioritizes* over any given situation -- if two groups both want to use a factory at the same time and each group thinks their own use is more-critical than the other group's, the determining details would show which of the two groups is better-suited for immediate control over discrete production (a popular / mass-prioritized finalized policy package that describes the usage, and who benefits, and why, with sufficient numbers of pooled labor credits to fund sufficient numbers of available-and-willing liberated laborers for the particular work roles).

[ckaihatsu]

I know society has the ability to cooperatively produce more then enough for everyone collectively... that is why I know that the collective we call society will manage its own production without the need for a political administration over the means of production.


It would be good if you could elaborate on this distinction between 'cooperative production', and a 'political administration'. You hail the former and denounce the latter, but it seems to me that the two terms could very well be *synonymous*, depending on interpretation.

I *don't* subscribe to the conventional estimation / position that all 'politics' would cease once capitalism is overthrown -- yes, certainly wealth-backed, private-concern politics would be over, but given a fully collective post-capitalist social context I still think that *disagreements* would arise, as over the potential, prioritized use of limited equipment in the short-term.

*I* would see a 'political administration' as simply being the ongoing *process* for aggregating mass socio-political sentiment over whatever issue, like the scheduling of use of a factory over calendar time.

[(A)]

It would be good if you could elaborate on this distinction between 'cooperative production', and a 'political administration'.

Cooperative production is the free association between workers. Workers working together because they share a mutual interest.
Political administration is a Legal authority over a Polity. Their is no such thing as Politics without authority over the Polity; Polity being an area under THE RULE OF AN ADMINISTRATION.

Socialism is the rule of of the workers; the Dictatorship of the worker; the self rule of the workers.

Political administration is NOT the rule of the workers over their work but of a class of politicians who do not themselves produce anything; yet command by force via their authority the labor of others.
It is this Oppressive relation between political power and worker that is Anti-communist and Anti-socialist as well as a large spoon full of reaction.

The only argument for a Political administration would be that the workers are two stupid to manage their own labor. Lenin's point of view and one that is inherently anti-socialist.

The workers can administer their own labor (that means working and planning together) without the use of a political hierarchy.

Worker control is NOT political administration but the direct action of all the workers via their labor.


Yes, one of the built-in features of the system of labor credits is that it implicitly *prioritizes* over any given situation -- if two groups both want to use a factory at the same time and each group thinks their own use is more-critical than the other group's, the determining details would show which of the two groups is better-suited for immediate control over discrete production (a popular / mass-prioritized finalized policy package that describes the usage, and who benefits, and why, with sufficient numbers of pooled labor credits to fund sufficient numbers of available-and-willing liberated laborers for the particular work roles).

So the person who is able to pay the most labor notes to the political authority (the police who enforce your rules) gets to rent the means from them for an amount of time...

Its called rent.


of what's supposed to be a *planned* political economy.

WHO'S PLAN? In a Democratic economy it is the workers who plan and labor together. Their is no political class needed to manage the affairs of the working class.
You are thinking like a bourgeoisie who needs a state to protect the means of production from the workers.

The workers will self-administrate. What dont you bloody get about that.
EVERYTHING you think your system can do the workers can do themselves without the existence of a political administration over the means of production.

There is nothing about what you are saying that is not hierarchical. There is no need for a political class or a police class to enforce the will of the administration.
The existence of a political administration is exactly a class because it will require authority to impose its rules and its labor credits.
Otherwise I will just print out my own labor credits and get to be first in line every time.
Without political authority (the ability to use violence to enact policy) your system can not function on any meaningful scale.


I've learned from experience, though, that it's better to have things planned-out in advance, whenever possible, so that there are no surprises.

The surprise will be when nobody follows your plan and you realize for it to work you need cops to enforce your plans on the people who do not agree.


I just happen to be more interested in the possible *implementations* of such.

The implementations of worker self management are self evident I did not think saying more would be necessary.

All the functions of your imagined administrative systems will instead be managed by the workers who operate the means; They can work with anyone regardless of location because we already have a globalized infrastructure where producers are able to communicate instantaneously with not only their community but almost every other community and workplace on the planet. A global administration is neither needed nor desirable as they would be challenging the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Unfortunately you're unable to suggest how liberated-workers *might* be able to co-administrate, beyond being circumscribed within a single commune

There is absolutely no point in what I have said that is Limited within a single commune. Nothing at all to suggest that the workers could only work within the confines on a singular polity. That is what you are arguing for; all workers to be under a single political entity that regulates the democracy practiced by the worker.
We already share resources on a global scale; the idea that we will require a government to regulate the free association of the workers is simply Anti-communist.
Only the dictatorship of the proletariat; the rule of the workers will suffice.

Let me lay it out one more time to be very clear.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is worker self-management and free association.

No Stalin's wanted.

[The Intransigent Faction]

There is nothing Liberal about the idea that government is inherently Tyrannical... That's is literally the opposite of liberalism which holds the supposedly democratic republic as the ideal. Hence the reason that anyone who supports the socialist republics (Marxist_leninists) is a Liberals they support a supposedly democratic republic.

That is nonsense. Individualistic liberal ideology sees the state as at best a necessary evil in a society of atomized individuals. They support republics, sure, but none that could be called democratic in anything but rhetoric. For liberals, the state can act as an arbiter in certain kinds of disputes between individuals by enshrining property rights as law. Otherwise, there is a constant contradiction between ideologically-motivated disdain for the state and its practical necessity to keep the system going. Further, as I said, even Bakunin makes no such claim (not to mention the distinction between saying "government is tyrannical" and saying the state is tyrannical...the former implies even a system of mutual conventions is tyranny imposed on an individual, which is a liberal individualistic assumption from the likes of Thatcher and others who deny the very existence of society).


On the economy I am totally in agreement that the workers will administrate their own activity.
It really is the difference between a gun in the back or not.
The difference between Slavery and Liberation.

Yet you deny such administration is necessary, in favour of autonomous, atomized activity (more on this below).


I am not saying that workers should not work together collectively;

Perhaps not, but you are saying that workers' priorities should be set individually, hence in an atomized fashion.


I am saying that the workers working together collectively is the only legitimate form of administration. The free association of all workers. That DOES mean that the work is voluntary and if you dont want to produce for the "War effort" you are free to produce for yourself. If it is not a voluntary relationship it is not acceptable. Its not a matter of debate but an absolute like the fight against fascism. We dont debate fascism; we know its wrong and we will fight against it regardless of what reactionary's say.

First off, nobody's saying we should coerce the working class into overthrowing capital. Circumstance would compel workers to actively face down reactionaries, with or without a party, so the suggestion they'd be forced into a war effort by a class of administrators is moot. It's a matter of being organized in a way conducive to coordinated large-scale action.


Oppressive and Exploitative social relations are not acceptable and as long as I labor I will labor against them.

Of course. Yet not all social relations are necessarily exploitative.


I know society has the ability to cooperatively produce more then enough for everyone collectively... that is why I know that the collective we call society will manage its own production without the need for a political administration over the means of production.

Once again we begin with something not in dispute (productive capacity). It's precisely that immense capacity, though, that makes denying the need for administrative work foolhardy to the point of insanity. Even if done by the workers themselves (as I said earlier).
At least for a transitional period, we need some kind of central aggregation of information and some form of common management to ensure we know who's producing what and where.


The dictatorship of the proletariat demands that ONLY the worker is the Dictator of production. No administrative class can enforce its rule and still be considered collective as without consent it is not a collective decision but a authoritative one that must be enforced with violence. It is this Monopoly of power that we seek to end. The ability for one person to command the labor of others under the threat of death.

WorkerS not worker. That may seem like nitpicking over semantics, but it's a key point going back to the heart of my earlier post: Workers don't make economic decisions in a vacuum, on a whim. Especially during the initial post-revolution shock, circumstance will push certain priorities for production. Even in a stable, thriving socialist society, some kind of coordinated planning will be needed. Workers need some kind of awareness of the large-scale context in which they're working.

Administration will not, of course, be done by a separate class, but by workerS themselves through a central aggregation of information and common management. The point of a disconnect between a centralized bureaucracy and activity on the ground is a valid one, but it's both possible and necessary to work across communities through a coordinating, communicative body which enhances, rather than undermines, the capabilities of each community. Such a body is necessary, even if solely as a vehicle for communication between different regions. Put in place whatever safeguards are necessary: recall of representatives, restrictions on decision-making contingent upon taking decisions back to a local level for discussion, etc., but socialism cannot function through isolated communities. We cannot treat each community as a subsistence farm with no need for interaction.


Democracy in socialism is the direct action of the workers. The workers; via their Unionization and free association among each other IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!
If the workers collectively decide to do something no authority exists that should stop them. Economic Democracy is Anarchy; It is the democratic action of the worker.

What good is unionization if workers make productive decisions individually? Sure, collective decisions on production don't necessarily restrict individual ones---in fact collective ones can reinforce individuals' capabilities. If this applies for each member of a union, it can apply just as well between multiple or regional chapters of unions. You suggest all government guiding individual action is tyrannical, well, what does that make unions? As I said, in socialism the fetishism of legal rules will be outmoded, yet there will be unspoken conventions about a worker's responsibilities to his community and the communiy's responsibilities, in turn, to the worker. There's a difference between tyranny and democratic direction of activity in place of unmanaged chaos.

[ckaihatsu]

Cooperative production is the free association between workers. Workers working together because they share a mutual interest.
Political administration is a Legal authority over a Polity. Their is no such thing as Politics without authority over the Polity; Polity being an area under THE RULE OF AN ADMINISTRATION.

Socialism is the rule of of the workers; the Dictatorship of the worker; the self rule of the workers.

Political administration is NOT the rule of the workers over their work but of a class of politicians who do not themselves produce anything; yet command by force via their authority the labor of others.
It is this Oppressive relation between political power and worker that is Anti-communist and Anti-socialist as well as a large spoon full of reaction.

The only argument for a Political administration would be that the workers are two stupid to manage their own labor. Lenin's point of view and one that is inherently anti-socialist.

The workers can administer their own labor (that means working and planning together) without the use of a political hierarchy.

Worker control is NOT political administration but the direct action of all the workers via their labor.


Okay.





So the person who is able to pay the most labor notes to the political authority (the police who enforce your rules) gets to rent the means from them for an amount of time...

Its called rent.


This little slight of yours, though, is uncalled-for and is *not* appreciated since you're just irresponsibly misrepresenting my politics again.





WHO'S PLAN? In a Democratic economy it is the workers who plan and labor together. Their is no political class needed to manage the affairs of the working class.
You are thinking like a bourgeoisie who needs a state to protect the means of production from the workers.


No, I'm *not* calling for any bourgeois-type state -- you're just imputing that.





The workers will self-administrate. What dont you bloody get about that.
EVERYTHING you think your system can do the workers can do themselves without the existence of a political administration over the means of production.


As usual you're *pretending* that you're referencing the content of my model, but you're not actually doing it.

Yes, of course workers can collectively self-administrate over their own liberated labor, but they may not themselves, as a subset of the entire population, know everything that may *need-to*, or *could* be done.

The larger overall population should be an integral part of adding to the public discussion and proposals for what projects should get done. In my framework this process is enabled so that all can contribute to socio-political-type planning, even if they themselves do not end up with actual work roles in a mass-prioritized project that's taken up by liberated labor.





There is nothing about what you are saying that is not hierarchical. There is no need for a political class or a police class to enforce the will of the administration.
The existence of a political administration is exactly a class because it will require authority to impose its rules and its labor credits.


You're *plainly* showing your misunderstanding of where I'm coming from -- you're carelessly contending that some kind of 'political class' or 'police class' would be present but you're not bothering to reference any part of my model as *evidence* for these reckless claims.

There is no provision in my model for anything you're describing -- no hierarchy and no separatist authority. The workers and people of a post-capitalist society may see a benefit to using labor-hour credits, in which case the entire framework would *enable* communication, discussion, mass-prioritization of initiatives, and liberated-labor-organizing discretion in direct proportion to the past work that one has accomplished, likewise, through the use of labor credits.





Otherwise I will just print out my own labor credits and get to be first in line every time.
Without political authority (the ability to use violence to enact policy) your system can not function on any meaningful scale.


We could say the same thing about *your* approach, or for *any* approach to a post-capitalist political economy, since planned-for social conditions (like revolution itself) requires the conscious cooperation of everyone in that society.

Sure, anyone *could* create their own labor credits, but if you don't have actual past liberated-labor behind it (as from pre-existing, non-debt-burdened
earned labor credits from elsewhere) workers are going to see that your issued labor credits were created *from debt* and would only directly and fully exploit liberated labor if used since there's no past labor *backing* your debt-based labor credits.





The surprise will be when nobody follows your plan and you realize for it to work you need cops to enforce your plans on the people who do not agree.


That's certainly *dramatic*, but the model can't work that way. The model is a *contribution* and *proposal* from me, but if people don't want to use it then it simply *wouldn't* work because cooperation is a prerequisite for its functioning.

You continue to invent bullshit as a stand-in for my actual motivations with this model, and your skewing isn't appreciated.





The implementations of worker self management are self evident I did not think saying more would be necessary.

All the functions of your imagined administrative systems will instead be managed by the workers who operate the means; They can work with anyone regardless of location because we already have a globalized infrastructure where producers are able to communicate instantaneously with not only their community but almost every other community and workplace on the planet. A global administration is neither needed nor desirable as they would be challenging the dictatorship of the proletariat.



And yet you *have* mentioned a collective 'worker self-administration' but you don't want to speak to the practical functioning and possibilities for it -- which is okay. This particular topic just happens to be of personal interest to me.





There is absolutely no point in what I have said that is Limited within a single commune. Nothing at all to suggest that the workers could only work within the confines on a singular polity.


The reason I assert this kind of localist-communal-identity is because you call for *market* exchanges for inter-communal transactions -- by this dynamic people would have an inherent interest in their *local* commune since their work efforts would be *enabled* by the local commune (from being *educated* there, etc.), and also their work would most likely *benefit* the local commune and its people, a kind of 'default labor investment'.





That is what you are arguing for; all workers to be under a single political entity that regulates the democracy practiced by the worker.


No, this is more of your bullshit imputing -- you can find nothing in my model that backs up this spurious accusation.





We already share resources on a global scale; the idea that we will require a government to regulate the free association of the workers is simply Anti-communist.
Only the dictatorship of the proletariat; the rule of the workers will suffice.

Let me lay it out one more time to be very clear.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is worker self-management and free association.

No Stalin's wanted.



I'm *not* calling for any kind of 'government' -- what the 'communist supply and demand' model does is present a *process*, or implementation, for a post-capitalist political economy that has *none* of the 'gotchas' you so desperately continue to falsely-claim.

[(A)]

In my framework this process is enabled so that all can contribute to socio-political-type planning, even if they themselves do not end up with actual work roles in a mass-prioritized project that's taken up by liberated labor.

The problem is not with organizing on a large scale; I have NO problem with that. What I have a problem with is the assumption that you have a say in other peoples use of the means of production.
That you have the authority to say "This is the plan" and expect people to obey.
That your framework has rules that must be enforced over everyone.
That is a forced collective I nor hardly anyone else will abide.



"We could say the same thing about *your* approach, or for *any* approach to a post-capitalist political economy, since planned-for social conditions (like revolution itself) requires the conscious cooperation of everyone in that society.

Sure, anyone *could* create their own labor credits, but if you don't have actual past liberated-labor behind it (as from pre-existing, non-debt-burdened
earned labor credits from elsewhere) workers are going to see that your issued labor credits were created *from debt* and would only directly and fully exploit liberated labor if used since there's no past labor *backing* your debt-based labor credits."

You just keep digging that currency hole deeper and deeper.

Debt.
Backing.

These are terms used to describe a something that possesses value; Meaning that your Labor credits

Are a medium of exchange
You can say it over and over but it does not change the fact that Labor-credits are still by definition a currency as they have a value backed by labor.
As you said you can even go into debt by issuing them meaning that they are used for exchange.


is because you call for *market* exchanges for inter-communal transactions

No I dont, I said that a democratic economy is no different then a market place of producers providing the product of their labor directly to the community. Regardless of the lack of Explicit exchange; the structure of a worker run economy is that of a market place.

When a worker provides his labor to his community it is structurally no different then a market.
With a Labor-credit system that market has an explicit exchange (3hours = three twelve pounds of corn)
Without labor credits it is a communal gift economy.

Either way a democratic economy is a market place for the free (unrestricted) exchange of labor between equals.


I'm *not* calling for any kind of 'government' -- what the 'communist supply and demand' model does is present a *process*, or implementation, for a post-capitalist political economy that has *none* of the 'gotchas' you so desperately continue to falsely-claim.

Either it will have to be implemented by force in order to ensure that the rule of the administration is followed; Or you are just wasting your time.

[(A)]

Bakunin makes no such claim

I dont see how Bakunin is relevant; Its not a Bakunin quote and even if it was, I am not beholden to Bakunin's views.
When I say "all external government is tyranny" what I mean is that I agree with the statement quoted.
The only one who governs me is myself; all others governance is tyranny as I dont consent to it.

That's A BIG difference between Anarchists and Marxists. Marxists are followers of Marx; like sheep follow the shepherd.
Anarchists dont blindly follow; My opinions are my own.
I will never call myself a Bakunist or a Proudhonian or a Kropotkinite. Idol worship is not a trait Anarchists share with Marxists.


Yet you deny such administration is necessary, in favour of autonomous, atomized activity

Every social action is the action of any number of individuals. Without the democratic action of the individual their is no democratic economy.
Each and every worker has ONLY the authority over their own labor. Collectively this should be called Democracy.
If the worker makes it so it is so. It is the rule of the worker; the dictatorship of the proletariat; Anarchy.


What good is unionization if workers make productive decisions individually?

So what you are saying is why bother with democracy. Unionism >IS< the voluntary collective administration of the means of production by the working class.
The free association of workers; associating and coordinating their production for the working class.

Every worker should be free to unionize how they see fit. The idea if a forced collective where every worker belongs to the single collective is nothing more then nationalism.
You cant force people into communism; the workers have to work towards it voluntarily or else it is just Liberalism; the Faux-libertarianism sold to us by capitalism recreated by the state.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem is not with organizing on a large scale; I have NO problem with that. What I have a problem with is the assumption that you have a say in other peoples use of the means of production.
That you have the authority to say "This is the plan" and expect people to obey.
That your framework has rules that must be enforced over everyone.
That is a forced collective I nor hardly anyone else will abide.


There's no part of the model, or in anything I've said, that asserts any kind of 'authority' whatsoever -- you can't find any kind of a blueprint-type 'plan' from me, because such realtime details would obviously be of the time of revolution and socialism when such details could be proactively addressed, and not sooner.

The 'rules' of the framework *are* communism, in explicit terms, or parameters. I asked you in a past thread if you had any objections to any of the content and you didn't raise a peep.





You just keep digging that currency hole deeper and deeper.

Debt.
Backing.


This is *economics*, (A) -- you don't like the idea of keeping track of values, yet (liberated) labor *is* a value to a post-capitalist society, and *should* be recorded and paid-forward, for overall administrative purposes, and for posterity.

With the labor credits there's only simple-debt in operation, at worst -- either new labor credits have been introduced from actual liberated-labor efforts, as with an equal-labor-swap between two localities issuing labor credits in equal amounts at the same time, or else they're debt-based and would be known as such by everyone according to their serial numbers.

It's *not* currency because it's not exchangeable for any items and has no exchange values.





These are terms used to describe a something that possesses value; Meaning that your Labor credits

Are a medium of exchange


No, there are no exchanges through the use of labor credits -- the stuff to be produced is planned-out and mass-prioritized by the locality's population (or pan-locality) as a project, and once the goods are produced they're distributed to those who requested / ordered / demanded it according to the mass-approved plan.





You can say it over and over but it does not change the fact that Labor-credits are still by definition a currency as they have a value backed by labor.


No, there's *no* abstracted / exchange values to them -- they're only 'backed' by a face-value equivalent of initial formal liberated-work put in. After that they circulate and would only be passed-on if *new* face-value-equivalent work was put in so that the *next* worker would receive them. All goods would be distributed according to the mass-approved plan, with certain specific recipients already known upfront.





As you said you can even go into debt by issuing them meaning that they are used for exchange.[/SIZE][/SIZE]


No, there are *no* exchanges of goods for labor credits. Debt-based labor credits, by serial number, may or may not be accepted by those who do liberated-labor. If they *are* accepted, for whatever reason, then that indicates that liberated-laborers are putting-in their liberated-work in return for issued labor credits that represent *nothing* -- no past work done.

This provides some *flexibility*, given unknown and varying conditions -- under some circumstances maybe debt-based labor credits would be *needed*, regardless, as perhaps on Day One. Maybe the locality that issues debt-based labor credits would make statements about getting certain social-good work done by a certain date so that their batch of issued labor credits won't be debt-based for much longer.

If emergent social norms happen to favor mass *consumption* over new liberated-*production* initiatives perhaps people wouldn't mind using debt-based labor credits, and maybe most labor credits in circulation *would be* debt-based. This would be a case of tending to certain non-regular 'special' conditions where liberated-labor would have to be quickly organized on an ad-hoc basis, and people wouldn't care much about the formality of labor credits being debt-based or not.





No I dont, I said that a democratic economy is no different then a market place of producers providing the product of their labor directly to the community. Regardless of the lack of Explicit exchange; the structure of a worker run economy is that of a market place.


But there *would* be explicit market-type exchanges in your conception of a post-capitalist 'democratic' economy because 'the structure of a worker run economy is that of a market place'. This part implies exchange-values, or labor-for-goods. You've also mentioned credit unions in past threads of discussion, which would mean the societal use of stored-up values -- which are also exchange values.





When a worker provides his labor to his community it is structurally no different then a market.


There you go -- labor-for-goods.





With a Labor-credit system that market has an explicit exchange (3hours = three twelve pounds of corn)


Incorrect.

The *distribution* of produced goods goes to those who have requested them in advance ('human need'), *not* to those who worked to produce them, though those liberated-laborers would obviously get first-dibs on anything they themselves produce, for personal use only, because they're the ones who produced it.





A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I]t would only be fair that those who put in the actual (liberated) labor to produce anything should also be able to get 'first dibs' of anything they produce.

In practice [...] everything would be pre-planned, so the workers would just factor in their own personal requirements as part of the project or production run. (Nothing would be done on a speculative or open-ended basis, the way it's done now, so all recipients and orders would be pre-determined -- it would make for minimal waste.)

[...]




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


Liberated-workers can withhold their labor if they don't like the details of the production plan upfront, including to-whom the resulting goods would be distributed to.





Without labor credits it is a communal gift economy.


Correct.





Either way a democratic economy is a market place for the free (unrestricted) exchange of labor between equals.


You're not helping yourself with the use of the terms 'market' and 'market place' -- the process of liberated-labor barter you describe here inherently implies *exchange values* because people could shop-around for better terms of labor received for labor given ('prices'). Socialism is supposed to be about *planning*, and on large scales, so that machinery can be used effectively to fulfill human needs and wants.





Either it will have to be implemented by force in order to ensure that the rule of the administration is followed; Or you are just wasting your time.


You're just making flippant "predictions" based on your own antagonism to the necessity for societal *planning*, to favor a spent paradigm of market-type, individualistic *exchanges* of labor and goods.

[(A)]

Currency:
You are exchanging labor-credits for something; otherwise they have no use-value and wont be used. You have never addressed this very simple point.
Without a use-value they will not circulate; with a use-value they are currency; a stand in for exchange; My labor-credits for "administrative planning power".

It honestly sounds like you are creating a political currency where the earning of credits (issued only by you) allows people unequal political power. The ability to command material goods based on the value of the labor credits you possess. My vote ='s my labor-credits earned.


Money determines the worth of the man; he is “worth ten thousand pounds”. He who has money is of “the better sort of people”, is “influential”, and what he does counts for something in his social circle. The huckstering spirit penetrates the whole language, all relations are expressed in business terms, in economic categories.

In your system where credits command productive power you are simply replacing the function of currency. The ability to have a say via the amount of paper in your wallet. Money is not material as much it is social. The worth of a man will be measured in his credits earned in your case.

What is the value of your credits? They have a value somehow; be it the exchange of goods or the exchange of power.
Your labor-credits MUST have a value and therefore must be currency.

Planning:

Liberated-workers can withhold their labor if they don't like the details of the production plan upfront, including to-whom the resulting goods would be distributed to.


And if the liberated laborers are using a factory you need despite the plan; who kicks them out so you can use the means of production. I mean you are the administrator of the means so you get to decide who uses what when. You and your Union will have the only labor-credits that allow people to use the means right.


your own antagonism to the necessity for societal *planning*, to favor a spent paradigm of market-type, individualistic *exchanges* of labor and goods.

I have no problem with mass planning; I have a problem with political administration. What you are arguing for is not a democratic economy but a regulated one.
A democratic economy is one where the actions of the workers administrate the means; not a fixed institution of Labor-credits and political authority necessary to enforce the plan.

I am saying the administration of the means will be handled by the workers on the shop floor and not a political institution. You are arguing for political control over the means of production; a plan that is implemented by the majority against the Minority (political "democracy").

I am arguing for the dictatorship of the proletariat; the total rule of the workers over the means they operate.

No political substitution for worker control.

[Blake's Baby]

Editted - realised I was replying to something from 5 pages ago.

Nothing to see here.

[Exterminatus]

Jesus Christ this site has become an endless shitshow between two worst leftist groups - clueless stalinists and degenerate vegan-anarchists.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I dont see how Bakunin is relevant; Its not a Bakunin quote and even if it was, I am not beholden to Bakunin's views.
When I say "all external government is tyranny" what I mean is that I agree with the statement quoted.
The only one who governs me is myself; all others governance is tyranny as I dont consent to it.

How did I see this disingenuous claim coming...Nobody's saying you're beholden to Bakunin's views. What we're saying is even a respected anarchist writer rejects such a claim as insanity, with good reason.


That's A BIG difference between Anarchists and Marxists. Marxists are followers of Marx; like sheep follow the shepherd.
Anarchists dont blindly follow; My opinions are my own.
I will never call myself a Bakunist or a Proudhonian or a Kropotkinite. Idol worship is not a trait Anarchists share with Marxists.

Yes, yes, always remember that you're unique, just like everybody else. Also, simultaneously argue that the individual titan is what (or who) matters while dismissing the idea of recognizing high-profile theoretical contributions.


Every social action is the action of any number of individuals. Without the democratic action of the individual their is no democratic economy.
Each and every worker has ONLY the authority over their own labor. Collectively this should be called Democracy.
If the worker makes it so it is so. It is the rule of the worker; the dictatorship of the proletariat; Anarchy.

This is just restating claims already responded to earlier. No, we're not a bunch of atomized individuals. Such is anathema to society, hence reactionaries like Thatcher claiming "[T]here is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

Obviously "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all," but this is a far cry from individualism and taking the atomized individual as the starting point of social production.


So what you are saying is why bother with democracy. Unionism >IS< the voluntary collective administration of the means of production by the working class.
The free association of workers; associating and coordinating their production for the working class.

No, what i'm starting to say is why bother dealing with your straw person arguments and red herrings. See the bolded part of your own words for emphasis. There's a crucial difference between voluntary collective administration and disorganized production by individuals.


Every worker should be free to unionize how they see fit. The idea if a forced collective where every worker belongs to the single collective is nothing more then nationalism.

You cant force people into communism; the workers have to work towards it voluntarily or else it is just Liberalism; the Faux-libertarianism sold to us by capitalism recreated by the state.

We've been down this road already. I specifically said:


First off, nobody's saying we should coerce the working class into overthrowing capital...

You're starting by misrepresenting my premise as the literal opposite of what it was. What this tells me is you're not actually responding to anyone else in this thread---just churning out your own talking points ad nauseam, using the Goebbels method of repetition to misrepresent others' points.

This isn't about evil union bureaucrats running around telling people they can't have blue toothbrushes because blue is reactionary. It's about large-scale production being done collectively, not done unilaterally in a disconnected fashion. Socialism is not merely a technologically advanced version of subsistence hermitages, wherein each worker individually, or even each neighbourhood, decides what to produce and never offers or receives input and guidance through a central (community) body. The individual is not and cannot be the sole decider.

[(A)]

This is just restating claims already responded to earlier. No, we're not a bunch of atomized individuals. Such is anathema to society, hence reactionaries like Thatcher claiming "[T]here is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

Obviously "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all," but this is a far cry from individualism and taking the atomized individual as the starting point of social production.

Society is a collection of individuals. A non-class based society necessitates the absence of unequal social relations.
Government is a non-consensual; class based hierarchy that has no possible place in a communist society.
The individual has every ability and reason to govern themselfs and never to consent to unwanted orders.


Anarchism is the teaching of freedom. Where there is exploitation, where there is power, where authority holds sway, where centralism exists, where man keeps guard over man, where orders are given and obedience offered there is no freedom. The destruction of all authorities, all privileges, all institutions of property and slavery can come to pass only out of the free communal spirit. The stateless community of free people, — that is communism, the solidarity of equals in freedom, that is anarchy!
— Erich Muhsam




That quote from a Jewish anarchist; murdered by Nazis is far more relevant then any quote you can find by Bakunin.

The existence of political power is anathema to communism.


In the realization that power contains within itself exploitation, regardless who exercises it, regardless for what pretended or actual purpose it is rationalized, further that state and centralization are institutions of power and thus must practice exploitation, regardless what social goals they have set for themselves, anarchism sets itself the task of destroying power as a form of social life, accordingly of destroying every sort of state from the ground up and in its place constructing a federated community of people with equal rights. The frequently raised objection, that the destruction of power presumes through its means of execution once again the use of power, rests on unclear reasoning. For the words power, compulsion, and force denote completely different concepts whose equation and confusion have produced disastrous errors even within the ranks of the anarchists themselves. Force is a means of struggles which is not fundamentally different from other means of struggle such as persuasion, deception, passive resistance, etc.
— Erich Muhsam







This isn't about evil union bureaucrats running around telling people they can't have blue toothbrushes because blue is reactionary. It's about large-scale production being done collectively, not done unilaterally in a disconnected fashion. Socialism is not merely a technologically advanced version of subsistence hermitages, wherein each worker individually, or even each neighbourhood, decides what to produce and never offers or receives input and guidance through a central (community) body. The individual is not and cannot be the sole decider.

The problem with "central (community) body" is >Polity<.
What is the border of the communitys administrative power? Does the "central body" have the right to control the means of production? Do they Issue Labor-credits and enforce the use of the means?
Because that is not communism; its really just state-capitalism; the ownership of the means by a political institution. Call it the Communist party; The administration or the central Body... Its all just the exclusive control of the world that belongs to every individual.

All belongs to All.
Marx based his works off of Market Anarchists (Proudhon) who argued that Mutual credit banks would issue labor-credits. Lenin; like the good reactionary he was decided that the Workers should not issue currency but the state should. A centrally controlled economy IS CAPITALISM; it is Economic fascism that is not sufficently diffrent then what we see in america; or what we saw in Nazi Germany.

All belongs to all. Every one of us has the ability to exercise our own individual control over our labor; the world and what society has created; being created by us all collectively; must be free for us to use in order to live. Not controlled by a Political administration; you are just begging for fascism. Creating a platform for corruption and greed.

That is what communism is; freely working together for our mutual benefit; not all belonging to a forced collective under a single government that owns everything we need to live; no matter how democratic it pretends to be it is simply unacceptable. We have 5000 years of experience that proves that we can not trust the management of our lives to the "administrators" of the world.

No gods; No masters; All cops are bastards.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The problem with "central (community) body" is >Polity<.
What is the border of the communitys administrative power? Does the "central body" have the right to control the means of production? Do they Issue Labor-credits and enforce the use of the means?
Sorry but where did Brad say anything about Labour Credits? You keep throwing in terms and ideas that people don't bring up or use. This is the definition of a 'straw man' argument.


Because that is not communism; its really just state-capitalism; the ownership of the means by a political institution. Call it the Communist party; The administration or the central Body... Its all just the exclusive control of the world that belongs to every individual.

All belongs to All.
It's nice to say this sort of thing, I'm sure it makes you feel righteous. But can I put forward an imagined problem: a community needs to build a bridge to connect them across a river. There are two ideal sites to build a bridge but only the resources, and the motivation, to build only one bridge. The community votes and 60% go for site A whilst 40% go for site B. They decide to go with the majority and build in site A. Is that an example of a central body 'oppressing' the 40% to you?


Marx based his works off of Market Anarchists (Proudhon) who argued that Mutual credit banks would issue labor-credits. Lenin; like the good reactionary he was decided that the Workers should not issue currency but the state should. A centrally controlled economy IS CAPITALISM; it is Economic fascism that is not sufficently diffrent then what we see in america; or what we saw in Nazi Germany.
You'll find that the majority of the works of both Marx and Proudhon were 'based upon' the works of the Bourgeois economists of the time as much as they built upon the works of socialist writers as well but obviously Marx came to far different conclusions to both the classical economists and his contemporaries in the socialist movement. Marx, in particular, borrows often from Ricardo and, to somewhat of a lesser extent, Smith.


All belongs to all. Every one of us has the ability to exercise our own individual control over our labor; the world and what society has created; being created by us all collectively; must be free for us to use in order to live. Not controlled by a Political administration; you are just begging for fascism. Creating a platform for corruption and greed.

That is what communism is; freely working together for our mutual benefit; not all belonging to a forced collective under a single government that owns everything we need to live; no matter how democratic it pretends to be it is simply unacceptable. We have 5000 years of experience that proves that we can not trust the management of our lives to the "administrators" of the world.

No gods; No masters; All cops are bastards.
You are talking yourself in circles here. 'Individual control over labour', 'created by us all collectively', 'working together', 'not belonging to a collective'. This seems like a conflicting array of talking points and it almost seems pointless to discuss the topic with you. I could say "it is obvious to anyone with a brain that working collectively to provide for everyone in the community, and to be anywhere near to efficient, you need planning, democratic decision making and some sort of communication and effective decision making between different groups and communities in order to be as effective as possible whilst respecting the individual's rights". But ultimately you would read that sentence and cry 'fascism' as if every form of organisation, planning and administration is exactly the same. The reality is that humanity's tools for social organisation have changed to reflect its economic base and so feudalism has different characteristics to capitalism and ultimately a classless society, retaining the very obvious signifier of 'society', would organise and administer production and distribution in a completely different way to a class society. It just seems that you cannot envisage such a society.

[ckaihatsu]

Currency:
You are exchanging labor-credits for something; otherwise they have no use-value and wont be used. You have never addressed this very simple point.


No, there are no exchanges -- here's from my previous post:





It's *not* currency because it's not exchangeable for any items and has no exchange values.




No, there are no exchanges through the use of labor credits -- the stuff to be produced is planned-out and mass-prioritized by the locality's population (or pan-locality) as a project, and once the goods are produced they're distributed to those who requested / ordered / demanded it according to the mass-approved plan.


---





Without a use-value they will not circulate; with a use-value they are currency; a stand in for exchange; My labor-credits for "administrative planning power".


Actually, the planning power would come from the general population, from a specific locality's collated mass-prioritizations, or from multiple localities in the same way. Anyone or any group could make *tons* of plans, which would circulate and become known to all who are interested. Here's from the model:





communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


However, plans are *meaningless* if there's no labor manifested to physically *fulfill* those plans -- that's where the labor credits can be useful, enabling those who have done liberated-work in the past to use their labor credits to 'choose' exactly which available-and-willing liberated laborers will be formally designated for whatever project(s) that have been mass-approved by the mass-prioritizations, to the extent of the quantity of labor credits being passed-along for work done.





labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality


Regarding a project's administration:





communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


Labor credits have neither use-value *or* exchange-value -- they are a means of carrying-forward through time a certain discrete overall amount of liberated-labor. Here's from the introduction:





[A]ll concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

This method would both *empower* and *limit* the position of liberated labor since a snapshot of labor performed -- more-or-less the same quantity of labor-power available continuously, going forward -- would be certain, known, and *finite*, and not subject to any kinds of abstraction- (financial-) based extrapolations or stretching. Since all resources would be in the public domain no one would be at a loss for the basics of life, or at least for free access to providing for the basics of life for themselves. And, no political power or status, other than that represented by possession of actual labor credits, could be enjoyed by liberated labor. It would be free to represent itself on an individual basis or could associate and organize on its own political terms, within the confines of its empowerment by the sum of pooled labor credits in possession.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


---





It honestly sounds like you are creating a political currency where the earning of credits (issued only by you)


No, *not* issued by me. The framework / model is fully *independent* of me and could be implemented as soon as workers control the means of mass industrial production to whatever extent.

Here's from post #65:




The people of any locality can collectively decide to issue *any number* of labor credits -- but it's a *political* act since they're expecting their "local brand" (by serial numbers) to be honored at face value by everyone else in the world. The people of that issuing locality haven't done *any work* for their issuing of those labor credits, and everybody knows it because it's all part of the public record.

What that locality *could* do is send enough of its own people out to anywhere else, to do work and bring labor credits from outside back to their own locality, so as to show real backing for the batch of labor credits that they issued from debt. That, too, would be part of the public record.


The 'locality debt' aspect would be in *political* terms -- 'reputation' -- since a locality's act of issuing a new batch of labor credits through debt issuance would effectively be the *direct exploitation* of liberated labor since there's no reciprocity of labor effort on the part of those in that locality.

All that the locality's population would have to do to correct things would be to search out opportunities to earn labor credits from *outside* their own locality, and then to bring that 'x' amount of labor credits back to their locality to cancel out the debt.

Similarly, two localities could coordinate to issue identical numbers of labor credits at the same time, and then to 'earn' each other's labor credits at about the same time, thus nullifying both respective debts at once. (The physical labor credits would then remain in general circulation afterwards, unencumbered by any underlying debt.)





allows people unequal political power.


Incorrect, but the onus is on you anyway for you to make your 'case' based on the content of the model itself.





The ability to command material goods based on the value of the labor credits you possess.


Incorrect. Those who do the liberated-labor to produce goods do not 'command' or otherwise 'control' the goods themselves, aside from taking their own personal portion of it, if they like -- the plan for the *distribution* of the produced goods would have been done in advance by the whole locality, based on a mass-approved 'policy package', which would also specify the distinct work roles required for the production of the resulting 'x' number of whatever item.





consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily




consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization


---





My vote ='s my labor-credits earned.


Incorrect:





consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily


And:





[A]ll concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


---





In your system where credits command productive power you are simply replacing the function of currency. The ability to have a say via the amount of paper in your wallet. Money is not material as much it is social.


In a *sense* you're correct -- one necessary material-economic function is that of formally designating labor. Under capitalism this is done with money or currency, as you're pointing out, by leveraging people's basic biological needs for food and shelter, etc. Another *problem*, too, is that money itself is not socially regulated, and could derive from wages, or from betting, or from exploiting labor, or from returns on investments, or from the government, or from crime, and so on.

The labor credits are not subject to financial-type stretching or usury, so they only directly represent liberated-workers' past accomplished works (particularly for the common good). This enables those with labor credits to direct social production at a directly proportionate scale, to others, going-forward.





The worth of a man will be measured in his credits earned in your case.


This is more of a *philosophical* statement, and I don't happen to agree with you here.





What is the value of your credits? They have a value somehow; be it the exchange of goods or the exchange of power.
Your labor-credits MUST have a value and therefore must be currency.


(See the second portion from the top.)





Planning:





Liberated-workers can withhold their labor if they don't like the details of the production plan upfront, including to-whom the resulting goods would be distributed to.





And if the liberated laborers are using a factory you need despite the plan; who kicks them out so you can use the means of production. I mean you are the administrator of the means so you get to decide who uses what when. You and your Union will have the only labor-credits that allow people to use the means right.


No, again, this model is *independent* of me personally. If it happened to be collectively taken-up during my lifetime I would just be one individual, the same as anyone else, and would be subject to the parameters of the model -- which would be a *good* thing.

The use of factories would presumably be consistent with the framework (model), so no factory would be in a state of 'hijack' -- everyone would be able to know what's happening with what equipment, according to mass-approved and labor-credit-funded projects.





communist administration -- A political culture, including channels of journalism, history, and academia, will generally track all known assets and resources -- unmaintained assets and resources may fall into disuse or be reclaimed by individuals for personal use only


---





I have no problem with mass planning;


Good.





I have a problem with political administration. What you are arguing for is not a democratic economy but a regulated one.
A democratic economy is one where the actions of the workers administrate the means; not a fixed institution of Labor-credits and political authority necessary to enforce the plan.


The exercise of authority would not be necessary if people were really on-board with this framework and stuck to it -- either plans ('initiatives', 'proposals', and finalized 'policy packages') would enjoy mass support and cumulative mass-prioritization, or they wouldn't. Either there would be sufficient liberated labor to fulfill a mass-approved plan, or there wouldn't be.

There's no standing / fixed / bureaucratic 'political administration':





communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


The liberated laborers *do* *control* the means of mass industrial production:





labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property


('Proceeds' means goods / resources / materials.)


Administration is limited to a per-policy-package basis, as noted above (second quote block upward).

In this model the liberated-workers themselves do not administrate over the means of mass industrial production, except as individuals, like any other -- this is because if they *did* consistently 'administrate' it would cause an unbalancing of inherent material interests: They may fall out-of-touch with the requirements of the general population, since not everyone would be around working social circles, but would still have human needs-requirements from social production.

Also, from the intro:





What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.


Liberated laborers would be individual co-participants, if they want, in general societal 'administration' -- meaning the emergent mass social sentiment -- through their regular usage of the daily political demands ranking list to indicate which proposals or policy packages they favor, by their rank-positioning of it / them:





consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]




consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process


---





I am saying the administration of the means will be handled by the workers on the shop floor and not a political institution. You are arguing for political control over the means of production; a plan that is implemented by the majority against the Minority (political "democracy").

I am arguing for the dictatorship of the proletariat; the total rule of the workers over the means they operate.

No political substitution for worker control.


Yes, understood. See the previous segment.

[(A)]

a community needs to build a bridge to connect them across a river. There are two ideal sites to build a bridge but only the resources, and the motivation, to build only one bridge. The community votes and 60% go for site A whilst 40% go for site B. They decide to go with the majority and build in site A. Is that an example of a central body 'oppressing' the 40% to you?

Chris posed this ridiculous question to me months ago and I actual have a better answer now.

http://mx3d.com/projects/bridge/

But let me ask you a question. What if the same situation occurred; but bridge a was going to destroy several homes and a factory that the %40 people live in and use.
Does the authority have the right to destroy those homes and factory to build the bridge for the majority or does every individual in that 40% have the right to defend their homes and means of production against the administration despite the vote.

Equality demands autonomy. You are arguing for a mandatory collective that is so anti-communist its sickening. I will not be a subject of your polity.


'Individual control over labour', 'created by us all collectively', 'working together', 'not belonging to a collective'. This seems like a conflicting array of talking points

I dont know what B.S. you Marxists read that made you so detached from reality but the existence of the collective; on society is wholly based on the membership of individuals.

Without the individual their is no collective; one necessitates the other. You cant have a collective that is not made up of individual member; this is insanity. Absolute detachment from reality.

I have not argued once for the end to communication or planning; this is a wholly made up point all three of you seem to be using; its your strawmen. Making up a argument that you can defeat that I have not made.

You are all arguing that a unequal society (those with political power VS those without.) You explicitly said this when you argued for a Liberal Democracy that has a winning and powerfull majority set against the losing and going to be forced by law to obey the rule of the state minority.

You are so brainwashed by Liberalism you cant even see it right in front of you. That is the argument made by the founders of liberalism. "Every citizen should have a voice."

I will not be a citizen of your administration. No matter who you vote for; we are ungovernable. As long as Anarchism exists your liberal-socialism will never take root again.
We already destroyed the most promising Marxist-Leninist movement in the 21st century and replaced it with a Libertarian one. Any society capable of ending capitalism will never settle for your liberal socialism.

------


he people of any locality can collectively decide to issue *any number* of labor credits

And by "collectively decide" you mean that the administration that you think represents everyone will decide.

But the fact remains that anyone who has the power to issue credits has a privilege in society that those who are not allowed to do not have.
Unless everyone is able to issue credits in the very same manner with the very same impact; you are just recreating state-capitalism.
The control over the means by the state and not the worker.


mass-approved 'policy package'

Your Liberalism is showing.
Please this is proof you are just a social democrat trying to reform your way to communism.
No amount of mass-approval legitimizes the Policy implemented by your state. Only the authority of the person/people doing the labor is communist; Any form of forced-mass collectivism or mass polity making is liberalism; the impossible ideology of a Democratic state.


The exercise of authority would not be necessary if people were really on-board with this framework

But we wont be; ever. As long as their are individuals to demand freedom your ideology remains firmly fixed within the realm of Liberalism.
Maybe if you where the Borg this would work but if you think people will abide your administration without being forced to you have a warped sense of reality and a complete lack of historical information.
There has never been a socialist state that has not had to murder & imprison Anarchists who would not abide your brand of Socialist-Liberalism.
No society will ever freely consent to your administration.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I was really tempted to give it a good smash - I mean, it's not hard to quote Lenin to point out all the times he argued with Stalin and praised Trotsky. But it kind of just seems petty and irrelevant. Plus I'm not really 'orthodox' in my general support of Trotsky over Stalin.

Yeah I get that ... I mean, the OP is not even remotely original.

[ckaihatsu]

Clarification regarding the following:





[U]nder some circumstances maybe debt-based labor credits would be *needed*, regardless, as perhaps on Day One. Maybe the locality that issues debt-based labor credits would make statements about getting certain social-good work done by a certain date so that their batch of issued labor credits won't be debt-based for much longer.

If emergent social norms happen to favor mass *consumption* over new liberated-*production* initiatives perhaps people wouldn't mind using debt-based labor credits, and maybe most labor credits in circulation *would be* debt-based.




This would be a case of tending to certain non-regular 'special' conditions where liberated-labor would have to be quickly organized on an ad-hoc basis, and people wouldn't care much about the formality of labor credits being debt-based or not.


I got the contextual dynamics mixed-up on this one -- if the prevailing conditions were that not much new liberated-work was being done, and people were generally content with already-existing, regular-type automated mass-liberated-production, for the sake of continued but unchanging consumption, any 'special' initiatives for new, different kinds of mass industrial production would probably require *non-debt-based* / work-backed labor credits because a more-inclusive social sign-on would be objectively needed, and the social risks would be greater than if society was otherwise constantly in-motion and constantly active in bringing forth new kinds of liberated-production in a robust work culture.

It's that *more-dynamic* post-capitalist society that probably wouldn't mind if new issuances of needed labor credits were debt-based or not, because things would be moving quickly and such debts of liberated-labor could probably be figured-out and made-up quickly amidst a continuously flowing network of labor-credit paying-forward going on.


---





Jesus Christ this site has become an endless shitshow between two worst leftist groups - clueless stalinists and degenerate vegan-anarchists.


I take exception to your saying that I'm a 'clueless Stalinist' -- you're going by (A)'s characterizations, which are incorrect, as I'm pointing out in my replies.


---





Chris posed this ridiculous question to me months ago and I actual have a better answer now.

http://mx3d.com/projects/bridge/


You're thinking of someone else -- I'm not the one who introduced you to this project.





The people of any locality can collectively decide to issue *any number* of labor credits





And by "collectively decide" you mean that the administration that you think represents everyone will decide.


No, there's *no* standing / fixed / specialized bureaucracy / state / administration -- you're making up bullshit again.





But the fact remains that anyone who has the power to issue credits has a privilege in society that those who are not allowed to do not have.


There's no detached, class-like 'power' at work within the model -- only *localities* of formally-joined people (willing residents of a specific shared area, basically) can issue labor credits, as a *local collective* measure that's then publicly seen, affecting the locality's socio-political reputation.

I suppose *individuals* *could* go ahead and issue labor credits, but I think it would be unnecessary and wouldn't be taken well by anyone / everyone else because there wouldn't be significant societal meaning in that action.

On the other hand, localities of thousands and tens of thousands of people would show a solid social *commitment* behind the issuance, and as mentioned before, if done right, the newly issued labor credits would be unburdened by debt and would be a healthy, positive socio-political-economic action.





Unless everyone is able to issue credits in the very same manner with the very same impact; you are just recreating state-capitalism.


Due to realities of *scale* an individual issuing labor credits would be nowhere as meaningful an action as an entire *locality* (or localities) that did it.





The control over the means by the state and not the worker.


There's *no* state -- that's what you're not understanding. You're impugning the fundamentals of the model by continuing to conflate its manifestation with a regular standing *institution*, which the issuance of labor credits is *not*. Issuances of labor credits would vary greatly by participation, size of the locality / localities, the project(s) it feeds into, the availability of work-role-required liberated labor, and many other factors.

It doesn't make sense for all of this productive-organization-in-flux to be looking to just *one individual* for its acceptance of newly-issued labor credits that would represent the entire scale and complexity of whatever project(s) the labor credits were issued for (if necessary).





Your Liberalism is showing.
Please this is proof you are just a social democrat trying to reform your way to communism.
No amount of mass-approval legitimizes the Policy implemented by your state.


There's *no state* -- you're just imputing this bullshit, repeatedly, with no evidence for such an erroneous claim. See above.

You have no basis for name-calling me a liberal / social democrat / reformist.





Only the authority of the person/people doing the labor is communist;


Now *you're* acknowledging and validating some kind of authority -- with my framework no authority is necessary because either the requisite steps are done for full completion of whatever, or it isn't. Sufficient cooperation enables meaningful social production.





Any form of forced-mass collectivism or mass polity making is liberalism; the impossible ideology of a Democratic state.


Again, there's no state, no authority, no force, no generic or insidious 'polity-making'.





But we wont be; ever.


There's no 'we' over there -- you're speaking for yourself, as I'm speaking for myself.





As long as their are individuals to demand freedom your ideology remains firmly fixed within the realm of Liberalism.


You're incorrect, as ever, and making up bullshit.





Maybe if you where the Borg this would work but if you think people will abide your administration


Great cliched stereotype. I already explained that 'I' don't *have* an administration -- see my previous post.





without being forced to you have a warped sense of reality and a complete lack of historical information.
There has never been a socialist state that has not had to murder & imprison Anarchists who would not abide your brand of Socialist-Liberalism.
No society will ever freely consent to your administration.


This is all just *bluster* on your part, and more ranting -- take it somewhere else.

[(A)]

There's no detached, class-like 'power' at work within the model -- only *localities* of formally-joined people (willing residents of a specific shared area, basically) can issue labor credits, as a *local collective* measure that's then publicly seen, affecting the locality's socio-political reputation.

I suppose *individuals* *could* go ahead and issue labor credits, but I think it would be unnecessary and wouldn't be taken well by anyone / everyone else because there wouldn't be significant societal meaning in that action.

On the other hand, localities of thousands and tens of thousands of people would show a solid social *commitment* behind the issuance, and as mentioned before, if done right, the newly issued labor credits would be unburdened by debt and would be a healthy, positive socio-political-economic action.

So you are now arguing that small nation states ("*localities* of formally-joined people (willing residents of a specific shared area, basically") will issue labor credits that then are earned by doing "Liberated labor" for the governing administration that issued the credits that are then used to.... What do I refund my credits for exactly... Like in once sentence or less?

What you are talking about are "democratic" country's based on locality/nationality.
Sounds a lot like a state to me.

I dont see how in your system the means of production can NOT be under the authority of the "collectives" administration.
How will anything get done with each locality issuing its own labor credits to be used under its own means of production (based on locality).

The whole idea of creating a framework is nonsense and more importantly; not important. It will have no affect on the revolution because unlike the dictatorship of the proletariat; You have no power to implement your will. It would be a better use of your time being a vangardist as you have suggested and working towards building your mass party. Then at the head of a political party you can implement any framework you wish without having to lift a finger.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Chris posed this ridiculous question to me months ago and I actual have a better answer now.

http://mx3d.com/projects/bridge/
You are either being intellectually dishonest or are literally too stupid to understand the point of the question I asked if your only response is to link to the website of a capitalist project to build a bridge. The question was never about the bridge, it was about how planning projects in a community can lead to divided opinions.


But let me ask you a question. What if the same situation occurred; but bridge a was going to destroy several homes and a factory that the %40 people live in and use.
Does the authority have the right to destroy those homes and factory to build the bridge for the majority or does every individual in that 40% have the right to defend their homes and means of production against the administration despite the vote.
You are talking as if the 'authority' I am discussing is in anyway separate and distinct from the people of the community. In such a scenario, it seems clear that any plan that would involve the demolition of a significant portion of the community's homes (or even just a few) would face objections and likely never come to fruition, the other 60% of the community would have no reason to think such a plan was in any way feasible or desirable. Every sort of infrastructure plan needs democratic oversight and administrative balances. The sort of organisation and planning needed for the general running of society would have to include contingencies for such scenarios and ensure that everyone retains their rights.


Equality demands autonomy. You are arguing for a mandatory collective that is so anti-communist its sickening. I will not be a subject of your polity.
I'm not arguing for a 'mandatory' anything. People will have to collectively organise and plan in order for society to have any sort of longevity and efficiency but it wouldn't be 'mandatory' it would just happen because it's necessary for it to happen. Much as capitalism is not 'mandatory' but nonetheless it exists and encompasses the world and the vast majority of human production.


I dont know what B.S. you Marxists read that made you so detached from reality but the existence of the collective; on society is wholly based on the membership of individuals.

Without the individual their is no collective; one necessitates the other. You cant have a collective that is not made up of individual member; this is insanity. Absolute detachment from reality.
Honestly, the post you are replying to isn't very long and I didn't write much but, unless you are a fucking moron or something, you can quite clearly read the part where I implicitly talk about a community that respects the rights of individuals. I understand the, very basic, concept of a collective being composed of individuals, don't you worry.

You've spent more than a few posts hammering in a point about individuals being beholden to no-one and individuals being responsible for their individual production. Is it any surprise that someone might be confused by what you are asserting? That's why I quoted sections of your post - because they appeared contrary to what you had posted before. As if what you were arguing had no consistency or something.


I have not argued once for the end to communication or planning; this is a wholly made up point all three of you seem to be using; its your strawmen. Making up a argument that you can defeat that I have not made.

You are all arguing that a unequal society (those with political power VS those without.) You explicitly said this when you argued for a Liberal Democracy that has a winning and powerfull majority set against the losing and going to be forced by law to obey the rule of the state minority.
See, this is where the confusion clearly lies. Because you believe that we are arguing for a society where some people can hold political power and some people cannot. This is not true. In class society, economics leads to some individuals gaining political privileges. In a classless society, such an economic system would not exist - no individual person would be able to wield political privileges. Everyone would have political power because the economics of classless society provides everyone with equal 'ownership' of the means of production.

However, just having an equal say in how society is run doesn't necessarily mean that every plan put forward, every idea and individual goal, can be fulfilled. The world has finite resources, finite manpower and, perhaps most importantly, there is finite motivation. It is not coercive if someone's plans do not get enacted because they don't hold much traction with the rest of the community.


You are so brainwashed by Liberalism you cant even see it right in front of you. That is the argument made by the founders of liberalism. "Every citizen should have a voice."
So you would argue that not everyone should have a voice? Seriously, I question whether you understand what 'liberal' means.


I will not be a citizen of your administration. No matter who you vote for; we are ungovernable. As long as Anarchism exists your liberal-socialism will never take root again.
We already destroyed the most promising Marxist-Leninist movement in the 21st century and replaced it with a Libertarian one. Any society capable of ending capitalism will never settle for your liberal socialism.
Firstly, I'm not a marxist-leninist so I don't particularly care much if such a movement is 'destroyed'. Secondly, if you're talking about the Kurdish movement in Kobane then you are utterly deluded if you think it is 'libertarian' in the way that you seem to conceive of libertarianism.

[(A)]

society would have to include contingencies for such scenarios and ensure that everyone retains their rights.

Every time I open my mouth Marxists call me a Liberal for believing in "rights" which I only believe in one; the right to protect your own life.
You on the other hand actually support state granted rights.

Good luck with that.


People will have to collectively organise and plan in order for society to have any sort of longevity and efficiency but it wouldn't be 'mandatory' it would just happen because it's necessary for it to happen.

I totally agree with this. Individual and collective workplaces will plan their activity's not always in isolation but in public like any modern business.
The difference between now and then in the workplace will be who will have the power in society. The worker or the state.

Now the power is held by the state; who then grants capitalists protections so that they may exploit us.
When the state is abolished and the individual free to end their alienation from their work and their society as an equal; we will see communism and spontaneous economic democracy.

The people want the power to organize and plan their own lives.

If we build organizations based on the free association of equals without external government and only mutual cooperation; we will be communists.
If we build a system of collective ownership over the means of production; we will be doomed.

Its Anarchy or Extinction. I am fine with ether honestly. Humanity will end its oppressive forms society in exchange for a society based around the equal freedom for everyone; or we will destroy this world and become extinct.

Personally; I have always wanted to die fighting Nazis so I am happy as a clam that now is the time for it.
Direct action now is revolutionary.


In a classless society, such an economic system would not exist - no individual person would be able to wield political privileges. Everyone would have political power because the economics of classless society provides everyone with equal 'ownership' of the means of production.
Equal ownership does not mean explicitly mean equality. I can still be forced into relations I dont want based on a collective ownership.
I agree with Proudhon when he said that property is Impossible; even "communal" property.
Free access to the means is necessary for equality; That is NO ownership, over Collective ownership (because not everyone will want to belong to the same collective).

Collectivism in ownership is Nationalism. It is support for a capitalist nation. A polity that owns capital. Even if every member owns a a equal share; its still nationalism and capitalism.

Free access on the other hand is as Kropotkin put it; ALL is for All. No collective can own capital and be communist because in communism ALL belongs to ALL.

I simply want to defend the one real right we all have; the right of everybody to use the world to survive; regardless of the rules.


Firstly, I'm not a marxist-leninist so I don't particularly care much if such a movement is 'destroyed'. Secondly, if you're talking about the Kurdish movement in Kobane then you are utterly deluded if you think it is 'libertarian' in the way that you seem to conceive of libertarianism.

You dont know how I see Libertarianism. Libertarianism is one step away from Liberalism and one step closer to Anarchy. Anarchy being extreme Libertarianism.
I personally dont like the Democratic confederalism of Bookchin or the Kurdish movement.
I would prefer Anarchy is it is simply the reality of the situation.
But the fact remains that it was a Marxist-Leninsist movement that then was thankfully changed into a libertarian one. I mean its not perfect but its a start. If they manage to survive the next several years I will be watching to see what direction they go. Back towards the Liberalism of Lenin and form a new state; or will the freedom experienced by the Kurdish people push them farther towards Anarchism and Liberation from oppressive relations.

As the Kurdish movement has strong feminist overtones I am hopeful. Women tend to lean towards Anarchism as they truly understand oppression; Men of privilege become Leninist's because they dont.

[ckaihatsu]

So you are now arguing that small nation states ("*localities* of formally-joined people (willing residents of a specific shared area, basically") will issue labor credits that then are earned by doing "Liberated labor" for the governing administration that issued the credits that are then used to....


No, they're *not* small nation-states in composition because their membership does not behave like a standing bureaucratic 'governing administration'.

Really the *only* thing they can do socio-materially is *issue labor credits*. Really. That's it. Everything else depends on the daily individual political demands ranking lists, and their aggregation at the locality / pan-locality level, by computation. As long as these daily aggregations of individually-prioritized demands are done, with the results published and made freely accessible in various ways, the actual social 'politics' can take place, with mass-favored items clearly seen as being more popular at higher rank positions, all the way up to rank position #1.

Liberated labor, then, can respond accordingly, at its wherewithal.

Since there's no 'top-level' hierarchical 'governing administration' -- only various various-sized localities and non-affiliated individuals across the geographical landscape, labor credits have to be earned from outside of one's own locality. That way those 'outside' labor credits can be brought back and used as permanent backing for any *new* labor credits that the locality decides to issue -- otherwise those new batches will be seen by all as being debt-based, which is a socio-political thing, subject to socio-political dynamics through time.

(In *non*-logistical terms this aspect is so that localities don't *continue* to issue endless batches of labor credits, while potentially benefitting from the labor that those batches *enable*. In other words any locality should not be able to just create new batches of labor credits and have outside liberated-laborers make all kinds of physical infrastructure improvements to the issuing locality -- that would be *direct exploitation* since those members of the issuing locality haven't *reciprocated* for the provision of that outside-labor in any way.)





What do I refund my credits for exactly... Like in once sentence or less?


Fun. You're showing your funny side again, which is nice for everyone. (heh)

On the serious side, if the use of labor credits aren't required for any given economic instance then they don't *have* to be used. You could do your neighborly 'barter' of services if you like, because such small-scale stuff wouldn't matter overall.

The point of the labor credits is that they would potentially enable *vast* social organizing for *large-scale*, even *global*, projects because their use provides a regular method of quantification of all kinds of liberated labor -- without commodifying it -- going forward through time.





What you are talking about are "democratic" country's based on locality/nationality.
Sounds a lot like a state to me.


No, the localities aren't states because the most they can do is each collectively issue labor credits (and provide a 'level' / scale of social organization from the aggregated daily individual demands ranking lists). That's it. Nothing more. Anything concrete would be up to the people of that society -- out of my hands in the here-and-now.





I dont see how in your system the means of production can NOT be under the authority of the "collectives" administration.


Because there's no 'fixed' administration anywhere -- please recall:





communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


If one policy package is mass-prioritized (by most cumulative tallies for the relatively-highest rank position, compared to all *competing* policy packages), then it would 'win-out', given a certain preceding agreement over a calendar timetable for a cut-off date. (Maybe the prevailing plan would have to receive the most tallies for the relatively-highest rank position over a two-week period, for example.)

No given locality would *automatically* have control over their 'local' means of production -- it would all have to be determined by these 'policy packages' that are mass-approved, per locality, per project (and with sufficient available-and-willing liberated labor, with any necessary labor-credit 'funding').

Here's from a past thread:





Any localities that repeatedly tried to just issue additional debt without attempting to work off existing outstanding debt would wind up being looked upon unfavorably by its neighbors (and beyond) since it had, as an entire local population, decided to *use* others' labor time for its own local projects without having the means to pay for it.

All of this is *independent* of collectivized assets and resources, like factories and oil deposits. If a locality became *very* debt-ridden it certainly wouldn't be in a position to *utilize* any of its "own" (nearby) assets or resources, and so other localities would be able to prioritize *their* use of the assets and resources for actual, *funded*, *labor-ready* project plans for *their* localities.

This would mean nothing more than what it sounds like at face value -- since there would be no private property anyway there would be no *drastic* consequences to any of these scenarios. No one in the debt-ridden locality would be allowed to *starve* or go homeless or without electricity -- it's just that they would be politically at a standstill until they resolved their locality's problem in a *collective* way, the same way that got them into the mess.


---





How will anything get done with each locality issuing its own labor credits to be used under its own means of production (based on locality).


Labor credits are circulating, so once issued they'd circulate anywhere and everywhere -- they could always be looked-up as to their issued-background and current-status (debt-based or liberated-labor-backed) since all labor credits would have a unique serial number on them (and could be 'branded' or otherwise designed).

Since no locality 'owns' any (nearby or otherwise) means of production, the final publicly-viewable determination would be done through the aggregated daily individual political demands ranking lists, as in 'Project Apples vs. Project Oranges, capped at February 28th'.

There's a full sample scenario here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/119042-A-world-without-money?p=1608511#post1608511).


And here's a rundown of how the 'aggregating' process would happen:





[F]or a post-capitalist political economy, we can *add* to this simple grocery shopping list, namely anything that's more on the *political* side of things. So, in addition to milk, we could add steel, if that person happened to be around the construction industry and had a knowledgeable opinion about necessary steel production for the surrounding area, or whatever.

Finally, aggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)

*This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.


Economic calculation problem

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/185313-Economic-calculation-problem?p=2694159#post2694159


---





The whole idea of creating a framework is nonsense and more importantly; not important. It will have no affect on the revolution because unlike the dictatorship of the proletariat; You have no power to implement your will. It would be a better use of your time being a vangardist as you have suggested and working towards building your mass party. Then at the head of a political party you can implement any framework you wish without having to lift a finger.


This is *ridiculous*, of course, since you're eschewing the spirit of egalitarianism altogether, and are stating favor with a *hierarchical* approach here, which you usually rail against.

[ckaihatsu]

If we build organizations based on the free association of equals without external government and only mutual cooperation; we will be communists.
If we build a system of collective ownership over the means of production; we will be doomed.

Its Anarchy or Extinction.


This is a *false dichotomy* -- you're treating *socio-political* matters ('free association', 'mutual cooperation') *separately* from *economic* ones ('collective ownership', 'means of production'), and then making it sound like it has to be an either-or situation, when you're really comparing apples-with-oranges.

According to you the *socio-political* side of things is all that matters ('anarchy'), while the *economic* aspect ('collective ownership', 'means of production') is *demonized* ('we will be doomed', 'extinction') -- when in fact the material-economic part actually *needs* to be addressed and reconciled with the 'socio-political' aspect, as well.

[(A)]

This is a *false dichotomy* -- you're treating *socio-political* matters ('free association', 'mutual cooperation') *separately* from *economic* ones ('collective ownership', 'means of production'), and then making it sound like it has to be an either-or situation, when you're really comparing apples-with-oranges.

According to you the *socio-political* side of things is all that matters ('anarchy'), while the *economic* aspect ('collective ownership', 'means of production') is *demonized* ('we will be doomed', 'extinction') -- when in fact the material-economic part actually *needs* to be addressed and reconciled with the 'socio-political' aspect, as well.

A democratic economy in my opinion is an economy that functions on the basis of Free association between all the people who labor.
The Unions and their community's; the worker and their society working together without the use of a framework.

The economics of Anarchy is the free association of workers; The providers of all our material wealth working together as they see fit.
The dictatorship of the proletariat.

Having said that I just came to a realization.

If you want to be a revolutionary and provide for society; get organized and do it; you are not accomplishing anything with your graphs here and you are not going to accomplish anything material out their with them. I am trying to get a hold of the reality that direct action is needed now. This passtime is exactly that; nothing productive.

Same goes for me.
If anything we did here amounted to direct action on the ground I would dedicate my free time and effort;
but debating without a active audience is pointless if you cant have fun doing it.
This place is not healthy for revolutionary's. We need a new media for our action, this place wont be it.

[ckaihatsu]

A democratic economy in my opinion is an economy that functions on the basis of Free association between all the people who labor.
The Unions and their community's; the worker and their society working together without the use of a framework.


Understandable, but what's *missing* in your approach (and many others) is any attention to the *material world* -- sure, people can freely *produce stuff*, but how would an advanced post-capitalist material-economy handle the *complexities* of the interconnections needed by such an economy -- ?

One way of looking at this issue of political-economy is that everyone could make whatever they want, wherever they are -- in each location stuff would just *pile up*, and other productitive entities could request, receive, and use that stuff from elsewhere, making what *they* want, and piling up their own produced stuff, and so on. So the whole system would be *nonlinear*, mostly made up of autonomous parts, and without any real planning.

But, of course, there'd be no way to know *in advance* how much stuff is really needed, and where it should best be sent to, for an overall 'healthiness' (optimization), if you will.

People could easily *overproduce*, see that no one's taking their stuff, and then *stop* producing it, and then find out that suddenly it's now needed *even more*, without any warning.

Others on this thread have pointed out that you've made contradictory statements about 'administration', at times denouncing it entirely, and sometimes acknowledging that workers would *have* their own administration, but without then going on to specify what it should look like.

[(A)]

I realize now we are wasting our time here. You have no material means to implement your framework so i gain nothing by debating it. Unless you are able to form a mass party you will never be able to.
Focus your efforts on implementation instead of wasting your time here talking to a bunch of people who also have no intention of acting directly; and then maybe a debate about the implementation of your framework will be warranted.

When I hear your name in the news I will be again interested in debating the merits and demerits of your framework.
Until then~ (A)

[OnFire]

The thread derailment only serves to proof that Anarchism is a tool of the bourgeoisie to disrupt any revolutionary process, and that Anarchists are fooled into believing that they are anti-reactionary. It also shows that no discussion can take place with them, as they religiously adhere to their sectarianism and fierce anti-communism. In my OP, I wanted to tell me opinion about Stalin, who may not have been a saint, but did always the right actions at the right time, following Lenin's ideas and advancing the cause of communism. The filthy trator Trotsky wanted to weaken the new Soviet State by introducing factions, we can see in this thread what happen when one gives counter-revolutionary elements the right to speak. The Kronstadt anarchists wanted to kill communism in its cradle by rising up against the Bolsheviks, this is when they finally showed their true face as agents of imperialism. This continued, for example in the Spanish civil war, and even today. I hope that after the revolution, the "no investigation - no right to speak" principle will once more be fully enforced against those enemies of the workers.

[ckaihatsu]

I realize now we are wasting our time here. You have no material means to implement your framework so i gain nothing by debating it. Unless you are able to form a mass party you will never be able to.
Focus your efforts on implementation instead of wasting your time here talking to a bunch of people who also have no intention of acting directly; and then maybe a debate about the implementation of your framework will be warranted.

When I hear your name in the news I will be again interested in debating the merits and demerits of your framework.
Until then~ (A)


No prob, (A) -- thanks for taking the time.

I'll note that this is meant for more of a full-fledged post-capitalist context, though some on RevLeft in the past said they thought it would be appropriate for the transitional dotp phase.

I will continue to maintain, though, that you offer no robust, feasible proposal for a post-capitalist political economy.

[(A)]

I will continue to maintain, though, that you offer no robust, feasible proposal for a post-capitalist political economy.

Your framework is meaningless as you have no material means to implement it and most likely never will; but I saw this and thought it relevant for your understanding of "my" position.


“Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements.”
- Rudolf Rocker

I need to propose no framework because the proposition has already been made; and seeing as their are more Anarcho-Syndicalists then there are ckaihatsuists; I think it is more likely that the most likely & feasible reality for a post-capitalist political economy is ours.

[(A)]

Oh and Onfire...

https://68.media.tumblr.com/6da0ec796039b4f7d59773297371dc3c/tumblr_oiwx64eBw81us2gvno1_500.gif

[ckaihatsu]

Your framework is meaningless as you have no material means to implement it and most likely never will; but I saw this and thought it relevant for your understanding of "my" position.


Yeah, thanks for the random insults, as ever -- your position / political-economy has been vacillating all over the place and is inconsistent and not feasible, anyway. You're not interested in making realistic plans for a potential post-capitalist social order as much as you are in attempts at one-upmanship -- (yawn).





I need to propose no framework because the proposition has already been made; and seeing as their are more Anarcho-Syndicalists then there are ckaihatsuists; I think it is more likely that the most likely & feasible reality for a post-capitalist political economy is ours.


"Yours" -- you can *have* it but just don't come crying to me later when you run into all of the hazards I've been describing, with such an approach.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

The thread derailment only serves to proof that Anarchism is a tool of the bourgeoisie to disrupt any revolutionary process, and that Anarchists are fooled into believing that they are anti-reactionary. It also shows that no discussion can take place with them, as they religiously adhere to their sectarianism and fierce anti-communism. In my OP, I wanted to tell me opinion about Stalin, who may not have been a saint, but did always the right actions at the right time, following Lenin's ideas and advancing the cause of communism. The filthy trator Trotsky wanted to weaken the new Soviet State by introducing factions, we can see in this thread what happen when one gives counter-revolutionary elements the right to speak. The Kronstadt anarchists wanted to kill communism in its cradle by rising up against the Bolsheviks, this is when they finally showed their true face as agents of imperialism. This continued, for example in the Spanish civil war, and even today. I hope that after the revolution, the "no investigation - no right to speak" principle will once more be fully enforced against those enemies of the workers. Stalin was not a saint, but always did the right thing. Are you incapable of seeing the contradiction in this?
What did the soviet union, and especially Stalin do for communism? They ended the worker soviets. Any time workers tried to rule their selves, they were sent to gulags. The soviet union was a huge dungeon and did nothing to work towards communism. You equating Bolshevism with communism is so idiotic. You just call any opposition to your totalitarian system anti-revolutionary, without providing any evidence, luckily nobody takes Stalinists serious anymore.

[OnFire]

Stalin was not a saint, but always did the right thing. Are you incapable of seeing the contradiction in this?
What did the soviet union, and especially Stalin do for communism? They ended the worker soviets. Any time workers tried to rule their selves, they were sent to gulags. The soviet union was a huge dungeon and did nothing to work towards communism. You equating Bolshevism with communism is so idiotic. You just call any opposition to your totalitarian system anti-revolutionary, without providing any evidence, luckily nobody takes Stalinists serious anymore.

It was, and is, my unshakable conviction that only a Marxist-Leninist party can develop into a genuine working-class vanguard.


What differentiates Marxism-Leninism is the consistent revolutionary analysis and a thoroughly scientific approach to all aspects of life, which enables us communists to approach every question from a proletarian perspective, holding our course amidst the deluge of bourgeois and revisionist propaganda. Yes, Stalin was ruthless, he was in no way tolerant, loyal, polite or considerate to the enemies of the proletariat. He also smashed fascism and brought a backwater nation as first into space.


Marxism-Leninism, keeps on attracting the best and most serious representatives of the working class towards it, as people see through the bourgeois lies you endlessly repeat. Did the NKVD pay the rain not to fall and encourage the Kulaks to hoard the grain in order to make profits?


It is noticeable today that all the other "revolutionaries", even if they may be calling themselves socialist and communist, are falling into despondency and disarray, having travelled right to the end of the blind alley dictated by their fatally flawed programme of Revisionism. Their ranks are declining and their leaders are fighting amongst themselves for the diminishing returns still to be got out of their social-democratic gravy train.


Marxism-Leninism on the other hand, is once again growing, and we Communists are characterised by enthusiasm and optimism. As a result, the Marxist-Leninist movement is more active, more organised and more steeled in the struggle than any anarchist or revisionist movement. Moreover, unlike the Trotskyite traitors and revisionists, Marxism-Leninism means following the teachings of the classics of Scientific Socialism: Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.


Every Communist is recognising the earth-shaking historical significance of the Great Proletarian Socialist October Revolution in the struggle of the international proletariat and oppressed people against all exploitation and oppression.The successful building of socialism in the USSR, serving as an inspiration to the working class and oppressed everywhere and the signal contribution of the socialist USSR to the smashing of the Nazi war machine, everyone who is serious about the Revolution will defend the gains of Red October and refute all revisionist and anticommunist slanders against the undisputed correct leadership of Lenin and Stalin during the period of socialist construction.

[(A)]

I am sure your conviction is unshakable but that has clearly not stopped you from being a deluded zealot.

[IbelieveInanarchy]

It was, and is, my unshakable conviction that only a Marxist-Leninist party can develop into a genuine working-class vanguard.


What differentiates Marxism-Leninism is the consistent revolutionary analysis and a thoroughly scientific approach to all aspects of life, which enables us communists to approach every question from a proletarian perspective, holding our course amidst the deluge of bourgeois and revisionist propaganda. Yes, Stalin was ruthless, he was in no way tolerant, loyal, polite or considerate to the enemies of the proletariat. He also smashed fascism and brought a backwater nation as first into space.


Marxism-Leninism, keeps on attracting the best and most serious representatives of the working class towards it, as people see through the bourgeois lies you endlessly repeat. Did the NKVD pay the rain not to fall and encourage the Kulaks to hoard the grain in order to make profits?


It is noticeable today that all the other "revolutionaries", even if they may be calling themselves socialist and communist, are falling into despondency and disarray, having travelled right to the end of the blind alley dictated by their fatally flawed programme of Revisionism. Their ranks are declining and their leaders are fighting amongst themselves for the diminishing returns still to be got out of their social-democratic gravy train.


Marxism-Leninism on the other hand, is once again growing, and we Communists are characterised by enthusiasm and optimism. As a result, the Marxist-Leninist movement is more active, more organised and more steeled in the struggle than any anarchist or revisionist movement. Moreover, unlike the Trotskyite traitors and revisionists, Marxism-Leninism means following the teachings of the classics of Scientific Socialism: Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.


Every Communist is recognising the earth-shaking historical significance of the Great Proletarian Socialist October Revolution in the struggle of the international proletariat and oppressed people against all exploitation and oppression.The successful building of socialism in the USSR, serving as an inspiration to the working class and oppressed everywhere and the signal contribution of the socialist USSR to the smashing of the Nazi war machine, everyone who is serious about the Revolution will defend the gains of Red October and refute all revisionist and anticommunist slanders against the undisputed correct leadership of Lenin and Stalin during the period of socialist construction.
Stalin was some 10 years dead when the soviet union went into space.
He didn't smash fascism, millions of workers fought to their death to smash fascism, while Stalin was living in luxury probably attending some high minded diner.
Nobody here said that nkvd encouraged kulaks to hoard grain, this is no a lie I 'endlessly repeat'.

Your fourth paragraph is just a description of any stalinist or Maoist party. If you look at workers actually working towards a revolution, Rojova for example, you will clearly see it is anarchists who always push the revolution forwards. Another example is the paris commune. Stalinists only seek to aquire the state to suppress the proletariat and build a party elite. You should know that no man is capable of ruling others, hell, most are barely capable of ruling themselves. End every state and all hierarchy, that is the way to reach communism. The idea that the state will wither away is an infantile notion, states are self-perpetuating.

Of course i am not denying the historical significance of the oktober revolution. It is very significant in showing that to follow a select group of individuals is very dangerous.

Go ahead and keep following your long-dead leaders, i choose to rule myself.

This is what happens when workers self organise when a stalinist regime is around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH2pFTx_8VE

[jdneel]

Wow! An unreconstructed Stalinist! I thought you could only find those in the zoo nowadays.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

[General Winter]

Stalin didn't smash fascism, millions of workers fought to their death to smash fascism, while Stalin was living in luxury probably attending some high minded diner.

History a la anarchists :Hitler didn't establish fascism,invade other countries and commit holocost, millions of German workers did it ,while Hitler simply was living in luxury. The German people - that is who should have been condemned in Nuremberg, not Hitler's officials, innocent victims of Stalinism.

And all other their arguments are in the same vein.

[Antiochus]

Anarchism in the modern context is nothing more than the conscience of Capitalism.

[(A)]

You can always count on General Winter and Antiochus to make irrelevant comments in favor of totalitarianism and apparently the great man theory.

[General Winter]

the great man theory.

Can we know something about this theory? And reference to the primary sources,please,show everyone that anarchists do not pick up areguments from nose.

[o well this is ok I guess]

please,show everyone that anarchists do not pick up areguments from nose. er
could you clarify this comment

[IbelieveInanarchy]

History a la anarchists :Hitler didn't establish fascism,invade other countries and commit holocost, millions of German workers did it ,while Hitler simply was living in luxury. The German people - that is who should have been condemned in Nuremberg, not Hitler's officials, innocent victims of Stalinism.

And all other their arguments are in the same vein. Yeah cool story bro, i think that, just like hitler, stalin and his officials should have been persecuted in Nuremberg-like trials. You just make an exception for Stalin because he represents the strain of totalitarianism you adhere to. You seem to be incapable of understanding that only in totalitarian states gulags and concentration camps can exist for a long time. Of course the leaders are responsible for this since they have total state power. Hitler gave the order to build the roads, but the German workers should get the credit of actually building them.

Your idea that leaders deserve credit for what 'their' workers did is bourgeoisie rhetoric. It can be used just as well by a capitalist who says that capitalists brought wealth to western Europe. To just flat out deny that workers build the factories and worked in the factories is short sighted.

And yes, if this is your objection, German workers who built concentration camps and guarded them are nothing else than scum. And it is indeed very true that Hitler did not do this deplorable work because, as a leader, he is exempt from the conditions the working man has to suffer. This is the problem with leaders in general.

[willowtooth]

anyone else miss rafiq and pheonix ash's debates?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/193442-I-hate-Leninism?p=2842699#post2842699

[The Intransigent Faction]

I came across this paper and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in ending petty dogmatic and/or personal squabbles and actually taking a critical look at the historical experience of anarchism and what it means for future struggles:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-day-the-historical-failure-of-anarchism.html

[jdneel]

A nice, brief analysis. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I came across this paper and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in ending petty dogmatic and/or personal squabbles and actually taking a critical look at the historical experience of anarchism and what it means for future struggles:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/chris-day-the-historical-failure-of-anarchism.html
That offers a healthy level of nuance. A good read.

[motion denied]

Hey op, hope is all good

fuck your apologia for counter revolution and viva leon trotsky, marxist revolutionary, internationalist communist (flawed as he was)

peace

[Jimmie Higgins]

End every state and all hierarchy, that is the way to reach communism. The idea that the state will wither away is an infantile notion, states are self-perpetuating.

I'm curious about an anarchist view of this. Why are states self-perpetuating? What is the motor or cause of this? What do you include in "the state".

As a brief example, organized armed people are a very basic component of states. But the goal of armed militias for a capitalist state is to maintain the ruler class's power and order in a society defined by power imbalances. They can never wither, and grow in complexity and their level of entrenchment in society with rising inequality... so fundamentally they can never "solve" the problem (because the more they help the rulers, the more the rulers do to provoke rebellion on the one hand or social problems on the other and so must be permanent.

But if there was a militia of workers, what is the goal? If Derutti was successful would his force have become a permanent military bureaucracy? If people arm and organize to end the power imbalance and therefore become redundant once the threat of a resurgent capitalists or reformist parties seeking to reverse the revolt are no longer a threat, what makes this automatically permanent?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[OnFire]

Discussing with Anarchist zealots is like discussing religious people - they do not care for science and hard facts. Too bad for them (and great for Marxists-Leninists), science is true for everyone, wheter they believe in it or not. The teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have brought revolution and progress wherever they were applied - Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba etc... Iron output from 1928 to 1951 in the Soviet Union was increased 450%, and there was no racism. Furthermore, the exploitation of man by man was stopped. The only thing Anarchists did ever achieve is "liberating" a few windows and trash bins at useless riots, living out their immature destruction fantasies. Anarchism is another bourgeois form of liberalism that is bound to fail. Where are the successful Anarchist revolutions? Where are the world changing contributions of Anarchism to society? Anarchism is just a term for capitalism and counterrevolution.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Truly the hallmark of human progress. Iron output.

[ckaihatsu]

Discussing with Anarchist zealots is like discussing religious people - they do not care for science and hard facts. Too bad for them (and great for Marxists-Leninists), science is true for everyone, wheter they believe in it or not. The teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have brought revolution and progress wherever they were applied - Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba etc... Iron output from 1928 to 1951 in the Soviet Union was increased 450%, and there was no racism. Furthermore, the exploitation of man by man was stopped. The only thing Anarchists did ever achieve is "liberating" a few windows and trash bins at useless riots, living out their immature destruction fantasies. Anarchism is another bourgeois form of liberalism that is bound to fail. Where are the successful Anarchist revolutions? Where are the world changing contributions of Anarchism to society? Anarchism is just a term for capitalism and counterrevolution.





Truly the hallmark of human progress. Iron output.


I would've 'Thanked' OF's post, except that I think Stalin is too controversial as a leader -- a 'mixed bag' -- to be seen as *preceding* later revisionism. (Much depends on where a person draws the line as to when the revolution started failing.)

[(A)]

I would've 'Thanked' OF's post, except that I think Stalin is too controversial as a leader -- a 'mixed bag' -- to be seen as *preceding* later revisionism. (Much depends on where a person draws the line as to when the revolution started failing.)

Before the Kronstadt Rebellion (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html).

[ckaihatsu]

Before the Kronstadt Rebellion (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html).


Without having read this work, I just see the whole thing as a tragedy, basically. While Lenin and the Bolsheviks were having to consolidate the country in the face of foreign invasions, this rebellion took place and was seen as an internal threat. I don't think the rebellion *should* have been done -- since it was, though, the whole thing turned into a tragedy.





Economic background[edit]

By 1921, the Bolsheviks were winning the Russian Civil War and foreign troops were beginning to withdraw, yet Bolshevik leaders continued to keep tight control of the economy through the policy of War Communism.[4] After years of economic crises caused by World War I and the Russian Civil War, the Bolshevik economy started to collapse.[4] Industrial output had fallen dramatically. It is estimated that the total output of mines and factories in 1921 was 20 percent of the pre-World War I level, with many crucial items suffering an even more drastic decline. Production of cotton, for example, had fallen to 5 percent and iron to 2 percent of the pre-war level, and this coincided with droughts in 1920 and 1921 and the Russian famine of 1921.[5] Discontent grew among the Russian populace, particularly the peasantry, who felt disadvantaged by Communist grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka, forced seizure of large portions of the peasants' grain crop used to feed urban dwellers). They resisted by refusing to till their land. In February 1921, more than 100 peasant uprisings took place. The workers in Petrograd were also involved in a series of strikes, caused by the reduction of bread rations by one third over a ten-day period.[5]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

[(A)]

While Lenin and the Bolsheviks were having to consolidate the country in the face of foreign invasions, this rebellion took place and was seen as an internal threat. I don't think the rebellion *should* have been done.

You mean while Lenin and the Bolsheviks were having to consolidate their position as the new sole authority over the Russian nation state in the face of foreign invasions they had to put down a rebellion that was specifically fighting for Soviet power and not political party power.
I am sure many dictatorships had to put down a lot of revolutions/rebellions throughout human history.
Lenin lead a successful political coup to be sure; displacing the provisional government and replacing it with his own; but at the cost of a workers revolution that was to see the soviet take command of the means of production and enact the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And having read it...

19634

[General Winter]

Mr. A, I'm still waiting for the answer: can we know some information about "the great man theory" you have talk about? I'm very exited to have a look at the source.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

You mean while Lenin and the Bolsheviks were having to consolidate their position as the new sole authority over the Russian nation state in the face of foreign invasions they had to put down a rebellion that was specifically fighting for Soviet power and not political party power.
I am sure many dictatorships had to put down a lot of revolutions/rebellions throughout human history.
Lenin lead a successful political coup to be sure; displacing the provisional government and replacing it with his own; but at the cost of a workers revolution that was to see the soviet take command of the means of production and enact the dictatorship of the proletariat.
It's not so simple a case as 'there existed a provisional government and then there existed a soviet government' - there was a dual power situation where there existed alongside each other the Provisional Government which represented the interests of the bourgeoisie and the Soviets which represented the workers. The PG's war minister Guchkov wrote months before the Bolsheviks were gaining majorities in the Soviets, "The Provisional Government possesses no real power and its orders are executed only in so far as this is permitted by the Soviet" - obviously he is talking in particular about the war effort and how the soldiers were forming democratic soviet committees to overrule their officers who were ordering them to the front.

And through the soviets it was the workers themselves who were taking over the means of production. Just as an example, the five thousand workers of the Schlusselburg Powder Works held a mass meeting and supported the proclamation: "Enough hesitations! In the name of freedom, in the name of peace, in the name of the worldwide proletarian revolution, the All-Russian Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies must seize power!". And this was whilst the Chernovs and the Martovs were in power, not the Lenins. Workers everywhere formed their own councils and committees and through those organisations sent representatives to meet and co-ordinate in Petrograd - frankly, the idea that the Bolsheviks, a minority organisation, could top down manipulate all those workers into just rolling over and creating a dictatorship is just ludicrous.

The degeneration of the revolution became apparent in the midst of Civil War, famine and the failures of revolutions in Germany, Hungary, Italy etc. But one thing is clear and irrefutable: October was a proletarian movement that cast aside the bourgeois warmongers, it wasn't some coup that did nothing but switch the flags and anthem.


Mr. A, I'm still waiting for the answer: can we know some information about "the great man theory" you have talk about? I'm very exited to have a look at the source.
Not sure what you're expecting here. The 'great man theory' of history is a well known, and well maligned, aspect of historiography. Just google it yourself.

[OnFire]

On 5 March 1953, the outstanding proletarian leader, Josef V. Stalin, was murdered by the hands of revisionist traitors. He was a man of his word to his last breath, it was Lenin and Stalin who guided the struggle of the Bolshevik Party, the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the Socialist revolution. 100 years ago, his banishment in Siberia ended with the victory of the February Revolution. At once he took the lead of the party work in Petrograd.

A communist revolutionary, Stalin was the outstanding leader of the preparation of the Red October as Lenin's right-hand man. Just as Stalin successfully prepared the October Revolution, we Communists must prepare a new socialist revolution. . Learning the lessons of Stalin on the preparation of the October Revolution, this means, learning how to prepare successfully socialist revolution. For a successful revolution, there can not be any form of unity with the enemies of the of Red October, with the opportunists, the centrist, revisionist and neo-revisionist lackeys, Trotskyite traitors and sectarian Anarchists.

The whole communist movement mourns the loss of the steeled disciple and successor of Lenin, the great Classic of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin's legacy is immortal and his ideas will never die. His red genius enlightens the path towards the victorious proletarian revolution. He will live forever on hearts and minds of every oppressed and exploited worker and of every communist. All capitalist lies and revisionist propaganda will never erase comrade Stalin's glorious legacy. Marxism-Leninism is the guiding light against all the kinds of capitalism, imperialism, fascism, revisionism, neo-revisionism, opportunism and anti-communism that slander communism's goals and achievements.

[jdneel]

The Soviet Union eventually failed. It did not even last a century. We, the true believers in Socialism, must examine
what worked and what didn't, how the world has changed since then and what we can do now to correct the mistakes of the past.
You, no doubt, will call me a revisionist. Revisionism, at least when used to point out the flaws of Stalinism, is only logical. To continue repeating the mistakes of the past while expecting different results is the very definition of mental illness.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

[ckaihatsu]

You mean while Lenin and the Bolsheviks were having to consolidate their position as the new sole authority over the Russian nation state in the face of foreign invasions they had to put down a rebellion that was specifically fighting for Soviet power and not political party power.
I am sure many dictatorships had to put down a lot of revolutions/rebellions throughout human history.
Lenin lead a successful political coup to be sure; displacing the provisional government and replacing it with his own; but at the cost of a workers revolution that was to see the soviet take command of the means of production and enact the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And having read it...

19634


I support GMM's response to these issues, at post #147.





Mr. A, I'm still waiting for the answer: can we know some information about "the great man theory" you have talk about? I'm very exited to have a look at the source.


This topic came up in a past thread between myself and (A) / Democracy:





Leninism is an authoritarian form of communist theory. He and his vanguard where everything libertarians stand against and because of him the left has suffered immensely.





Unfortunately this is like the *inverse* of the 'Great Man Theory', where you're ascribing everything *negative* to one person, when in fact there are many larger social forces in effect as well.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/162158-Differences-between-Libertarian-Socialism-and-Libertarian-Communism?p=2874083#post2874083

[GiantMonkeyMan]

On 5 March 1953, the outstanding proletarian leader, Josef V. Stalin, was murdered by the hands of revisionist traitors.
Delving into conspiracy theories now?


He was a man of his word to his last breath, it was Lenin and Stalin who guided the struggle of the Bolshevik Party, the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the Socialist revolution.
Funnily enough, it was Kamenev and Stalin who tried to lead the Bolshevik party into disavowing Lenin's April Thesis and call on the workers to support the Provisional Government which in turn led to the workers of the Bolshevik party refusing to elect either Kamenev or Stalin to the party's five person steering committee during the Party Congress of April 24-29. Lenin and Trotsky were dedicated to proletarian revolution, Stalin was willing to cede power to the bourgeoisie.


100 years ago, his banishment in Siberia ended with the victory of the February Revolution. At once he took the lead of the party work in Petrograd.
Nonsense. The majority of the day to day party work in Petrograd was organised under Shliapnikov who had been the leading Petrograd Bolshevik since the 1905 revolution. Later the workers elected Trotsky as the head of the Petrograd Soviet and it was he who ushered in the October Revolution echoing Lenin's call "all power to the soviets".


A communist revolutionary, Stalin was the outstanding leader of the preparation of the Red October as Lenin's right-hand man. Just as Stalin successfully prepared the October Revolution, we Communists must prepare a new socialist revolution. . Learning the lessons of Stalin on the preparation of the October Revolution, this means, learning how to prepare successfully socialist revolution. For a successful revolution, there can not be any form of unity with the enemies of the of Red October, with the opportunists, the centrist, revisionist and neo-revisionist lackeys, Trotskyite traitors and sectarian Anarchists.
Stalin was the reformist after February. He, Kamenev and Tomsky even called Lenin a 'trotskyist' for his dedication to proletarian insurrection. When Lenin, in hiding in September, wrote a letter to the Central Committee saying "Our day has come [...] We stand in the vestibule of the world-wide proletarian revolution", Stalin, Bukharin and the like decided to burn the letter with Bukharin writing "The letter was written with extraordinary force and threatened us with all sorts of punishments. We all gasped. Nobody had yet posed the question so abruptly ... At first all were bewildered. Afterwards, having talked it over, we made a decision." The Committee voted six to four to burn the letter, with Trotsky amongst the four who voted against.


The whole communist movement mourns the loss of the steeled disciple and successor of Lenin, the great Classic of Marxism-Leninism. Stalin's legacy is immortal and his ideas will never die. His red genius enlightens the path towards the victorious proletarian revolution. He will live forever on hearts and minds of every oppressed and exploited worker and of every communist. All capitalist lies and revisionist propaganda will never erase comrade Stalin's glorious legacy. Marxism-Leninism is the guiding light against all the kinds of capitalism, imperialism, fascism, revisionism, neo-revisionism, opportunism and anti-communism that slander communism's goals and achievements.
To say that Stalin was the successor to Lenin is only technically right. Sure, he assumed power after murdering his former comrades and so history sees him as the next 'leader' of the Soviet Union but in all respects he perverted the ideas of Marxism and spat on Lenin's legacy.

From international proletarian revolution; to socialism in one country. From a party vibrant in its internal debate and democracy, proletarian to the core; to a party of passive obedience and careerists. From a revolutionary organisation advancing the cause of gay rights by decriminalising homosexual acts and women's rights by making abortions available and easing the course of divorce; to a state that criminalised homosexuality, and brought back the difficulties for women to get abortions and raising the legal costs of divorce to basically make it impossible for women to choose to separate from their partners. From a party ideology dedicated to the dissolving of the state, Lenin: "We shall see the progressive withering away of the state, and the Soviet state will not be a state like others, but a vast workers' commune"; to an ideology dedicated to maintaining and strengthening the state, Stalin "we advance toward the abolition of the state by way of the strengthening of the state". From the heroic individuals dedicated to the cause of proletarian revolution, Muralov who used the pamphlets written in 1905 to direct the Bolshevik street fighting in Petrograd, Smirnov who convinced an artillery detachment to side with the insurrection and overcome the Provisional Governments' troops, Sapranov who joined the fighting on the streets of Moscow, Piatnitsky who led workers in strikes during the war was exiled to Siberia and returned after February to help lead the Bolsheviks in Moscow; to their deaths, Muralov - executed, Smirnov - executed, Sapranov - executed, Piatnitsky - executed. From Lenin to Stalin.

[Ale Brider]

Discussing with Anarchist zealots is like discussing religious people - they do not care for science and hard facts.

You have now officially reached the absolute zero of self-awareness. A few pages back you literally said that capitalists and CIA are Trots. Hard facts, huh?

[OnFire]

You have now officially reached the absolute zero of self-awareness. A few pages back you literally said that capitalists and CIA are Trots. Hard facts, huh?

Yes, Trotsky served imperialist powers, including the FBI and Gestapo until his execution at the hands of Ramón Mercader in 1940. Trotsky himself was working as an FBI informant.

The journal Revolutionary Democracy quotes Professor William Chase about Trotsky’s dealings with the FBI:


“By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa” (“Revolutionary Democracy”).

Trotsky even accepted an invitation to appear at the infamous "House Committee on Un-American Activities," a United States group of witch-hunters linked with fascist figures like Senator Joe McCarthy. He never appeared only because he was denied a visum to the US.

[(A)]

I support GMM's response to these issues, at post #147.

Having not read the information on the subject; you have not changed your opinion. Shocking.

"The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting the bourgeoisie. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being master over production." Pannekoek

(https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/theses-fight.htm)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Having not read the information on the subject; you have not changed your opinion. Shocking.
I honestly feel you've probably only ever read a few anarchist articles online about the subject of the Russian Revolution, maybe also Emma Goldman's work.


"The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting the bourgeoisie. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being master over production." Pannekoek

(https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/theses-fight.htm)
Pannekoek is pretty good but of the council communists I was certainly more inspired by Paul Mattick. I'm surprised you would quote him - I figured he would be far too marxist for you.

[(A)]

GMM I am literally sitting next to a library of Marxist books (including works by lenin) that have been collected as far back as ww2; You would fawn over my Library. In fact I have read less Anarchist works then I have read Marxist works as I hate reading online. I am an Anarchist only because I was a Marxist and read the works of Marxists.

I chose this Pannekoek quote because the truth in his words.

The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. I agree that this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting the bourgeoisie and that it can only be realized by the workers themselves being master over production.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the opposite of what any so called socialist state has intended to create.
Lenin wrote himself that the Republic would "represent" the dictatorship of the proletariat; but then that is an antonym of Dictatorship.
Lenin created a nationalist dictatorship; a state democracy with limited suffrage that was IN NO WAY a workers dictatorship.

If the soviets had assumed the responsibility's of the state and had taken direct and total control over their production; then it would by definition have been a dictatorship of the worker; at the very least the dictatorship of the worker counsel. What Lenin created instead served as a model for reactionary's to create fascism.

In the end according to Alfonso Petrini; a Italian Anarchist; banished to Russia;

“(...) They’re locking us all up, one by one. Real revolutionaries may not enjoy freedom in Russia. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech have been wiped out, so there is no difference between Stalin and Mussolini.”

"No difference between Stalin and Mussolini.”

(http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-red-fascism)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Yes, Trotsky served imperialist powers, including the FBI and Gestapo until his execution at the hands of Ramón Mercader in 1940. Trotsky himself was working as an FBI informant.

The journal Revolutionary Democracy quotes Professor William Chase about Trotsky’s dealings with the FBI:


“By providing the US Consulate with information about common enemies, be they Mexican or American communists or Soviet agents, Trotsky hoped to prove his value to a government that had no desire to grant him a visa” (“Revolutionary Democracy”).

Trotsky even accepted an invitation to appear at the infamous "House Committee on Un-American Activities," a United States group of witch-hunters linked with fascist figures like Senator Joe McCarthy. He never appeared only because he was denied a visum to the US.
Firstly, Trotsky was not an FBI informant, such a claim is ridiculous.

There was a disagreement between James Burnham of the Socialist Workers Party and Trotsky over Trotsky's agreement to appear before the House of Un-American Activities. The Stalinists Foster and Browder who agreed to appear before the committee had been making accusations against Trotskists and Trotsky so Dies invited Trotsky to clear up the accusations in the hopes of spurring more factional discord. Burnham thought Trotsky should just refuse but Trotsky wanted the opportunity to both castigate the committee as well as dismiss the claims of Foster and Browder. In the end, Dies didn't want Trotsky to appear on the committee in case their careful manipulation of the narrative would be lost and so denied Trotsky his visa.

Trotsky wrote to Burnham: "The average worker, not infected with the prejudices of the labour aristocracy, would joyfully welcome every bold revolutionary word thrown in the very face of the class enemy. And the more reactionary the institution which serves as the arena for the combat, all the more complete is the satisfaction of the worker. This has been proved by historical experience. Dies himself, becoming frightened and jumping back in time, demonstrated how false your position was. It is always better to compel the enemy to retreat than to hide oneself without a battle."

[ckaihatsu]

Having not read the information on the subject; you have not changed your opinion. Shocking.


I assure you, I've been around revolutionary politics for decades now, and have already familiarized myself with the Kronstadt Rebellion incident -- my comments stand, thanks.





"The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting the bourgeoisie. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being master over production." Pannekoek

(https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/theses-fight.htm)

[(A)]

That's an apt attitude for a Marxist.

[ckaihatsu]

That's an apt attitude for a Marxist.


Nice sly snide dig there. You should get bonus rep points for that, but the board doesn't work that way.

[(A)]

Not looking for rep; I was expressing disappointment that you did not want to discuss the position that the link took.


"The Kronstadt rebellion is important because, as Voline put it, it was "the first entirely independent attempt of the people to liberate itself from all yokes and achieve the Social Revolution, an attempt made directly, resolutely, and boldly by the working masses themselves without political shepherds, without leaders or tutors. It was the first step towards the third and social revolution." [The Unknown Revolution, pp. 537-8]

The Kronstadt sailors, solders and workers in 1917 had been the one of the first groups to support the slogan "All power to the Soviets" as well as one of the first towns to put it into practice. The focal point of the 1921 revolt -- the sailors of the warships Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol -- had, in 1917, been supporters of the Bolsheviks. The sailors had been considered, until those fateful days in 1921, the pride and glory of the revolution and considered by all to be thoroughly revolutionary in spirit and action. They were the staunchest supporters of the Soviet system but, as the revolt showed, they were opposed to the dictatorship of any political party.

Therefore Kronstadt is important in evaluating the honesty of Leninist claims to be in favour of soviet democracy and power."

[ckaihatsu]

Not looking for rep; I was expressing disappointment that you did not want to discuss the position that the link took.




"The Kronstadt rebellion is important because, as Voline put it, it was "the first entirely independent attempt of the people to liberate itself from all yokes and achieve the Social Revolution, an attempt made directly, resolutely, and boldly by the working masses themselves without political shepherds, without leaders or tutors. It was the first step towards the third and social revolution." [The Unknown Revolution, pp. 537-8]

The Kronstadt sailors, solders and workers in 1917 had been the one of the first groups to support the slogan "All power to the Soviets" as well as one of the first towns to put it into practice. The focal point of the 1921 revolt -- the sailors of the warships Petropavlovsk and Sevastopol -- had, in 1917, been supporters of the Bolsheviks. The sailors had been considered, until those fateful days in 1921, the pride and glory of the revolution and considered by all to be thoroughly revolutionary in spirit and action. They were the staunchest supporters of the Soviet system but, as the revolt showed, they were opposed to the dictatorship of any political party.

Therefore Kronstadt is important in evaluating the honesty of Leninist claims to be in favour of soviet democracy and power."


This is exactly why I call the rebellion a tragedy -- it was the wrong move, but with the best intentions.

Really, it's difficult to analyze at a point like this because everything was going to shit anyway by that point -- a 'downslope' into a nation-state enclosure within (global) geopolitics instead of the desired ('third') social revolution.

[(A)]

So you are saying that the soviets at Kronstadt should have just silently ceded their power to the party instead of fighting for the Union of Soviets; the entire point of the Russian revolution?

You are saying Kronstadt was a tragedy yet sound like you are siding with the ones who perpetrated it.

[ckaihatsu]

So you are saying that the soviets at Kronstadt should have just silently ceded their power to the party instead of fighting for the Union of Soviets; the entire point of the Russian revolution?


As I just said:





Really, it's difficult to analyze at a point like this because everything was going to shit anyway by that point -- a 'downslope' into a nation-state enclosure within (global) geopolitics instead of the desired ('third') social revolution.


---





You are saying Kronstadt was a tragedy yet sound like you are siding with the ones who perpetrated it.


To spell it out, it *wouldn't matter* what took place internally because things were sliding downhill towards Stalinism anyway due to extenuating external factors [post #144]:





Economic background[edit]

By 1921, the Bolsheviks were winning the Russian Civil War and foreign troops were beginning to withdraw, yet Bolshevik leaders continued to keep tight control of the economy through the policy of War Communism.[4] After years of economic crises caused by World War I and the Russian Civil War, the Bolshevik economy started to collapse.[4] Industrial output had fallen dramatically. It is estimated that the total output of mines and factories in 1921 was 20 percent of the pre-World War I level, with many crucial items suffering an even more drastic decline. Production of cotton, for example, had fallen to 5 percent and iron to 2 percent of the pre-war level, and this coincided with droughts in 1920 and 1921 and the Russian famine of 1921.[5] Discontent grew among the Russian populace, particularly the peasantry, who felt disadvantaged by Communist grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka, forced seizure of large portions of the peasants' grain crop used to feed urban dwellers). They resisted by refusing to till their land. In February 1921, more than 100 peasant uprisings took place. The workers in Petrograd were also involved in a series of strikes, caused by the reduction of bread rations by one third over a ten-day period.[5]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion

[(A)]

So again 100s of revolts and you side with the one party that they where revolting against.


forced seizure of large portions of the peasants' grain crop used to feed urban dwellers)

The workers in Petrograd were also involved in a series of strikes, caused by the reduction of bread rations by one third over a ten-day period.

So the government was failing and the economy went to shit. The people roes up and they where silenced by the single party government.

There is a word for the ideology and practice that occurs due to a failing economy; creates scapegoats to blame and rally support for the government; Displays excessive militarism; maintains secret police and vast industrial prison systems; as well as engaging in acts of imperialism.

(http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-red-fascism)
"The elective system was abolished, first in the army and navy, then in the industries. The Soviets of peasants and workers were castrated and turned into obedient Communist Committees, with the dreaded sword of the Cheka [political para-military police] ever hanging over them. The labour unions governmentalised, their proper activities suppressed, they were turned into mere transmitters of the orders of the State. Universal military service, coupled with the death penalty for conscientious objectors; enforced labour, with a vast officialdom for the apprehension and punishment of 'deserters'; agrarian and industrial conscription of the peasantry; military Communism in the cities and the system of requisitioning in the country . . . ; the suppression of workers' protests by the military; the crushing of peasant dissatisfaction with an iron hand. . ." [The Russian Tragedy, p. 27]

[ckaihatsu]

So again 100s of revolts and you side with the one party that they where revolting against.


'Side' -- no, I don't 'side' with a proto-Stalinistic state of affairs. I just said:





To spell it out, it *wouldn't matter* what took place internally because things were sliding downhill towards Stalinism anyway due to extenuating external factors [post #144]:


---





So the government was failing and the economy went to shit. The people roes up and they where silenced by the single party government.

There is a word for the ideology and practice that occurs due to a failing economy; creates scapegoats to blame and rally support for the government; Displays excessive militarism; maintains secret police and vast industrial prison systems; as well as engaging in acts of imperialism. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-red-fascism)




"The elective system was abolished, first in the army and navy, then in the industries. The Soviets of peasants and workers were castrated and turned into obedient Communist Committees, with the dreaded sword of the Cheka [political para-military police] ever hanging over them. The labour unions governmentalised, their proper activities suppressed, they were turned into mere transmitters of the orders of the State. Universal military service, coupled with the death penalty for conscientious objectors; enforced labour, with a vast officialdom for the apprehension and punishment of 'deserters'; agrarian and industrial conscription of the peasantry; military Communism in the cities and the system of requisitioning in the country . . . ; the suppression of workers' protests by the military; the crushing of peasant dissatisfaction with an iron hand. . ." [The Russian Tragedy, p. 27]


Yeah, this is the beginning of totalitarianism that the USSR is popularly known for. I'm not apologizing for it -- I'm saying it was an *inevitability* by that point. How the hell else could an isolated country conceivably have addressed the catastrophic state of its economy -- ? (In other words this is just what empirically *happens* when there's so much chaos and lack of material productivity and/or societal coordination -- things get *very* hierarchical, with a strongman at the top.)

[(A)]

You are LITERALLY apologizing for it.


(In other words this is just what empirically *happens* when there's so much chaos and lack of material productivity and/or societal coordination -- things get *very* hierarchical, with a strongman at the top.)

Totalitarianism is not "Just what happens"; its the actions of individuals imposing their rule on others. Supporting Lenin's ideas or glossing over the acts committed by the bolsheviks is asking for it to happen again. The soviets should have taken power and not the bolsheviks. The workers where the ones in the best position to command their economy; that is the position of socialism; that the workers are always the one best suited to manage production and provide for their society. Bolshevism takes the reactionary and anti-communist stance that the elite are the ones best suited to rule.

The Soviets at Kronstadt are the ones we should be attempting to create again; the direct militant and anti-fascist action of the working class and mutinous soldiers against the totalitarian elite.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

So the government was failing and the economy went to shit. The people roes up and they where silenced by the single party government.
It does not follow that the economy 'went' to shit under the Bolsheviks. The economy in Russia was ruptured and destroyed already by 1917 due to the actions of the Tsarists and the Provisional Government and the general course of the war - this was the entire reason for the Russian Revolution in the first place. The Bolsheviks set about trying to organise the economy as such just to overcome the threat of famine under which everyone (Zinoviev's nephew died of malnutrition) was suffering. The workers under their own initiative organised what they called the militarisation of labour as the workers were willing to fight for the revolution and the Bolsheviks formalised it in War Communism - this move was supported by the Golos Truda group or the 'Voice of Labour', an anarcho-syndicalist organisation in Petrograd and Moscow of which Voline was a member. The move worked, the factories started producing again, but the need for the cities to be fed put pressure on the peasants. The peasantry supported the revolution for the land redistribution but ultimately didn't want the days of grain requisitions to return but the Red Army needed food and supplies if they were to overcome counter-revolution.

Thus we get Kronstadt, a situation that arose in the midst of economic turmoil and the clashing of interests between the peasantry and the proletariat. The situation in Russia was still so tenuous and the threat of the White armies still on everyone's mind. The Bolsheviks first sent Kalinin to negotiate and he was even greeted by a marching band but the lackey of Stalin was boorish and unsympathetic and lost the crowd. The anarchists in Petrograd offered to try and negotiate themselves but the Petrograd Soviet decided to ask to send a delegation of both Party members and non-Party members but were refused by the Kronstadt sailors. The threat of a hostile military base only twenty miles from the heart of revolutionary Russia convinced the Bolsheviks to send soldiers to crush them, probably a huge mistake but negotiations had broken down or not been allowed to even take place. The soldiers were pounded heavily by the rebelling sailors on attempting to cross the ice and reinforcements had to be drawn up - the most eager were from the Workers' Opposition! Many of the Kronstadt leader fled across the ice to Finland, including Petrichenko and some of his comrades who two months later would join with Wrangel - not exactly the paragons of libertarian thought as much as vengeful opportunists.

The whole situation was clearly a failure on all sides. The Bolsheviks failed to communicate and then failed to show any sympathy and the Kronstadt mutineers failed to give their 'third revolution' any thought, as if simply by waving their hands they could make bread readily available again. In the end the Bolsheviks were forced to rely on a 'hand waving' of sorts, the 'invisible hand of the market' in the form of the New Economic Programme which gave the richest peasants with the best land the opportunity to enrich themselves once more at the expense of the poor agricultural workers but at least got the grain flowing and the discontent down to a minimum in order to allow some breathing room for the cities to recover. I generally agree with the position of Victor Serge and summed up by Dwight MacDonald in 'Kronstadt Again':

"To see the Kronstadt uprising as flowing from the mistakes of War Communism, and to criticize the severity with which the rebels were punished – this is by no means to agree with the anarchists and the social democrats that Kronstadt “exposes the fundamentally anti-democratic and totalitarian nature of Bolshevism”. I think Kronstadt was a bad mistake, but a mistake explained and, to some extent, justified by the terrible social and economic difficulties of those early years of the revolution. (Incidentally, the book which more than any other I have read convinced me of the necessity for many of the stern and undemocratic measures taken by the Bolsheviks in these years was, oddly enough Victor Serge’s L’an Une de la Révolution Russe, a really excellent history which deserves to be issued in an English edition.) It seems to me a serious error to defend Kronstadt – and many other actions taken by the Bolsheviks in those early years – as a normal mode of behaviour for a revolutionary party."

[ckaihatsu]

You are LITERALLY apologizing for it.


No, not true -- if I were apologizing for it I would be *defending* the actions taken as the best / correct course *to* take.

I'm simply describing the events empirically, saying that it would be difficult or impossible to see *any other* realistic course of action, given the overall situation (internationally) as it was.

In other words it feels like all action-takers were *trapped* in the larger scope of things -- there weren't many *options* available to Lenin or to those in the Kronstadt uprising, for that matter.





Totalitarianism is not "Just what happens"; its the actions of individuals imposing their rule on others.


No, this is you with your Great Man Theory again, blissfully ignoring the larger circumstances at the time (see post #144).





Supporting Lenin's ideas or glossing over the acts committed by the bolsheviks is asking for it to happen again.


No, this is idealism on your part -- you're making it sound like people can just pick-and-choose whatever, whenever they want it, and you continue to ignore that overarching conditions may change *rapidly*, forcing people to adapt to the changing parameters.





The soviets should have taken power and not the bolsheviks.


I agree with you *in theory*, but I don't think the material conditions were appropriate for soviets at that point -- time was not on their side, and it's no surprise that power got consolidated and Stalinism came to pass.

Also:





The October Revolution in Petrograd overthrew the provisional government and gave the power to the local soviets. The Bolshevik party was heavily supported by the soviets.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution


---





The workers where the ones in the best position to command their economy; that is the position of socialism; that the workers are always the one best suited to manage production and provide for their society. Bolshevism takes the reactionary and anti-communist stance that the elite are the ones best suited to rule.


This is still-more abstract reasoning on your part -- you've only addressed the material-economic conditions *once*, in passing, at post #165. It's not 'elitism' to use a hierarchical organization to deal with rapidly deteriorating conditions, for the sake of expediency under duress.





The Soviets at Kronstadt are the ones we should be attempting to create again; the direct militant and anti-fascist action of the working class and mutinous soldiers against the totalitarian elite.


I maintain that all of that -- the Kronstadt rebellion -- was *internal* to the country at that time, and was a *bad move* because of the prevailing conditions of famine, etc.

Again, given those empirical conditions one would *expect* an internal consolidation and concomitant shift to *geopolitical* matters since the revolution was definitely *isolated* by that point.

[(A)]

No, this is you with your Great Man Theory again, blissfully ignoring the larger circumstances at the time (see post #144).

And you are ignoring the totalitarian actions of the Bolsheviks. I am not saying their actions happened in a vacuum; but they happened at the hands of the Bolsheviks regardless of anything else that was going on.

The invasion of Poland was not JUST Hitlers fault; there where "larger circumstances at the time"; but he is still guilty of his role.
The ban on immigrants in america today is not just Trumps just fault; but I see you posting anti-trump stuff all the time; You should not be so ANti-trump and talk more about the "Larger circumstances" that you believe absolve people of responsibility. Trump according to you then is not responsible for the actions of his administration.

One of the main principles of Anarchism is that we are each responsible for our own actions. The Bolsheviks are responsible for their own actions.
Its not "the great man theory" its the reality that Lenin; Trotsky and every other Bolshevik involved in spreading lies and installing their party as a dictatorship; is responsible for their actions; Not some
"Larger circumstances". You are just excusing their actions and defending them as "necessary considering"


It's not 'elitism' to use a hierarchical organization to deal with rapidly deteriorating conditions, for the sake of expediency under duress.

Yes actually by the very definition of hierarchy it is.

"a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."
"the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society."

You are advocating that a higher rank or elite authority should rule and that the workers should obey because its necessary (even tho it is anti-communist and reactionary to think so) I think that is called utilitarianism. So YES Hierarchy is Elitism. It is the idea that the elite shall rule from above and the common shall obey from below.
It is Exactly Elitism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat can not be a hierarchy; that is the opposite meaning of Dictatorship which means total rule.
Hierarchy is Anti-communist as it is against the absolute rule of the working class.

[ckaihatsu]

And you are ignoring the totalitarian actions of the Bolsheviks.


No, I'm not -- I acknowledged it and *used* that very term, back at post #166:





Yeah, this is the beginning of totalitarianism that the USSR is popularly known for. I'm not apologizing for it -- I'm saying it was an *inevitability* by that point.


---





I am not saying their actions happened in a vacuum; but they happened at the hands of the Bolsheviks regardless of anything else that was going on.


Well, that's *convenient* for your ongoing myopic perspective -- it's like saying 'S/he died at the hands of medical professionals in a hospital, regardless of anything else that was going on.'





The invasion of Poland was not JUST Hitlers fault; there where "larger circumstances at the time"; but he is still guilty of his role.


Yes, and you're using an *excellent* example, a premeditated slaughter that *Stalin* was involved in as well:





The Invasion of Poland [...] was a joint invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Free City of Danzig, and a small Slovak contingent, that marked the beginning of World War II. The German invasion began on 1 September 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, while the Soviet invasion commenced on 17 September following the Molotov-Tōgō agreement that terminated the Russian and Japanese hostilities in the east on 16 September.[15] The campaign ended on 6 October with Germany and the Soviet Union dividing and annexing the whole of Poland under the terms of the German-Soviet Frontier Treaty.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland


---





The ban on immigrants in america today is not just Trumps just fault; but I see you posting anti-trump stuff all the time; You should not be so ANti-trump and talk more about the "Larger circumstances" that you believe absolve people of responsibility. Trump according to you then is not responsible for the actions of his administration.


He's as culpable as *any* president carrying out the interests of 'national security', over the humane needs of the population. The 'larger circumstances' is the capitalist system itself, which I *also* indict.





One of the main principles of Anarchism is that we are each responsible for our own actions.


You don't even realize that this is the premise of *right-wing* politics -- 'individual responsibility', as it's called, meaning that that side of the spectrum ideologically pretends that there is no greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts when it comes to *human society*, so things like government social services and mass production for human welfare are simply *ignored*, even though they empirically exist.

And, do you remember *this* statement, from only a few paragraphs up -- ?





I am not saying their actions happened in a vacuum;


It's this 'non-vacuum' that actions happen in, that you should be paying more attention to.


Worldview Diagram



http://s6.postimg.org/qjdaikuwh/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/axvyymiy5/full/)


---





The Bolsheviks are responsible for their own actions.


No, not 100%, because there was also *this*, which you acknowledged at post #165:





Economic background[edit]

By 1921, the Bolsheviks were winning the Russian Civil War and foreign troops were beginning to withdraw, yet Bolshevik leaders continued to keep tight control of the economy through the policy of War Communism.[4] After years of economic crises caused by World War I and the Russian Civil War, the Bolshevik economy started to collapse.[4] Industrial output had fallen dramatically. It is estimated that the total output of mines and factories in 1921 was 20 percent of the pre-World War I level, with many crucial items suffering an even more drastic decline. Production of cotton, for example, had fallen to 5 percent and iron to 2 percent of the pre-war level, and this coincided with droughts in 1920 and 1921 and the Russian famine of 1921.[5] Discontent grew among the Russian populace, particularly the peasantry, who felt disadvantaged by Communist grain requisitioning (prodrazvyorstka, forced seizure of large portions of the peasants' grain crop used to feed urban dwellers). They resisted by refusing to till their land. In February 1921, more than 100 peasant uprisings took place. The workers in Petrograd were also involved in a series of strikes, caused by the reduction of bread rations by one third over a ten-day period.[5]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion


---





Its not "the great man theory" its the reality that Lenin; Trotsky and every other Bolshevik involved in spreading lies and installing their party as a dictatorship; is responsible for their actions; Not some
"Larger circumstances". You are just excusing their actions and defending them as "necessary considering"


And you're *ignoring* that there's a world operating *outside* of this-or-that leader, which *impacts* on their decision-making.


---





It's not 'elitism' to use a hierarchical organization to deal with rapidly deteriorating conditions, for the sake of expediency under duress.





Yes actually by the very definition of hierarchy it is.

"a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority."
"the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society."

You are advocating that a higher rank or elite authority should rule and that the workers should obey because its necessary (even tho it is anti-communist and reactionary to think so) I think that is called utilitarianism. So YES Hierarchy is Elitism. It is the idea that the elite shall rule from above and the common shall obey from below.
It is Exactly Elitism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat can not be a hierarchy; that is the opposite meaning of Dictatorship which means total rule.
Hierarchy is Anti-communist as it is against the absolute rule of the working class.


You're *overgeneralizing* -- in this instance of Lenin's War Communism, and the later New Economic Policy, he was attempting a 'graceful backsliding' (my wording):





War communism or military communism (Russian: Военный коммунизм) was the economic and political system that existed in Soviet Russia during the Russian Civil War, from 1918 to 1921. According to Soviet historiography, this policy was adopted by the Bolsheviks with the goal of keeping towns and the Red Army stocked with food and weapons. The system had to be used because the ongoing war disrupted normal economic mechanisms and relations. "War communism", which began in June 1918, was enforced by the Supreme Economic Council, known as the Vesenkha. It ended on March 21, 1921, with the beginning of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which lasted until 1928.

Policies[edit]

War communism included the following policies:

Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management

State control of foreign trade

Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden

Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes

Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population

Rationing of food and most commodities, with centralized distribution in urban centers

Private enterprise banned

Military-style control of the railways

Because the Bolshevik government implemented all these measures in a time of civil war, they were far less coherent and coordinated in practice than they might appear on paper. Large areas of Russia remained outside Bolshevik control, and poor communications meant that even those regions loyal to the Bolshevik government often had to act on their own, lacking orders or coordination from Moscow. It has long been debated[by whom?] whether "war communism" represented an actual economic policy in the proper sense of the phrase, or merely a set of measures intended to win the civil war.[1]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism





The New Economic Policy was an economic policy of Soviet Russia proposed by Vladimir Lenin, who described it as a progression towards "state capitalism" within the workers' state of the USSR.[1] Lenin characterized “state capitalism” and his NEP policies in 1922 as an economic system that would include “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control” while socialized state enterprises were to operate on “a profit basis.”[2]

The NEP represented a more capitalism-oriented economic policy, deemed necessary after the Russian Civil War of 1917 to 1922, to foster the economy of the country, which was almost ruined. The complete nationalization of industry, established during the period of War Communism, was partially revoked and a system of mixed economy was introduced, which allowed private individuals to own small enterprises,[3] while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries.[4] In addition, the NEP abolished prodrazvyorstka (forced grain requisition)[3] and introduced prodnalog: a tax on farmers, payable in the form of raw agricultural product.[5] The Bolshevik government adopted the NEP in the course of the 10th Congress of the All-Russian Communist Party (March 1921) and promulgated it by a decree on 21 March 1921 "On the Replacement of Prodrazvyorstka by Prodnalog". Further decrees refined the policy.

Other policies included the monetary reform (1922–1924) and the attraction of foreign capital.

The NEP policy created a new category of people called NEPmen (нэпманы), nouveau riches due to NEP.

Joseph Stalin abolished the New Economic Policy in 1928.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy

[(A)]

Well, that's *convenient* for your ongoing myopic perspective -- it's like saying 'S/he died at the hands of medical professionals in a hospital, regardless of anything else that was going on.'

If the doctor slits your throat while you are being treated for malnutrition Yes it is.
This is not a "Well shit happens" moment in history. People whose names we know did horrible things and whose ideology's we should not try to emulate.


Investigating the Kronstadt revolt forces intelligent and honest minds into a critical examination of Bolshevik theories and practices. It exploded the Bolshevik myth of the Communist State being the "Workers' and Peasants' Government". It proved that the Communist Party dictatorship and the Russian Revolution are opposites, contradictory and mutually exclusive. While it may be justifiable to argue that the repression directed by the Bolsheviks against working class people during the civil war could be explained by the needs of the war, the same cannot be said for Kronstadt. Similarly, the Leninist justifications for their power and actions at Kronstadt have direct implications for current activity and future revolutions. As we argue in section 15 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html#app15), the logic of these rationales simply mean that modern day Leninists will, if in the same position, destroy soviet democracy to defend "soviet power" (i.e. the power of their party).


In effect, Kronstadt was the clash between the reality of Leninism and its image or rhetoric. It raises many important issues as regards Bolshevism and the rationale it has produced to justify certain actions. "The Kronstadt experience," as Berkman argues, "proves once more that government, the State -- whatever its name or form -- is ever the mortal enemy of liberty and popular self-determination. The state has no soul, no principles. It has but one aim -- to secure power and hold it, at any cost. That is the political lesson of Kronstadt." [Op. Cit., p. 89]

[ckaihatsu]

If the doctor slits your throat while you are being treated for malnutrition Yes it is.
This is not a "Well shit happens" moment in history. People whose names we know did horrible things and whose ideology's we should not try to emulate.


Well, you're *avoiding* discussion, as usual -- the analogy I provided is an apt one, because under the class system we're at the mercy of 'professionals', whether political or medical or otherwise, in times of crisis, while the expropriation / privatization of labor value just grinds on.

I'm not arguing for a *repeat* of Lenin's counter-invasion consolidation of an isolated nation-state -- times are different now and there are certainly many more possibilities for international class struggle, communications, coordination, etc., without resorting to a nationalistic 'leader'.

[(A)]

War communism included the following policies:

"Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management"

Nationalization is not socialism; It is the exclusive ownership of the means by the state under the strict centralized management of the ruling class.
IN NO WAY does nationalizing industry make you a socialist. The NDP want to nationalize industry and they are social democrats (like Lenin was);
If the NDP nationalized every single enterprise in Canada we would be no less capitalist.

"State control of foreign trade"

Again Private control by the ruling class; not the worker. Capitalism.

"Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden"

What the fuck. This is simply fascism. No fucking way is that socialism. That is the most anti-communist fucking thing I have ever heard expressed on the "left"; Lenin really was a fascist shit.

"Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes"

Slave labor.

"Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population"

Slave labor; Theft.

"Rationing of food and most commodities, with centralized distribution in urban centers"

Hierarchicalcontrol over food = State induced famine.

"Private enterprise banned"

And by private they include soviet enterprise and exclude their party's private control over all trade, enterprise and industry.

"Military-style control of the railways"

Military control over transit. Fuck man this is horrible shit. I can think of a few other fascists who liked trains as well.

Turns out Leninist are more reactionary then I thought.

[ckaihatsu]

War communism included the following policies:

"Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management"

Nationalization is not socialism; It is the exclusive ownership of the means by the state under the strict centralized management of the ruling class.
IN NO WAY does nationalizing industry make you a socialist. The NDP want to nationalize industry and they are social democrats (like Lenin was);
If the NDP nationalized every single enterprise in Canada we would be no less capitalist.

"State control of foreign trade"

Again Private control by the ruling class; not the worker. Capitalism.

"Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden"

What the fuck. This is simply fascism. No fucking way is that socialism. That is the most anti-communist fucking thing I have ever heard expressed on the "left"; Lenin really was a fascist shit.

"Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes"

Slave labor.

"Prodrazvyorstka – requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population"

Slave labor; Theft.

"Rationing of food and most commodities, with centralized distribution in urban centers"

Hierarchicalcontrol over food = State induced famine.

"Private enterprise banned"

And by private they include soviet enterprise and exclude their party's private control over all trade, enterprise and industry.

"Military-style control of the railways"

Military control over transit. Fuck man this is horrible shit. I can think of a few other fascists who liked trains as well.

Turns out Leninist are more reactionary then I thought.


I'm not saying that 'War Communism' is 'genuine socialism'. I just said, in my previous post, that:





I'm not arguing for a *repeat* of Lenin's counter-invasion consolidation of an isolated nation-state -- times are different now and there are certainly many more possibilities for international class struggle, communications, coordination, etc., without resorting to a nationalistic 'leader'.

[(A)]

And I totally agree that their are many possibilities for international class struggle without any form of adherence to a nationalistic political system.
People must come together across the world and Abolish their reliance on political authority's and nationalistic ideology's to prevent the rise of political counter revolutionary's like Lenin's Bolsheviks.

[ckaihatsu]

And I totally agree that their are many possibilities for international class struggle without any form of adherence to a nationalistic political system.
People must come together across the world and Abolish their reliance on political authority's and nationalistic ideology's to prevent the rise of political counter revolutionary's like Lenin's Bolsheviks.



Good, I'm glad to see that you're looking to find and acknowledge common revolutionary ground in the here-and-now.

In terms of *historical context*, though, you're mixing apples-and-oranges, because Lenin and the Bolsheviks happened under very specific historical conditions at the time, particularly the objective need to repel foreign invasions and to industrialize, internally. I *don't agree* that Lenin or the Bolsheviks were *counter-revolutionary* because they were just trying to make the best of a bad situation while being inexorably pulled into the global status quo of bourgeois geopolitics.

If we agree in the *abstract* of not needing a nationalistic political system, political authorities, or nationalistic ideologies, then I would say that that's sufficient for our current timeframe. Historical matters should be treated *separately* because of their differing, time-bound circumstances.

[(A)]

the objective need to repel foreign invasions does not prevent one from being counter revolutionary. By the very definition of their actions they countered a revolution.
A government fighting against revolutionary's (the sailors and soviets at kronstadt); makes them and their supporters undoubtedly counter-revolutionary.
Counter to the workers revolution.


"they were just trying to make the best of a bad situation"

~is not a good excuse for attacking, killing and imprisoning workers. It is a good way to prove you are a fascist.


"Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold.
Is it possible that you do not know what a hostage really is — a man imprisoned not because of a crime he has committed, but only because it suits his enemies to exert blackmail on his companions? … If you admit such methods, one can foresee that one day you will use torture, as was done in the Middle Ages.
I hope you will not answer me that Power is for political men a professional duty, and that any attack against that power must be considered as a threat against which one must guard oneself at any price. This opinion is no longer held even by kings... Are you so blinded, so much a prisoner of your own authoritarian ideas, that you do not realize that being at the head of European Communism, you have no right to soil the ideas which you defend by shameful methods … What future lies in store for Communism when one of its most important defenders tramples in this way every honest feeling?"

Imagine if the soviets where united with a black flag of Kropotkin and his fellow Russian Anarchists instead of a political party. What present we may have had if the leaders of the Russian revolution where the soviets and not the Bolsheviks. If the Sailors at Kronstadt had been the Pirate Navy of the Union of Soviets; A free militia;The willing and able soviets their providers. All it would have costed Lenin was for him to cede his perceived authority to the worker unions. If you think the workers could not have won the war by organizing themselves; why are you a Marxist?


"If we agree in the *abstract* of not needing a nationalistic political system, political authorities, or nationalistic ideologies, then I would say that that's sufficient for our current timeframe. Historical matters should be treated *separately* because of their differing, time-bound circumstances."

I would like nothing more then to leave Leninism in the past; but Neo-Bolsheviks wont so I am stuck not being able to trust people who call themselves Marxists because every time a "Marxist" takes power people like me end up dead or in prison. History repeats itself; first as tragedy then as farce. If we are not living in farcical times I dont know what to call it.

If we are not vigilant against it; A new reactionary party like the Bolsheviks will try and seize power during any real workers revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

the objective need to repel foreign invasions does not prevent one from being counter revolutionary. By the very definition of their actions they countered a revolution.


No, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were *not* counter-revolutionary just because they consolidated power within the lapsed-revolutionary nation-state. By that point there *was no* revolution anymore, but at best it might be called a 'left-wing autarky' -- which is still quite significant in the *bourgeois-international* context.


Political Spectrum, Simplified



http://s6.postimg.org/eeeic5c6p/2373845980046342459jv_Mrd_G_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/c9u5b2ajx/full/)


The most they could do with the circumstances they were in was to 'regroup' in relation to the *international* scale. Again, I'm not *defending* those actions, I'm saying that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had *no options* left, no political 'free will' due to the crushing material conditions that emerged by then.

You're just repeating your spurious accusations, which I've already addressed.





A government fighting against revolutionary's (the sailors and soviets at kronstadt); makes them and their supporters undoubtedly counter-revolutionary.
Counter to the workers revolution.


Bullshit -- the localized uprising that you glorify was *inappropriate* for the situation since the revolution had been isolated and materially asphyxiated on the whole.


---





they were just trying to make the best of a bad situation





~is not a good excuse for attacking, killing and imprisoning workers. It is a good way to prove you are a fascist.


I'm not saying I *like* what happened -- I'm not posting any images of a glorified Lenin in a photo frame, or anything like that. Please don't conflate my position with that of hero-worship, or anything in that direction.





Imagine if the soviets where united with a black flag of Kropotkin and his fellow Russian Anarchists instead of a political party. What present we may have had if the leaders of the Russian revolution where the soviets and not the Bolsheviks. If the Sailors at Kronstadt had been the Pirate Navy of the Union of Soviets; A free militia;The willing and able soviets their providers. All it would have costed Lenin was for him to cede his perceived authority to the worker unions. If you think the workers could not have won the war by organizing themselves; why are you a Marxist?


This is wishful, unrealistic thinking on your part -- you can argue that everyone should have turned into large unicorns and *trampled* the invaders, but any tabletop abstraction isn't the same as analyzing the *real situation* that existed then.





I would like nothing more then to leave Leninism in the past; but Neo-Bolsheviks wont so I am stuck not being able to trust people who call themselves Marxists because every time a "Marxist" takes power people like me end up dead or in prison. History repeats itself; first as tragedy then as farce. If we are not living in farcical times I dont know what to call it.

If we are not vigilant against it; A new reactionary party like the Bolsheviks will try and seize power during any real workers revolution.


No, this is more of your *myopic*, artificial approach to history -- given different contemporary circumstances versus those of the past, class struggle and class war will emerge *differently*. More-favorable conditions for proletarian revolution, like our current worldwide mass-proletarianization, would allow for more measured time-taking, more-qualitative revolutionary social bonds, and a broader base of mass co-participation worldwide, compared to being cornered in one country as happened in the aftermath of the October Revolution.

Your anxiety / fixed-prediction is abstract and not grounded in any concrete material conditions of your describing.

[(A)]

"*was no* revolution anymore"

I wish you could tell that to the sailors and soviets at Kronstadt. Wonder what they would say in regards to that.


So it seems that the possibility of foreign intervention was not a real threat at the time. The arguments of Lenin at the time, plus the demobilisation of the Red Army, points in that direction. Moreover, the total lack of response by Western governments during the revolt indicates that they were unlikely to take advantage of continuing unrest in Kronstadt, Petrograd and other towns and cities. Their working classes, sick of war and class consciousness enough to resist another intervention in Russia, would have been a factor in this apathetic response. Wrangel's troops, as the Bolsheviks were aware, were not a threat.
(http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)
(http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)The only real threat to Bolshevik power was internal -- from the workers and peasants the Bolsheviks claimed to be representing. Many of the ex-soldiers swelled the ranks of peasant guerrilla forces, fighting the repressive (and counter-productive) food collection squads. In the Ukraine, the Bolsheviks were fighting the remnants of the Makhnovist army (a fight, incidentally, brought upon the Bolsheviks by themselves as they had betrayed the agreements made with the anarchist forces and attacked them once Wrangel had been defeated). (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)
(http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)Thus the only potential danger facing the "soviet power" (i.e. Bolshevik power) was soviet democracy, a danger which had existed since the October revolution. As in 1918, when the Bolsheviks disbanded and repressed any soviet electorate which rejected their power, they met the danger of soviet democracy with violence. The Bolsheviks were convinced that their own dictatorship was equivalent to the revolution and that their power was identical to that of the working class. They considered themselves to be the embodiment of "soviet power" and it obviously did not bother them that the demand for free soviets can hardly be considered as actions against the power of the soviets. (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)

[ckaihatsu]

I wish you could tell that to the sailors and soviets at Kronstadt. Wonder what they would say in regards to that.




So it seems that the possibility of foreign intervention was not a real threat at the time. The arguments of Lenin at the time, plus the demobilisation of the Red Army, points in that direction. Moreover, the total lack of response by Western governments during the revolt indicates that they were unlikely to take advantage of continuing unrest in Kronstadt, Petrograd and other towns and cities. Their working classes, sick of war and class consciousness enough to resist another intervention in Russia, would have been a factor in this apathetic response. Wrangel's troops, as the Bolsheviks were aware, were not a threat.




The only real threat to Bolshevik power was internal -- from the workers and peasants the Bolsheviks claimed to be representing. Many of the ex-soldiers swelled the ranks of peasant guerrilla forces, fighting the repressive (and counter-productive) food collection squads. In the Ukraine, the Bolsheviks were fighting the remnants of the Makhnovist army (a fight, incidentally, brought upon the Bolsheviks by themselves as they had betrayed the agreements made with the anarchist forces and attacked them once Wrangel had been defeated).

Thus the only potential danger facing the "soviet power" (i.e. Bolshevik power) was soviet democracy, a danger which had existed since the October revolution. As in 1918, when the Bolsheviks disbanded and repressed any soviet electorate which rejected their power, they met the danger of soviet democracy with violence.




The Bolsheviks were convinced that their own dictatorship was equivalent to the revolution and that their power was identical to that of the working class. They considered themselves to be the embodiment of "soviet power" and it obviously did not bother them that the demand for free soviets can hardly be considered as actions against the power of the soviets.


Again, I think this new political trajectory by the Bolsheviks was geopolitically *necessary*, but it's certainly not to be lauded or considered as genuinely *revolutionary*.

The problem with the Kronstadt Rebellion was that -- since it was internally divisive -- it played right into the hands of truly counter-revolutionary opportunists:





The "Memorandum" has become a touchstone in debates about the rebellion.

Those debates started at the time of the rebellion. Because Leon Trotsky was in charge of the Red Army forces that suppressed the uprising, with the backing of Lenin, the question of whether the suppression was justified became a point of contention on the revolutionary left, in debates between anarchists and Leninist Marxists about the character of the Soviet state and Leninist politics, and more particularly in debates between anarchists and Trotsky and his followers. It remains so to this day. On the pro-Leninist side of those debates, the memorandum published by Avrich is treated as a "smoking gun" showing foreign and counter-revolutionary conspiracy behind the rebellion, for example in an article from 1990 by a Trotskyist writer, Abbie Bakan. Bakan says "[t]he document includes remarkably detailed information about the resources, personnel, arms and plans of the Kronstadt rebellion. It also details plans regarding White army and French government support for the Kronstadt sailors' March rebellion."[18]

Bakan says the National Centre originated in 1918 as a self-described "underground organization formed in Russia for the struggle against the Bolsheviks." After being infiltrated by the Bolshevik Cheka secret police, the group suffered the arrest and execution of many of its central members, and was forced to reconstitute itself in exile.[19] Bakan links the National Centre to the White army General Wrangel, who had evacuated an army of seventy or eighty thousand troops to Turkey in late 1920.[20] However, Avrich says that the "Memorandum" probably was composed by a National Centre agent in Finland. Avrich reaches a different conclusion as to the meaning of the "Memorandum":

[R]eading the document quickly shows that Kronstadt was not a product of a White conspiracy but rather that the White "National Centre" aimed to try and use a spontaneous "uprising" it thought was likely to "erupt there in the coming spring" for its own ends. The report notes that "among the sailors, numerous and unmistakable signs of mass dissatisfaction with the existing order can be noticed." Indeed, the "Memorandum" states that "one must not forget that even if the French Command and the Russian anti-Bolshevik organisations do not take part in the preparation and direction of the uprising, a revolt in Kronstadt will take place all the same during the coming spring, but after a brief period of success it will be doomed to failure."[21]

Avrich rejects the idea that the "Memorandum" explains the revolt:

Nothing has come to light to show that the Secret Memorandum was ever put into practice or that any links had existed between the emigres and the sailors before the revolt. On the contrary, the rising bore the earmarks of spontaneity... there was little in the behaviour of the rebels to suggest any careful advance preparation. Had there been a prearranged plan, surely the sailors would have waited a few weeks longer for the ice to melt... The rebels, moreover, allowed Kalinin (a leading Communist) to return to Petrograd, though he would have made a valuable hostage. Further, no attempt was made to take the offensive... Significant too, is the large number of Communists who took part in the movement.(...)

The Sailors needed no outside encouragement to raise the banner of insurrection... Kronstadt was clearly ripe for a rebellion. What set it off was not the machination of emigre conspirators and foreign intelligence agents but the wave of peasant risings throughout the country and the labour disturbances in neighboring Petrograd. And as the revolt unfolded, it followed the pattern of earlier outbursts against the central government from 1905 through the Civil War." [22]

Moreover, whether the Memorandum played a part in the revolt can be seen from the reactions of the White "National Centre" to the uprising. Firstly, they failed to deliver aid to the rebels or to get French aid to them. Secondly, Professor Grimm, the chief agent of the National Centre in Helsingfors and General Wrangel's official representative in Finland, stated to a colleague after the revolt had been crushed that if a new outbreak should occur then their group must not be caught unaware again. Avrich also notes that the revolt "caught the emigres off balance" and that "nothing... had been done to implement the Secret Memorandum, and the warnings of the author were fully borne out." [23]

(A 2003 bibliography by a historian of the Russian Civil War characterizes Avrich's history as "the only full-length, scholarly, non-partisan account of the genesis, course and repression of the rebellion to have appeared in English.")[24]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Charges_of_international_and_c ounter-revolutionary_involvement

[OnFire]

As the capitalists have tried endless times to destroy Bolshevism from the outside, by embargoes, assasination attempts or even armed interventions, which all failed, they resorted to corrupting the proletarian struggle from within. They introduced Anarchism as an alternative to "Authoritarian Statism" in order to divide and conquer. Anarchism is hypocrite because every revolution is an authoritarian act by which one class imposees its will by violent means on another class, it is the least anarchist thing there is. As such, anarchism hates revolutions and true progress. It talks about the failures of Marxism-Leninism, which turned a agrarian feudalist society into a global superpower. It does not talk about the fact that for example, the CNT-FAI can also be considered a vanguard of the most class conscious part of the Spanish proletariat, that it had doctrine death camps in catalonia and was a state which failed because it rejected to act as one.

[(A)]

Again, I think this new political trajectory by the Bolsheviks was geopolitically *necessary*

And that is why we have to fight Bolshevism and State-"socialism" at every turn; Because people like you think that violent hierarchical systems of authority that intentionally combat worker democracy (installing fascist control over the nation instead) can be justified as "necessary".

Every dictator defend their actions as "Necessary".

[ckaihatsu]

And that is why we have to fight Bolshevism and State-"socialism" at every turn; Because people like you think that violent hierarchical systems of authority that intentionally combat worker democracy (installing fascist control over the nation instead) can be justified as "necessary".

Every dictator defend their actions as "Necessary".


This isn't about *me* personally -- you're off on your own trip if you're going to project the decision-making of 1920-1921 Russia onto *me*. (It's inappropriate since there aren't any real-world parallels from then to now.)

I maintain that what happened *was* necessary, as at post #181.

Hierarchy is just a *vehicle* -- it's not automatically 'bad' but depends on the political *trajectory* chosen by such a hierarchy / institution. It's definitely more *expedient*, but at the cost of being less bottom-up in participation, which *could* become a problem over the long-term, all other factors being neutral.

I don't justify hierarchy (a vanguard *party*) in the abstract, as any kind of *desired* vehicle, especially when today's communications technology would allow all revolutionaries worldwide to be active in an ongoing participatory 'vanguard' (not 'vanguard party').

[(A)]

"Hierarchy is just a *vehicle* -- it's not automatically 'bad'"


Yes class based society is just a vehicle; Their is nothing bad about a class based government hierarchy where some have power over others while the VAST VAST majority of others (the worker) simply must abide that higher authority's rule. Apologizing (defending) the "necessity" of ending worker democracy in Russia is counter-revolutionary now and a threat of counter revolution during today's revolutions.

Centralism is nothing more then political reaction; the last hope of the capitalist functionary political/academic class to seize power for themselves.
Anyone trying to form new political authority's will be shot this time because we can learn from our past mistakes.

NO government authority/hierarchy/centralism is socialist; it is the antithesis to everything socialism stands for; worker rule and equality.

[ckaihatsu]

"Hierarchy is just a *vehicle* -- it's not automatically 'bad'"


Yes class based society is just a vehicle; Their is nothing bad about a class based government hierarchy where some have power over others while the VAST VAST majority of others (the worker) simply must abide that higher authority's rule.


It's problematic for you to make facile comparisons between a failed revolution under internal material duress (famine), and the regular status quo of bourgeois nation-states.

I don't think 'class' is the appropriate term to use for the Bolshevik consolidation of the country since [1] it was geopolitically necessary (the revolution wasn't growing and couldn't just remain 'static'), and [2] the reorganization internally allowed for decisiveness, as into needed industrialization (production goods). Yes, there was corruption from the later Stalinist bureaucracy, but it was nowhere near the income disparity of *capitalist* countries. I would call the bureaucracy a 'privileged elite', but not a 'class' because the bureaucrats didn't *privatize* -- factories remained collectivized, just not under workers control.

You're also exaggerating the extent of this top-down control, and you keep preferring to ignore the revolutionary *origins* of this unique social order that *no* capitalist countries had.





Apologizing (defending) the "necessity" of ending worker democracy in Russia


The revolutionary worker democracy reached the extent that it could, but given the horrible material conditions things had to get put back-on-track, in some form, *quickly*.





is counter-revolutionary now and a threat of counter revolution during today's revolutions.


No, it wasn't counter-revolutionary -- it was addressing the actual, deficient material conditions that prevailed.

'Today's revolutions' -- ? There *are no* revolutions in the present-day.





Centralism is nothing more then political reaction; the last hope of the functionary political/academic class to seize power for themselves.


No, centralization, like hierarchy, is a *vehicle* and can be constructive or it can be deleterious.





Anyone trying to form new political authority's will be shot this time because we can learn from our past mistakes.




NO government authority/hierarchy/centralism is socialist; it is the antithesis to everything socialism stands for; worker rule and equality.


In the abstract, yes, of course I agree, but you absolutely *suck* at dealing with concrete historical (social) situations. It's a liability to your politics.

[(A)]

"It's problematic for you to make facile comparisons between a failed revolution under internal material duress (famine), and the regular status quo of bourgeois nation-states."

The Russian >Workers< revolution did not "fail"; it was co-opted and then crushed by the Bolsheviks.
(http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html#app15)


reorganization internally

You mean Seizing political power for the party and not the worker.


"revolutionary *origins* of this unique social order that *no* capitalist countries had."

You mean the working women who started the revolution?
The Soviets demands for power?
The Kronstadt Rebellion?

What "revolutionary *origins*" are you referring to? Because all revolutionary potential ended with Lenin's party forming a materially capitalist dictatorship over the Russian peoples means of production.

[ckaihatsu]

The Russian >Workers< revolution did not "fail"; it was co-opted and then crushed by the Bolsheviks. (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html#app15)


I still think you're being too harsh on the Bolsheviks and Lenin. You're glossing over that just to *get* to the Kronstadt Rebellion (March 7–17, 1921), the White forces had to be neutralized, which they were. And *who* did the combat for that -- ?





The [Red Army] was established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution (Red October or Bolshevik Revolution). The Bolsheviks raised an army to oppose the military confederations (especially the various groups collectively known as the White Army) of their adversaries during the Russian Civil War.




The Russian Civil War (1917–1923) occurred in three periods:

October 1917 – November 1918, from the Bolshevik Revolution to the First World War Armistice, developed from the Bolshevik government's November 1917 nationalization of traditional Cossack lands.[citation needed] This provoked the insurrection of General Alexey Maximovich Kaledin's Volunteer Army in the River Don region. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918) aggravated Russian internal politics. The situation encouraged direct Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, in which twelve foreign countries supported anti-Bolshevik militias. A series of engagements resulted, involving, amongst others, the Czechoslovak Legion, the Polish 5th Rifle Division, and the pro-Bolshevik Red Latvian Riflemen.

2. January 1919–November 1919 initially saw the White armies successfully advancing: from the south, under General Anton Denikin; from the east, under Admiral Aleksandr Vasilevich Kolchak; and from the northwest, under General Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich. The Whites defeated the Red Army on each front. Leon Trotsky reformed and counterattacked: the Red Army repelled Admiral Kolchak's army in June; and the armies of General Denikin and General Yudenich in October.[10] By mid-November the White armies were all almost completely exhausted. In January 1920, Budenny's First Cavalry Army entered Rostov-on-Don.

3. 1919 to 1923




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army


You're not nearly as acknowledging and repellant-to the Whites as you are to the Bolsheviks.


---





reorganization internally





You mean Seizing political power for the party and not the worker.


I'll meet you halfway -- let's call it 'centralization'.

It could be argued that the workers-soviets system was over as soon as attentions and efforts had to be refocused on repelling the foreign threat, which requires quickness, and thus centralization / hierarchy. (Just saying.)


---





"revolutionary *origins* of this unique social order that *no* capitalist countries had."





You mean the working women who started the revolution?





The February Revolution and its impact on the Bolshevik party[edit]

The February Revolution toppled the tsarist regime and established a provisional government. Women were highly visible in this revolution, gathering in a mass protest on International Women's Day to call for political rights. They gained rights under the provisional government, including the right to vote, to serve as attorneys, and equal rights in civil service. Women advocating for these kinds of political rights generally came from upper and middle-class background, while poorer women protested for "bread and peace."[8] Record numbers of women joined the Russian army. All women's combat units were put into place, the first of these forming in May 1917.[9]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_Revolution#The_February_Revol ution_and_its_impact_on_the_Bolshevik_party


---





"revolutionary *origins* of this unique social order that *no* capitalist countries had."





The Soviets demands for power?


(You're not even *attempting* to discern my meaning, and instead you're just going off on tangents to be argumentative for your own line.)

Here's my position, again:





I would call the bureaucracy a 'privileged elite', but not a 'class' because the bureaucrats didn't *privatize* -- factories remained collectivized, just not under workers control.





The Kronstadt Rebellion?


No. It was inappropriate.





What "revolutionary *origins*" are you referring to? Because all revolutionary potential ended with Lenin's party forming a materially capitalist dictatorship over the Russian peoples means of production.


I don't see it the same way:





The pre-existing communes, which periodically redistributed land, did little to encourage improvement in technique, and formed a source of power beyond the control of the Soviet government. Although the income gap between wealthy and poor farmers did grow under the NEP, it remained quite small, but the Bolsheviks began to take aim at the wealthy kulaks. Clearly identifying this group was difficult, though, since only about 1% of the peasantry employed laborers (the basic Marxist definition of a capitalist), and 82% of the country's population were peasants.[3]

The small shares of most of the peasants resulted in food shortages in the cities. Although grain had nearly returned to pre-war production levels, the large estates which had produced it for urban markets had been divided up.[3] Not interested in acquiring money to purchase overpriced manufactured goods, the peasants chose to consume their produce rather than sell it. As a result, city dwellers only saw half the grain that had been available before the war.[3] Before the revolution, peasants controlled only 2,100,000 km² divided into 16 million holdings, producing 50% of the food grown in Russia and consuming 60% of total food production. After the revolution, the peasants controlled 3,140,000 km² divided into 25 million holdings, producing 85% of the food, but consuming 80% of what they grew (meaning that they ate 68% of the total).[4]

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union had never been happy with private agriculture and saw collectivization as the best remedy for the problem. Lenin claimed "Small-scale production gives birth to capitalism and the bourgeoisie constantly, daily, hourly, with elemental force, and in vast proportions."[5] Apart from ideological goals, Joseph Stalin also wished to embark on a program of rapid heavy industrialization which required larger surpluses to be extracted from the agricultural sector in order to feed a growing industrial work force and to pay for imports of machinery (by exporting grain).[6] Social and ideological goals would also be served through mobilization of the peasants in a co-operative economic enterprise which would produce higher returns for the State and could serve a secondary purpose of providing social services to the people.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union#Background

[(A)]

You're not nearly as acknowledging and repellant-to the Whites as you are to the Bolsheviks.

The whites have nothing to do with Lenin's bolsheviks. Stalin fought Hitler but Stalin was no better; he still stent millions of working class people to their deaths in camps and rules over millions more with an iron fist. You are not defined by your enemy's but your actions.

Leninist's use the whites as a scapegoat for their seizing of control. It does not change the Anti-communist Elitism of Lenin's ideology or the material reality that the Bolsheviks promised to give the power to the soviets and instead formed a very real and very unnecessary party dictatorship over all of Russia until it was internally taken over by reactionary's and led to the rise of the KGB ran fascist dictatorship we see today.

You say I am ignoring the whites; I say you are ignoring 98% of Russian history since the year 1900.


I'll meet you halfway -- let's call it 'centralization'.

I wont meet you half way; the bolsheviks seized control over the soviets and ended the Russian revolution like good petty-bourgeoisie counter revolutionarys are supposed to.
All the power to the party and none for the soviets is the material reality of Bolshevism.


It could be argued that the workers-soviets system was over as soon as attentions and efforts had to be refocused on repelling the foreign threat, which requires quickness, and thus centralization / hierarchy. (Just saying.)

It could be argued that the workers could have used the bolsheviks help to form a union of soviets that could have willingly coordinated their activity's to repel any invaders and form a new workers democracy.
Instead the Russian worker unions where put down the barrel of a Bolsheviki gun.

[Antiochus]

Stalin fought Hitler but Stalin was no better;

Why is this sack of shit not banned? I mean its ridiculous at this fucking point. Stalin=Hitler? Really? Even as someone that detests Stalin and would never subscribe to Stalinism how is this fucking monkey not being called out for what he is? An apologist for the Whites and subsequent fascist movements who drew ideological strength from the Black Hundred filth of Russia.

Stalin as bad as Hitler. *Sigh* Funny how these "Anarchist" arguments are identical to the ones used by right-wing fanatics and modern day neo-Nazis... "Stalin killed more people than Hitler xd".

Of course, such an "argument" is something that was answered by even bourgeois leaders who preferred Stalin over Hitler. Because, *gasp* Stalin wasn't a genocidal irredentist bent on an extermiantion based new colonialism.

[(A)]

Anarchists have been explaining how Stalin was a outright fascist in the vein of Hitler and Mussolini since before the U.S.S.R. collapsed. (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/voline-red-fascism)
Go ahead and fucking ban me anti; I am still waiting.


This truth has been comprehensibly — and incontrovertibly — borne out by the “Russian experience”. The notion of dictatorship as a means of emancipating the working class has been put into practice there. Well, its implementation has inevitably brought forth an effect which these days is becoming plainer and plainer and which soon even the most ignorant, short-sighted and pig-headed will be forced to acknowledge: instead of leading to the emancipation of the working class, the victorious revolution actually and despite all the theorising of the dictator-liberators, brought forth the most comprehensive, ghastliest enslavement and exploitation of that working class at the hands of a privileged ruling class.

[ckaihatsu]

The whites have nothing to do with Lenin's bolsheviks.


Yes, they do -- as I just juxtaposed.

A wartime-type economy is *very* stressful for everyone compared to peacetime. Just as the October Revolution happened it was *invaded* by foreign (and domestic) forces which forced it onto a wartime footing.

Perhaps the soviet model could have continued uninterrupted if it hadn't been for the foreign invasions, but my understanding is that newly collectivized material productivity had to be reoriented to fighting on the front lines instead of towards a more-desired peacetime buildup of internal productive capacity.

But even with this I'm being too generous because the facts are that the Bolsheviks were *supported* by the newly formed workers collectives (meaning that those involved weren't going to insist on localism like you do and ignore overarching real-world politics, such as the objective need for generalization / centralization):





The October Revolution [...] was a seizure of state power instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917. It took place with an armed insurrection in Petrograd on 25 October (7 November, New Style) 1917.

It followed and capitalized on the February Revolution of the same year, which overthrew the Tsarist autocracy and resulted in a provisional government after a transfer of power proclaimed by Grand Duke Michael, brother of Tsar Nicolas II, who declined to take power after the Tsar stepped down. During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (Russian: Soviet) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. The October Revolution in Petrograd overthrew the provisional government and gave the power to the local soviets. The Bolshevik party was heavily supported by the soviets. After the Congress of Soviets, now the governing body, had its second session, it elected members of the Bolsheviks and other leftist groups such as the Left Socialist Revolutionaries to key positions within the new state of affairs.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution


---





Stalin fought Hitler but Stalin was no better; he still stent millions of working class people to their deaths in camps and rules over millions more with an iron fist. You are not defined by your enemy's but your actions.


And you *still* think that individuals' / groups' actions happen in a vacuum, even though you've had to admit otherwise:





I am not saying [the Bolsheviks'] actions happened in a vacuum; [...]


(Right after this admission you go on to ignore the foreign invasions by the Whites, preferring to instead blame the Bolsheviks for their own self-defense.)


---





Leninist's use the whites as a scapegoat for their seizing of control.


The Whites as *scapegoat* -- ?? That's rich -- you're now apologizing for the foreign armies who crossed national boundaries to put down the soviet revolution.





It does not change the Anti-communist Elitism of Lenin's ideology or the material reality that the Bolsheviks promised to give the power to the soviets


The soviets *had* power and supported the Bolsheviks politically, mostly. (That's not anti-communist or elitist, then.)





and instead formed a very real and very unnecessary party dictatorship over all of Russia until it was internally taken over by reactionary's and led to the rise of the KGB ran fascist dictatorship we see today.


Fascism, by definition, serves capital. Russia was *collectivized* well before Stalin took over.

I don't like many of the top-down aspects of Stalinization, but it was materially *inevitable* given the larger global bourgeois context, and so wasn't *reactionary*. (The USSR and its KGB don't exist today -- that's hyperbole on your part.)





You say I am ignoring the whites;


You *are*, as I've detailed above.





I say you are ignoring 98% of Russian history since the year 1900.


This is vague -- your point is unclear.





I wont meet you half way; the bolsheviks seized control over the soviets and ended the Russian revolution like good petty-bourgeoisie counter revolutionarys are supposed to.


The revolution was (arguably) over once the Reds had to deal with the Whites.

Since the economy was mostly collectivized that unique base-structure continued, diminishing throughout the rest of the USSR's existence, and so it *wasn't* petty-bourgeois, since the term implies private capital ownership.





All the power to the party and none for the soviets is the material reality of Bolshevism.


Which *was initially supported* by the soviets. History shows us that those *in* the revolution found it necessary to generalize / centralize up from their local, on-the-ground bases of liberated-productive-power.





It could be argued that the workers could have used the bolsheviks help to form a union of soviets that could have willingly coordinated their activity's to repel any invaders and form a new workers democracy.
Instead the Russian worker unions where put down the barrel of a Bolsheviki gun.






The Bolshevik party was heavily supported by the soviets. After the Congress of Soviets, now the governing body, had its second session, it elected members of the Bolsheviks and other leftist groups such as the Left Socialist Revolutionaries to key positions within the new state of affairs. This immediately initiated the establishment of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, the world's first self-proclaimed socialist state.

The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks, who used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet to organize the armed forces. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military Revolutionary Committee began the takeover of government buildings on 24 October 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia), was captured.

The long-awaited Constituent Assembly elections were held on 12 November 1917. The Bolsheviks only won 175 seats in the 715-seat legislative body, coming in second behind the Socialist Revolutionary party, which won 370 seats. The Constituent Assembly was to first meet on 28 November 1917, but its convocation was delayed until 5 January 1918 by the Bolsheviks. On its first and only day in session, the body rejected Soviet decrees on peace and land, and was dissolved the next day by order of the Congress of Soviets.[2]

As the revolution was not universally recognized, there followed the struggles of the Russian Civil War (1917–22) and the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution

[(A)]

"Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work? No, far from it. Looking at the history of vanguardism we are struck by its failures, not its successes. Indeed, the proponents of "democratic centralism" can point to only one apparent success of their model, namely the Russian Revolution. However, we are warned by Leninists that failure to use the vanguard party will inevitably condemn future revolutions to failure:

"The proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. . . Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power . . . The Soviets are the only organised form of the tie between the vanguard and the class. A revolutionary content can be given this form only by the party. This is proved by the positive experience of the October Revolution and by the negative experience of other countries (Germany, Austria, finally, Spain). No one has either shown in practice or tried to explain articulately on paper how the proletariat can seize power without the political leadership of a party that knows what it wants." [Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism]
To anarchist ears, such claims seem out of place. After all, did the Russian Revolution actually result in socialism or even a viable form of soviet democracy? Far from it. Unless you picture revolution as simply the changing of the party in power, you have to acknowledge that while the Bolshevik party did take power in Russian in November 1917, the net effect of this was not the stated goals that justified that action. Thus, if we take the term "effective" to mean "an efficient means to achieve the desired goals" then vanguardism has not been proven to be effective, quite the reverse (assuming that your desired goal is a socialist society, rather than party power). Needless to say, Trotsky blames the failure of the Russian Revolution on "objective" factors rather than Bolshevik policies and practice, an argument we address in detail in "What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?" (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html) and will not do so here."

[ckaihatsu]

"Surely the Russian Revolution proves that vanguard parties work? No, far from it. Looking at the history of vanguardism we are struck by its failures, not its successes. Indeed, the proponents of "democratic centralism" can point to only one apparent success of their model, namely the Russian Revolution. However, we are warned by Leninists that failure to use the vanguard party will inevitably condemn future revolutions to failure:

"The proletariat can take power only through its vanguard. . . Without the confidence of the class in the vanguard, without support of the vanguard by the class, there can be no talk of the conquest of power . . . The Soviets are the only organised form of the tie between the vanguard and the class. A revolutionary content can be given this form only by the party. This is proved by the positive experience of the October Revolution and by the negative experience of other countries (Germany, Austria, finally, Spain). No one has either shown in practice or tried to explain articulately on paper how the proletariat can seize power without the political leadership of a party that knows what it wants." [Trotsky, Stalinism and Bolshevism]
To anarchist ears, such claims seem out of place. After all, did the Russian Revolution actually result in socialism or even a viable form of soviet democracy? Far from it. Unless you picture revolution as simply the changing of the party in power, you have to acknowledge that while the Bolshevik party did take power in Russian in November 1917, the net effect of this was not the stated goals that justified that action. Thus, if we take the term "effective" to mean "an efficient means to achieve the desired goals" then vanguardism has not been proven to be effective, quite the reverse (assuming that your desired goal is a socialist society, rather than party power). Needless to say, Trotsky blames the failure of the Russian Revolution on "objective" factors rather than Bolshevik policies and practice, an argument we address in detail in "What caused the degeneration of the Russian Revolution?" (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append43.html) and will not do so here."


Yeah, whatever -- try to reconcile this position, with this other statement / position of yours, at another thread, if you can:





Our response as Anarchists should be to organize our community's against the government & reaction; to build and seize infrastructure and prepare ourselves as the vanguard of the revolution.


Question for Anarchists?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196756-Question-for-Anarchists?p=2881174#post2881174


---


Regarding *history* you're *still* blaming the Reds for their collective self-defense against the Whites.

[(A)]

"Regarding *history* you're *still* blaming the Reds for their collective self-defense against the Whites."

Not at all; I am very specifically blaming Lenin's Bolsheviks for taking the power away from the soviets (and then never returning it after the war); the Murdering and holding hostage of workers and revolutionary's; And ending any chance of socialism in Russia (1917s to 1991).


Yeah, whatever -- try to reconcile this position, with this other statement / position of yours, at another thread, if you can:



Originally Posted by (A) http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2881174#post2881174)

Our response as Anarchists should be to organize our community's against the government & reaction; to build and seize infrastructure and prepare ourselves as the vanguard of the revolution.


I dont have to reconcile anything. Their is a difference between being the vanguard of the proletariat and being a Vanguardist.

One knows that the workers should rule the world and the other believes that the Vanguardists should rule the workers because the workers are unable.

Supporting the Soviets is the job of the Vanguard; Clearly Lenin forgot that when the Red army murdered and imprisoned thousands at Kronstadt.
If Lenin was a not so Anti-worker; he would have asked the Revolutionary's at Kronstadt for forgiveness and worked >with< them; Because that's the goal of the Vanguard; to put the workers in charge. Making yourself boss of an entire country's capital and government is the opposite of socialism; It is the most reactionary thing you could do in that situation.


As indicated in the last question, the last thing which the Bolsheviks wanted was "all power to the soviets." Rather they wanted the soviets to hand over that power to a Bolshevik government. As the people in liberal capitalist politics, the soviets were "sovereign" in name only. They were expected to delegate power to a government. Like the "sovereign people" of bourgeois republics, the soviets were much praised but in practice ignored by those with real power.

In such a situation, we would expect the soviets to play no meaningful role in the new "workers' state." Under such a centralised system, we would expect the soviets to become little more than a fig-leaf for party power. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly what they did become. As we discuss in section 7 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html#app7) of the appendix on "How did Bolshevik ideology contribute to the failure of the Revolution?" (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append44.html), anarchists are not surprised by this as the centralisation so beloved by Marxists is designed to empower the few at the centre and marginalise the many at the circumference.
The very first act of the Bolshevik revolution was for the Second Congress of Soviets to alienate its power and hand it over to the "Council of People's Commissars." This was the new government and was totally Bolshevik in make-up (the Left SRs later joined it, although the Bolsheviks always maintained control). Thus the first act of the revolution was the creation of a power above the soviets.

[ckaihatsu]

Not at all; I am very specifically blaming Lenin's Bolsheviks for taking the power away from the soviets (and then never returning it after the war); the Murdering and holding hostage of workers and revolutionary's; And ending any chance of socialism in Russia (1917s to 1991).



I dont have to reconcile anything. Their is a difference between being the vanguard of the proletariat and being a Vanguardist.

One knows that the workers should rule the world and the other believes that the Vanguardists should rule the workers because the workers are unable.

Supporting the Soviets is the job of the Vanguard; Clearly Lenin forgot that when the Red army murdered and imprisoned thousands at Kronstadt.
If Lenin was a not so Anti-worker; he would have asked the Revolutionary's at Kronstadt for forgiveness and worked >with< them; Because that's the goal of the Vanguard; to put the workers in charge. Making yourself boss of an entire country's capital and government is the opposite of socialism; It is the most reactionary thing you could do in that situation.


I appreciate the principled critique of power-hoarding, which I agree with, but there are a couple of details that you haven't fully addressed:

- What should have been done about the Whites invasion, if you're claiming that no single-organization (Bolshevik Party, Red Army) formulation was objectively required to repel them -- ? My concern in this kind of scenario is that a whole country's or countries' workers would not be agile enough to respond quickly enough to an external threat since the process of full democracy (including discussion, proposals, discussion of proposals, etc.) takes time to do right. (The intuitive assumption of 'democracy' basically implies / invokes a *peacetime* situation, not a wartime one.)

- You haven't described what a collective non-substitutionist workers *administration* would look like and how it would function -- at times you've *acknowledged* its objective necessity (to *generalize* across various geographic points of production), but you leave it in the form of a 'voluntary collective free association' (my wording), which is fine, but is not descriptive or illustrative in any detail.

[(A)]

What should have been done about the Whites invasion, if you're claiming that no single-organization (Bolshevik Party, Red Army) formulation was objectively required to repel them -- ? My concern in this kind of scenario is that a whole country's or countries' workers would not be agile enough to respond quickly enough to an external threat since the process of full democracy (including discussion, proposals, discussion of proposals, etc.) takes time to do right. (The intuitive assumption of 'democracy' basically implies / invokes a *peacetime* situation, not a wartime one.)

- You haven't described what a collective non-substitutionist workers *administration* would look like and how it would function -- at times you've *acknowledged* its objective necessity (to *generalize* across various geographic points of production), but you leave it in the form of a 'voluntary collective free association' (my wording), which is fine, but is not descriptive or illustrative in any detail.


You are arguing for a Non-voluntary centralism; Literally centralism at the barrel of a gun; I am arguing that the Russian soviets; facing invasion and attack from government forces; would have organized and federated willingly and with the >Support< of the Bolsheviks instead of their bullets the Soviets; could have won the war and created soviet democracy.

I am not arguing for "full democracy" as you understand it; My idea of democracy is far different then yours. Your idea of democracy is a society ruled by the majority via the use of a violent repressive state; Democracy for a communist means stateless democracy; the direct action and free association of the masses.

Your Democracy required obedience to the state or what you would call the majority; This is not communism as it requires a state to enforce the rule dictated by the ruler whoever has the most votes.
Anarchist/Communist Democracy is the collective action of free and equal individuals; it is simply how free people work together and organize in order to accomplish a shared goal.

I am arguing that the workers did not require Bolshevik violence to organize themselves into a socialist society or fight the whites. The workers started the revolution; it was the workers who we as socialists should be supporting; not the government that they where forced to obey.

How you want me to describe administrating the means via direct action and cooperation?
I mean I have made it very clear I support the workers Unionizing and organizing together (A union of soviets); how much more descriptive do I need to get? Do I need to explain to a full grown man how Unions work or do you simply not understand how people/unions are able to work together without the threat of death? (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution)


Accustomed as we are by hereditary prejudices and absolutely unsound education and training to see Government, legislation and magistracy everywhere around, we have come to believe that man would tear his fellow man to pieces like a wild beast the day the police took his eye off him; that chaos would come about if authority were overthrown during a revolution. And with our eyes shut we pass by thousands and thousands of human groupings which form themselves freely, without any intervention of the law, and attain results infinitely superior to those achieved under governmental tutelage.
If you open a daily paper you find its pages are entirely devoted to Government transactions and to political jobbery. A Chinaman reading it would believe that in Europe nothing gets done save by order of some master. You find nothing in them about institutions that spring up, grow up, and develop without ministerial prescription. Nothing — or hardly nothing! Even when there is a heading — “Sundry Events” — it is because they are connected with the police. A family drama, an act of rebellion, will only be mentioned if the police have appeared on the scene.


Three hundred and fifty million Europeans love or hate one another, work, or live on their incomes; but, apart from literature, theatre, or sport, their lives remain ignored by newspapers if Governments have not intervened in some way or other. It is even so with history. We know the least details of the life of a king or of a parliament; all good and bad speeches pronounced by the politicians have been preserved. “Speeches that have never had the least influence on the vote of a single member,” as an old parliamentarian said. Royal visits, good or bad humour of politicians, jokes or intrigues, are all carefully recorded for posterity. But we have the greatest difficulty to reconstitute a city of the Middle Ages, to understand the mechanism of that immense commerce that was carried on between Hanseatic cities, or to know how the city of Rouen built its cathedral. If a scholar spends his life in studying these questions, his works remain unknown, and parliamentary histories — that is to say, the defective ones, as they only treat of one side of social life — multiply, are circulated, are taught in schools.


And we do not even perceive the prodigious work accomplished every day by spontaneous groups of men, which constitutes the chief work of our century.
We therefore propose to point out some of these most striking manifestations, and to prove that men, as soon as their interests do not absolutely clash, act in concert, harmoniously, and perform collective work of a very complex nature.


It is evident that in present society, based on individual property — that is to say, on plunder, and on a narrow minded and therefore foolish individualism — facts of this kind are necessarily few in number; agreements are not always perfectly free, and often have a mean, if not execrable aim.


But what concerns us is not to give examples which we could blindly follow, and which, moreover, present society could not possibly give us. What we have to do is to prove that, in spite of the authoritarian individualism which stifles us, there remains in our life, taken as a whole, a great part in which we only act by free agreement, and that it would be much easier than we think to dispense with Government.
In support of our view we have already mentioned railways, and we are about to return to them.


We know that Europe has a system of railways, 175,000 miles long, and that on this network you can nowadays travel from north to south, from east to west, from Madrid to Petersburg, and from Calais to Constantinople, without stoppages, without even changing carriages (when you travel by express). More than that: a parcel thrown into a station will find its addressee anywhere, in Turkey or in Central Asia, without more formality needed for sending it than writing its destination on a bit of paper.


This result might have been obtained in two ways. A Napoleon, a Bismarck, or some potentate having conquered Europe, would from Paris, Berlin, or Rome, draw a railway map and regulate the hours of the trains. The Russian Tsar Nicholas I dreamt of taking such action. When he was shown rough drafts of railways between Moscow and Petersburg, he seized a ruler and drew on the map of Russia a straight line between these two capitals, saying, “Here is the plan.” And the road ad was built in a straight line, filling in deep ravines, building bridges of a giddy height, which had to be abandoned a few years later, at a cost of about £120,000 to £150,000 per English mile.


This is one way, but happily things were managed differently. Railways were constructed piece by piece, the pieces were joined together, and the hundred divers companies, to whom these pieces belonged, came to an understanding concerning the arrival and departure of their trains, and the running of carriages on their rails, from all countries, without unloading merchandise as it passes from one network to another.


All this was done by free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, by congresses at which relegates met to discuss certain special subjects, but not to make laws; after the congress, the delegates returned to their companies, not with a law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected.
There were certainly obstinate men who would not he convinced. But a common interest compelled them to agree without invoking the help of armies against the refractory members.
This immense network of railways connected together, and the enormous traffic it has given rise to, no doubt constitutes the most striking trait of our century; and it is the result of free agreement. If a man had foreseen or predicted it fifty years ago, our grandfathers would have thought him idiotic or mad. They would have said: “Never will you be able to make the shareholders of a hundred companies listen to reason ! It is a Utopia, a fairy tale. A central Government, with an ‘iron’ director, can alone enforce it.”


And the most interesting thing in this organization is, that there is no European Central Government of Railways! Nothing! No minister of railways, no dictator, not even a continental parliament, not even a directing committee! Everything is done by contract.


So we ask the believers in the State, who pretend that “we can never do without a central Government, were it only for regulating the traffic,” we ask them: “But how do European railways manage without them? How do they continue to convey millions of travelers and mountains of luggage across a continent? If companies owning railways have been able to agree, why should railway workers, who would take possession of railways, not agree likewise? And if the Petersburg Warsaw Company and that of Paris Belfort can act in harmony, without giving themselves the luxury of a common commander, why, in the midst of our societies, consisting of groups of free workers, should we need a Government?”

[ckaihatsu]

- What should have been done about the Whites invasion, if you're claiming that no single-organization (Bolshevik Party, Red Army) formulation was objectively required to repel them -- ? My concern in this kind of scenario is that a whole country's or countries' workers would not be agile enough to respond quickly enough to an external threat since the process of full democracy (including discussion, proposals, discussion of proposals, etc.) takes time to do right. (The intuitive assumption of 'democracy' basically implies / invokes a *peacetime* situation, not a wartime one.)

- You haven't described what a collective non-substitutionist workers *administration* would look like and how it would function -- at times you've *acknowledged* its objective necessity (to *generalize* across various geographic points of production), but you leave it in the form of a 'voluntary collective free association' (my wording), which is fine, but is not descriptive or illustrative in any detail.





You are arguing for a Non-voluntary centralism; Literally centralism at the barrel of a gun;


No, you're making up bullshit accusations again.

There *can* be centralism without an imposing top-down authority, and that's what my model (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174) addresses directly, distinct from the sidestepping, vague philosophizing, and exchange-based bartering (anti-socialist-planning) that you advocate.

Here it is, in brief:





[T]he layout of *work roles* would be the 'bottom' of 'top-down' (though collectivized) social planning, and would be the 'top' of 'bottom-up' processes like individual self-determination.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196538-Several-Questions?p=2879529#post2879529


---





I am arguing that the Russian soviets; facing invasion and attack from government forces; would have organized and federated willingly and with the >Support< of the Bolsheviks instead of their bullets the Soviets; could have won the war and created soviet democracy.


Noted, and commendable, but you continue to be silent on *how* this bottom-up 'federation' process would potentially unfold, particularly over the allocation of means of production, labor, and materials. You haven't addressed what the method would be for resolving disputes over immediate usage of a particular factory, for example, in such an egalitarian society.





I am not arguing for "full democracy" as you understand it; My idea of democracy is far different then yours. Your idea of democracy is a society ruled by the majority via the use of a violent repressive state;


Bullshit again, and you're just maligning my politics and political character for no good reason.

Here's from my standing model:





Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]

labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]




Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


---





Democracy for a communist means stateless democracy; the direct action and free association of the masses.




Your Democracy required obedience to the state or what you would call the majority;


Bullshit, because you're not providing any *backing* to these spurious mischaracterizations.





This is not communism as it requires a state to enforce the rule dictated by the ruler whoever has the most votes.


Strawman.

(There's no process of 'voting' in my model framework since the practice of such inherently implies political-specialist *substitutionism* through (mis-)representation by a standing social institution -- elitism -- something you claim to be against.)

(Instead, my model functions to aggregate individuals' mass organic demand, by rank position (#1, #2, #3, to infinity, per day), so that such cumulative information can be reflected back to the public, and to any and all potential available-and-willing liberated laborers, for implementation.)





Anarchist/Communist Democracy is the collective action of free and equal individuals; it is simply how free people work together and organize in order to accomplish a shared goal.


This is a *circular* definition: the 'how' is 'anarchist/communist democracy', but you're still not describing how it would work in operation and overcome collective-type obstacles like the ones I mentioned above.





I am arguing that the workers did not require Bolshevik violence to organize themselves into a socialist society or fight the whites. The workers started the revolution; it was the workers who we as socialists should be supporting; not the government that they where forced to obey.


You're incorrect on the history, and you're repeatedly ignoring that the workers soviets found the Bolshevik Party vehicle as being *appropriate* for the generalization of their activities:





The October Revolution in Petrograd overthrew the provisional government and gave the power to the local soviets. The Bolshevik party was heavily supported by the soviets.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution





Ranks and titles[edit]

Main article: Military ranks of the Soviet Union

The early Red Army abandoned the institution of a professional officer corps as a "heritage of tsarism" in the course of the Revolution. In particular, the Bolsheviks condemned the use of the word officer and used the word commander instead. The Red Army abandoned epaulettes and ranks, using purely functional titles such as "Division Commander", "Corps Commander" and similar titles.[10] Insignia for these functional titles existed, consisting of triangles, squares and rhombuses (so-called "diamonds").

In 1924 (2 October) "personal" or "service" categories were introduced, from K1 (section leader, assistant squad leader, senior rifleman, etc.) to K14 (field commander, army commander, military district commander, army commissar and equivalent). Service category insignia again consisted of triangles, squares and rhombuses, but also rectangles (1 – 3, for categories from K7 to K9).




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army#Personnel




Organization[edit]

For more details on this topic, see Formations of the Soviet Army.

At the beginning of its existence, the Red Army functioned as a voluntary formation, without ranks or insignia. Democratic elections selected the officers. However, a decree of 29 May 1918 imposed obligatory military service for men of ages 18 to 40.[67] To service the massive draft, the Bolsheviks formed regional military commissariats (voyennyy komissariat, abbr. voyenkomat), which as of 2006 still exist in Russia in this function and under this name. Military commissariats, however, should not be confused with the institution of military political commissars.

In the mid-1920s the territorial principle of manning the Red Army was introduced. In each region able-bodied men were called up for a limited period of active duty in territorial units, which constituted about half the army's strength, each year, for five years.[68] The first call-up period was for three months, with one month a year thereafter. A regular cadre provided a stable nucleus. By 1925 this system provided 46 of the 77 infantry divisions and one of the eleven cavalry divisions. The remainder consisted of regular officers and enlisted personnel serving two-year terms. The territorial system was finally abolished, with all remaining formations converted to the other cadre divisions, in 1937–1938.[69]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army#Organization


---





How you want me to describe administrating the means via direct action and cooperation?
I mean I have made it very clear I support the workers Unionizing and organizing together (A union of soviets); how much more descriptive do I need to get? Do I need to explain to a full grown man how Unions work or do you simply not understand how people/unions are able to work together without the threat of death? (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution)


No, I do understand the *principle* of it, which is fine, (and contrary to your skewing of my politics), but maybe you could advance a 'typical' scenario, with a 'historical' description of how things, particularly productive processes, would unfold.

I also still have reservations about the *quickness* and 'tightness' of such a 'federation', as in responding to foreign invasions -- I value the 'bottom-up' process as appropriate for the mass seizing of factories, but *not* for overall socio-political generalization ('syncing') of liberated-production.


Generalizations-Characterizations



http://s6.postimg.org/rtrvqqoz5/2714844340046342459_Quxppf_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/dakqpbvu5/full/)


---





And the most interesting thing in this organization is, that there is no European Central Government of Railways! Nothing! No minister of railways, no dictator, not even a continental parliament, not even a directing committee! Everything is done by contract.


This is all well-and-good, but consider that 'contract' implies 'agreement over exchange values (prices)', while a *post*-capitalist society would / should-*not* rely on exchanges or exchange-values *at all*, in favor of mass moneyless planning and coordination:





Democracy for a communist means stateless democracy; the direct action and free association of the masses.

[(A)]

Noted, and commendable, but you continue to be silent on *how* this bottom-up 'federation' process would potentially unfold, particularly over the allocation of means of production, labor, and materials. You haven't addressed what the method would be for resolving disputes over immediate usage of a particular factory, for example, in such an egalitarian society.

The producers will allocate the product of their labor. That is the only logical conclusion of worker liberation. The people who produce will manage the economy via their >OWN< free association.

This will look a lot like a distributed system where each Union is an autonomous collective of individual workers; who via their internal democracy will allocate the product of their collective labor to themselves and their respective society's. This is not based on locality as we possess a vast global network of infrastructure that the workers have built and maintained since the dawn of civilization.
This global market place will be seized by the workers who built it and be freed from the control of capitalists and governments. By controlling directly the means of production the workers can liberate themselfs from the yolk of oppression as they will be the ones who command the worlds infrastructure.

The thing you cant seem to wrap your head around is that it is very clearly not up to us how billions of workers are to organize and which framework they are to implement.
Since their is no possibility of a single polity uniting humanity; the only real democracy is Autonomy.


You're incorrect on the history, and you're repeatedly ignoring that the workers soviets found the Bolshevik Party vehicle as being *appropriate* for the generalization of their activities:

You are incorrect on your history; SOME soviets may have seen the party as an appropriate vehicle; but others clearly and very notably (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)did not.
What you are defending is nationalism. You are arguing that because the soviets at Kronstadt where "Russian" they belonged to the Russian state.

The soviets and sailors at Kronstadt where not even asking for as much as I am; their demands are more then justifiable even within your nationalist context and if you where to actually read the work you would see that all your excuses are just that; excuses for a fascist regime.


The full list of demands are as follows:
"1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.


2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.


3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.


4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, solders and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.


5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.


6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.


7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.


8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.


9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.


10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.


11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.


12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.


13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.


14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.


15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour." [quoted by Ida Mett, The Kronstadt Revolt, pp. 37-8]




This soviet system had it been implemented would have been the first step to socialism in Russia and possibly the world.
Instead the bureaucratic functionary class seized power via lies and violence against the soviets and in doing to prevented the collapse of capitalism in Russia.

[ckaihatsu]

The producers will allocate the product of their labor. That is the only logical conclusion of worker liberation. The people who produce will manage the economy via their >OWN< free association.

This will look a lot like a distributed system where each Union is an autonomous collective of individual workers; who via their internal democracy will allocate the product of their collective labor to themselves and their respective society's. This is not based on locality


Yes, I have no differences with this aspect of a post-capitalist social order because you're addressing the *on-the-ground* portion which will inevitably have to be dealt-with one way or another.

However, there's a *contradiction* here -- what are 'respective societies', if not 'localities' -- you're indicating that the geographical terrain would not be whole, that there would be some sort of layout of sub-whole 'societies' (which is fine) (I see such on-the-ground localization as being *inevitable* for liberated-production and for regional cultures).

So then we have to face the complex dynamics of bottom-up and top-down, where the former is necessary for individual / small-group / on-the-ground self-determination, while the latter is necessary for *generalization* / coordination-of-efforts, especially over *large* scales (otherwise the problematic of redundancy of efforts over several localities takes place).





as we possess a vast global network of infrastructure that the workers have built and maintained since the dawn of civilization.
This global market place will be seized by the workers who built it and be freed from the control of capitalists and governments. By controlling directly the means of production the workers can liberate themselfs from the [yoke] of oppression as they will be the ones who command the worlds infrastructure.


Yes, and this is fine, as ever, but I, for one, would be interested in a little more detail as to how this could happen, especially as concerns a mass-adopted approach to the administration of work efforts and production of materials.

- Who determines the layout of actual work roles for a given project -- ? There could easily be *factionalism* over this kind of issue since your approach doesn't specify any process for handling this kind of ambiguity. (Maybe a local work force is split on whether the project-at-hand should use 100 or 150 workers -- it could objectively be done *either way*, but some say fewer would be sufficient while others say that the greater number would make things easier and faster without diminishing-returns.)





The thing you cant seem to wrap your head around is that it is very clearly not up to us how billions of workers are to organize and which framework they are to implement.


No, this is your bad habit again of making spurious, off-the-cuff accusations at my expense -- here are past relevant quotes of mine, from past exchanges with *you*:





Since I'm only one person and a revolution would involve millions and billions, I can only at-best *surmise* that a formal 'workers government' might be brought-about -- or maybe it *won't* be.

Differences between Libertarian Socialism and Libertarian Communism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/162158-Differences-between-Libertarian-Socialism-and-Libertarian-Communism?p=2874895#post2874895





'My' revolution -- ?

I'm only one person here, so any working class revolution would definitely be larger than myself.

Vanguard party?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/195874-Vanguard-party?p=2873650#post2873650


---





Since their is no possibility of a single polity uniting humanity; the only real democracy is Autonomy.


Yes, this is all well-and-good, but your approach suffers from *localism* -- if everything production-related is strictly 'bottom-up' there could easily be as many approaches / plans for a collectively-needed project as there are participants, because each person has crafted their own unique plan for it and won't budge or coordinate with others due to the principle of 'autonomy'.

There has to be some way to collectively achieve 'generalization' (and resulting coordination around the same, single plan) so as to realize efficiencies of scale and complex supply chains for sophisticated goods like electronics.


---





You are incorrect on your history; SOME soviets may have seen the party as an appropriate vehicle; but others clearly and very notably (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)did not.




What you are defending is nationalism. You are arguing that because the soviets at Kronstadt where "Russian" they belonged to the Russian state.


No, you're putting words in my mouth -- my conclusion about Kronstadt is that it was a *bad choice* (post #169) because any socio-political dynamics at that point were within an objectively geopolitically-nationally-constrained context of *duress from without* and only disrupted *internal cohesion* which was geopolitically problematic.

You continue to disregard [1] the effect of the bourgeois-foreign militaries against the Reds, and [2] the massively-deteriorated material conditions following the successful repulsion of the Whites.





The soviets and sailors at Kronstadt where not even asking for as much as I am; their demands are more then justifiable even within your nationalist context and if you where to actually read the work you would see that all your excuses are just that; excuses for a fascist regime.


Bullshit, because you're ignoring the overall social context that *required* a boosting of objectively nationally-constrained efforts. Again, fascism by definition confers a far-*right* backing of private property claims, something that *wasn't* a fixed social institution in Russia at the time. (Post #192.)





Policies[edit]

The laws sanctioned the co-existence of private and public sectors, which were incorporated in the NEP, which on the other hand was a state oriented "mixed economy".[12]

The NEP represented a move away from full nationalization of certain parts of industries. Some kinds of foreign investments were expected by the Soviet Union under the NEP, in order to fund industrial and developmental projects with foreign exchange or technology requirements.[13]

The NEP was primarily a new agricultural policy.[14] The Bolsheviks viewed traditional village life as conservative and backward. It was reminiscent of the Tsarist Russia that had supposedly been overthrown by the October Revolution. With the NEP, the state only allowed private landholdings because the idea of collectivized farming had met strong opposition.[15]

Lenin understood that economic conditions were dire, so he opened up markets to a greater degree of free trade, hoping to motivate the population to increase production. Under the NEP, not only were “private property, private enterprise, and private profit largely restored in Lenin’s Russia,” but Lenin’s regime turned to international capitalism for assistance, willing to provide “generous concessions to foreign capitalism.”[16] Lenin took the position that in order to achieve socialism, he had to create “the missing material prerequisites” of modernization and industrial development that made it imperative for Soviet Russia to “fall back on a centrally supervised market-influenced program of state capitalism”.[17] Lenin was following Karl Marx’s precepts that a nation must first reach “full maturation of capitalism as the precondition for socialist realization.”[18] The main policy Lenin used was an end to grain requisitions and instead instituted a tax on the peasants, thereby allowing them to keep and trade part of their produce. At first, this tax was paid in kind, but as the currency became more stable in 1924, it was changed to a cash payment.[3] This increased the peasants' incentive to produce, and in response production jumped by 40% after the drought and famine of 1921–22.[19]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy#Policies


---





This soviet system had it been implemented would have been the first step to socialism in Russia and possibly the world.


It *was* implemented as you yourself acknowledge (post #192), but was immediately *swamped* by foreign invasions, necessitating a fallback to relatively-more-balkanized / barbaric market-type conditions to address objective material scarcities.





Instead the bureaucratic functionary class seized power via lies and violence against the soviets and in doing to prevented the collapse of capitalism in Russia.


You're repeatedly revealing your myopic perspective on actual conditions at the time, thinking that Russia's relatively-backward material conditions at the time (lack of industrialization) would have been sufficient to take on the world, basically.

[(A)]

However, there's a *contradiction* here -- what are 'respective societies', if not 'localities' -- you're indicating that the geographical terrain would not be whole, that there would be some sort of layout of sub-whole 'societies' (which is fine) (I see such on-the-ground localization as being *inevitable* for liberated-production and for regional cultures).

So then we have to face the complex dynamics of bottom-up and top-down, where the former is necessary for individual / small-group / on-the-ground self-determination, while the latter is necessary for *generalization* / coordination-of-efforts, especially over *large* scales (otherwise the problematic of redundancy of efforts over several localities takes place).

Society is not based on locality. Locality is based on Polity; I.E. You thinking the Krondstadt's soviets and their means belong to russia as a whole.
Their is no contradiction because the Society (Probably could have use community); can be anywhere or anyone. Free association demands an end to Polity (areas and people under administrative control) and the importance of autonomy.

I dont see this as being a situation where their is a bottom or top; but if you where to demand a hierarchical explanation then I would say that the workers are the ones who run the Unions (democracy) and the Unions are the ones who produce for society as a whole as the workers democracy sees fit.. This is of course until full automation becomes possible.


- Who determines the layout of actual work roles for a given project -- ? There could easily be *factionalism* over this kind of issue since your approach doesn't specify any process for handling this kind of ambiguity. (Maybe a local work force is split on whether the project-at-hand should use 100 or 150 workers -- it could objectively be done *either way*, but some say fewer would be sufficient while others say that the greater number would make things easier and faster without diminishing-returns.)

Who the hell are these people you keep imagining who have a say in if its 100 or 150?

It sounds like you want an economy run by people who are not working. A functionary class of politicians; academics and Graphic designers who will dictate how many workers and how many resources to allow people to use.

the unions (worker democracy) will dictate how much manpower, resources, time, and final product that they will produce. >Their can be no authority or mass planning above the unions<

The workers make the world run; the workers must run the world.



Since I'm only one person and a revolution would involve millions and billions, I can only at-best *surmise* that a formal 'workers government' might be brought-about -- or maybe it *won't* be.

You want one big workers democracy?

(http://www.iww.org/membership)Ya its called the IWW. One Big Union. Join up today! (http://www.iww.org/membership)


Yes, this is all well-and-good, but your approach suffers from *localism* -- if everything production-related is strictly 'bottom-up' there could easily be as many approaches / plans for a collectively-needed project as there are participants, because each person has crafted their own unique plan for it and won't budge or coordinate with others due to the principle of 'autonomy'.

There has to be some way to collectively achieve 'generalization' (and resulting coordination around the same, single plan) so as to realize efficiencies of scale and complex supply chains for sophisticated goods like electronics.
(http://www.iww.org/membership)
No again it does not. You are simply refusing to admit that humanity (the mass of autonomous individuals that we are) have the ability to work together and organize on mass projects voluntarily without government guns being pointed at us. Government is the weapon of reaction; nothing more, their is NO good deed done by government that could not be better planned and executed by the workers and their free association..
Not a single thing. Workers make the world run; Government ONLY exists to ensure that the workers obey. A society without capitalists is a society that has no government to protect their exploitation.

The function of the state is to maintain hierarchy.


No, you're putting words in my mouth -- my conclusion about Kronstadt is that it was a *bad choice* (post #169) because any socio-political dynamics at that point were within an objectively geopolitically-nationally-constrained context of *duress from without* and only disrupted *internal cohesion* which was geopolitically problematic.

You continue to disregard [1] the effect of the bourgeois-foreign militaries against the Reds, and [2] the massively-deteriorated material conditions following the successful repulsion of the Whites.

Firstly you are admitting to what you are denying. You are saying that the Soviets at Kronstatd should have just obeyed because they belong to the *internal cohesion* of the geopolitical (national) polity of Russia.
geopolitical is polity; Polity is anti-communist. How? You are literally arguing that the workers should have submitted to the rule of the polity; that the political state is more important then the workers.
This is called Anti-communism because communism is worker liberation from bourgeoisie rule (government)

The internal democracy of workers is called Unionism; that is the worker government. If you want a large worker government join the IWW.
I have no problem with a large Union of willing members; I have a problem with the nationalistic&capitalistic idea that property can be owned by a polity and that the workers who work on that government means must abide the polity's rules.


Bullshit, because you're ignoring the overall social context that *required* a boosting of objectively nationally-constrained efforts. Again, fascism by definition confers a far-*right* backing of private property claims, something that *wasn't* a fixed social institution in Russia at the time. (Post #192.)

Yes fascism is reactionary (right wing); I am saying that people who support government institutions are not leftists (in any sense) but right-wing reactionary's. They argue for regressive institutions like government and obedience. You can call yourself a socialist but if your goal is the subjugation of the workers under a nations banner or government control you are 100s of years behind on the times.

IT is the difference between sex and rape; Consent. If the sailors and soviets at Kronstadt did not consent to Bolshevik rule (and they clearly did not) that makes what the Bolsheviks did extremely reactionary and literally fascist. Their is no defense for what the bolchiviks did and if you would read the article it explains how all your excuses about the whites where right-wing Propaganda and scapegoating.


Were the Whites a threat during the Kronstadt revolt?

The lack of foreign intervention during the Kronstadt revolt suggests more than just the fact that the revolt was not a "White conspiracy." It also suggests that the White forces were in no position to take advantage of the rebellion or even support it.
This is significant simply because the Bolsheviks and their supporters argue that the revolt had to be repressed simply because the Soviet State was in danger of White and/or foreign intervention. How much danger was there? According to John Rees, a substantial amount:
"The Whites, even though their armies had been beaten in the field, were still not finished -- as the emigre response to the Kronstadt rising shows . . . They had predicted a rising at Kronstadt and the White National Centre abroad raised a total of nearly 1 million French Francs, 2 million Finnish marks, £5000, $25,000 and 900 tons of flour in just two weeks; Indeed, the National Centre was already making plans for the forces of the French navy and those of General Wrangel, who still commanded 70,000 men in Turkey, to land in Kronstadt if the revolt were to succeed." [Op. Cit., pp. 63-4]

To back up his argument, Rees references Paul Avrich's book. We, in turn, will consult that work to evaluate his argument.
Firstly, the Kronstadt revolt broke out months after the end of the Civil War in Western Russia. Wrangel had fled from the Crimea in November 1920. The Bolsheviks were so afraid of White invasion that by early 1921 they demobilised half the Red Army (some 2,500,000 men). [Paul Avrich, Op. Cit., p. 13]
Secondly, the Russian emigres "remained as divided and ineffectual as before, with no prospect of co-operation in sight." [Avrich, Op. Cit., p. 219]
Thirdly, as far as Wrangel, the last of the White Generals, goes, his forces were in no state to re-invade Russia. His troops were "dispersed and their moral sagging" and it would have taken "months . . . merely to mobilise his men and transport them from the Mediterranean to the Baltic." A second front in the south "would have meant almost certain disaster." Indeed, in a call issued by the Petrograd Defence Committee on March 5th, they asked the rebels: "Haven't you heard what happened to Wrangel's men, who are dying like flies, in their thousands of hunger and disease?" The call goes on to add "[t]his is the fate that awaits you, unless you surrender within 24 hours." [Avrich, Op. Cit., p. 219, p. 146 and p. 105]
Clearly, the prospect of a White invasion was slim. This leaves the question of capitalist governments. Avrich has this to say on this:
"Apart from their own energetic fund-raising campaign, the emigres sought the assistance of the Entene powers. . . . the United States government, loath to resume the interventionist policies of the Civil War, turned a deaf ear to all such appeals. The prospects of British aid were even dimmer . . . The best hope of foreign support came from France . . . the French refused to interfere either politically or militarily in the crisis." [Op. Cit., pp. 117-9]

The French government had also "withdrew its recognition of Wrangel's defunct government" in November 1920 "but continued to feed his troops on 'humane grounds,' meanwhile urging him to disband." [Op. Cit., p. 105]
Thus, the claim that foreign intervention was likely seems without basis. Indeed, the Communist radio was arguing that "the organisation of disturbances in Kronstadt have the sole purpose of influencing the new American President and changing his policy toward Russia. At the same time the London Conference is holding its sessions, and the spreading of similar rumours must influence also the Turkish delegation and make it more submissive to the demands of the Entente. The rebellion the Petropavlovsk crew is undoubtedly part of a great conspiracy to create trouble within Soviet Russia and to injure our international position." [quoted by Berkman, The Russian Tragedy, p. 71] Lenin himself argued on March 16th that "the enemies" around the Bolshevik state were "no longer able to wage their war of intervention" and so were launching a press campaign "with the prime object of disrupting the negotiations for a trade agreement with Britain, and the forthcoming trade agreement with America." [Lenin and Trotsky, Op. Cit., p. 52] The demobilising of the Red Army seems to confirm this perspective.


Using the whites as a perceived threat Lenin was able to establish a Iron handed dictatorship over the worlds largest country and DESTROY any Unions that did not support his rule.
That is fascism. It is so fascist as a matter of fact it was used as a model for all future fascism. Mussolini and Hitler both used what had happened in Russia as a framework for their own taking of power.


After removing all political opposition through his secret police and outlawing labor strikes, >Blank< and his followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship. Within five years he had established dictatorial authority by both legal and extraordinary means, aspiring to create a totalitarian state.

Who is this quote referring to? Can you guess?

We can NEVER let political reactionary's like Lenin seize power again. ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS; NONE FOR THE PARTY'S!

[ckaihatsu]

The producers will allocate the product of their labor. That is the only logical conclusion of worker liberation. The people who produce will manage the economy via their >OWN< free association.

This will look a lot like a distributed system where each Union is an autonomous collective of individual workers; who via their internal democracy will allocate the product of their collective labor to themselves and their respective society's. This is not based on locality





However, there's a *contradiction* here -- what are 'respective societies', if not 'localities' -- you're indicating that the geographical terrain would not be whole, that there would be some sort of layout of sub-whole 'societies' (which is fine) (I see such on-the-ground localization as being *inevitable* for liberated-production and for regional cultures).

So then we have to face the complex dynamics of bottom-up and top-down, where the former is necessary for individual / small-group / on-the-ground self-determination, while the latter is necessary for *generalization* / coordination-of-efforts, especially over *large* scales (otherwise the problematic of redundancy of efforts over several localities takes place).





Society is not based on locality.


But if so then why did you say '*respective* societies' -- ? 'Respective' indicates different, *various* subgroups of the overall total population, but now you're talking about a *single* 'society'. This again is a contradiction, and you're not being clear -- either there are *multiple* subset 'societies', or else you're talking about *one* overall 'society'.





Locality is based on Polity; I.E. You thinking the Krondstadt's soviets and their means belong to russia as a whole.


Well, the Bolsheviks comprised the majority party, so something like Krondstadt *would* have been under the remit of the Bolshevik Party -- not that I *favor* or *advocate* such a situation, though I do think it was *necessary* for those particular conditions.





Their is no contradiction because the Society (Probably could have use community); can be anywhere or anyone.


If it's 'community' then you're clearly indicating *subsets* of the whole total population, which then each *would* be societies-based-on-localities because each 'community' would be geographically constrained and would *not* be diffuse.





Free association demands an end to Polity (areas and people under administrative control) and the importance of autonomy.


I won't dispute your use of the term 'polity' -- it is your own, is understandable, and is usable.

The ambiguity, though, would be about 'community vs. polity' -- would a 'community' be self-administrating -- ? If so, then according to your definition it *would* be a 'polity', though purely internal and collectively self-determining, which would be a *good* thing, without any external imposed authority. (I use the term 'locality' myself for this kind of mass social voluntary arrangement at a local geographic level, as for issuing batches of labor credits for the labor credits framework / model.)





I dont see this as being a situation where their is a bottom or top; but if you where to demand a hierarchical explanation then I would say that the workers are the ones who run the Unions (democracy) and the Unions are the ones who produce for society as a whole as the workers democracy sees fit.. This is of course until full automation becomes possible.


Right -- because if there were no objective 'levels' of organization whatsoever then you wouldn't need the term / organization of 'unions'. Unions of workers implies a *grouped* arrangement of consistency / policy regarding those constituent 'members' of any given post-capitalist 'union'.

In this case you're running into a problematic regarding the definition of formal (abstract) 'membership' for any given liberated laborer in any post-capitalist 'union'. You may want to clarify this point, and here's an elaboration of mine from a past thread:





In this [labor credits] model there are *no* political representatives of any kind, aside from whatever people may want to do informally.





I'd like to elaborate on this topic, in the context of the labor credits framework....

Under the conventional labor -> money -> goods framework there has to be some process for *selecting* specific individuals for specific work roles, or jobs. Even under the dotp / market socialism framework, with production goods / means of mass production entirely collectivized and collectively administrated, there would have to be some kind of standard approach for *how* certain laborers are selected for any given socially necessary work role.

The unavoidable implication of 'labor -> money -> goods' is that 'money buys labor', or that there would have to be a *market for labor*, since people will be willing to commit more of their earned dollars for specialty goods that are more difficult to produce, thus funding higher wages.

So, back to the beginning of this post, if the question is 'Who will get a job?', the market-socialism answer would *have* to be 'Whoever is willing to produce goods for the lowest cost in wages possible'.

I'll gladly acknowledge that this wouldn't be *exploitation*, though, since no one would be under any *duress* to produce anything -- anyone could always satisfy their basic needs for life and living from the world's collectivized commons, and/or directly from natural resources, but it *would* be a 'market' for job-creation and worker-selection, for anything that *would* be socially produced.

If the argument for a *union*-like organization of liberated labor is put forth, for the sake of a conscious, 'hands-on', *planned* selection of labor for work roles, then the result would be all of the complications that go with organizational politics -- would selection be based on age-seniority -- ? Work-seniority, in years -- ? Work-seniority, in actual hours -- ? By popularly elected officials and patronage -- ? By some kind of substitutionist bureaucratic administrative specialists -- ? (Etc.)

I'll again contend that the 'labor credits' framework at post #2 is able to *supersede* all of these logistical problematics, of markets and organizations, for the best interests of social need.


What's the best form of Communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/192580-What-s-the-best-form-of-Communism?p=2824824#post2824824


---





- Who determines the layout of actual work roles for a given project -- ? There could easily be *factionalism* over this kind of issue since your approach doesn't specify any process for handling this kind of ambiguity. (Maybe a local work force is split on whether the project-at-hand should use 100 or 150 workers -- it could objectively be done *either way*, but some say fewer would be sufficient while others say that the greater number would make things easier and faster without diminishing-returns.)





Who the hell are these people you keep imagining who have a say in if its 100 or 150?


You're missing the point -- I'm saying that it would be entirely realistic for liberated-worker factionalism to erupt over differently-favored plans if there's no consistent approach to *which* proposed plans / alternatives are chosen for actual implementation.





It sounds like you want an economy run by people who are not working. A functionary class of politicians; academics and Graphic designers who will dictate how many workers and how many resources to allow people to use.


No, nothing I've said implies any of this -- you're going to your go-to derogatory accusations instead of dealing with the actual realistic post-capitalist issue that's directly in front of you.





the unions (worker democracy) will dictate how much manpower, resources, time, and final product that they will produce. >Their can be no authority or mass planning above the unions<


Your knee-jerk defensiveness blinds you from seeing that these two functions are *not mutually exclusive* -- yes, the workers, perhaps through their own post-capitalist 'unions', would be the only type of people to determine the conditions of their own work, but extra-union mass planning does *not* have to be conceived as *authoritarian*, as you do.

If a whole *continent* of people happens to express the same need for shoes or sanitation or transportation or whatever, that's an *opportunity* for those goods and/or services to be appropriately produced and provided to that continent of people on a *mass* basis, far beyond what any single 'union' could do, since a post-capitalist 'union' would be inherently constrained by some distinct quality -- perhaps by location, or trade, or group-subjective voluntariness, or whatever.

You think that just being a liberated-laborer, together with others in a union, would be sufficient to gauge the mass organic demand out there. You think that there would be no one who *isn't* working, while I, instead, consider that a *large percentage* of the population might use their individual self-determination / autonomy to decide to *not work* at all, or not-significantly, or not-socially (for themselves only, as with personal hobbies).

So all I did in my model (post #57) was to treat the components of [1] mass organic demand and [2] liberated-worker self-determination over production *separately*, because objectively they are. I have procedures for reflecting aggregated mass needs and wants from *all* people regardless of their work status, with other procedures for enabling voluntary self-determining liberated-labor to *select*, if they want, from all proposals and popular proposals from mass organic demand.





The workers make the world run; the workers must run the world.


Agreed.





You want one big workers democracy?

(http://www.iww.org/membership)Ya its called the IWW. One Big Union. Join up today! (http://www.iww.org/membership)


(http://www.iww.org/membership)


Yeah, cute, but does the IWW control the world's mass industrial production -- ? No, and that's why proletarian revolution is objectively needed.





No again it does not. You are simply refusing to admit that humanity (the mass of autonomous individuals that we are) have the ability to work together and organize on mass projects voluntarily without government guns being pointed at us.


No, you'll be unable to find any statement or sentiment like this from me.

What I *am* doing -- since you haven't noticed -- is to find where potential realistic *complexities* / ambiguities would exist in any given proposed post-capitalist implementation, and I've put forth a model (with copious explanations around it in these threads of discussion) to *address* these unaddressed shortcomings in approach.

(I don't say that humanity would be unable to do socialism / communism, and I don't see any kind of class-like division, as into a bourgeois-like standing 'government', as being necessary, as you'll see in my model (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174).)





Government is the weapon of reaction; nothing more, their is NO good deed done by government that could not be better planned and executed by the workers and their free association..
Not a single thing. Workers make the world run; Government ONLY exists to ensure that the workers obey. A society without capitalists is a society that has no government to protect their exploitation.

The function of the state is to maintain hierarchy.


Yup.





Firstly you are admitting to what you are denying. You are saying that the Soviets at Kronstatd should have just obeyed because they belong to the *internal cohesion* of the geopolitical (national) polity of Russia.
geopolitical is polity; Polity is anti-communist. How? You are literally arguing that the workers should have submitted to the rule of the polity; that the political state is more important then the workers.


No, the existing material circumstances at the time required a jump-starting of the economy otherwise famine would have deepened. You continue to ignore the material conditions that prevailed then.





This is called Anti-communism because communism is worker liberation from bourgeoisie rule (government)


No, you're doing name-calling based on your inability or unwillingness to see the whole picture that existed then -- pretending that there's no actual real-world context, in favor of using nothing but abstractions, is not impressive.





The internal democracy of workers is called Unionism; that is the worker government. If you want a large worker government join the IWW.
I have no problem with a large Union of willing members; I have a problem with the nationalistic&capitalistic idea that property can be owned by a polity and that the workers who work on that government means must abide the polity's rules.


Okay, no objections here -- your (post-capitalist) 'union' / 'worker government' does not privately own any property.

There is no class-like division of professional government administrators, from workers, in this post-capitalist unionism. There is no 'polity' of the same, as you've defined it.


---





The soviets and sailors at Kronstadt where not even asking for as much as I am; their demands are more then justifiable even within your nationalist context and if you where to actually read the work you would see that all your excuses are just that; excuses for a fascist regime.





Bullshit, because you're ignoring the overall social context that *required* a boosting of objectively nationally-constrained efforts. Again, fascism by definition confers a far-*right* backing of private property claims, something that *wasn't* a fixed social institution in Russia at the time. (Post #192.)


[QUOTE=(A);2881321]

Yes fascism is reactionary (right wing); I am saying that people who support government institutions are not leftists (in any sense) but right-wing reactionary's. They argue for regressive institutions like government and obedience.


You're going off on a tangent. I have no differences with your abstract definitions here, but you're no longer in the *historical* context.





You can call yourself a socialist but if your goal is the subjugation of the workers under a nations banner or government control you are 100s of years behind on the times.


(I'll assume you're not levelling this at *me*, since doing that would be *irresponsible* on your part -- I have not given any indications of being in any rightward / nationalistic direction.)





IT is the difference between sex and rape; Consent. If the sailors and soviets at Kronstadt did not consent to Bolshevik rule (and they clearly did not) that makes what the Bolsheviks did extremely reactionary and literally fascist.


I vehemently disagree because you're continuing to ignore [1] external duress, [2] mass material privation, [3] need for industrialization, and [4] emerging geopolitical realities.

Why not suggest that everyone at Kronstadt could have simply *wished* and *blinked* a better reality into existence -- ? -- !





Their is no defense for what the bolchiviks did and if you would read the article it explains how all your excuses about the whites where right-wing Propaganda and scapegoating.


No, you're conflating the empirical need for internal cohesion -- typically called 'national self-determination' or 'national liberation' -- with *far-right* motives, which is erroneous and unjustifiable as a description.

Kronstadt was a *bad* move.

From post #181 I've already provided a historical treatment that describes how any lack of opportunism by the Whites over Kronstadt was due to *negligence* on their part, and not due to any lack of *willingness*:





[W]hether the Memorandum played a part in the revolt can be seen from the reactions of the White "National Centre" to the uprising. Firstly, they failed to deliver aid to the rebels or to get French aid to them. Secondly, Professor Grimm, the chief agent of the National Centre in Helsingfors and General Wrangel's official representative in Finland, stated to a colleague after the revolt had been crushed that if a new outbreak should occur then their group must not be caught unaware again. Avrich also notes that the revolt "caught the emigres off balance" and that "nothing... had been done to implement the Secret Memorandum, and the warnings of the author were fully borne out." [23]

(A 2003 bibliography by a historian of the Russian Civil War characterizes Avrich's history as "the only full-length, scholarly, non-partisan account of the genesis, course and repression of the rebellion to have appeared in English.")[24]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Charges_of_international_and_c ounter-revolutionary_involvement


---





Using the whites as a perceived threat Lenin was able to establish a Iron handed dictatorship over the worlds largest country and DESTROY any Unions that did not support his rule.
That is fascism. It is so fascist as a matter of fact it was used as a model for all future fascism. Mussolini and Hitler both used what had happened in Russia as a framework for their own taking of power.


I *don't* agree with this assessment because you're focusing on the wrong 'level' / scale of events, preferring to see the Kronstadt Rebellion as being timely, when in fact it was *inappropriate* as Lenin and the Bolsheviks shifted things to a *geopolitical* context, requiring internal *cohesion*.





Who is this quote referring to? Can you guess?


There's no need to be patronizing.





After removing all political opposition through his secret police and outlawing labor strikes, >Blank< and his followers consolidated their power through a series of laws that transformed the nation into a one-party dictatorship. Within five years he had established dictatorial authority by both legal and extraordinary means, aspiring to create a totalitarian state.


Yes, I agree that all of this is *empirically* valid, but I don't share your interpretation / conclusion about it. I think it was objectively *necessary* given the prevailing conditions, though I don't *like* it, either.





We can NEVER let political reactionary's like Lenin seize power again. ALL POWER TO THE SOVIETS; NONE FOR THE PARTY'S!


Why not say 'We can never allow any capitalist nations to ever even *consider* warfare again, since those kinds of intentions lead to bad things for nascent revolutions' -- ?

It was a *messy* situation that Lenin and the Bolsheviks simply *had* to deal with, so as to immediately improve the deficient material conditions. Not everything was as *rosy* as either you or I would *like* it to have been.

[(A)]

But if so then why did you say '*respective* societies' -- ? 'Respective' indicates different, *various* subgroups of the overall total population, but now you're talking about a *single* 'society'. This again is a contradiction, and you're not being clear -- either there are *multiple* subset 'societies', or else you're talking about *one* overall 'society'.


A Society is a collection of any number individuals. Society is not based on locality but interaction; (that is unless you are a plant).

A forced collective; a nation state or a prison community, they may form society's within them because of the social nature of animals; but they are not free society's; they are subjugated by the whims of an oppressive class; Managed threw a society called government. The government of the USSR existed for the benefit of an privileged ruling class. There is an Ideology that supports this hierarchy; and their is a position that attacks it.



Well, the Bolsheviks comprised the majority party, so something like Krondstadt *would* have been under the remit of the Bolshevik Party -- not that I *favor* or *advocate* such a situation, though I do think it was *necessary* for those particular conditions.

The bolsheviks Where NOT THE MAJORITY; they where a minority of people using their position in government to suppress worker democracy and imprison millions; so that they could maintain total (totalitarian) control over all of Russia's capital and the capital of other nations they had under their thumb.



I won't dispute your use of the term 'polity' -- it is your own, is understandable, and is usable.

The ambiguity, though, would be about 'community vs. polity' -- would a 'community' be self-administrating -- ? If so, then according to your definition it *would* be a 'polity', though purely internal and collectively self-determining

Define community? Do you mean a collection of individuals or a collection of individuals distinguished by their residence within a geopolitical region (polity).

If you mean a collection of willing individuals then it is not a polity it is free association.
If you mean a Locality then NO; their would be no Locality based government or administration.

Let me repeat that to be 100% clear; Their will be no Municipal/local, provincial/state, federal/national government; AT ALL, in a communist society.

Statelessness demands the end of all geopolitics and well as all private/exclusively owned property.



You're missing the point -- I'm saying that it would be entirely realistic for liberated-worker factionalism to erupt over differently-favored plans if there's no consistent approach to *which* proposed plans / alternatives are chosen for actual implementation.

You are saying that without government it will be chaos and people; will go to war over where to build roads without a governing hand.

What you call factionalism I call Democracy. Politics wont end because political authority ends; it just means people will have to take responsibility for their actions.
If you start shit; try and recreate the systemic exploitation that is political authority and property; you will get fucked. Not by the law of the government; by the reality of free people working together for their own interests.




Your knee-jerk defensiveness blinds you from seeing that these two functions are *not mutually exclusive* -- yes, the workers, perhaps through their own post-capitalist 'unions', would be the only type of people to determine the conditions of their own work, but extra-union mass planning does *not* have to be conceived as *authoritarian*, as you do.

Mass planning is authoritarian when the administration over the masses claims ownership over the means and enforce their rule via state sponsored terrorism.

The thing I have not seen addressed in your framework is free access as a basis for all economic planning. It seems you start with the assumption that your framework has a right to control capital and dictate its use.
Your fear of conflict leads you to create conflict in the administration of the means.

The masses should have no power to "Plan" how the means will be used by other; they should only have the ability to use it themselves. Mass planning via Autonomous Unionism.

The only thing the non-worker should be doing is >Requesting<
This is why I use the term Market to describe Worker control; Because when the workers have command of global production; it will be the workers who will offer their labor to the people.
It is not right for the people to DEMAND that the workers follow their plan via an administration; Only that they >request< the willing labor of others.

It is consent. If the administration wants something done they should do it their fucking selves. We dont need Administration >OVER< the workers; we need the workers to have the ability administrate themselves.


If a whole *continent* of people happens to express the same need for shoes or sanitation or transportation or whatever, that's an *opportunity* for those goods and/or services to be appropriately produced and provided to that continent of people on a *mass* basis

This is a non issue; we already have a system that solves this. When I need shoes I can ask the shoe makers for a pair and they will give me one.
If a million people ask for shoes then the shoe makers (not that shoemakers will be necessary for long) will produce to meet demand.
They will ask the fabric makers for more fabric and the Rubber makers for more rubber. The producers are the ones who are in the best position to process demands and produce to meet it.

This exchange is not an issue in any way; it is who commands this exchange that is. Capitalism is not demonic; it is an act of systemic extortion.
We propose to end that extortion and take control ourselves without the use of bosses and rulers.

The workers dont need government for anything, it only exists to maintain exploitation; Rid yourself of that reaction before its to late and you find yourself on the wrong side.
If you want to build a system for processing public requests maybe some unions will sign up; As you say it would be efficient to have a central hub for possessing societys requisitions.
Time for theory is over; Apply your praxis. How can you use your framework to combat capitalism today?
If your frameworks praxis has no use against capitalism today it wont matter after a revolution.


You think that just being a liberated-laborer, together with others in a union, would be sufficient to gauge the mass organic demand out there.

As above yes. Because peoples "Mass-organic demand" can be expressed vocally; by non verbal language like over many of the electrical powered mediums we now possess.
We can literately order shit off the internet; Why cant we do the same thing post-capitalism? What in the world would prevent me from just asking the producer directly.
You are creating problems where their are none so that you can offer a solution. When put into action it is called extortion. That is what government administration is; it is extortion; offering to protect us from the chaos that they create.


Yeah, cute, but does the IWW control the world's mass industrial production


No and they never will if you dont join today (http://www.iww.org/membership)!



No, the existing material circumstances at the time required a jump-starting of the economy otherwise famine would have deepened. You continue to ignore the material conditions that prevailed then.

So again; you are arguing that the government was the best tool for managing production; AND NOT THE SOVIETS.

You support the Russian government against the workers but then admit Government is only exploitative and that workers should be liberated. If the workers should be liberated; then it is only because they are better suited to lead then the government. The soviets and their peasant support could have ended the famine without the use of a totalitarian government you seem intent on defending. I mean your not defending a libertarian state that supports the individual worker; you are defending a anti-worker totalitarian dictatorship that founded the basic framework for fascism; and NOT the workers whose liberation would have ended capitalism in Russia.

"Why would we have need of money, all Petrograd is in the hands of the workers; all the apartments, all the clothes stores, all the factories and workshops, all the textile mills, the food shops, all are in the hands of the social organisations. The working class has no need of money.


—
Iosif Bleikhman, one of the leading Petrograd anarchist communists"



The conditions where set for communism is Russia; The only reason it did not happen is it would have ended Bolshevik rule. Fascism is the last resort of capitalism; Lenins state was capitalist so worker democracy forced the government to fascist actions; actions that would define the course of reaction for the next 100 years!


No, you're doing name-calling based on your inability or unwillingness to see the whole picture that existed then -- pretending that there's no actual real-world context, in favor of using nothing but abstractions, is not impressive

What is not impressive is your defense of a totalitarian regime over and against the workers democracy. the "real world" excuses you repeat where nothing more then Government lies used to justify their fascism. The Whites where used as a perceived threat in order to rally support for a party dictatorship. The same thing happened in Germany; Italy; Spain... When capitalism collapses it is the people who drive forward towards liberation and the reactionary's that pull back and support government and obedience to the ruling authority.


I vehemently disagree because you're continuing to ignore
[1] external duress,
[2] mass material privation,
[3] need for industrialization, and
[4] emerging geopolitical realities.

[1] Even if the whites where as big a threat as you claim (which we know they where not and that excuse was government propaganda) the soviets would have still been material superior to the Bolsheviks had they had their democracy respected; that is why the rebellion happened; because of the Anti-worker actions of the government.
[2] Again it is a ridiculous idea that government would be better suited to do anything right.
[3] Again the soviets would have been far better suited to organize industrialization.
[4] And again; anything the government can do the workers can do better. If this is not the case then revolution is a pipe dream and we should all become reformers.



No, you're conflating the empirical need for internal cohesion

Kronstadt was not "internal". No one and nothing is the "internal".\

This forced collectivism is called nationalism. The members of the Kronstadt revolution had every right and reason to revolt. They where not "Internal" to anything. They where a collection of individuals who wanted freedom form an oppressive capitalist dictatorship. From post #181 you have been regurgitating Bolshevik lies that supported their fascist dictatorship over Russia.

The whites where gone and the revolt did nothing to bring them back. Freedom in Russia was the right of everyone and fuck every single government functionary for their roll in the murder and imprisonment of real revolutionary's from all over Russia. Millions of Russian workers died at the hands the regime you are now defending.


as Lenin and the Bolsheviks shifted things to a *geopolitical* context, requiring internal *cohesion*.

You again are arguing for forced collectivism and nationalism. I dont care if the barbarians where at the gate (which they where not); I support all revolution against all fascist dictatorships.
Kronstadt was not going to cause the revolution to fail; the revolution and the civil was was already over; they died for fighting fascists.



There's no need to be patronizing.

No I am serious. You can put Lenin's name in their and it it would still be 100% true. You are confusing ideology with material reality. If you call yourself a socialist but you impose a fascist regime; your not a socialist; your a fascist. I dont care what they called themselves' the Communist party of the USSR was Fascist in their material reality. Even if their ideology was as pure as the driven snow; they enacted fascism.

It was their actions that inspired fascism as a counter to capitalism.


It was a *messy* situation that Lenin and the Bolsheviks simply *had* to deal with, so as to immediately improve the deficient material conditions. Not everything was as *rosy* as either you or I would *like* it to have been.

The "need to immediately improve the deficient material conditions" was the excuse subsequently used by every fascist dictatorship. That is what capitalism does; it creates a situation where we MUST FIGHT;
the question is if you will fight for the workers (communism) or fight for the government (fascism).

I will always choose the side of the oppressed over the oppressor; no matter how bad capitalism gets; it is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER an excuse for fascism.

[ckaihatsu]

A Society is a collection of any number individuals. Society is not based on locality but interaction; (that is unless you are a plant).


That's fine, but you used the term 'societies' before, so you may want to distinguish the difference between this 'society', and your previous 'societies'.

Also I don't think you can just *discount* physical (geographic) distances when it comes to the emergence and composition of society / societies -- certainly physical proximity makes for easier interactions, as you yourself affirm with every use of the term 'community'. (You may want to delineate the difference between 'society' / 'societies', and 'community' / 'communities'.)





A forced collective; a nation state or a prison community, they may form society's within them because of the social nature of animals; but they are not free society's; they are subjugated by the whims of an oppressive class; Managed threw a society called government. The government of the USSR existed for the benefit of an privileged ruling class. There is an Ideology that supports this hierarchy; and their is a position that attacks it.


No disagreement, except to say that due to the *structure* of the USSR's political economy, those who administrated it were not so much a 'class' as much as they were a minority of privileged bureaucratic elites. (There was no private property or private interests.)





The CPSU, according to its party statute, adhered to Marxism–Leninism, an ideology based on the writings of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx, and formalized under Joseph Stalin. The party pursued state socialism, under which all industries were nationalized and a planned economy was implemented. Before central planning was adopted in 1929, Lenin had introduced a mixed economy, commonly referred to as the New Economic Policy, in the 1920s, which allowed to introduce certain capitalist elements in the Soviet economy.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union





Stalin era (1924–1953)[edit]

After emerging victorious from a power struggle with Trotsky, Stalin obtained full control of the party and Stalinism was installed as the only ideology of the party. The party's official name was All-Union Communist Party (bolsheviks) in 1925.

Under Stalin's leadership, the party launched several political campaigns such as the First five-year plan, Socialism in One Country and a second anti-religious campaign which resulted in the tragic deaths of millions of people from famine (ex. the Ukrainian Famine), mass executions and dying of cold or disease forced due to deportations to Siberia and also the mass destruction of numerous churches, mosques and other shrines.

In the 1930s, Stalin initiated the Great Purge, a period of widespread paranoia, killings and repression that culminated in a series of show trials of those who were suspected of plotting against Stalin and the purging of nearly all original Party members. Stalin's political purge greatly affected the party's configuration, as many party members were executed or sentenced for slave labour. Happening during the timespan of the Great Purge, fascism had ascened to power in Italy and Germany. Seeing this as a potential threat, the Party actively sought to form "collective security" alliances with Anti-fascist western powers such as France and Britain. Unable to do so, the USSR eventually signed a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, which was broken in 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, beginning the Great Patriotic War.

After the 1945 Allied victory of World War II, the Party held to a doctrine of establishing pro-Stalin governments in the post-war occupied territories and of actively seeking to expand their sphere of influence, using proxy wars and espionage and providing training and funding to promote Communist elements abroad.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Stalin_era_.28 1924.E2.80.931953.29


---





The bolsheviks Where NOT THE MAJORITY; they where a minority of people using their position in government to suppress worker democracy and imprison millions; so that they could maintain total (totalitarian) control over all of Russia's capital and the capital of other nations they had under their thumb.


But for the interests of the development of the nation-state, which had to industrialize -- it's not an apology, it's an important distinction.





Define community? Do you mean a collection of individuals or a collection of individuals distinguished by their residence within a geopolitical region (polity).

If you mean a collection of willing individuals then it is not a polity it is free association.


Okay.





If you mean a Locality then NO; their would be no Locality based government or administration.


Here's the difference, then -- I tend to use 'locality' similarly to the way that you use 'community'. ('Locality' being more generically socio-political, while 'community' is more-interpersonally-*social* and not necessarily socio-political.) You've been ascribing your meaning of 'polity' to my usage of the term 'locality', which you should cease doing, since there is *no implication* of a standing, fixed, class-type 'government' or specialist 'administration' to the term 'locality'.





Let me repeat that to be 100% clear; Their will be no Municipal/local, provincial/state, federal/national government; AT ALL, in a communist society.

Statelessness demands the end of all geopolitics and well as all private/exclusively owned property.


Agreed.

Here's from my model:





Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


---





You're missing the point -- I'm saying that it would be entirely realistic for liberated-worker factionalism to erupt over differently-favored plans if there's no consistent approach to *which* proposed plans / alternatives are chosen for actual implementation.





You are saying that without government it will be chaos and people; will go to war over where to build roads without a governing hand.


No, I'm not saying this at all -- you keep erroneously ascribing a class-type 'government' to my politics instead of attempting to understand my descriptions.

I'm saying that in a fully-*egalitarian* society *subjectivities* would be a real factor, and socio-political disagreements (as over production policies, like how many work roles to use for a project) would have no avenues for decisive resolution if everyone's self-chosen political stance was considered to be on-par with everyone else's.

My model provides a checks-and-balances 'balance' of the three intrinsically-differing material interests of [1] liberated laborers, [2] the society as a whole (full population), and [3] per-policy administrative concerns over any plans and/or implementations.

Here's from my blog-entry introduction:





What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


So, the (two) 'checks' against unchecked [1] liberated-labor hegemony in a post-capitalist society would be:





consumption [demand] -- Every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily




consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




consumption [demand] -- All economic needs and desires are formally recorded as pre-planned consumer orders and are politically prioritized [demand]




consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process




labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization

And:




communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


The (two) 'checks' against unchecked [2] mass demand would be:





labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

And:




communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


The (two) 'checks' against unchecked [3] administrative concerns / power would be:





communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process




labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

And:




communist administration -- A political culture, including channels of journalism, history, and academia, will generally track all known assets and resources -- unmaintained assets and resources may fall into disuse or be reclaimed by individuals for personal use only




consumption [demand] -- Basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


---





What you call factionalism I call Democracy. Politics wont end because political authority ends; it just means people will have to take responsibility for their actions.


You're sidestepping the realistic potential situation of a *simple honest disagreement over policy* -- the 100 work roles vs. 150 work roles example.





If you start shit; try and recreate the systemic exploitation that is political authority and property; you will get fucked. Not by the law of the government; by the reality of free people working together for their own interests.


You're only addressing counter-revolutionary sentiments here, and *not* the *purely internal* situational possibilities regarding post-capitalist 'politics'.





Mass planning is authoritarian when the administration over the masses claims ownership over the means and enforce their rule via state sponsored terrorism.


Agreed, but in my model there is no equivalence between 'mass planning' and 'authoritarianism':





communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process




consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process


---





The thing I have not seen addressed in your framework is free access as a basis for all economic planning. It seems you start with the assumption that your framework has a right to control capital and dictate its use.


How can a 'framework' itself control *anything* -- it's an inert *tool* and would only be as good as the population / society using it. Also, there's no capital or finance because:





communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only


---





Your fear of conflict leads you to create conflict in the administration of the means.


There's no fear, and no 'conflict in the administration of the means' -- the *point* of the model / framework is that certain pre-defined processes make-clear, through aggregated rank-position-prioritizations, which directions in policy are favored over others, day-by-day. I'll include the 'milk versus steel' scenario:





[M]any people may typically reuse their grocery shopping lists from one week to the next, because not much may change on a week-to-week basis. So, likewise, if someone's list was in a text-file or spreadsheet, it would stay intact, ready to be sent along, until modified as a newly updated version.

We shouldn't hold consumers responsible for a hyper-extended grand *social planning*, which is what you're saying here with your "continually having to make lists of millions of goods". Consumers should only request what they actually *want*, on a regular shopping list, and have that be a standing order.

Now, for a post-capitalist political economy, we can *add* to this simple grocery shopping list, namely anything that's more on the *political* side of things. So, in addition to milk, we could add steel, if that person happened to be around the construction industry and had a knowledgeable opinion about necessary steel production for the surrounding area, or whatever.

Finally, aggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (Etc.)

*This* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.


Economic calculation problem

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/185313-Economic-calculation-problem?p=2694159#post2694159


---





The masses should have no power to "Plan" how the means will be used by other; they should only have the ability to use it themselves. Mass planning via Autonomous Unionism.


No, the problematic with this is that you're assuming active liberated-workers would somehow have *perfect information* about what the whole population's needs / wants / demands would be. Not everyone would necessary be liberated-laborers, so we can't say that 'the masses = all workers'. There has to be a way to routinely *survey* what mass organic demand is, as my model does.

That said, though, the aggregated information over all rank positions (#1, #2, #3, etc.), per day, per locality / localities, doesn't have any *binding power*, because there is no objective equivalence between 'mass organic demands' and 'fulfillment of those demands by liberated labor'. It would be up to available-and-willing liberated labor to pick-and-choose from expressed mass organic demands, which projects to fulfill for the common good, if any. (This part, actual fulfillment-by-liberated-labor, implies 'free access' and 'direct distribution', according to the pre-expressed mass-prioritizations of mass organic demand.) (So, if the cumulative aggregated rankings showed one or more localities to highly favor 'apples', and available-and-willing liberated labor, from anywhere, decided to organize (perhaps with pooled labor credits) to harvest apples to fulfill this empirically expressed mass organic demand, then they could do so, and the production process would be completed and demand would be fulfilled. Any 'extra' production of apples, if any, could be stored and subsequently requested and possibly fulfilled, according to additional people's 'orders', by self-prioritizations, for such in the future.)





RANK-ITEM TYPE[S] ('initiative', 'demand', 'proposal', 'project', 'production run', 'funding [of necessarily-earned labor credits]', 'debt-based issuance [of new labor credits]', 'liberated-labor internal', 'policy package', 'order [of 'extra', available production]', 'request', 'slot donation')

labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)


---





The only thing the non-worker should be doing is >Requesting<


Okay, I'm glad you're able to make a distinction between 'liberated labor' and 'the full population [of consumers]'.

In my model a 'request' (see above 'rank-item types') is like a 'suggestion-box submission', directly to particular liberated-workers and/or specific workplaces / factories. So this category would satisfy the 'innovation' aspect / input, since any request for new / innovative production could be quite specific itself, similar to an 'initiative'.

For what you're describing, though, I use the term 'demand' because human needs are human needs, and if someone decides *not* to work for the common good that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to live humanely regardless, especially if there is sufficient material production for it from industrial-based leveraging of labor, resources, and machinery. (No moralism regarding material fulfillments.)





This is why I use the term Market to describe Worker control;


It's an inappropriate term for the meaning that you mean -- I advise you to change your chosen terminology on this one.





Because when the workers have command of global production; it will be the workers who will offer their labor to the people.


What you're describing isn't a 'market' (since that term implies private ownership and exchange-based exchange values), it's 'available-and-willing liberated-labor for the common good'.





It is not right for the people to DEMAND that the workers follow their plan via an administration; Only that they >request< the willing labor of others.


I understand your meaning and sentiment.

In my model people can 'demand' all they want, but that doesn't automatically make production *happen* -- such has to be done by actual (liberated) labor itself, which may or may not actually happen.

Also, there's no 'via an administration', because there's no provision for any kind of a separatist, specialist, fixed, standing institution of societal 'administration' in my model -- think of it as a 'synapse' between mass organic demand, and possible / potential fulfillment of any or all, or none, of those mass demands by liberated labor.





communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


---





It is consent. If the administration wants something done they should do it their fucking selves. We dont need Administration >OVER< the workers; we need the workers to have the ability administrate themselves.


There's no institutional administration, so there's no potential for any kind of social hegemony here.


---





If a whole *continent* of people happens to express the same need for shoes or sanitation or transportation or whatever, that's an *opportunity* for those goods and/or services to be appropriately produced and provided to that continent of people on a *mass* basis





This is a non issue; we already have a system that solves this. When I need shoes I can ask the shoe makers for a pair and they will give me one.
If a million people ask for shoes then the shoe makers (not that shoemakers will be necessary for long) will produce to meet demand.
They will ask the fabric makers for more fabric and the Rubber makers for more rubber. The producers are the ones who are in the best position to process demands and produce to meet it.


Yes, I'm in basic agreement here -- within the context of my model 'demands' could be very high-level, as for a widespread demand for a *finished product*, shoes. This kind of demand would have a supply-chain ripple effect, since those regularly around the shoe-finishing industry would then put out demands for appropriate 'fabric', and 'rubber', etc., which would then ripple to 'cotton production' and 'more rubber trees', respectively.

Any potential *factionalism* around these aspects of shoe-production (cotton vs. synthetics, or natural rubber vs. synthetics, etc.) would each potentially be formalized into differing proposals and nearly-finished / finalized 'policy packages', for subsequent mass-rankings, to show overall detailed preferences (maybe the 'synthetic rubber but natural cotton' proposal wins-out in the rankings, but the actual shoe workers themselves are only willing to supply 'synthetic rubber and synthetic fabric' shoes).





This exchange is not an issue in any way;


I disagree with you on a *principled* basis here -- exchanges should *not* be used, because they grant access to the realm of *exchange values* (one can 'shop around' on the voluntary-labor market for more in exchange for what's given-out, to the point of sheer arbitrage).





it is who commands this exchange that is. Capitalism is not demonic; it is an act of systemic extortion.
We propose to end that extortion and take control ourselves without the use of bosses and rulers.


Agreed.





The workers dont need government for anything,


I've never *proposed* 'government'.





it only exists to maintain exploitation; Rid yourself of that reaction


My politics / proposals *aren't* reactionary in any way.





before its to late and you find yourself on the wrong side.




If you want to build a system for processing public requests maybe some unions will sign up; As you say it would be efficient to have a central hub for possessing societys requisitions.


Thank you -- that's generous, coming from you. I'm glad you're showing some acknowledgement of how my model framework actually functions. (This, by the way, is 'centralization' of a sort.)





Time for theory is over; Apply your praxis. How can you use your framework to combat capitalism today?
If your frameworks praxis has no use against capitalism today it wont matter after a revolution.


I disagree -- the model is only relevant *during* a proletarian revolution, and/or *after* one, because it requires *collectivized* labor, means of mass production, and resources.

Here's something else that may be more relevant to your concern:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram



http://s6.postimg.org/z6qrnuzn5/7_Syndicalism_Socialism_Communism_Transiti.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/jy0ua35yl/full/)


---





As above yes. Because peoples "Mass-organic demand" can be expressed vocally; by non verbal language like over many of the electrical powered mediums we now possess.


Okay, but what you're describing is *non-collective* -- how would such demands / requests be combined with all other individual-specified demands / requests (over a certain area like a locality) -- ?





We can literately order shit off the internet; Why cant we do the same thing post-capitalism?


I agree 100%, and here's the *logistical* aspect from my model:





consumption [demand] -- A regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process





What in the world would prevent me from just asking the producer directly.


Nothing, logistically -- that's actually what my 'request' rank-item-type is for, explicitly -- but, again, it's non-collective and *small-scale*. It's not that it *can't* happen, but maybe that it *shouldn't* happen, in favor of *larger-scale* approaches to shoe production or whatever else.





You are creating problems where their are none so that you can offer a solution.


Considering the content of *this* post / exchange, I can see that you're *incorrect* with this statement, since you've now acknowledged where certain parts of my framework *would* be applicable.





When put into action it is called extortion.


This is *unacceptable* -- your mistrust, despite the available evidence, is misplaced.





That is what government administration is; it is extortion; offering to protect us from the chaos that they create.


I propose nothing like an institutional governmental administration.






No and they never will if you dont join today (http://www.iww.org/membership)!


Gee whiz.... (heh)


---





No, the existing material circumstances at the time required a jump-starting of the economy otherwise famine would have deepened. You continue to ignore the material conditions that prevailed then.





So again; you are arguing that the government was the best tool for managing production; AND NOT THE SOVIETS.



No, not as a timeless principle -- only in the context of that historical period and circumstances since a centralized / national-collective decisiveness was badly needed.





You support the Russian government against the workers but then admit Government is only exploitative and that workers should be liberated. If the workers should be liberated; then it is only because they are better suited to lead then the government. The soviets and their peasant support could have ended the famine without the use of a totalitarian government you seem intent on defending.


I disagree and *don't* share your assessment of that historical situation. You're ignoring that hierarchical centralization -- as in a 'party' -- confers the benefits of *expediency*, which was exactly what was objectively needed then.





I mean your not defending a libertarian state that supports the individual worker; you are defending a anti-worker totalitarian dictatorship that founded the basic framework for fascism; and NOT the workers whose liberation would have ended capitalism in Russia.


No, I don't agree, and you continue to erroneously conflate centralized command over collectivism, with 'fascism'. You're not being accurate with means-and-ends here. (The 'ends' are different between Stalinism, versus fascism.)


Political Spectrum, Simplified



http://s6.postimg.org/eeeic5c6p/2373845980046342459jv_Mrd_G_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/c9u5b2ajx/full/)


---





"Why would we have need of money, all Petrograd is in the hands of the workers; all the apartments, all the clothes stores, all the factories and workshops, all the textile mills, the food shops, all are in the hands of the social organisations. The working class has no need of money.


—
Iosif Bleikhman, one of the leading Petrograd anarchist communists"



The conditions where set for communism is Russia; The only reason it did not happen is it would have ended Bolshevik rule.


Incorrect. You continue to myopically only see *internally*, as though the country had the luxury of time with which to sort things out on a strictly egalitarian basis, when time was *not* on their side.





Fascism is the last resort of capitalism; Lenins state was capitalist so worker democracy forced the government to fascist actions; actions that would define the course of reaction for the next 100 years!


Again, I disagree.


---





No, you're doing name-calling based on your inability or unwillingness to see the whole picture that existed then -- pretending that there's no actual real-world context, in favor of using nothing but abstractions, is not impressive.





What is not impressive is your defense of a totalitarian regime over and against the workers democracy. the "real world" excuses you repeat where nothing more then Government lies used to justify their fascism. The Whites where used as a perceived threat in order to rally support for a party dictatorship. The same thing happened in Germany; Italy; Spain... When capitalism collapses it is the people who drive forward towards liberation and the reactionary's that pull back and support government and obedience to the ruling authority.


No, I already identified a real, continuing, lasting *structural* objective antagonism between the advanced Western nations, and the underdeveloped nascent soviet state (from post #202):





[A]ny lack of opportunism by the Whites over Kronstadt was due to *negligence* on their part, and not due to any lack of *willingness*:





[W]hether the Memorandum played a part in the revolt can be seen from the reactions of the White "National Centre" to the uprising. Firstly, they failed to deliver aid to the rebels or to get French aid to them. Secondly, Professor Grimm, the chief agent of the National Centre in Helsingfors and General Wrangel's official representative in Finland, stated to a colleague after the revolt had been crushed that if a new outbreak should occur then their group must not be caught unaware again. Avrich also notes that the revolt "caught the emigres off balance" and that "nothing... had been done to implement the Secret Memorandum, and the warnings of the author were fully borne out." [23]

(A 2003 bibliography by a historian of the Russian Civil War characterizes Avrich's history as "the only full-length, scholarly, non-partisan account of the genesis, course and repression of the rebellion to have appeared in English.")[24]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion#Charges_of_international_and_c ounter-revolutionary_involvement


---





Kronstadt was not "internal". No one and nothing is the "internal".


Yes, look at a map -- Kronstadt was internal to the geography of the nascent Soviet state.





This forced collectivism is called nationalism.


You're correct, but in the context of that quasi-collectivism this 'nationalism' -- akin to 'national liberation' of an oppressed state -- was *appropriate*.





The members of the Kronstadt revolution had every right and reason to revolt. They where not "Internal" to anything. They where a collection of individuals who wanted freedom form an oppressive capitalist dictatorship. From post #181 you have been regurgitating Bolshevik lies that supported their fascist dictatorship over Russia.


I disagree with all parts here.





The whites where gone and the revolt did nothing to bring them back.


You incorrectly see that ebbing of White forces as being *permanent*, while I see that ebbing as having been *temporary*, due to *negligence* on their part in relation to the Kronstadt Rebellion. You're overlooking that the White incursions were *imperialism* -- the same as has happened to so many *other* underdeveloped, colonized countries.

The Bolsheviks are among the rare examples in history of a *capable* and *successful* repelling of imperialist forces.





Freedom in Russia was the right of everyone and fuck every single government functionary for their roll in the murder and imprisonment of real revolutionary's from all over Russia. Millions of Russian workers died at the hands the regime you are now defending.


I only defend that country, at that time, on the grounds of 'national liberation' within its larger geopolitical context -- I don't excuse or apologize-for the *means* used, as you're recounting.





You again are arguing for forced collectivism and nationalism.


No, not on any *principled* grounds, but rather on *situational* grounds.





I dont care if the barbarians where at the gate (which they where not); I support all revolution against all fascist dictatorships.


The Bolsheviks were not defending *private ownership*, and thus were *not* fascist. (Means-and-ends.)





Kronstadt was not going to cause the revolution to fail; the revolution and the civil was was already over; they died for fighting fascists.


I disagree.





No I am serious. You can put Lenin's name in their and it it would still be 100% true. You are confusing ideology with material reality. If you call yourself a socialist but you impose a fascist regime; your not a socialist; your a fascist. I dont care what they called themselves' the Communist party of the USSR was Fascist in their material reality. Even if their ideology was as pure as the driven snow; they enacted fascism.

It was their actions that inspired fascism as a counter to capitalism.


The correct term is 'totalitarianism', and they certainly can't control how others *perceived* or *were-inspired-by* their actions, meaning subsequent fascists.





The "need to immediately improve the deficient material conditions" was the excuse subsequently used by every fascist dictatorship. That is what capitalism does; it creates a situation where we MUST FIGHT;
the question is if you will fight for the workers (communism) or fight for the government (fascism).

I will always choose the side of the oppressed over the oppressor; no matter how bad capitalism gets; it is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER an excuse for fascism.


It wasn't fascism, but your *ideals* are correct, if tending to be on the *idealistic* side (a-historical).

[(A)]

minority of privileged bureaucratic elites.

I will take what is a class for 400 Alex.


But for the interests of the development of the nation-state, which had to industrialize -- it's not an apology, it's an important distinction.

The only think is that we dont support fascist governments. We dont support Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Spain. We say that the people of these nations where victims of nationalism and the ruling elite.
The russian soviets where the first to push for a mass revolution; on the scale of a whole nation. The reaction to this; the only thing that could stop communism is Russia was the government; and they did it so well it would define the next world war and fascism for the rest of the century.


You're sidestepping the realistic potential situation of a *simple honest disagreement over policy* -- the 100 work roles vs. 150 work roles example.

I am not sidestepping it it is a non issue. You are creating a problem where there is none to solve.
You have created a frameworld where all property is owned by the administration. You have sead so yourself in every regurgitated post.


All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common

This is not going to happen. What you are describing in one big forced collective; a human wide nation state where every piece of capital is owned and administrated by a single polity.

Your framework starts with an impossibly demand; that ALL capital be privatized under a single political institution; that will let us use capital that the polity is not already using because it always has first dibs.
To maintain this "collective" ownership you will require laws and legislation to regulate your economy; this will require cops and prisons to enforce.

The reality of worker liberation if far far from what you are imagining. The workers; Being the ones who operate the means are the only ones who have the right to dictate production.
All you can do is ask; Your framework needs to start off the assumption that you will own >0< "collectivized" property.

Free access must be the basis of your framework or it simply is an impossibility. You will never form a single polity on a planet wide scale nor collectivize all capital. It simply cant happen without a regime.


You're overlooking that the White incursions were *imperialism* -- the same as has happened to so many *other* underdeveloped, colonized countries.

SO? so was the U.S.S.R.s invasion of Hungary; that does not justify the totalitarian state; nor do any of your "They Needed centralization" B.S.
It is not the right of anyone; no matter the situation to force people to bow down to their rule.
You are justifying everything we fight against based on "necessity".

Everything the left stands against is deemed necessary by the oppressors; that's the method they employ to ensure they can rule iron fist.

"The peasants need my royal decree as monarchy to save them from the Anarchy of existence without my rule.
"The workers need my party's command as government to save them from the Anarchy of existence without my centralization."

Do you believe that necessity justifies totalitarianism?
By your arguments you have created a defense not only for the Russian dictators but for the German dictators and the Italian dictators and the Spanish dictators; The failure of capitalism justified (according your your utilitarian views) fascism.

If the material conditions in Germany; Spain and Italy where the same as Russia; you logically have to defend the centralization of power under the fascist party's.
They where "Just centralizing out of objective necessity. Imperialism and economic collapse.
I mean bread in Germany cost a wheelbarrow of cash; that is famine... does that justified the totalitarian Nazi state?


o, I already identified a real, continuing, lasting *structural* objective antagonism between the advanced Western nations, and the underdeveloped nascent soviet state

Yah and the same antagonism existed between many other country's that also experience fascist uprisings. All of them modeled on the Bolshevik party.


The Bolsheviks were not defending *private ownership*
Your definition of collectivized (nationalized) capital is still private property. They defended violently their exclusive authority over all Russian capital (that they wanted).
And did everything in their power to fight worker democracy. Nationalized property is still private; even under a full state democracy it would still be private property to anyone "External" to the forces nationalist collective.

[ckaihatsu]

The only think is that we dont support fascist governments. We dont support Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy or Spain. We say that the people of these nations where victims of nationalism and the ruling elite.


I'm not denying victimhood to those who perished due to the atrocious crimes-of-humanity of the Bolsheviks and Stalinists.

But you're incorrect to conflate proto-Stalinism and Stalinism with fascism, for reasons I've already mentioned.





The russian soviets where the first to push for a mass revolution; on the scale of a whole nation. The reaction to this; the only thing that could stop communism is Russia was the government; and they did it so well it would define the next world war and fascism for the rest of the century.


No, you keep whitewashing the imperialist Whites, as if their invasion of the revolution was insignificant, when in fact it was the *most* significant factor in the subsequent necessary seizure and consolidation of power under the Bolsheviks and later Stalinists.


---





You're sidestepping the realistic potential situation of a *simple honest disagreement over policy* -- the 100 work roles vs. 150 work roles example.





I am not sidestepping it it is a non issue. You are creating a problem where there is none to solve.


Not true -- you yourself have said that 'politics' will continue into a post-capitalist society, so this is an example of a potential manifestation of such, a schism-type disagreement over the exact production policy to implement.





You have created a frameworld where all property is owned by the administration. You have sead so yourself in every regurgitated post.


You're not understanding that there *is no* standing administration within my model -- this is the part of it that speaks to how administrative matters would be carried out:





communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


---





This is not going to happen. What you are describing in one big forced collective;


There's nothing 'forced' about it -- either this model / framework is adopted on a widespread, interconnected basis, or else it's not.





a human wide nation state where every piece of capital is owned and administrated by a single polity.


There's no capital, and there's no 'single polity' -- you're just being negative and disparaging on a sectarian basis.





Your framework starts with an impossibly demand; that ALL capital be privatized under a single political institution;


There's no capital, no privatization, and no single political institution.





that will let us use capital that the polity is not already using because it always has first dibs.


There's no capital, no standing government or administration, and no single polity of such.





To maintain this "collective" ownership you will require laws and legislation to regulate your economy; this will require cops and prisons to enforce.


I differ with you -- you're just spewing out unjustifiable accusations.





The reality of worker liberation if far far from what you are imagining.


Incorrect, because you're not even referring to anything concrete from the model.





The workers; Being the ones who operate the means are the only ones who have the right to dictate production.





labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property


---





All you can do is ask; Your framework needs to start off the assumption that you will own >0< "collectivized" property.


There's no provision for any kind of private ownership.





Free access must be the basis of your framework or it simply is an impossibility. You will never form a single polity on a planet wide scale nor collectivize all capital. It simply cant happen without a regime.


Incorrect, because there's no standing goal of reaching a 'single polity' -- everything is per-project. There's no capital and no need for a standing regime.


---





You're overlooking that the White incursions were *imperialism* -- the same as has happened to so many *other* underdeveloped, colonized countries.





SO? so was the U.S.S.R.s invasion of Hungary;


No, the invasion of Hungary was Soviet *expansionism*, not imperialism, because there was no private property there.





that does not justify the totalitarian state; nor do any of your "They Needed centralization" B.S.
It is not the right of anyone; no matter the situation to force people to bow down to their rule.
You are justifying everything we fight against based on "necessity".


There *was* the necessity for national liberation / collective self-determination, but it doesn't excuse the inhumane excesses of latter Bolshevik rule and subsequent Stalinism.





Everything the left stands against is deemed necessary by the oppressors; that's the method they employ to ensure they can rule iron fist.

"The peasants need my royal decree as monarchy to save them from the Anarchy of existence without my rule.
"The workers need my party's command as government to save them from the Anarchy of existence without my centralization."

Do you believe that necessity justifies totalitarianism?


'Necessity' is vague -- what kind of necessity are you referring to -- ?





By your arguments you have created a defense not only for the Russian dictators but for the German dictators and the Italian dictators and the Spanish dictators; The failure of capitalism justified (according your your utilitarian views) fascism.


No, you're conflating Stalinism with fascism again, which is not an apt comparison / conflation to make.

I don't have utilitarianistic views -- Bolshevik Russia isn't comparable to fascistic dictatorships in Germany, Italy, or Spain. In these latter three countries I'm on the side of the anti-fascist resistance movements. The widespread failure of capitalism leaves a void that worker control can fill.





If the material conditions in Germany; Spain and Italy where the same as Russia; you logically have to defend the centralization of power under the fascist party's.


No, because the situations were vastly different -- early-20th-century Russia had the soviet revolution, which was worth defending even after its formal demise, on the grounds of preserving collectivization, and also for national liberation and collective self-determination. Germany, Spain, and Italy did *not* have worker-based revolutions that collectivized all private property.





The Decree on Land ratified the actions of the peasants who throughout Russia seized private land and redistributed it among themselves. The Bolsheviks viewed themselves as representing an alliance of workers and peasants and memorialized that understanding with the Hammer and Sickle on the flag and coat of arms of the Soviet Union. Other decrees:

- All private property was seized by the state.

- All Russian banks were nationalized.

- Private bank accounts were confiscated.

- The Church's properties (including bank accounts) were seized.

- All foreign debts were repudiated.

- Control of the factories was given to the soviets.

- Wages were fixed at higher rates than during the war, and a shorter, eight-hour working day was introduced.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution


---





They where "Just centralizing out of objective necessity.


Again, collectivized Bolshevik Russia is *not* comparable to the private-property-retaining regimes in Germany, Spain, and Italy.

And centralization is *not* equivalent to 'collectivization'.





Imperialism and economic collapse.
I mean bread in Germany cost a wheelbarrow of cash; that is famine... does that justified the totalitarian Nazi state?


Emphatically *no*, because of the 'ends' aimed-for (in 'means-and-ends').

For *this* situation we also need to be cognizant of what conditions fomented it, namely that of the Allies:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate


---





No, I already identified a real, continuing, lasting *structural* objective antagonism between the advanced Western nations, and the underdeveloped nascent soviet state





Yah and the same antagonism existed between many other country's that also experience fascist uprisings. All of them modeled on the Bolshevik party.


The Bolshevik Party wasn't fascist, it was collectivist, though totalitarian.

You're trying to use guilt-by-association, which is a non-starter and invalid.





Your definition of collectivized (nationalized) capital is still private property.


No, you're incorrect -- by definition if land and capital have been nationalized then they no longer belong to individuals, as in private ownership.





They defended violently their exclusive authority over all Russian capital (that they wanted).


True.





And did everything in their power to fight worker democracy.


Also true.





Nationalized property is still private;


No, it's not, despite your idiosyncratic interpretation, because no private interests control it -- as a parallel consider the public schooling system that is not charter-school-based.





even under a full state democracy it would still be private property to anyone "External" to the forces nationalist collective.


No, this is just your own personal definition that is factually wrong.

[ckaihatsu]

---





In The Black Book of Communism, Nicolas Werth contrasts the Red and White terrors, noting the former was the official policy of the Bolshevik government:

The Bolshevik policy of terror was more systematic, better organized, and targeted at whole social classes. Moreover, it had been thought out and put into practice before the outbreak of the civil war. The White Terror was never systematized in such a fashion. It was almost invariably the work of detachments that were out of control, and taking measures not officially authorized by the military command that was attempting, without much success, to act as a government. If one discounts the pogroms, which Denikin himself condemned, the White Terror most often was a series of reprisals by the police acting as a sort of military counterespionage force. The Cheka and the Troops for the Internal Defense of the Republic were a structured and powerful instrument of repression of a completely different order, which had support at the highest level from the Bolshevik regime.[41]

James Ryan points out that Lenin never advocated for the physical extermination of the entire bourgeoise as a class, just the execution of those who were actively involved in opposing and undermining Bolshevik rule.[42] He did intend to bring about "the overthrow and complete abolition of the bourgeoisie", but through non-violent political and economic means.[43] Ryan goes on to note that "to physically annihilate the bourgeoisie as a class was certainly not something that a Marxist could support".[42]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror#Interpretations_by_historians





Soviet war crimes

War crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Union and its armed forces from 1919 to 1991 include acts committed by the Red Army (later called the Soviet Army) as well as the NKVD, including the NKVD's Internal Troops. In some cases, these acts were committed upon the orders of the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in pursuance of the early Soviet Government's policy of Red Terror, in other instances they were committed without orders by Soviet troops against prisoners of war or civilians of countries that had been in armed conflict with the USSR, or during partisan warfare.[2]

A significant number of these incidents occurred in Northern and Eastern Europe before, during and in the aftermath of World War II, involving summary executions and mass murder of prisoners of war, such as at the Katyn massacre and mass rape by troops of the Red Army in territories they occupied.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

[RedMaterialist]

I am saying that people who support government institutions are not leftists (in any sense) but right-wing reactionary's. They argue for regressive institutions like government and obedience.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a government institution. It's use by the proletariat is to eliminate the capitalism from society, not only the big capitalism of industry and finance, but all the petit-bourgeois middle class and the kulaks (who don't exist anymore.) The process is one which Marx predicted would be a long, bloody, violent struggle. He was right as to the Soviet Union and China.

If the Bolsheviks had followed your advice Russia would never have developed its agriculture and industry rapidly enough to defeat Hitler. Stalin was an especially stupid dictator. He killed off most of his military leadership and tried to make a deal with Hitler to stay out of WWII; both actions merely lengthened the war.

But Russia survived and defeated Hitler.

[(A)]

No, you're conflating Stalinism with fascism again, which is not an apt comparison / conflation to make.

I don't have utilitarianistic views -- Bolshevik Russia isn't comparable to fascistic dictatorships in Germany, Italy, or Spain. In these latter three countries I'm on the side of the anti-fascist resistance movements. The widespread failure of capitalism leaves a void that worker control can fill.

Firstly I am not even talking about Stalin; I am saying that the Bolshevik seizing of state power was the first act of a dictatorship not materialistically different then any fascist one and they did so in a way that would inspire future fascists. Before Stalin; the Bolshevik party was reactionary; Lenin; reactionary.


Did the Bolsheviks really aim for Soviet power?

It seems a truism for modern day Leninists that the Bolsheviks stood for "soviet power." For example, they like to note that the Bolsheviks used the slogan "All Power to the Soviets" in 1917 as evidence. However, for the Bolsheviks this slogan had a radically different meaning to what many people would consider it to mean.


As we discuss in section 25 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app25), it was the anarchists (and those close to them, like the SR-Maximalists) who first raised the idea of soviets as the means by which the masses could run society. This was during the 1905 revolution. At that time, neither the Mensheviks nor the Bolsheviks viewed the soviets as the possible framework of a socialist society. This was still the case in 1917, until Lenin returned to Russia and convinced the Bolshevik Party that the time was right to raise the slogan "All Power to the Soviets."



However, as well as this, Lenin also advocated a somewhat different vision of what a Bolshevik revolution would result in. Thus we find Lenin in 1917 continually repeating the basic idea: "The Bolsheviks must assume power." The Bolsheviks "can and must take state power into their own hands." He raised the question of "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone?" and answered it: "I have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the affirmative." Moreover, "a political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be unworthy of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when opportunity offers." [Selected Works, vol. 2, p 328, p. 329 and p. 352]
He equated party power with popular power: "the power of the Bolsheviks -- that is, the power of the proletariat." Moreover, he argued that Russia "was ruled by 130,000 landowners . . . and they tell us that Russia will not be able to be governed by the 240,000 members of the Bolshevik Party -- governing in the interest of the poor and against the rich." He stresses that the Bolsheviks "are not Utopians. We know that just any labourer or any cook would be incapable of taking over immediately the administration of the State." Therefore they "demand that the teaching should be conducted by the class-consciousness workers and soldiers, that this should be started immediately." Until then, the "conscious workers must be in control." [Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power? p. 102, pp. 61-62, p. 66 and p. 68]


As such, given this clear and unambiguous position throughout 1917 by Lenin, it seems incredulous, to say the least, for Leninist Tony Cliff to assert that "[t]o start with Lenin spoke of the proletariat, the class -- not the Bolshevik Party -- assuming state power." [Lenin, vol. 3, p. 161] Surely the title of one of Lenin's most famous pre-October essays, usually translated as "Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power?", should have given the game away? As would, surely, quoting numerous calls by Lenin for the Bolsheviks to seize power? Apparently not.


This means, of course, Lenin is admitting that the working class in Russia would not have power under the Bolsheviks. Rather than "the poor" governing society directly, we would have the Bolsheviks governing in their interests. Thus, rather than soviet power as such, the Bolsheviks aimed for "party power through the soviets" -- a radically different position. And as we discuss in the next section (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append41.html#app6), when soviet power clashed with party power the former was always sacrificed to ensure the latter. As we indicate in section H.1.2 (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH1.html#sech12), this support for party power before the revolution was soon transformed into a defence for party dictatorship after the Bolsheviks had seized power. However, we should not forget, to quote one historian, that the Bolshevik leaders "anticipated a 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' and that concept was a good deal closer to a party dictatorship in Lenin's 1917 usage than revisionist scholars sometimes suggest." [Sheila Fitzpatrick, "The Legacy of the Civil War," pp. 385-398, Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War, Diane P. Koenker, William G. Rosenberg and Ronald Grigor Suny (eds.), p. 388]




The dictatorship of the proletariat is a government institution. It's use by the proletariat is to eliminate the capitalism from society, not only the big capitalism of industry and finance, but all the petit-bourgeois middle class and the kulaks (who don't exist anymore.) The process is one which Marx predicted would be a long, bloody, violent struggle. He was right as to the Soviet Union and China.

If the Bolsheviks had followed your advice Russia would never have developed its agriculture and industry rapidly enough to defeat Hitler. Stalin was an especially stupid dictator. He killed off most of his military leadership and tried to make a deal with Hitler to stay out of WWII; both actions merely lengthened the war.

But Russia survived and defeated Hitler.

So you say that Stalin was a stupid dictator but premise this with saying that the workers would have been less suited?

Please cite where Marx said specifically that the Dictatorship of the proletariat is a government institution. I have been trying to find it.
I understand the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the unbridled anger of the working class in Anarchy. Rising up as one to overthrow their rulers and take back what is theirs. Not a capitalist institution that will privatise command of the economy to a functionary petty-bourgeoisie class of administrators; a new set of rulers.

As Russia and China and ever other socialist state has proved; the reality of state-capitalism is that it is simply capitalism. No different from the rest of the world.
Unable to challenge capitalism in any way; despite the vast power of millions of slave laborers and unrestrained capitalism; No state can abolish its own ruling elite.
Only the absence of hierarchy has ever even come close to ending the capitalist economy. Even Russia; where the government ruled for decades was only able to function as socialist economy in the absence of State-capitalist-government; before the founding of the congress (another Liberal institution)

We have seen it time and time again; in the absence of rulers; the workers very successfully manage their economy before reactionary and power hungry gangs descend;
Promising liberation within the clutches of an iron fist.

I dont know about you but I plan to spend my life fighting the institutions that our rulers use to maintain capitalism; not begging for new rulers to run the institutions that destroy the workers at every turn!

[Volcanicity]

Please cite where Marx said specifically that the Dictatorship of the proletariat is a government institution. I have been trying to find it.
I understand the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the unbridled anger of the working class in Anarchy. Rising up as one to overthrow their rulers and take back what is theirs. Not a capitalist institution that will privatise command of the economy to a functionary petty-bourgeoisie class of administrators; a new set of rulers.


That's not what the DOTP is,you're talking about the first steps of the revolution.


The centralization of all the means of production - which have been wrested from the hands of the bourgeoisie state- into the hands and control of the state which is now taken over and controlled by the workers,that is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the proletariat organised as the ruling class.


The moment the state is in the hands of the workers it begins it's process of withering away.

Marx never intended or even mentioned it should be replaced by any "government institution".

[ckaihatsu]

No, you're conflating Stalinism with fascism again, which is not an apt comparison / conflation to make.

I don't have utilitarianistic views -- Bolshevik Russia isn't comparable to fascistic dictatorships in Germany, Italy, or Spain. In these latter three countries I'm on the side of the anti-fascist resistance movements. The widespread failure of capitalism leaves a void that worker control can fill.





Firstly I am not even talking about Stalin; I am saying that the Bolshevik seizing of state power was the first act of a dictatorship not materialistically different then any fascist one and they did so in a way that would inspire future fascists. Before Stalin; the Bolshevik party was reactionary; Lenin; reactionary.


Incorrect -- and I agree with RM's summation at post #208 regarding ends-and-means. (You're too caught-up with 'means', and you're confusing the political *ends* of Bolshevism versus those of fascism.)

[ckaihatsu]

I understand the dictatorship of the proletariat [to be] not a capitalist institution that will privatise command of the economy to a functionary petty-bourgeoisie class of administrators; a new set of rulers.


You continue to misrepresent collectivization as being 'privatization [at a national scale]', which is simply inexcusable since the two trajectories are diametric opposites of one-another.

Since the dotp is *not* a private institution, its command is *not* for-profit, nor would its 'administrators' (revolutionary workers, actually) be petty-bourgeois, or 'rulers' in the imperialist, pro-business sense.


---





Katyn


Did some digging and found a good thread from 4 years ago with more on this topic:


European Court of Human Rights makes ruling on Katyn

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/184133-European-Court-of-Human-Rights-makes-ruling-on-Katyn

[(A)]

That's not what the DOTP is,you're talking about the first steps of the revolution.


The centralization of all the means of production - which have been wrested from the hands of the bourgeoisie state- into the hands and control of the state which is now taken over and controlled by the workers,that is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the proletariat organised as the ruling class.


The moment the state is in the hands of the workers it begins it's process of withering away.

Marx never intended or even mentioned it should be replaced by any "government institution".

You contradict yourself.

"Marx never intended or even mentioned it (capitalism?) should be replaced by any "government institution"
"the state which is now taken over and controlled by the workers"

"The state" is a bourgeoisie institution; You say Marx never intended that capitalism would be replaced by a government institution; yet argue for a workers government that would "Whither away"
Please name one state that just "Withered away".

I argue that ALL government is inherently Anti-communist and even the most well Intentioned leftist; granted the totalitarian power of head of state; will be unable to remain loyal to his equals.
The workers democracy; the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a new government ruling over a nation state; but the work place democracy ruling over all material production against the nation state and its ruling class..


(You're too caught-up with 'means', and you're confusing the political *ends* of Bolshevism versus those of fascism.)

As I have said Ideology means nothing; Only material reality. The material reality of Bolshevism is reaction and counter-revolution to worker democracy; the worst kind of Anti-communism; effective anti-communism.
No real reform is possible under the thumb of a government; Government only exists to maintain; never to "Whither." In the end at best this ideology could be considered reformist; asking the impossible of any government institution; for it to be "of the people" and to voluntarily give up its totalitarian control over the workers willingly; a reactionary liberal ideology to begin with... and as we have seen all over history; Liberalism always leads to fascism. Even if you give Lenin the benefit of the doubt and see him as a liberal and not an outright madman; he still ended up hand carving a platform for Stalin's fascism.

Government is NOTHING but the tool for the maintenance of the ruling class and a platform for reaction. Abolition of the ruling institutions is revolution!

[ckaihatsu]

(You're too caught-up with 'means', and you're confusing the political *ends* of Bolshevism versus those of fascism.)





As I have said Ideology means nothing; Only material reality.


Ideology can't be ignored because it is the mass-subjective, socio-political 'mindset' / consciousness that contains the potential to remake all of human society.

If ideology means nothing you wouldn't be railing so hard as you do against fascism since it would just be mere 'ideology'.

*You're* the one ignoring material reality, as it was for the population of Russia after the foreign imperialist invasions that decimated agricultural production.





The material reality of Bolshevism is reaction and counter-revolution to worker democracy;


It was forced-centralization, and *not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control:





Dekulakization (Russian: раскулачивание, raskulachivanie, Ukrainian: розкуркулення, rozkurkulennia) was the Soviet campaign of political repressions, including arrests, deportations, and executions of millions of the better-off peasants and their families in 1929–1932. The richer peasants were labeled kulaks and considered class enemies. More than 1.8 million peasants were deported in 1930–1931.[1][2][3] The stated purpose of the campaign was to fight the counter-revolution and build socialism in the countryside. This policy was accomplished simultaneously with collectivization in the USSR and effectively brought all agriculture and peasants in Soviet Russia under state control.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Away_With_Private_Peasants%21.jpg/220px-Away_With_Private_Peasants%21.jpg
Down with kulaks in kolkhozes!

The "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" was announced by Joseph Stalin on 27 December 1929.[1] Stalin had said that "Now we have the opportunity to carry out a resolute offensive against the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace their production with the production of kolkhozes and sovkhozes."[4] The decision was formalized in a resolution "On measures for the elimination of kulak households in districts of comprehensive collectivization" on 30 January 1930. All kulaks were divided into three categories: (I) to be shot or imprisoned as decided by the local secret political police; (II) to be sent to Siberia, North, the Urals or Kazakhstan, after confiscation of their property; and (III) to be evicted from their houses and used in labour colonies within their own districts.[1] OGPU secret police chief Efim Georgievich Evdokimov (1891–1939) organized and supervised the roundup of peasants and the mass executions.

A combination of dekulakization, collectivization, and other repressive policies led to mass starvation in many parts of the Soviet Union and the death of an estimated 11 million peasants from 1929-1933, including 4 million during the dekulakization campaign.[1] The results were soon known outside the Soviet Union. In 1941, the American journalist H. R. Knickerbocker wrote "It is a conservative estimate to say that some 5,000,000 [kulaks] ... died at once, or within a few years."[5]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization


---





the worst kind of Anti-communism; effective anti-communism.


No, by ignoring ideology you make yourself unable to distinguish between leftist goals and rightist goals -- that's why you continue to erroneously conflate the two.

Collectivization is the *opposite* of privatization, and collectivization is *not* anti-communist.





No real reform is possible under the thumb of a government; Government only exists to maintain; never to "Whither."


Of course -- there's no disagreement with your anti-capitalist abstract axioms *themselves* -- but your mistrust of other revolutionaries' formulations, like 'workers state' or 'workers government', means that you wind up favoring only your *own*, idiosyncratic formulations / definitions, like:





worker democracy


This is sectarianism taken down to the *individual* level -- no *other* revolutionary would have a problem with 'worker democracy', but *you* have a personal problem with anyone *else* using the terms 'workers state', 'workers administration', etc., and you blithely *dismiss* these synonymous concepts by erroneously conflating them with existing *bourgeois* governments, for no good reason.

A working class revolutionary overtaking of bourgeois government would render it inert with the nascent revolutionary 'worker democracy' bursting-through to supplant it, and the only thing it *could* do then would be to *wither*.





In the end at best this ideology could be considered reformist; asking the impossible of any government institution; for it to be "of the people" and to voluntarily give up its totalitarian control over the workers willingly; a reactionary liberal ideology to begin with... and as we have seen all over history; Liberalism always leads to fascism.


You forget where you are, preferring to level accusations of 'reformers' and even 'fascist anti-communists' at all revolutionaries here.

I've seen no liberal or reformist -- or reactionary or fascist -- sentiments maintained here at RevLeft, over several years of participation.





Even if you give Lenin the benefit of the doubt and see him as a liberal


Only *you* purport him to be a liberal, due to your inaccurate theory of 'collectivized state socialism = privatization of the entire country in the geopolitical context'.





and not an outright madman; he still ended up hand carving a platform for Stalin's fascism.

Government is NOTHING but the tool for the maintenance of the ruling class and a platform for reaction. Abolition of the ruling institutions is revolution!

[Volcanicity]

You contradict yourself.

"Marx never intended or even mentioned it (capitalism?) should be replaced by any "government institution"
"the state which is now taken over and controlled by the workers"

"The state" is a bourgeoisie institution; You say Marx never intended that capitalism would be replaced by a government institution; yet argue for a workers government that would "Whither away"
Please name one state that just "Withered away".

I argue that ALL government is inherently Anti-communist and even the most well Intentioned leftist; granted the totalitarian power of head of state; will be unable to remain loyal to his equals.
The workers democracy; the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a new government ruling over a nation state; but the work place democracy ruling over all material production against the nation state and its ruling class..


You seem you seem to have a problem with basic comprehension.There is no contradiction,read your own post that I replied to.

You asked RedMaterialist where Marx ever mentioned -or "said specifically" in your own words- that the DOTP is a government institution. I said he
didn't and it isn't.


The bourgeois state( the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie)and the means of production are taken over by the workers which is then turned into the workers state:The DOTP. Which with the eradication of classes becomes superfluous and eventually withers away it doesn't just vanish over night.

The DOTP is not a work place democracy like some craft guild like you're seeming to imply.There is no nation state it has been eradicated and the means of production have been placed into the control of the workers and workers rule which again is the DOTP.

[(A)]

It was forced-centralization, and *not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control:



Dekulakization (Russian: раскулачивание, raskulachivanie, Ukrainian: розкуркулення, rozkurkulennia) was the Soviet campaign of political repressions, including arrests, deportations, and executions of millions of the better-off peasants and their families in 1929–1932. The richer peasants were labeled kulaks and considered class enemies. More than 1.8 million peasants were deported in 1930–1931.[1][2][3] The stated purpose of the campaign was to fight the counter-revolution and build socialism in the countryside. This policy was accomplished simultaneously with collectivization in the USSR and effectively brought all agriculture and peasants in Soviet Russia under state control.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Away_With_Private_Peasants%21.jpg/220px-Away_With_Private_Peasants%21.jpg
Down with kulaks in kolkhozes!

The "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" was announced by Joseph Stalin on 27 December 1929.[1] Stalin had said that "Now we have the opportunity to carry out a resolute offensive against the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a class and replace their production with the production of kolkhozes and sovkhozes."[4] The decision was formalized in a resolution "On measures for the elimination of kulak households in districts of comprehensive collectivization" on 30 January 1930. All kulaks were divided into three categories: (I) to be shot or imprisoned as decided by the local secret political police; (II) to be sent to Siberia, North, the Urals or Kazakhstan, after confiscation of their property; and (III) to be evicted from their houses and used in labour colonies within their own districts.[1] OGPU secret police chief Efim Georgievich Evdokimov (1891–1939) organized and supervised the roundup of peasants and the mass executions.

A combination of dekulakization, collectivization, and other repressive policies led to mass starvation in many parts of the Soviet Union and the death of an estimated 11 million peasants from 1929-1933, including 4 million during the dekulakization campaign.[1] The results were soon known outside the Soviet Union. In 1941, the American journalist H. R. Knickerbocker wrote "It is a conservative estimate to say that some 5,000,000 [kulaks] ... died at once, or within a few years."[5]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization




So your entire defense for the actions of the totalitarian pigs who murdered millions is simply saying, and I quote "*not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control"

And yet that is 100% exactly what they did and intended to do from the get go...


Thus we find Lenin in 1917 continually repeating the basic idea: "The Bolsheviks must assume power." The Bolsheviks "can and must take state power into their own hands." He raised the question of "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone?" and answered it: "I have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the affirmative." Moreover, "a political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be unworthy of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when opportunity offers."

Not to mention the murder of Millions at the hands of the government after he succeeded in his plan to seize total power for his gang.


Collectivization is the *opposite* of privatization, and collectivization is *not* anti-communist.

Yes but you define collectivism as state ownership. However if you understand that government is simply a tool to maintain the capitalist control of the people; then nationalizing industry is not collectivizing; it is privatizing control in the hands of a ruling class; a class above the law. Collectivism in Russia was Nationalism; no different from the Nazi control over Germany's industry. They where even collectivized in the same manner; the whole sale slaughter of workers by the military.

Collectivism; as "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it." To an anarchist this means that everyone (each and every individual) has the >SAME< right to administer their own use of the collectivized resource's (free access). Only by managing Industry with its own internal democracy by its own workers; can be considered collectivism; Any ownership by a governing nation is privatization as the INDIVIDUALS who run the government gain a capitalistic ownership vie their position as rulers of the nations. The same relation between King and serf; Boss and Employee exists within the nationalist framework of a political state.



A working class revolutionary overtaking of bourgeois government would render it inert with the nascent revolutionary 'worker democracy' bursting-through to supplant it, and the only thing it *could* do then would be to *wither*.


Except we see proof of the opposite in every case. Russia being the prime example. A totalitarian state dead set of stopping worker democracy and willing to commit genocide to prevent it.
So you are either admitting the premise of your argument is wrong and that a workers state will act prevent worker democracy as a threat to the ruling administrator; or you are admitting Lenin was not a working class revolutionary but a reactionary dictator who managed to co-opt an entire revolution and make himself ruler.


The bourgeois state( the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie)and the means of production are taken over by the workers which is then turned into the workers state:The DOTP. Which with the eradication of classes becomes superfluous and eventually withers away it doesn't just vanish over night.

The DOTP is not a work place democracy like some craft guild like you're seeming to imply.There is no nation state it has been eradicated and the means of production have been placed into the control of the workers and workers rule which again is the DOTP.

You say Marx never advocated for a government institution to lead the workers to salvation; then why are you fighting so hard for a failed Leninist Ideology that besides leading to the deaths of millions of innocent workers; also failed to accomplish its one stated reason for necessity which is to be a bulwark against imperialism. The ideology of Leninism; besides its reactionary sentiments towards the workers; is just petty-Bourgeois shit. The ravings of a power hungry madman.

The DOTP is not a work place democracy like some craft guild like you seem to think i imply; nor is it the governance of a political hierarchy; The Dictatorship of the proletariat is the mutiny that ensues when the working class on a mass scale murder their rulers and take responsibility for their own solidarity. When they abandon capitalist government in favor of self-reliance and cooperation; Mutual aid and benefit.

Capitalism cant be destroyed until the workers can manage their own actions; Government prevents this by its very nature; it retards the growth of the working class and is counter to every workers revolution.
Their is no way that the workers can form their own dictatorial rule over production as long as government exists to maintain the chaos that is subjugation by the people in charge.

Organize against capitalism however you want; but the second you sit upon the throne; you are the enemy of every true revolutionary; every revolution is to abolish the state of things.

[ComradeAllende]

So your entire defense for the actions of the totalitarian pigs who murdered millions is simply saying, and I quote "*not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control"

And yet that is 100% exactly what they did and intended to do from the get go...


Not to mention the murder of Millions at the hands of the government after he succeeded in his plan to seize total power for his gang.

I'm not necessarily a fan of Lenin (I tend to defend him only when I'm in liberal/social democratic circles), but you don't have any evidence to support the idea that Lenin was a dictator right from the get-go. You don't have to defend the Cheka or the attack on Kronstadt to admit that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were basically isolated and surrounded by enemies. For fuck's sake, the U.S. suspended habeas corpus in the border states during the Civil War and imposed martial law on the South during Radical Reconstruction; there are still parts of the South where you'd be attacked for defending Sherman's March to the Sea. Revolutions tend to be bloody, especially when they go up against entrenched regimes; the only revolutions that have avoided a mass slaughter either failed (i.e. Paris Commune) or set the bar so low that not much really changed (American Revolution).


Capitalism cant be destroyed until the workers can manage their own actions; Government prevents this by its very nature; it retards the growth of the working class and is counter to every workers revolution.
Their is no way that the workers can form their own dictatorial rule over production as long as government exists to maintain the chaos that is subjugation by the people in charge.

Organize against capitalism however you want; but the second you sit upon the throne; you are the enemy of every true revolutionary; every revolution is to abolish the state of things.

The only problem with complete opposition to the state is that you never get anywhere. There's a reason why every socialist since Marx has focused on the state as the mechanism through which we can change society: BECAUSE ITS THE ONLY TOOL WE HAVE. Seriously, mutual aid societies are a bandage at best and would easily be crushed by today's military. No other institution possesses the power and scope than the modern state, and no other institution can midwife the birth of a more progressive society. You don't have to be a flaming M-L to realize that some measure of state power is needed during the transition to socialism, nor do you have to support dekulakization or genocide in order to admit that some violence will be inevitable. Of course the state is inherently reactionary; of course it is a tool for the capitalists to retard the growth of revolutionary consciousness amongst the working class. But no revolution has ever succeeded without acquiring some measure of control over the state; there's no easy way out of the risk for totalitarian rule, but then again there's never an easy way out for anything worth fighting for.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE]Please cite where Marx said specifically that the Dictatorship of the proletariat is a government institution. I have been trying to find it.


All dictatorships are government institutions. They govern by dictate. Marx assumed people would know that. Anyway, Lenin made it clear in The State and Revolution.


I understand the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the unbridled anger of the working class in Anarchy.

Well, certainly, they will be very angry. But it won't be in anarchy. The point is that the working class will overthrow the capitalist state, but that will not mean the automatic end of capitalism. Many, many capitalists and their hangers-on will be left. The working class will need a government institution, the DOP, to suppress the remaining capitalists until the full transition to socialism can take place. When that happens then the workers' state will begin to wither away and die.

Why? Because the very nature of a state is to suppress and exploit a particular class or classes. You had the slave state, the feudal state, and now, the capitalist state. The workers' state will also exist to suppress a particular class, the capitalists. Once all class suppression has ended there will only be one class left, the working class, which cannot suppress itself. The state will then wither away and die.


No state can abolish its own ruling elite.

Prior to the DOP no state ever had any interest in abolishing its own ruling elite; that would mean the end of its ability to exploit its producing classes. However, once all exploitation comes to an end, then the state will automatically die off, its own ruling elite, the workers, will have nothing left to suppress or exploit.



dont know about you but I plan to spend my life fighting the institutions that our rulers use to maintain capitalism; not begging for new rulers to run the institutions that destroy the workers at every turn!

You can fight the institutions all you want, but that won't destroy capitalism. Marx showed that in The Civil War in France. You can't simply take over the state institutions of capitalism, you have to destroy that state and create a new state, the DOP. The point of this new state is not to fight for workers but to destroy capitalism. A lengthy process, hopefully peaceful, if the capitalists don't fight.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE]"The state" is a bourgeoisie institution; You say Marx never intended that capitalism would be replaced by a government institution; yet argue for a workers government that would "Whither away"
Please name one state that just "Withered away".

The "state" is an institution which has been around for as long as recorded history, probably 10,000 years. It is not inherently bourgeois. It is inherently an institution for suppressing and exploiting a particular class or classes.

Well, one super-power state, a military super-power, with the second largest economy in the world, suddenly, without warning, without a shot being fired, went out of business in 1989.


The workers democracy; the dictatorship of the proletariat is not a new government ruling over a nation state; but the work place democracy ruling over all material production against the nation state and its ruling class.

A workers' democracy is a dictatorship? Dictators are by definition undemocratic.

And once the workers gain control, what will happen to the millions of capitalists and petit-bourgeois, and their armies? Do you think they will suddenly just give up and go home? Name one ruling class in history that has ever done that.

In fact, there is a lot of historical evidence that when the capitalists are driven out of one country, the capitalist class will attack it with the most brutal, bestial dictator in history, Hitler.

[(A)]

I am not ignorant to the violent reality of potential revolution; It is not that I am a pacifist nor do I not understand the chaos that will ensue and the measures that will be taken.

I doubt the that the state mechanism is capable of combating capitalism or imperialism; it has proven itself threw history to be unable to combat capitalism or imperialism.
State socialism failed. Their is no second coming of a state socialism that will work; Not in the way it has existed. We have to be critical of state socialism to prevent future repeats of the structural failures that exist; mainly that the government is a platform for extortion and we all agree we dont want to be mass murders; we just want to get our shit back... SO lets stop repeating the same mistakes and formulate new and better ways to combat capitalism then becoming state capitalists ourselves.

With all that has changed in the past 100 years I am more hopeful now that we do not require the "guiding hands" of total domination to successfully abolish capital and oppressive institutions like the state.

[OnFire]

I think anarchism is ignorant of class character and does not really want change it therefore alienates potential leftist sympathizers. While Marxism-Leninism is actively bringing workers into the proletarian struggle, it is also the science of proletarian revolution, as it has many successful revolutions in history. The facts speak for themselves.

[ckaihatsu]

The material reality of Bolshevism is reaction and counter-revolution to worker democracy;





It was forced-centralization, and *not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization





So your entire defense for the actions of the totalitarian pigs who murdered millions is simply saying, and I quote "*not* reactionary or counterrevolutionary because it did not seek to restore private control"


No, I've *never* defended the excesses of totalitarianism -- you're going off on a tangent regarding the conclusion from these empirical events.

What I'm *trying* to do with this portion is to *show* that there's a clear distinction between left-wing and right-wing, so that you'll cease conflating Bolshevism and Stalinism, with fascism. The clear distinction can be seen in the active policies regarding private property, as with the example of dekulakization, which was definitely *anti*-private-property, and therefore generally left-wing, and *not* 'fascist'. It will always be negligence on your part, or anyone's, to flippantly ignore the 'ends' ('ideology'), to focus only on the 'means'.


---





And yet that is 100% exactly what they did and intended to do from the get go...





Thus we find Lenin in 1917 continually repeating the basic idea: "The Bolsheviks must assume power." The Bolsheviks "can and must take state power into their own hands." He raised the question of "will the Bolsheviks dare take over full state power alone?" and answered it: "I have already had occasion . . . to answer this question in the affirmative." Moreover, "a political party . . . would have no right to exist, would be unworthy of the name of party . . . if it refused to take power when opportunity offers."


So -- ?

Again, you're overly concerned with 'means' alone, and you ignore what it's *for*. Of course I'll acknowledge that the history didn't work out so great, but it wasn't for lack of a left-wing *aim* (which is *not* 'fascism'). (What *you* mean is that you're going to flippantly conflate any *means* of totalitarianism or fascism as being equivalent, when the two are actually distinctly *different* in their *ends*.





Not to mention the murder of Millions at the hands of the government after he succeeded in his plan to seize total power for his gang.


Well, not quite 'murder', because all of those millions of deaths were due to *bad policy* -- it was far beyond any conscious *intention* for such masses of deaths.

I see the basic flaw as being the shift in perspective, from the urban proletariat, to the agricultural countryside, same as with Maoism.

But at the same time the urban proletariat *required* foodstuffs from rural agricultural production, so the collectivization of agricultural production was a *prerequisite* for an empowered urban working class.

The material conditions following the successful repulsion of the invasion of the Whites, were simply *inadequate*, before industrialization, to make any kind of sustained 'soviets' possible. You continue to not-appreciate this objective empirical situation.


---





Collectivization is the *opposite* of privatization, and collectivization is *not* anti-communist.





Yes but you define collectivism as state ownership. However if you understand that government is simply a tool to maintain the capitalist control of the people;


Even with '[forced top-down] collectivism' being 'state ownership' / state-control, there was *no* capitalism there, aside from Lenin's temporary 'New Economic Policy'. You ascribe nefarious motives to a period of history that was *trying* to make the best of a bad material situation.





then nationalizing industry is not collectivizing; it is privatizing control in the hands of a ruling class; a class above the law.


I understand, and have-addressed your point, but your terminology is incorrect and misleading -- 'privatization' inherently implies 'private property', which did not exist, long-term (post-1920s Russia).





Collectivism in Russia was Nationalism; no different from the Nazi control over Germany's industry.


No, this is too facile a comparison -- again you're only looking at 'means', and not 'ends'.





They where even collectivized in the same manner; the whole sale slaughter of workers by the military.


Fascism does *not* collectivize -- it *expropriates*, to the holdings of private-concern ownership.





Collectivism; as "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it." To an anarchist this means that everyone (each and every individual) has the >SAME< right to administer their own use of the collectivized resource's (free access). Only by managing Industry with its own internal democracy by its own workers; can be considered collectivism;


Yes, this would be far preferable to what actually happened historically.





Any ownership by a governing nation is privatization


No, you continue to gloss-over the distinction between collectivism, versus privatization.





as the INDIVIDUALS who run the government gain a capitalistic ownership vie their position as rulers of the nations. The same relation between King and serf; Boss and Employee exists within the nationalist framework of a political state.


You're describing the *class division* (private ownership of the means of production, versus those who sell their labor for daily subsistence) -- post-revolutionary Russia did *not* have this kind of class division.


---





A working class revolutionary overtaking of bourgeois government would render it inert with the nascent revolutionary 'worker democracy' bursting-through to supplant it, and the only thing it *could* do then would be to *wither*.





Except we see proof of the opposite in every case. Russia being the prime example. A totalitarian state dead set of stopping worker democracy and willing to commit genocide to prevent it.


You continue to blithely ignore *external* factors to revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia, so as to concentrate all blame on the country and the Bolsheviks -- this is an *inappropriate*, inaccurate summation of history, or *bad scholarship* on your part.

It wasn't 'murder' or 'genocide' because there was no *intention* of such, unlike what *fascists* do.





So you are either admitting the premise of your argument is wrong and that a workers state will act prevent worker democracy


No, I'm not admitting anything of the kind, and you're *overgeneralizing* based on one historical outcome.





as a threat to the ruling administrator; or you are admitting Lenin was not a working class revolutionary but a reactionary dictator who managed to co-opt an entire revolution and make himself ruler.


Your myopic 'Great Man' approach to history again....

[OnFire]

If an international competition was held today to determine which political group liked repeating Nazi propaganda the most, do you think Nazis would be able to beat anarchists for first place?

[RedMaterialist]

If an international competition was held today to determine which political group liked repeating Nazi propaganda the most, do you think Nazis would be able to beat anarchists for first place?

You mean like "the Bolsheviks are the biggest threat to humanity in world history and we must exterminate them?"

[RedMaterialist]

S
Yes fascism is reactionary (right wing); I am saying that people who support government institutions are not leftists (in any sense) but right-wing reactionary's.

So, you want to go from a government with the size and power of a capitalist state like the US, to a socialist, non-government, free association of workers, overnight?

[ComradeAllende]

If an international competition was held today to determine which political group liked repeating Nazi propaganda the most, do you think Nazis would be able to beat anarchists for first place? That's rich coming from someone who defends the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And the Third Partition of Poland.

[(A)]

So, you want to go from a government with the size and power of a capitalist state like the US, to a socialist, non-government, free association of workers, overnight?

Of course not that would be ridiculous. However when you understand that "Government" is nothing more than a violent tool for oppression and has not a single redeeming quality; supporting the state becomes an act of reaction and an ideological attack on socialism. Support for capitalism in its most egregious form; that of a mass murdering & slave owning totalitarian corporation.

Their is nothing revolutionary about "State-socialism" It is simply capitalism under a false name. Obedience for the benefit of the elite classes and their private agendas.

We can prove that without the government and its police; capitalism (which is nothing but an act of systemic extortion) CAN NOT SURVIVE. This reality has been shown time and time again; every where their has been a lack of government there has existed a worker democracy that has been attacked by government thugs who can not allow a challenge to their sole authority to enforce the rules over the workers; *See Leninism.

The Irony of the "Stateless capitalism" that some argue for, is that if it where to occur; that a area existed without any government "support"; the capitalists would almost assuredly fall to the united action of a new Labor Movement. Even the most "Leftist" governments; even so called "socialist" governments bend backwards to protect capitalism. Without the state; the workers would be free to remove the capitalist class as violently; or as easily as the capitalists; Without the government to protect them; make it for themselves.

The simply reality of our situation is that capitalism is not our problem as revolutionary's; capitalists are small scale; they are NOTHING without the protection of the government thugs and their law. It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for their extortion and no military support to protect it from the workers.

Anarchy is the act of destroying what destroys you; The state (even the so called socialist ones) are/is what maintains capitalism.
Without the state; the workers can form their own democracy's and replace the states monopoly on violence with Anarchy; the law of communism.

The only people who have no cause to create Anarchy are the exploiting classes.
Rules and laws created ONLY to protect your extortion with militarized violence!
If you are exploited; then you are under the rule of some form of government; be it nationalist or cooperate; both are just legitimized extortion.

The Praxis for abolishing the state and replacing it with free-association is some form of Unionism; Not trade Unionism but Class Unionism. The direct-action (violence against the state of things) of a united (and free from need for governance) working class; seeking its liberation from extortion.

The job of vanguards is not to lead us to a glorious revolution by taking command; it is to educate the masses to be self-sufficient so that we no longer need governments to control our economic actions. To plan and create WITHOUT capitalism and its thuggery; that is a revolution; not a political coup that simply replaces one set of populist tyrants with a new set of populist tyrants.

You simply can not destroy capitalism without FIRST destroying the ONLY thing that has ever maintained it; the Working classes obedience to Governance.

Because capitalism requires the government (http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13); Anarchy is the only praxis that destroys capitalism; It is our goal to wage a class war against our rulers.

[ckaihatsu]

It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for [its] extortion


---


Florida prosecutors cover up murder of Darren Rainey, inmate boiled alive

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/21/flor-m21.html


---





[A]ll the announcements were based on the proposition that the privatised electricity market—dominated by profiteering power generation, distribution and retailing companies—can rectify the economic and social disaster it has itself produced.

During the September and February breakdowns, spare generating capacity was actually available but the owners of key plants kept their facilities offline as part of a systemic practice of driving up “spot” prices during peak demand periods.

Several studies in recent years have documented this practice, which has generated huge spikes in short-term wholesale electricity prices, sometimes rising to $14,000 per megawatt hour from the usual figure below $100.

A Melbourne Energy Institute study found 41 occasions in 2015 when the Snowy Hydro’s Angaston diesel generator in South Australia withdrew supply, pushing up spot prices. Combined, those 41 occasions delivered an additional $30.3 million in profit.

This price manipulation is perfectly legal because the electricity market is designed to allow power-generating companies to decide whether or not to sell their electricity, depending on price. As a result, the adequacy of the electricity supply—an essential ingredient of modern life, especially during extreme weather—is determined by corporate profit, not social need.




http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/21/elec-m21.html

[RedMaterialist]

Because capitalism requires the government (http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13); Anarchy is the only praxis that destroys capitalism; It is our goal to wage a class war against our rulers.

The state is part of the superstructure which is built on and emerges from capitalism. Destroying the state itself will have only a temporary effect on capitalism. The capitalists will simply erect a new state to enforce their exploitation. The Americans, French, and English did that in their revolutions.

It's one thing to destroy the state, but another altogether to destroy capitalism.
You say anarchy is the only praxis that destroys capitalism. Anarchy is unorganized, spontaneous, leaderless, undirected and random violence against an established state. The modern state is a massive, ordered, systematic, brutal, carefully engineered, expertly run, terrorist killing machine. It can bring unimaginable destruction at a second's notice against any opposing force anywhere.

How can you seriously believe that anarchy can achieve anything against the modern state.? They will smash you like the proverbial bug on a windshield.

The real question, in my view, is how best to educate the masses so that when the next crisis comes, and it will, they will at least know who is on their side. This is why socialist and communist education and public advocacy is so completely silenced by the state. Can you imagine what would happen if there were a TV channel devoted solely to the study of Marx and Lenin and revolution?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The simply reality of our situation is that capitalism is not our problem as revolutionary's; capitalists are small scale; they are NOTHING without the protection of the government thugs and their law. It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for their extortion and no military support to protect it from the workers.
I think you're conflating 'state' and 'government'. Since you dismiss any ideas which aren't formed by self-proclaimed anarchists, here's Kropotkin: "The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government". The state itself emerges due to the class system - it is the systems and structures in place that arbitrate between the existing classes in favour and in the interests of the ruling class. Government is just a function and aspect of that class rule, it is largely administrative. If capitalism exists then the capitalist class and the working class exists therefore so does the state - existing governments might take differing forms, laws might be different, culture might be different but the fundamental aspect of it all is that the capitalist class will have processes in place to attempt to maintain its rule, whether concious or not.

It's awkward to say 'the state and its support maintains capitalism', perhaps a better way of putting it might be 'the capitalist state reproduces the conditions needed to maintain the rule of the capitalists' just as a feudal state existed to maintain the rule of the nobility because that is the interests of the ruling class when that ruling class is a tiny sliver of society. The class system, through its very nature, necessitates a state to arbitrate between classes. You cannot simply get rid of the 'state' as an existing form without first abolishing the conditions within which it exists, namely the class system.

You and I might have different understandings of what 'working class democratic rule' might be (although honestly without you wilfully misinterpreting what people have said, we're probably closer in how we conceive things than you might like to think) but the point still stands - the working class revolution will destroy the capitalist state and then there will be a period where the working class are 'in charge' but there still exists the remnants of a capitalist class, their allies and the last vestiges of their systemic rule just because we don't live in a fantasy where such things can be swept away instantaneously and things develop in an uneven and combined manner. The very existence of the working class and the remnants of the capitalist class implies a class system of sorts still exists and so emerges a state, but it will be a state organised in the interests of the working class - it will be organised with the goal of abolishing classes and establishing a society based on the principles of from each according to the ability and to each according to their need.

You've used this term quite a lot recently but I don't think you really appreciate what it means because Marx and Engels conceived of this period of working class state rule as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. The state and its functions would 'wither away' as the working class dismantle the last aspects of capitalism and set about reorganising society without any classes altogether and when that has been achieved we'll have reached the lower stages of communism.

[RedMaterialist]

Of course not that would be ridiculous. However when you understand that "Government" is nothing more than a violent tool for oppression and has not a single redeeming quality;

That depends on who the government is oppressing. If it is oppressing and slowly strangling capitalism then that is its one, its only redeeming quality and its final historical purpose. Once the last remaining force of oppression and exploitation has been eradicated then the state as a coercing institution will have no reason to exist and it will wither away.

[(A)]

That depends on who the government is oppressing. If it is oppressing and slowly strangling capitalism then that is its one, its only redeeming quality and its final historical purpose. Once the

Government; The physical embodiment of governance; is wholly exploitative; It is a system that maintains the relationship between ruler and ruled that is meant only for exploitation. As you said; Exploitation is linked to government and when their is no exploitation their will be no government... but how can you end exploitation without first destroying the systems (the mighty machine you fear so much) that maintains them?

Whither away? this is an ass backwards stance that will simply never come to pass. You cant end capitalism while it is under the protection of the state.

You say that state will have no reason to exists after their is no exploitation... yes this is absolutely true; However it will turn to fascism before it ever lets you end exploitation. Look at what Lenin did in Russia; He preserved with worker blood the instruments of capitalist oppression and destroyed violently ALL worker democracy in Russia and directly created the platform that would see the rise of the KGB as the fascist dictators of Russia.


You've used this term quite a lot recently but I don't think you really appreciate what it means because Marx and Engels conceived of this period of working class state rule as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Please provide a source for this. I have yet to see one despite asking several times. I have never seen Marx specifically say that the capitalist system of government like that Lenin promoted (State-capitalism) was the dictatorship of the proletariat. You ASSUME that the worker state is a nation state and not simply the united efforts to abolish and replace the state with a worker democracy.

Here IS a Marx quote.


We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.

I dont see how you can call yourself a communist unless you are directly trying to abolish the systems of capitalist exploitation.
Recreating them for your personal use is not communism; it is state-capitalism and it is to be abolished and its supporters violently torn from their seats of power.

As the black army put it
"Death to all of who stand in the way of freedom for the working people!"

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Please provide a source for this. I have yet to see one despite asking several times. I have never seen Marx specifically say that the capitalist system of government like that Lenin promoted (State-capitalism) was the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Lenin didn't 'promote' a capitalist system, you're being more than a bit idiotic with such a statement. Regardless, here's a few quotes from Marx and Engels for you to consider.

The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan.


- Marx, The Nationalisation of Land


We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat. For all this, now that it is acknowledged by one and all, we are told not to meddle with politics. The abstentionists say they are revolutionaries, even revolutionaries par excellence. Yet revolution is a supreme political act and those who want revolution must also want the means of achieving it, that is, political action, which prepares the ground for revolution and provides the workers with the revolutionary training without which they are sure to become the dupes of the Favres and Pyats the morning after the battle. However, our politics must be working-class politics. The workers' party must never be the tagtail of any bourgeois party; it must be independent and have its goal and its own policy.


- Marx, Apropos of Working-Class Political Action


All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?


Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.


- Engels, On Authority


As soon as they were faced with a serious revolutionary situation, the Bakuninists had to throw the whole of their old programme overboard. First they sacrificed their doctrine of absolute abstention from political, and especially electoral, activities. Then anarchy, the abolition of the State, shared the same fate. Instead of abolishing the State they tried, on the contrary, to set up a number of new, small states. They then dropped the principle that the workers must not take part in any revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the proletariat, and they themselves took part in a movement that was notoriously bourgeois. Finally they went against the dogma they had only just proclaimed -- that the establishment of a revolutionary government is but another fraud another betrayal of the working class -- for they sat quite comfortably in the juntas of the various towns, and moreover almost everywhere as an impotent minority outvoted and politically exploited by the bourgeoisie.


- Marx & Engels, The Bakuninists at Work: An Account of the Spanish Revolt in the Summer of 1873


Nevertheless, the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite or their motley diversity of form, all have this in common: that they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed. They have, therefore, also certain essential characteristics in common. In this sense, it is possible to speak of the "present-day state" in contrast with the future, in which its present root, bourgeois society, will have died off.


The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


- Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme


Also worth looking at, Marx's notes about Bakunin's 'Statism and Anarchy', Engels' 'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific', Marx's 'The Civil War in France' and Marx and Engels' 'Revolution and Counter Revolution in Germany'. Marx and Engels came to these conclusions looking at the revolutionary events going on around them. In comparison, whenever you just throw in some random asinine quote at the end of your posts, as if that gives your utter bullshit some more weight, you look like someone play acting a revolutionary instead of taking the time to analyse the events around you and the course of history.

[(A)]

Thank you that is what I was looking for.

Why do you think Anarchists support national liberation struggles?
We are Anti-nationalist and want to destroy all nations? Well it is because we do understand that national liberation is a step towards worker liberation. The problem with the "Marxist" process that we have seen is that you time and time again underestimate the speed at which capitalism is abolished. Before the civil war in Russia was even over the capitalist market was no longer needed. It was Lenin who forced his centralized capitalist market on workers who where already ready to assume command. The soviets said so themselves but Lenin in an act of reaction; did not believe that the workers could so quickly take up command of their own lives.
It is this ideology; that the workers must be >Lead< to communism instead of it being the natural state of society.

The flawed assumption is that capitalism is not a product of the state; that without the government... people would allow capitalism to exist.

Its a chicken and egg dilemma. If capitalism was human nature or existed before nationalism; Marx would be right and we would need all the means to destroy capitalism.
But capitalism is a creation of modern states. Capitalism is a byproduct of laws and systems put into place to benfit the minority. Without the world governments maintaining this control; capitalism has no teeth.
No cops; no army; just private capital and maybe a few armed guards.
If we want to seize the means we need to abolish the army and the police and the systems that protect private accumulation... how do we do that?
After the systems are gone it is the workers who will deal with their own vengeance.

Can we please just destroy the state please please please!

The state is what creates and maintains the framework for exploitation. "Private" does not exist.... Every "Private" piece of Capital is only "private" because the state says so.
Without the state; >ALL CAPITAL IS INSTANTLY SOCIALIZED< as their will be no more papers that say "This factory belongs to so and so"

The question is not what to replace the state with; its how do we as the working class abolish the state so that we can assume control of our means.


The "workers state" MUST be created by the workers and NOT by political party's or nationalist borders. The fact is "Russia" as a state should have ended and a new border less and ever expanding network of armed and active militias. I mean if we look at the national liberation struggle of Kurdistan we see that their collective interest is external to the nations that they are forced to obey. In this case the Kurdish people are attempting to create a new form of workers state; A Libertarian democracy created by the workers; a duel power inspired by Libertarian writer Murry Bookchin. Why do we need to create new states when we can simply organize external to national borders and centralized governments. The Kurdish people do not need a centralized government or a new nation state with laws and property; they need the Turkish workers and the Syrian workers and the Iraqi workers to also start combating their respective governments so that they will be forced to stop attacking just the Kurds and forcing them to create a new nation to defend their collective interests; One that could be a platform for a possibly worse Kurdish Nationalism. A new state will just become a new class based society.

We dont want our own nations; we want to destroy the ones that exist so we can get to work fixing the world that they fucked up.

The workers make the world run; Why cant we run the world the way we want? Why do we need to bow down to a "socialist" government instead of organize ourselves. If the spirit of Marx is to be honored; consider that he himself may have been fallible and criticize your own understanding of who we want to have the power and how.

We have come so far in the past 100 years. Do you still believe that giving power to national governments like the People's Republic of China or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the "United soviets of America"(patent pending) will be able to abolish capital when every time it has happened in the past it has only ended in more capitalism and misery for the workers.

Every worker must first become masterless; we must abandon the idea of government because the idea of government is what prevents the workers from organizing themselves according to their needs.
Obedience to authority is what prevents us as a class from acting in our own collective interests. We dont need a new set of laws to make us work in our own class interests.

[(A)]

To be clear what I want to convey is that the "socialist" phase of communism only lasts as long as our nation states exist.
Only as long as their are governments can their be capitalism and as soon as we are free from the law; people naturally organize and create communism; We have seen it everywhere where government rule has ended.
The only thing that stops communism from happening today is the support for the systems that rule us.

We challenge and attack those systems so that the workers can free themselves from the laws that make them slaves to capital.

Now is not the time to repeat history; Now is the time to take to take direct action in destroying not just the state of things; but the ideology's that supports them.

No Gods, No Masters; All Cops are Bastards!

[TomLeftist]

Hi, I don't know a lot about the differences between Marxist-Leninists Parties (Stalinists Parties) and Trotskists Parties, but how ever from my own experience, I've noticed that most members of Trotskist organizations like the organization of marxist news World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org/ is full of smart, well-read, intelligent people, but most of them are not too friendly, most of them are not humble and treat other leftists like trash and not with love, consideration and understanding. Many trotskists behave like middle class voters of The Republican Party. Many of them are even a bit ultra-nationalist.

I remember a 68 year old female who writes comments in the WSWS site and she always defends with a passion the Medicare prorgram. These people who are a bit elitists they like hate capitalism, but at the same time love a little bit some of the features of the capitalist system. Many of them do not even side with the anti-imperialist left-leaning governments of the world. They have a personal hatred against Hugo Chavez. An irrational hate against Hugo Chavez.

I think that there is a lot of narcissist-envy, group-narcissism within the trotskist left


.



Troskyism, in the fight for working class, is to be exposed and fought against as an unscientific and reactionary thought. Leon Trotsky himself was an arrogant petty-bourgeois who was expelled from the Communist Party and the Soviet Union for attempting to form factions within Soviet society. As an ideology, Trotskyism is revisionism; it is the perversion of Marxism-Leninism to suit the needs of the exploiters as well as Leon Trotsky. Trotskyites claim that Lenin and Trotsky were comrades before the Russian Revolution who were very much in agreement with one another. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Trotsky’s arrogance in his own claims of ideological superiority can be summed up by Trotsky himself the best:


“Among the Russian comrades, there was not one from whom I could learn anything…The errors which I have committed . . always referred to questions that were not fundamental or strategic. . . In all conscientiousness I cannot, in the appreciation of the political situation and of its revolutionary perspectives, accuse myself of any serious errors of judgment”.


“At the moment when it seized the power and created the Soviet republic, Bolshevism drew to itself all the best elements in the currents of Socialist thought that were nearest to it’. Can there be even a shadow of doubt that when he spoke so deliberately of the best representatives of the currents closest to Bolshevism, Lenin had foremost in mind what is now called ‘historical Trotskyism?’ . . Whom else could he have had in mind?” (Trotsky, 353).


Lenin also saw through Trotsky’s arrogance:


“Trotsky is very fond of explaining historical events . . in pompous and sonorous phrases, in a manner flattering to Trotsky”
“What a swine this Trotsky is — Left phrases and a bloc with the Right! He ought to be exposed”


Trotskyism is not a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views like those that make up the world outlook of the working class. It must be asserted that the theory and practice of Trotskyism is diametrically opposed to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism is a scientific system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views that make up the world outlook of the working class. It is a science of revolutionary transformation of the world, concerned with the laws that form the development of nature, society, thought and class society. It provides a guide to action to overthrow capitalism. It is the ideology that has had the only proven success to build socialism. It is a living and breathing theory, a theory forged from the experience of the struggle and creative actions of the masses, and an indispensable guide to action.
Trotskyites do not uphold the the scientific theories pounded by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, nor do they hold onto any unity or principles, as can be shown in their political parties which are known and famous throughout the world for forming factions within factions. Marxist-Leninists, unlike Trotskyites, have never, at any point of history or today, recognized the Trotskyite “Fourth International” as a body of communists. Trotsky was extremely adventurist and his advocacy for spreading revolution by foreign intervention would have inevitably been to the detriment of the working class.


His false political line against the socialist Soviet Union is echoed to this day by all reactionaries in the capitalist media, television and in the CIA and Washington. Even in the few short years after Trotsky’s counterrevolutionary scribbles were published it became fashionable for big capitalists to abandon open hatred of communism and instead adopt the position of Trotsky, or criticizing the Russian Revolution “from the left.” While the world faced the full onslaught of blitzkrieg and the genocidal bombing campaigns of the Nazi forces in World War II, and when the USSR with the guidance of the Communist Party and Joseph Stalin was almost single-handedly fighting this threat on behalf of all of humanity, the left-opposition led by the exiled Trotsky did all they possibly could to sabotage and wreck the USSR, even openly advocating terrorism and massive military attacks against the Soviet Union to destroy the Bolsheviks. Trotsky in his own public pronouncements openly called for the overthrow of the Soviet state and speculated that a foreign invasion might provide the catalyst for a takeover by himself. Yes, he wanted to ride to power on the back of German tanks.

[ckaihatsu]

It is the state and its support that maintains capitalism; nothing else. Without the state, capitalism would have no means to survive; no legality for their extortion and no military support to protect it from the workers.


---





The very existence of the working class and the remnants of the capitalist class implies a class system of sorts still exists and so emerges a state, but it will be a state organised in the interests of the working class - it will be organised with the goal of abolishing classes and establishing a society based on the principles of from each according to the ability and to each according to their need.


---


For the sake of clarification, I myself happen to think that *either* a purely bottom-up, worldwide-simultaneous successful proletarian revolution, *or* a rapid state-seizing and state-wielding proletarian vehicle could be used to then 'leverage' the remainder of the revolution worldwide, successfully -- but it would greatly depend on actual *conditions* at that time. So, in brief, I see these respective approaches to working class revolution as being revolutionary *strategies* that may or may not be deployed, depending on the objective circumstances:





If revolutionary society can get to the point where no 'state' of any kind is necessary (a communist-type gift economy), *very* quickly, then the whole transitional dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase could be skipped altogether. This would translate to a *very* broad-based revolutionary upheaval worldwide that is all on-the-same-page and simply swamps the elite and their goons within a short period of time -- a few months, and less than a year. This would be the *optimistic* possibility, of course.

If that *doesn't* happen and something more along the lines of my scenario at post #4 takes place ('dotp'), I don't see how the workers state / apparatus *wouldn't* cease to exist after a finished, successful revolution, no matter how long it takes. (The historical facts of the unsuccessful Bolshevik Revolution and its devolving into Stalinism were due to invasions by the Whites.)

In other words, 'Nothing succeeds like success.'

A successful proletarian revolution would reach the point of generalization of socialized productive methods, and so the people and workers themselves would have the proper social environment in which to self-organize -- the workers state / dotp would become glaringly irrelevant in the absence of a continued class foe, and would have nothing further to do. (Consider that in terms of *numbers*, the formal workers apparatus would be a *subset* of all revolutionaries, and all revolutionaries worldwide would be lesser in numbers than all workers and people together.)

My concern with your statement, and any similar line, is that it's too presumptuously *pessimistic* concerning the results of a workers state as a potential *strategy* for dealing with the bourgeoisie. If actual conditions objectively call for a monolithic-scale implementation of workers power then that's what's socially-necessary and anything *less* than that would be insufficient in the context of protracted battles with the forces of the bourgeoisie -- we wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot, and any concerns about the 'leadership' (for lack of a better word) would have to take a backseat to the need to confront bourgeois forces at a comparable-or-superior magnitude.


The state.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196235-The-state?p=2877074#post2877074

[(A)]

If revolutionary society can get to the point where no 'state' of any kind is necessary (a communist-type gift economy), *very* quickly, then the whole transitional dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase could be skipped altogether. This would translate to a *very* broad-based revolutionary upheaval worldwide that is all on-the-same-page and simply swamps the elite and their goons within a short period of time -- a few months, and less than a year. This would be the *optimistic* possibility, of course.

If that *doesn't* happen and something more along the lines of my scenario at post #4 takes place ('dotp'), I don't see how the workers state / apparatus *wouldn't* cease to exist after a finished, successful revolution, no matter how long it takes. (The historical facts of the unsuccessful Bolshevik Revolution and its devolving into Stalinism were due to invasions by the Whites.)

In other words, 'Nothing succeeds like success.'

A successful proletarian revolution would reach the point of generalization of socialized productive methods, and so the people and workers themselves would have the proper social environment in which to self-organize -- the workers state / dotp would become glaringly irrelevant in the absence of a continued class foe, and would have nothing further to do. (Consider that in terms of *numbers*, the formal workers apparatus would be a *subset* of all revolutionaries, and all revolutionaries worldwide would be lesser in numbers than all workers and people together.)

My concern with your statement, and any similar line, is that it's too presumptuously *pessimistic* concerning the results of a workers state as a potential *strategy* for dealing with the bourgeoisie. If actual conditions objectively call for a monolithic-scale implementation of workers power then that's what's socially-necessary and anything *less* than that would be insufficient in the context of protracted battles with the forces of the bourgeoisie -- we wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot, and any concerns about the 'leadership' (for lack of a better word) would have to take a backseat to the need to confront bourgeois forces at a comparable-or-superior magnitude.

As we saw in Russia that is the case; The soviets were ready to internally abandon the capitalist market and replace it with a money-less economy before the Bolsheviks even seized power.
Same as in Spain and basically everywhere where workers had been liberated from their state.

It is this fact that makes state-socialism a flawed praxis. The workers are always ready to take power before the dust has even settled; where this has been the case the newly minted states becomes instantly redundant causing their very existence to become counter to the workers ability to self-manage their productive capability's and social relations.

We need to create a praxis where the working class people are given total dictatorial authority over their own communal production and the ONLY role for active revolutionaries is in violently removing the political nation state system. A divide must exist between the Guerilla vanguards (professional revolutionary's) and the workers democracy. The vanguard must be the army that serves the workers; the sword of the proletariat; not a new set of rulers.

The vanguard should not form a workers state; the workers should form their own rule independently of any revolutionary organizations.
Why?
Because revolution is an act of authoritarianism; And we dont want to be authoritarian against the workers; we want to be authoritarian against the institutions that are extorting and ruling them.
Our job as revolutionaries; As killers, is to destroy the state; not to impose our violent authority over the workers.

We can either be the sword OF the proletariat; Organizations created to destroy capitalism; or the sword raised above the proletariat; intended to violently enforce our authority over all the workers.

[ckaihatsu]

As we saw in Russia that is the case; The soviets were ready to internally abandon the capitalist market and replace it with a money-less economy before the Bolsheviks even seized power.


You continue to place all blame on the Bolsheviks when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites that caused an objective need for consolidation of the nascent soviet society, for self-defensive combat.





The army was established immediately after the 1917 October Revolution (Red October or Bolshevik Revolution). The Bolsheviks raised an army to oppose the military confederations (especially the various groups collectively known as the White Army) of their adversaries during the Russian Civil War.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army


---





Same as in Spain and basically everywhere where workers had been liberated from their state.


I would have to revisit the 'Spain' thing, which I'm open to doing -- it's been awhile....





It is this fact that makes state-socialism a flawed praxis.


You keep making it sound like there would be a call from somewhere to *recreate* the USSR, when you're not realizing that the USSR was the undesired *outcome* of a materially-deprived, politically-isolated, and under-siege workers revolution, devolving into state socialism as a matter of empirical *necessity*.





The workers are always ready to take power before the dust has even settled; where this has been the case the newly minted states becomes instantly redundant causing their very existence to become counter to the workers ability to self-manage their productive capability's and social relations.


Basically true, but you're still not accepting *reality*, that, due to the larger environment of capitalism any revolution has-been / will-become attacked from without, and having a 'buffer' bureaucratic-collective state apparatus is the best-possible option under such dire conditions when / if the revolution is unable to spread regionally and worldwide.





We need to create a praxis where the working class people are given total dictatorial authority over their own communal production and the ONLY role for active revolutionaries is in violently removing the political nation state system. A divide must exist between the Guerilla vanguards (professional revolutionary's) and the workers democracy. The vanguard must be the army that serves the workers; the sword of the proletariat; not a new set of rulers.


Why even make such a dichotomy to begin with, if at all avoidable -- ?

Even *I* don't agree with this latest, vanguard-oriented formulation of yours, and I'm a self-declared 'vanguardist'. (Instead I conceive of a 'vanguard' as its conventional definition: )





In the context of the theory of Marxist revolutionary struggle, vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies.

In theory, the revolutionary vanguard is not intended to be an organization separate from the working class that attempts to place itself at the center of the movement and steer it in a direction consistent with its own ideology. It is instead intended to be an organic part of the working class that comes to socialist consciousness as a result of the dialectic of class struggle.[citation needed]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism


---





The vanguard should not form a workers state; the workers should form their own rule independently of any revolutionary organizations.
Why?
Because revolution is an act of authoritarianism; And we dont want to be authoritarian against the workers; we want to be authoritarian against the institutions that are extorting and ruling them.


I'll politely suggest that you may want to examine and reflect-on the *historical*, *societal* reasons for *why* a vanguard-type organization might *conceivably* 'go astray' and become authoritarian internally -- the standard 'mutation' nightmare.

Given that all worker-revolutionaries would start-out with pure political intentions, under *what circumstances* would they *deviate*, to become internally repressive as we saw with the Bolsheviks, and *why* -- ?





Our job as revolutionaries; As killers,


This is a bit too provocative -- please be careful.





[L]enin never advocated for the physical extermination of the entire bourgeoise as a class, just the execution of those who were actively involved in opposing and undermining Bolshevik rule.[42] He did intend to bring about "the overthrow and complete abolition of the bourgeoisie", but through non-violent political and economic means.[43] Ryan goes on to note that "to physically annihilate the bourgeoisie as a class was certainly not something that a Marxist could support".[42]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror


---





is to destroy the state; not to impose our violent authority over the workers.

We can either be the sword OF the proletariat; Organizations created to destroy capitalism; or the sword raised above the proletariat; intended to violently enforce our authority over all the workers.

[(A)]

You continue to place all blame on the Bolsheviks when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites that caused an objective need for consolidation of the nascent soviet society, for self-defensive combat.

You continue to spread false claims about the white Despite the fact that their "Impending invasion" was nothing more then Bolshevik propaganda to rally support against a perceived threat when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites was over before Kronstadt.


You keep making it sound like there would be a call from somewhere to *recreate* the USSR, when you're not realizing that the USSR was the undesired *outcome* of a materially-deprived, politically-isolated, and under-siege workers revolution, devolving into state socialism as a matter of empirical *necessity*.


While I understand you are not a one of the people who want to see the USSR recreated; they exist. Their is a reactionary left that wants to return to the good old days of Stalinism.


Basically true, but you're still not accepting *reality*, that, due to the larger environment of capitalism any revolution has-been / will-become attacked from without, and having a 'buffer' bureaucratic-collective state apparatus is the best-possible option under such dire conditions when / if the revolution is unable to spread regionally and worldwide.



Yes of course all revolutions will be attacked by the government forces of that nation states. The stupid idea would be to plan to face the capitalist nations face to face; nation vs nation instead of internally.
All you are doing is asking for a second cold war (at best; nuclear war more likely)

We have to disarm the capitalists; the only way to do that is to abolish the worlds nation states internally and world wide.


I'm a self-declared 'vanguardist'

Where is your party? Where is your organization?

You dont even fir your own definition of a vanguardist.



This is a bit too provocative -- please be careful.

And we come to the flaw of neo-Vanguardism; Willing to Justify and support the "Necessary" deaths of millions of workers for your ideology but loath we talk about the real job task of revolution!
Turning Musket and cannon against our oppressors in the most authoritarian of tasks.


[L]enin never advocated for the physical extermination of the entire bourgeoise as a class, just the execution of those who were actively involved in opposing and undermining Bolshevik rule.

"Yes fuck those communists and their fucking soviets; ALL POWER TO THE BOLSHEVIK Party and their Military dictatorship!"

The soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule
Communism demands the end of Bolshevik rule

>Death to all those who oppose the party equals death to communists.<

And goodness did he deliver on his promise to violently repress workers and instill a military dictatorship.

Millions dead for a failed state.

[Comrade Pingu]

It's obvious that Trotsky deserved it. He was a total ass, and believed that reform was a simple way to achieve a socialist state.

[(A)]

Many men, I know, speak of liberty without understanding it; they know neither the science of it, nor even the sentiment. They see in the demolition of reigning Authority nothing but a substitution of names or persons; they don’t imagine that a society could function without masters or servants, without chiefs and soldiers; in this they are like those reactionaries who say: “There are always rich and poor, and there always will be. What would become of the poor without the rich? They would die of hunger!” The demagogues do not say exactly that, but they say: “There have always been governors and governed, and there always will. What would become of the people without government? They would rot in bondage!”



—
Joseph Déjacque: Down with the Bosses (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Ftheanarchistlibrary.org%2 Flibrary%2Fjoseph-dejacque-down-with-the-bosses&t=OGJhNjNhZmRhODdjZGM2NWE5NmFhZDRkZTNiOThiNjFmYzcx ODViZCx0Q0ZkbGUzMQ%3D%3D&b=t%3AbQQSQkbXJIJGlCmndlkOig&p=https%3A%2F%2Fhowboutthatbreadtho.tumblr.com%2Fp ost%2F158755626914%2Fmany-men-i-know-speak-of-liberty-without&m=1)


.

[ckaihatsu]

You continue to spread false claims about the white Despite the fact that their "Impending invasion" was nothing more then Bolshevik propaganda to rally support against a perceived threat when in fact it was the invasion of the Whites was over before Kronstadt.


'Perceived threat' contradicts 'invasion of the Whites' in the same sentence of yours. (Which was it?)

Since there *was* an invasion that had to be neutralized...





Eight foreign nations intervened against the Red Army, notably the Allied Forces and the pro-German armies.[13] The Red Army defeated the White Armed Forces of South Russia in Ukraine and the army led by Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak in Siberia in 1919. The remains of the White forces commanded by Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel were beaten in Crimea and evacuated in late 1920. Lesser battles of the war continued on the periphery for two more years, and minor skirmishes with the remnants of the White forces in the Far East continued well into 1923. Armed national resistance in Central Asia was not completely crushed until 1934. There were an estimated 7,000,000–12,000,000 casualties during the war, mostly civilians. The Russian Civil War has been described by some as the greatest national catastrophe that Europe had yet seen.[14]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War


...This fact and its magnitude have to be taken into consideration, not downplayed and practically ignored, with the results *displaced* onto Lenin and the Bolsheviks, as you keep doing.


---





While I understand you are not a one of the people who want to see the USSR recreated; they exist. Their is a reactionary left that wants to return to the good old days of Stalinism.


'Reactionary' is an incorrect / inappropriate term in this context. Consider that *full workers-government collectivization* is the real-world equivalent of all of today's wished-for liberal reforms coming true, all at once:


https://www.marxist.com/100-years-ago-women-sparked-the-russian-revolution.htm


In Defence of Marxism

100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution

Fanny Labelle 08 March 2017

1917 Struggle for Women's Emancipation

100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution 8 Mar 2017

Violence against women – an international movement in search of revolution 6 Mar 2017

Share
Tweet
+1

Every year on March 8th, International Women’s Day is celebrated all over the world. Today, it has become what is essentially a day to raise awareness about the oppression of women. This year, it has particular significance because it is also the anniversary of the beginning of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Most people are not aware of the fact that on March 8th 1917 it was actually women who started the events that created the revolution. This began a revolutionary process that brought the working class to power, allowing for spectacular advancements for women.



Women workers, the vanguard of the Russian Revolution!

On February 23rd 1917 – March 8th in the Gregorian calendar – it was women workers who were the first the take to the streets of Petrograd, triggering a movement that would lead to the fall of the Tsar a week later.

Women textile workers, following attempts of the Tsarist government to ban demonstrations on Women’s day, refused to work and went on strike. Taking to the streets and sending delegates to the other factories, they sparked the revolution. Against all odds, and without any prior plan, a mass strike broke out. Around 90,000 workers were on strike for the first day. Women were demanding bread, an end to the war and an end to Tsarism. In the following days, the strike became general and a soviet was founded in Petrograd. The fall of Tsarism became an inevitability when the army came over to the side of the revolution.

Women workers played an essential role, fraternizing with the soldiers and inciting them to turn their bayonets on their common enemy. This key role of women in the Russian Revolution is in fact nothing new. Women are quite often the first to enter the struggle and the last to leave. As an oppressed group, they have everything to win from the abolition of the capitalist system and the struggle for the establishment of socialism. Conversely, they are the first to suffer from the defeat of the revolution and the liquidation of its gains. The Russian Revolution is no exception here.

The revolution and the condition of women

https://www.marxist.com/images/stories/women/emancipatin-of-women.jpg

After eight months of struggle between the soviets - representing the workers, peasants and soldiers - and the provisional government - representing the bourgeoisie - the Bolshevik Party organized the seizure of power by the soviets in October 1917 (November in the Gregorian calendar). The soviet regime made it a goal to put in place the conditions for the genuine liberation of women. After the revolution, there were several laws adopted making it so that women had the same rights as men. There was a law that stipulated that a woman must be paid the same wage as a man. For the first time in history, a woman was part of the government:

Alexandra Kollontai, the first People’s Commissar of Social Welfare. In December 1917, a public insurance fund was created, with no deductions from workers wages. Six weeks after the revolution, civil marriage was legalized. Spouses now had the same rights as one another and divorce was legal and accessible to all.

In 1918, a Ministry for the Protection of Maternity and Childhood was established. This led to reforms such as 16 weeks of maternity leave, exemption from overly burdensome work, banning of transfers, layoffs and night work for pregnant and postpartum women as well as access to clinics specializing in maternity, counseling services and daycares. Measures to socialize domestic work were introduced so that this burden would no longer only fall on women, isolated in their homes. In addition to the aforementioned daycares, restaurants, laundromats, medical dispensaries and hospitals were developed.

The distinction between a legitimate and an illegitimate child was abolished by the soviet regime. Starting in 1920, women had the right to abortion. Russia became the first country to grant this right, almost 53 years before the United States and 71 years before Canada! Women were beginning to take control of their bodies and over society. They took part in it through workers’ democracy.

All of these reforms would never have been possible, so early in history, under the capitalist system. Soviet power, in an economically backwards country where the oppression of women and minorities was possibly among the most fierce in the entire world, achieved in a few years what the capitalists in other countries took decades to concede under massive pressure from the struggle of the working class and of women. At a time when Donald Trump’s clique in 2017 is trying to restrict access to abortion and we are faced with repeated attacks on women and minorities all over the country, the Russian Revolution is an inexhaustible source of inspiration.

The return of capitalism in Russia: a catastrophe for women

The Stalinist reaction, through a series of counter reforms, represented a big step back at the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s. The soviet bureaucracy that had formed needed stability, and this went hand in hand with reinforcing the nuclear family unit inherited from the past – that is to say reducing women to the role of a slave for men. In 1934, prostitution became illegal and punishable by at least eight months in prison. Divorce became less accessible and more expensive. The Stalinist regime went as far as criminalizing abortion in 1936, saying that it was supposedly not necessary in a society where women were liberated and where “socialism had been achieved.”

In spite of all of the detrimental effects of Stalinism, women in the Soviet Union made huge leaps towards equality. The revival of the soviet economy after the Second World War allowed for significant gains. Women constituted 49% of students in higher education in 1970; only Finland, France and the United States had also surpassed the 40% mark. Pregnant women could benefit from a reduction in their workload and paid maternity leave. As well, there was an increase in daycare spaces, an increase in life expectancy and a drop in infant mortality. All of this progress was the fruit of the planned economy, an economy freed from the need to satisfy the investors’ thirst for profit.

The return of capitalism in Russia in the 1990s undermined, one after another, all of the advances made by women following the revolution. Capitalism has brought back all of the evils usually associated with it: family oppression, unemployment, prostitution and homelessness. Women were the first to be laid off, the first to suffer wage cuts and were the ones who returned to the home as a result of the draconian cuts in social services. The rise in unemployment meant that women accounted for almost 70% of the unemployed and up to 90% in some regions. The decrease in women’s wages, which fell from 70% to 40% of that of men after 1989, increased their material dependence on men. There was also a huge increase in violence against women.

In the 1990s, the bourgeoisie jubilantly proclaimed the “end of history” and the victory of liberal democracy. What has been accomplished in Russia since then? Russia is now dominated by gangsters, inequality has never been so high, and the condition of women and other oppressed groups has been getting worse and worse. A direct attack against women has recently occurred: the Russian Duma (parliament) has decriminalized domestic violence at the first offense and there are no serious consequences. Previously, such acts could be punished by two years in prison. The responsibility is now on the victim who must personally provide a record of evidence, and this may have the effect of increasing the difficulty for the victims to bring to justice their aggressor. According to Duma spokesman Vyacheslav Volodin, the law “would help build strong families”! Twenty-five years after the end of the Soviet Union, this new law is a tragic testimony to the position of women made possible by the victory of “democracy”.

Take inspiration from 1917

Today, under capitalism, social services such as those mentioned above exist and mitigate the burden on women, but these programs are at risk of being abolished or cut severely as austerity is on the order of the day in all countries. Women still do not have the same wages as men for equal work. They are still forced to perform the majority of domestic tasks and are underrepresented in the political and cultural spheres.

The October 1917 revolution not only wanted formal equality between men and women, but it wanted to create the material conditions to give women real access to all political, economic and cultural fields of society. We are facing the same task today. As long as a system based on exploitation persists, as long as the family in its present form exists, women will not be able to free themselves completely from their chains.

Today, the same as one hundred years ago, women play a leading role in the struggle against oppression and exploitation. The Women’s March against Donald Trump on January 21 was a clear demonstration of this. And today, as was the case a hundred years ago, we must link the struggle of against women’s oppression with the wider struggle for the overthrow of the established order, for the overthrow of capitalism. There must be a new foundation for society, through which the daily struggle for survival, competition between workers and the slave mentality will be destroyed, a society where truly harmonious relations between human beings will become the standard. Women in the struggle for emancipation will find in the Russian Revolution of 1917 an inspiring example from which we must draw lessons in order to accomplish the socialist transformation of society.


---





Yes of course all revolutions will be attacked by the government forces of that nation states. The stupid idea would be to plan to face the capitalist nations face to face; nation vs nation instead of internally.


As I said, socialism-in-one-country is not the *desired* implementation -- it was a materially-necessary *fallback* political configuration due to the prevalence of detrimental factors at the time.





All you are doing is asking for a second cold war (at best; nuclear war more likely)


No, I'm not *calling* for socialism-in-one-country.





We have to disarm the capitalists; the only way to do that is to abolish the worlds nation states internally and world wide.


True.





Where is your party? Where is your organization?


I've noted before that since communication technologies like the Internet now exist, human society no longer *requires* a necessarily-somewhat-substitutionist 'party' formulation:





Hierarchy is just a *vehicle* -- it's not automatically 'bad' but depends on the political *trajectory* chosen by such a hierarchy / institution. It's definitely more *expedient*, but at the cost of being less bottom-up in participation, which *could* become a problem over the long-term, all other factors being neutral.

I don't justify hierarchy (a vanguard *party*) in the abstract, as any kind of *desired* vehicle, especially when today's communications technology would allow all revolutionaries worldwide to be active in an ongoing participatory 'vanguard' (not 'vanguard party').

Stalin was right and Trotsky a criminal

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/196628-Stalin-was-right-and-Trotsky-a-criminal?p=2881150#post2881150


---





You dont even fir your own definition of a vanguardist.


On what grounds -- ? (What's the reasoning behind this baseless accusation -- ?)


---





Our job as revolutionaries; As killers,





This is a bit too provocative -- please be careful.





And we come to the flaw of neo-Vanguardism; Willing to Justify and support the "Necessary" deaths of millions of workers for your ideology but loath we talk about the real job task of revolution!


As political people (revolutionaries) we're *not* primarily 'killers' -- and I'm not justifying or calling-for internal repression in any way in making this distinction, contrary to more reckless accusations from yourself.





Turning Musket and cannon against our oppressors in the most authoritarian of tasks.


I disagree with your *emphasis* on violence since the point of revolution is to *empower* the *working class*, which can potentially be done with sheer numbers, to simply *displace* counterrevolutionary forces, as happened in history. Here's from the article posted above:





[T]he strike became general and a soviet was founded in Petrograd. The fall of Tsarism became an inevitability when the army came over to the side of the revolution.

Women workers played an essential role, fraternizing with the soldiers and inciting them to turn their bayonets on their common enemy.


---





"Yes fuck those communists and their fucking soviets; ALL POWER TO THE BOLSHEVIK Party and their Military dictatorship!"


You're erroneously conflating party-type general organization with an automatically anti-worker dictatorship.





The soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule


You have no evidence for this fatuous contention.





Communism demands the end of Bolshevik rule

>Death to all those who oppose the party equals death to communists.<

And goodness did he deliver on his promise to violently repress workers and instill a military dictatorship.

Millions dead for a failed state.


Again you retreat to your 'Great Man Theory' since it allows you to place all blame on one person, irrespective of all other world events going on at the time.


---





It's obvious that Trotsky deserved it. He was a total ass, and believed that reform was a simple way to achieve a socialist state.


Trotsky was a revolutionary, not a reformist.

[(A)]

"100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution"

And that workers revolution was successfully countered when the Bolsheviks made it illegal for workers to strike.

You call Stalinism *full workers-government collectivization* when it was the farthest thing in the world from it. It was a fascist dictatorship; Stalin "No different then Mussolini." by eye-witness accounts of the party's fascism.
You can call the right-wing government of Russia "workers-control" all you want; But party members themselves admitted that the party leadership was far-right of even Lenin (who again made it illegal for workers to protest their working conditions).

You are defending a right-wing party leadership for enacting one of the most brutal anti-worker dictatorships in human history; and somehow think that the term "Reactionary" is inappropriate.

Fuck that. Stalin was fascist.
The party; full of right-wingers who countered every attempt at workers revolution (as a direct >reaction< to the already existing movement started by women).



On what grounds

"vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies."

You have no organization that intents to "draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics"
You are a graphic designer who is arguing online that your home made graphics are the framework for the future.
Form a vanguard then call yourself a vanguardist.


I disagree with your *emphasis* on violence

Women workers played an essential role, fraternizing with the soldiers and inciting them to turn their bayonets on their common enemy.

Sorry what was that again?


You're erroneously conflating party-type general organization with an automatically anti-worker dictatorship.

No I am saying that specifically; The BOLSHEVIK leadership was Anti-worker (as admitted by Trotsky)



You have no evidence for this fatuous contention.(that the soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule)

Here is the evidence (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)


Again you retreat to your 'Great Man Theory' since it allows you to place all blame on one person, irrespective of all other world events going on at the time.

Not one person; the party leadership; A group of people who we can proved lied and used propaganda to rally populist support for a right-wing anti-worker party leadership.



Trotsky was a revolutionary, not a reformist.

And he himself admitted that the party was right-wing and dead set against the workers.


"They (the party leadership) did not know how to refute the premise about the bourgeois character of the revolution"
"Every time the Bolshevik leaders had to act without Lenin they fell into error, usually inclining to the Right."
"The Bolshevik leaders policy "of waiting, of accommodation, and of actual retreat before the Compromisers"

[ckaihatsu]

"100 Years Ago, Women Sparked the Russian Revolution"

And that workers revolution was successfully countered when the Bolsheviks made it illegal for workers to strike.


All you're doing is taking pot-shots at those who were tasked to handle the actual dire circumstances -- the revolutionary workers society *supported* the Bolsheviks, and a Red Army was raised to deal with counterrevolutionaries from within and without.

Under more-typical conditions we would *encourage* workers to strike, of course, but at the time of the October Revolution such actions were too similar to *counter-revolutionary* actions, and so were *inappropriate*. I'm not *cheering* Lenin here, it's just what would have been done by anyone else in that position, under those conditions.


---





While I understand you are not a one of the people who want to see the USSR recreated; they exist. Their is a reactionary left that wants to return to the good old days of Stalinism.





'Reactionary' is an incorrect / inappropriate term in this context. Consider that *full workers-government collectivization* is the real-world equivalent of all of today's wished-for liberal reforms coming true, all at once:





You call Stalinism *full workers-government collectivization* when it was the farthest thing in the world from it.


I was only critiquing your use of the descriptor 'reactionary' -- I'm not defending the domestic policies of Stalin.





Beginning in October 1918, the Soviet Union liberalized divorce and abortion laws, decriminalized homosexuality, permitted cohabitation, and ushered in a host of reforms that instigated a red sexual revolution.[1] But without birth control, this early emancipation produced many broken marriages and broken hearts, as well as countless children born out of wedlock.[2] The epidemic of divorces and extramarital affairs created social hardships when Soviet leaders wanted people to concentrate their efforts on growing the economy. Giving Soviet women control over their fertility also led to a precipitous decline in the birth rate, perceived as a threat to their country’s military power. By 1936, Joseph Stalin reversed most of the liberal laws, ushering in a conservative, pronatalist era that lasted for decades to come.[3]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_Revolution


---





It was a fascist dictatorship; Stalin "No different then Mussolini." by eye-witness accounts of the party's fascism.
You can call the right-wing government of Russia "workers-control" all you want;


No, of course I haven't, and wouldn't, describe Stalinism as being workers-control. But it *wasn't* right-wing or fascist -- it was bureaucratic-collectivist-nationalist:





What I'm *trying* to do with this portion is to *show* that there's a clear distinction between left-wing and right-wing, so that you'll cease conflating Bolshevism and Stalinism, with fascism. The clear distinction can be seen in the active policies regarding private property, as with the example of dekulakization, which was definitely *anti*-private-property, and therefore generally left-wing, and *not* 'fascist'. It will always be negligence on your part, or anyone's, to flippantly ignore the 'ends' ('ideology'), to focus only on the 'means'.


---





But party members themselves admitted that the party leadership was far-right of even Lenin (who again made it illegal for workers to protest their working conditions).


All you're doing is making an academic exercise out of the left-right spectrum of political positions, while continuing to *ignore* the actual material situation at the time.

We could mark the timeline at exactly the moment that the Russian Revolution failed to spread to Germany -- at this point Bolshevik Russia then became decidedly *isolated* and *internal* within a necessarily *geopolitical* context:





[In October 1918] another series of strikes swept through Germany with the participation of over 1 million workers. For the first time during these strikes, the so-called Revolutionary Stewards took action. They were to play an important part in further developments. They called themselves "Councils" (Räte) after the Russian "Soviets". To weaken their influence, Ebert joined the Berlin strike leadership and achieved an early termination of the strike.

On 3 March 1918, the newly established Soviet government agreed to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk negotiated with the Germans by Leon Trotsky. The settlement arguably contained harsher terms for the Russians than the later Treaty of Versailles would demand of the Germans. The Bolsheviks' principal motivation for acceding to so many of Germany's demands was to stay in power at any cost amid the backdrop of the Russian Civil War. Lenin and Trotsky also believed at the time that all of Europe would soon see world revolution and proletarian internationalism, and bourgeois nationalistic interests as a framework to judge the treaty would become irrelevant.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319#Impact_of_Rus sian_Revolution


---





You are defending a right-wing party leadership for enacting one of the most brutal anti-worker dictatorships in human history; and somehow think that the term "Reactionary" is inappropriate.


It *is* inappropriate, objectively / empirically -- the entire country at that point was *no longer* revolutionary in any sense, and had to collectively operate in the larger environment of bourgeois nation-states.





Fuck that. Stalin was fascist.


You're just venting and name-calling in a simplistic way without a care for what these pejorative terms actually *mean* or what the historical / situational context actually *was*.





The party; full of right-wingers who countered every attempt at workers revolution (as a direct >reaction< to the already existing movement started by women).


Nope, it wasn't right-wing -- it was bureaucratic-collectivist on a nationalist scale. I'm not defending it, I'm saying that there were no other realistic options at that point.





"vanguardism is a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically advanced sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power against its class enemies."

You have no organization that intents to "draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics"


I'm not trying to be like an ahistorical Lenin, as you imply -- I participate here at RevLeft, and that is a sufficient use of my time for political purposes.





You are a graphic designer


Only by obsession. (grin)





who is arguing online that your home made graphics are the framework for the future.


What are you even disparaging here -- ? You've *agreed* that at least one component of my model would be realistically useful (post #203):





If you want to build a system for processing public requests maybe some unions will sign up; As you say it would be efficient to have a central hub for possessing societys requisitions.


---





Form a vanguard then call yourself a vanguardist.


Here's the link: tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism.

Feel free to pass it along.





No I am saying that specifically; The BOLSHEVIK leadership was Anti-worker (as admitted by Trotsky)


The historical conditions at that time were *not* conducive to a gradual bottom-up soviet-type workers control over social production -- there was insufficient material productivity for such, hence the objective / empirical need for centralization and defense on a necessarily-*national* scale.


---





You have no evidence for this fatuous contention.(that the soviets where working to undermine Bolshevik rule)





Here is the evidence (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/append42.html)


I misspoke -- here's some background:




Other revolts[edit]

The first large CHEKA action against alleged anarchists where people were killed was in mid April 1918 in Petrograd. Then at the end of April and beginning of May coordinated CHEKIST attacks against alleged anarchists were launched in both Petrograd and Moscow. ( P. Avrich. G. Maximoff. ) These violent attacks without warning from the Bolsheviks forced anarchists underground and prompted measured retaliation by them in self-defense. Anarchists in Rostov, Ekaterinoslav and Briansk broke into prisons to liberate the prisoners and issued fiery proclamations calling on the people to revolt against the Bolshevik regime. The Anarchist Battle Detachments attacked the Whites, Reds and Germans alike. Many peasants joined the revolt, attacking their enemies with pitchforks and sickles. Meanwhile, in Moscow, the Underground Anarchists were formed by Kazimir Kovalevich and Piotr Sobolev to be the shock troops of their revolution, infiltrating Bolshevik ranks and striking when least expected. On 25 September 1919, the Underground Anarchists struck the Bolsheviks with "their heaviest blow against the 'oppressors'".[30] The headquarters of the Moscow Committee of the Communist Party was blown up, killing 12 and injuring 55 Party members, including Nikolai Bukharin and Emilian Iaroslavskii. Spurred on by their apparent success, the Underground Anarchists proclaimed a new "era of dynamite" that would finally wipe away capitalism and the State.[citation needed] The Bolsheviks responded by initiating a new wave of mass repression in which Kovalevich and Sobolev were the first to be shot.[citation needed] The remaining Underground Anarchists blew themselves up in their last battle with the Cheka,[when?] taking much of their safe house with them.[citation needed]

Further repression[edit]

However, strikes continued. In January 1920, Lenin sent a telegram to Izhevsk telling that "I am surprised that you are taking the matter so lightly and are not immediately executing large numbers of strikers for the crime of sabotage."[31]

In June 1920, female workers in Tula who refused to work on Sunday were arrested and sent to labor camps.[32]

Workers opposition[edit]

Alexandra Kollontai increasingly became an internal critic of the Communist Party and joined with her friend, Alexander Shlyapnikov, to form a left-wing faction of the party that became known as the Workers' Opposition. The Workers Opposition had some similar demands to some of the rebellions, but supported the government and argued peacefully within it rather than resorting to violent uprisings. Instead the Workers Opposition energetically supported the crushing of these rebellions, including volunteering government representatives to participate in the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion. After the Kronstadt Rebellion, Lenin argued that the party needed unity at that time because their enemies were trying to exploit disunity. The Workers' Opposition and other factions were dissolved, but the leaders of the two main factions Workers Opposition and Democratic Centralists were included in the new leadership.

Tyumen revolt[edit]

In January 1921, the largest uprising[33] in Russia since the civil war broke out. Insurgents blocked the railway, occupied Tobolsk, Surgut, Berezovo, and Salekhard, stormed Ishim, and came within four km of Tyumen. Both sides fought a battle of unprecedented savagery.[dubious – discuss] Regular Red Army units using armored trains, warships, and other means took part in suppressing the uprising, which was finally crushed only in 1922.

Revolutionary Insurrectionary (Anarchist) Army[edit]

The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine or Anarchist Black Army led by anarchist and former Red Army leader Nestor Makhno took control of most of the southern Ukraine and Crimea after its abandonment by Red Army troops in 1919. Makhno's forces fought on the side of the Bolsheviks and played an important role in the eventual defeat of the White Armies. However, they were at odds with the Bolshevik view of a unitary Bolshevik dominated political movement. Occasionally Makhno's Black Army troops fought Red Army forces, whom the Ukrainian anarchists had viewed with mistrust after Chekist and Red Army raids on anarchist centers, including arrests, detentions, and executions commencing in May 1918.

For his part, Makhno stated his support for "free worker-peasant soviets"[34] independent of centralized control by Moscow. Makhno, a rural anarchist, viewed the Bolsheviks as urban dictators out-of-touch with the people, opposing the Bolshevik-controlled "Cheka [secret police]... and similar compulsory authoritative and disciplinary institutions". He called for "[f]reedom of speech, press, assembly, unions and the like".[34] In practice, Makhno's Anarchist Black Army, the Anarchist Revolutionary Military Council, and the Ukrainian anarchists' political arm, the Congress of the Confederation of Anarchists Groups (NABAT) formed an overall government over the area they controlled, though they did permit local self-governing autonomous committees of peasants. Like the Red Army, they used forced conscription and summary executions, though as a relatively popular native Ukrainian movement, these measures were not used on the same scale as that of the Bolshevik Red Army.[35] In the areas under his military control, the Anarchist Revolutionary Military Council banned all opposition parties[34](,[35] 119), and like the Bolsheviks, used two secret police counter-intelligence forces: the Razedka and the Kommissiya Protivmakhnovskikh Del.[36]

Some members of the Bolshevik Central Committees considered allowing an independent area for Makhno's libertarian experiment,[35] an idea fiercely opposed by both Lenin and Leon Trotsky, War Commissar of the Red Army. After each successful repulse of White Army forces, Trotsky ordered fresh attacks against Makhno and the Anarchist Black Army, halting only when White forces threatened to once again defeat the Red Army in the field. At the instructions of Moscow, the Cheka sent two agents to assassinate Makhno in 1920. After repudiation of two military alliances, and the final defeat of White General Wrangel in the Crimea, Trotsky ordered the mass executions of Makhnovist sympathizers, followed by the liquidation of many of Makhno's subordinate commanders and his entire headquarters staff at a "joint planning conference" in November 1920. By August 1921, Makhno and the remainder of the Anarchist Black Army had been forced into exile.

Revolts against grain requisitioning[edit]

SRs were among the main leaders of the uprisings of the Tambov Rebellion and the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921. Protests against grain requisitioning of the peasantry were a major component of these uprisings and Lenin's New Economic Program was introduced as a concession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks#Other_revolt s


---





Not one person; the party leadership; A group of people who we can proved lied and used propaganda to rally populist support for a right-wing anti-worker party leadership.


Yes, we can generalize to the Bolsheviks, as a whole, for national defense. (It wasn't right-wing, and it wasn't anti-worker on principle.)


---





Trotsky was a revolutionary, not a reformist.





And he himself admitted that the party was right-wing and dead set against the workers.




"They (the party leadership) did not know how to refute the premise about the bourgeois character of the revolution"
"Every time the Bolshevik leaders had to act without Lenin they fell into error, usually inclining to the Right."
"The Bolshevik leaders policy "of waiting, of accommodation, and of actual retreat before the Compromisers"


Again you may as *well* be using Great Man Theory because you continue to lay blame -- in a right-wing manner -- on those who simply *actively handled* a rapidly-devolving situation. Under such conditions *nothing* is going to be pretty, and you insist on an ahistorical idealism which just wasn't possible at the time.

[ShadowoftheFlag]

It's truly incredible that threads like these are still being made.

[ckaihatsu]

It's truly incredible that threads like these are still being made.


'Incredible' in what sense of the word -- ?

[jdneel]

To sum it up: Trotsky was a revolutionary, Stalin was a murdering pig and anarchists are just plain silly (and occasionally extremely destructive).

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

[General Winter]

No,the sum is the following: Stalin was a revolutionary,Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary pig and anarchists are just plain silly.

[ckaihatsu]

No,the sum is the following: Stalin was a revolutionary,Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary pig and anarchists are just plain silly.


My understanding (from this thread) is that Trotsky introduced formal intra-party factionalism where none was necessary -- but, even accepting this premise at face value, what about all of his previous contributions to the revolution, as in the Red Army -- ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky#Head_of_the_Red_Army_.28spring_1918.2 9


(My position from post #246 stands -- after the failed spreading of the revolution to Germany, and then the start of formal bourgeois-international relations, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918), there was *no* revolution anymore. There were no options except to nationalize further, industrialize, and do geopolitics as a nation-state within the larger context of capitalist relations.)





We could mark the timeline at exactly the moment that the Russian Revolution failed to spread to Germany -- at this point Bolshevik Russia then became decidedly *isolated* and *internal* within a necessarily *geopolitical* context: