Alan Woods: "Anarchism Will Lead Only To Defeat."

[Red Terror Dr.]

None so blind as those who will not see.

The ruling class over centuries has built up a formidable apparatus – the state power – in order to defend its class rule. And all history shows us that the ruling class will never surrender its power, wealth and privileges without a struggle. The bankers and capitalists possess a centralised power based on the army, the police and intelligence services, the media, the education system, the church, the prisons, the judiciary etc. All of these things will be used in an attempt to prevent the workers from taking power into their own hands. These are the facts of life.

It should be evident to any thinking person that the overthrowing of the existing state will not be an easy task. It requires careful thought, planning and preparation. Of course, the revolution cannot be made by any small group of conspirators (the myth peddled by bourgeois opponents of the October revolution that it was a “coup” organised by Lenin and Trotsky is a piece of nonsense but does not bear the slightest examination). Revolutions are made by the masses, and the self-movement of the masses.

https://www.marxist.com/reply-to-black-flag-marxism-or-anarchism-an-open-letter-to-thinking-anarchists/page-3.htm

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hi, any specific reason you posted this? If you wanted to pose a question or highlight something from this for discussion, it might help to explain.

Dropping something like this without context just tends to look like an attack on a whole broad political tradition and generally doesn't lead to much discussion.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sentinel]

I agree with Jimmie H that a quote from it to start discussion would be helpful, especially as this discussion between AW and the Black Flag is quite good and definitely worth bringing up in itself. I do hope any discussion will be comradely though. As I commented on it on facebook:


Alan Woods replies to an anarchist polemic in a brilliant fashion. https://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v8/f83/1/16/1f60e.png I myself found my way to authentic marxism (as maintained by Trotsky) only after a diversion into anarchist ideas, resulting from a rejection of Stalinism that initially went too far and threw out the baby with the bathwater if you will. It follows that I regard anarchism a honest but tragically misguided outlook for the liberation of the working class.
I think these discussions are very important and interesting, as long as they such as here and hopefully in the eventual reply from Black Flag maintain a comradely, and above all political tone, free of personal insults, useless anecdotes, name-calling and accusations of class treason etc.
Such are not the way to facilitate constructive discussions of the kind that can lead to fruitful cooperations, benefit both sides theoretically in sharpening our respective arguments, and even much less convince anyone of anything.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll continue to maintain that the anarchism-vs.-centralization schism only exists due to aspects of *scale* -- ultimately everything will have to be decided at the ground-level anyway, for the sake of local self-determination, but pan-local localities *will* have to centralize on the whole to benefit from economies-of-scale, post-capitalism.

Strict localism or inter-communal barter / exchanges is *not* acceptable because of the retention of exchange-values, and -- on the flipside -- no kind of elitist top-down specialist administrative rule is acceptable, either.

Here's a summation of the objective situation:





[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