Anti-anarchy

[Revolution Hero]

Anarchists believe that the state no matter what class or classes hold the state power is evil, which has to be destroyed without fail. That is why anarchists negate dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. They don’t understand the true nature of the revolutionary process, progressive character of proletarian and socialist state and they don't understand Marxist political economy.

The state is the machine of oppression of one class by another; the class having state power suppresses the class antagonist and therefore implements the policy of class interests. Both anarchists and communists agree on this issue, but they make different conclusions out of it. According to anarchist logic the main aim of the revolution is to destroy the state, and they think that this measure will solve all the problems capitalist society has. In contrary, communists have the aim of elimination of the class of capitalists by socializing capitalist private property on the means of production and we communists believe that the bourgeoisie state apparatus has to be destroyed and be replaced by another state system, which should be used in order to achieve the goal of elimination of class antagonism and serve as the mean of achievement of communism, i.e. anarchist ideal of a society. We say that we need to set the dictatorship of the proletariat to oppress class of capitalists and we say that this dictatorship is needed to protect revolution against attempts of restoration of capitalism. And according to our doctrine even when a revolutionary society enters into nonantagonistic step of its development the central authority will be needed to manage production and oppress bourgeoisie elements that may struggle against revolution. Anarchists seem not to understand these points.

All of the said above allows us to consider anarchism as petty-bourgeoisie trend in the leftist movement. Moreover anarchism shows the wrong road to its adherents as anarchist revolution, so to say, will never be successful.

[The Feral Underclass]

Quote (Revolution Hero @ Apr 2 2004, 11:45 PM)

Anarchists believe that the state no matter what class or classes hold the state power is evil which has to be destroyed without fail.

The class that control a state are always a ruling class. They maybe rulers who come from the working class but they are still rulers. The state is a specific entity, designed for a specific task. The state exists in order for a ruling class to propogate its authority. Regardless of whether it is bourgeois or Leninist. In order for workers liberation to exist in its entirity, the state has to be destroyed.


They don’t understand the true nature of the revolutionary process, progressive character of proletarian and socialist state and they don't understand Marxist political economy.

We understand it, we jsut dont agree with it. Anarchist understands the revolutionary process all to well, that is why we reject State Socialism. Even more so after the disastrous results of Leninism. Bakunin predicted in the 19th century exactly where Marxism would lead. Not a dictatorship of the Proletariat, but one of the party. Which is exactly what happened, in every single country it was attempted. The reason for this is the theory is flawed. The state exists as something which stands diametrically to workers liberation. In order for the Leninists to use the state, which they argue is the only way to achieve workers liebration, they must increase its power and centralize its authority into the hands of a few people. In Russia after the revolution, 19 to be exact. Then, in order for it to exist, the state must oppress opposition, regardless of class, in which doing so moves the state further and further away from workers liberation. How can you give workers freedom while oppressing them. How can you give them power while taking it away from them.


The state is the machine of oppression of one class by another; the class having state power suppresses the class antagonist and therefore implements the policy of class interests.

Exactly. That is exactly what the state is. But the class in power are not the entire working class. They are a vangaurd of a few men and women who may or may not have come from the working class. They monoplize power, centralizing it into their hands and then oppress all opposition. Not just class antagonists such as the bourgeoisie but working class opposition also. The state exacts its control over the people by what ever means necessary, all the while claiming they are doing it in their interests. This is a contradiction, the flaw in the theory, not to mention slightly confused. How can you take power away from the workers, oppress them and control them, while giving them freedom and power. This has never happened, when ever it has been tried throughout the world, throughout history. What makes you think it will happen next time round.


According to anarchist logic the main aim of the revolution is to destroy the state, and they think that this measure will solve all the problems capitalist society has.

We do not assume that the problems of capitalist society will simply vanish at the removel of the state. We know, through historical fact, that the state can not achieve the objectives we all want and therefore must be replaced with another form of organization. IE, workers federations.


In contrary, communists have the aim of elimination of the class of capitalists by socializing capitalist private property on the means of production

We also have this aim. We just want to organize it without using the very thing that created the problems in the first place. The state is an oppressive form of organization which can not, under any circumstances serve the interests of the working class. And it is one form of organization. There are different, less oppressive, equally effective forms of organization.


communists believe that the bourgeoisie state apparatus has to be destroyed and be replaced by another state system, which should be used in order to achieve the goal of elimination of class antagonism and serve as the mean of achievement of communism

But you can not use the state to achieve communism. It dosnt work. It is a contradiction. They are so opposed to each other than they can never meet in the middle. You can not water a pot of flowers by sucking the water out, just as you can not destroy a state by using one. We must smash the bourgeois state and create federations of workers who have direct control over the actions of the revolution. Which after all, is their revolution.


And according to our doctrine even when a revolutionary society enters into nonantagonistic step of its development the central authority will be needed to manage production and oppress bourgeoisie elements that may struggle against revolution. Anarchists seem not to understand these points.

Seem only to you. We understand them very well and believe that in fact you will only be able to manage those things. Managment and oppression. Not communism!


All of the said above allows us to consider anarchism as petty-bourgeoisie trend in the leftist movement.

You have not demonstrated, at all, why anarchism is a pretty bourgeois trend. YOu have once again shown how the authotarian left completely misunderstand anarchism and what it represents. All we advocate is that we organize differently and not keep using a formula which has failed time and time again. Resulting in the very things which we oppose and predicted long before they happened by anarchists. Many people call anarchists idealists. Watching a theory fail time and time again and still grasping onto it in some vein dream that it may work the next time round! That is idealism. Or maybe your just too afraid to sy `Lenin was wrong.`



Moreover anarchism shows the wrong road to its adherents as anarchist revolution, so to say, will never be successful.

And why exactly is that.

I apologize for my lack of question marks. I couldnt find where the button was on this specific keyboard.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Revolution [email protected] 2 2004, 10:41 PM
Anarchists believe that the state no matter what class or classes hold the state power is evil, which has to be destroyed without fail. That is why anarchists negate dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism.
I don't remember a state not being or becoming evil. And please do not start spamming leninist propaganda of how "comrade (insert name of dictator) helped kids with malnutrition in (insert name of country where pseudo-communists took power for decades) using the glorious state power, and then went and saved the motherland from those (insert another different style of socialism) counter-revolutionaries that wanted to bring us back to capitalism".


They don’t understand the true nature of the revolutionary process, progressive character of proletarian and socialist state and they don't understand Marxist political economy.

Blah blah blah. Give me a proof of how a socialist state would actually represent the workers, without:
1) brainwashing them
2) creating corruption
3) ending up with an opportunist dictatorship
4) imposing socialism before it's time for it
5) censoring people because of their ideas, which doesn't benefit the cause
6) being a dictatorship! (I mean that "the" party always holds power through their brilliant, charismatic, working leaders)
7) representing the workers
8) representing different ideas inside the struggle (accusing the "others" of counter-revolutionaries and "bourgueois" won't help anybody excepting the new ruling class)


The state is the machine of oppression of one class by another;

...which means that the state is the machine of oppression of the leninists over the proletarians...


the class having state power suppresses the class antagonist and therefore implements the policy of class interests.

The class having state power in such a case is a group of technocrats, middle class, proffessional leninists, who seize power in the name of those "dumb workers who need a vanguard".


Both anarchists and communists agree on this issue, but they make different conclusions out of it. According to anarchist logic the main aim of the revolution is to destroy the state,

The main aim of the revolution is to destroy hierarchies, it doesn't matter which type, if it's the bourgeois over the real workers, or their mercenaries (aka state power), or their propaganda (it doesnt matter if it is about "God", objectivism, "just do it", it's all the same)


and they think that this measure will solve all the problems capitalist society has.

Who the fuck said that? And are you ignoring the fact that such a revolution will be done by the workers and that it won't happen nowadays (although it could)?


In contrary, communists have the aim of elimination of the class of capitalists by socializing capitalist private property on the means of production and we communists believe that the bourgeoisie state apparatus has to be destroyed and be replaced by another state system, which should be used in order to achieve the goal of elimination of class antagonism and serve as the mean of achievement of communism, i.e. anarchist ideal of a society.

State = state, doesn't matter what intentions does the rulers have. Socialist state = state = people ends up depending on it and without getting freedoms, unless of course they revolt against the new "enligthened comrades" class.


We say that we need to set the dictatorship of the proletariat to oppress class of capitalists and we say that this dictatorship is needed to protect revolution against attempts of restoration of capitalism.

So you will oppress another class just because their daddies were some imperialist greedy bastards? And you also claim that the workers, those who will make the revolution, won't try to defend it? That's ridiculous.


And according to our doctrine even when a revolutionary society enters into nonantagonistic step of its development the central authority will be needed to manage production and oppress bourgeoisie elements that may struggle against revolution. Anarchists seem not to understand these points.

That's because your points tend to be stupid. Sorry if that sounds as an insult but that wasn't my intention.


All of the said above allows us to consider anarchism as petty-bourgeoisie trend in the leftist movement. Moreover anarchism shows the wrong road to its adherents as anarchist revolution, so to say, will never be successful.

Wow, because the USSR is enjoying communism! :lol:
You can't seem to learn from your mistakes and want to keep imposing a system to people who have been brainwashed about, and who still have hopes of becoming rich, scaring them with your old ideas of the "vanguard party" who does things in the name of the workers, but doesnt give them any kind of freedom to control the means of production.
I consider "communists" as some middle class dreamers who think they are doing the right thing...the problem is that they always want to do them their way and at any time. Eventually, such a system will make the worker's state dissapear...but not to create communism...to bring back the old "liberal democracy" and market system.
And as TAT said, i don't see which of your arguments makes us a "petty-bourgeoisie".

Sorry if this post sounds too aggressive.

[Revolution Hero]

The Anarchist Tension:


“The class that control a state are always a ruling class”.

And this ruling class suppresses antagonist class. Just like class of capitalists oppress proletariat under capitalism, workers should oppress class of capitalists during the transitional period, which starts right with the beginning of communist revolution and ends with the attainment of complete socialism. This period is called dictatorship of the proletariat.


“The state exists in order for a ruling class to propagate its authority. Regardless of whether it is bourgeois or Leninist. In order for workers liberation to exist in its entirety, the state has to be destroyed”.

Proletarian state is the tool of protection of revolution, it function in the interests of working people and defends socialized means of production, which in their turn exclude the existence of any form of exploitation of one man by another. Therefore dictatorship of the proletariat is the only guarantee of liberation of workers.


“Not a dictatorship of the Proletariat, but one of the party. Which is exactly what happened, in every single country it was attempted”.

You understand the dictatorship of the proletariat too narrowly. The dictatorship of the proletariat basically implies the oppression of bourgeoisie by the working class or by the working people with the help of state machine.


“the class in power is not the entire working class”. They are a vanguard of a few men and women who may or may not have come from the working class”.

If you say that so called “class in power” is formed of people who actually work as state officials, then why don’t you think that officials of proletarian or socialist state would not serve workers and working people as a whole, just like officials of capitalist state serve class of capitalists?


“They are a vanguard of a few men and women who may or may not have come from the working class”.

Actually communist party as one of the leading forces of revolutionary process represents proletarian vanguard that, incidentally, consists of the politically educated workers.


“They monopolize power, centralizing it into their hands and then oppress all opposition. Not just class antagonists such as the bourgeoisie but working class opposition also”.


There can’t exist so called ‘working class opposition’ under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Any opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat that call itself “working class opposition” is mainly counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie opposition, hiding behind the name of working class.



“We know, through historical fact, that the state can not achieve the objectives we all want and therefore must be replaced with another form of organization. IE, workers federations”.

So will your “workers federations” oppress bourgeoisie counterrevolutionary elements??? If yes, then your federations will be nothing but a number of workers’ states.


“But you can not use the state to achieve communism. It doesn’t work. It is a contradiction”.

As far as socialism develops the state loses its definite functions and therefore “dies away”. It’s a long process, the end of which is conditioned by the achievement of certain level of material and technical basis, high intellectual level of a whole society and favorable international situation.


“You have not demonstrated, at all, why anarchism is a pretty bourgeois trend”.

Isn’t it clear that only petty – bourgeoisie ideology may negate the need of oppressing bourgeoisie elements during the revolutionary process of new society building thus giving the chance for bourgeoisie to do whatever this class wants?


“Watching a theory fail time and time again and still grasping onto it in some vein dream that it may work the next time round! That is idealism”.

Collapse of USSR and world socialist system showed the failure of revisionism, not of Marxism – Leninism.

[truthaddict11]

Just like class of capitalists oppress proletariat under capitalism, workers should oppress class of capitalists during the transitional period

how long is your so called "transitional" period, when does your state "wither away"?

[God of Imperia]

I guess till everything is ready to go to the next stage, but since this next staged has never been reached it is impossible to put a time on this and also, time will change for place to place, circumstance to circumstance ... This first stage is the only way to reach communism and anarchism (there the same in the last stage, just ask TAT :)), or at least a way that could really work. To get to the last stage you'll have to have a perfect world with perfect people which won't be easy to get. But hey, if it was easy it would already been done and we shouldn't be here talking about it.

[Dawood]

But what says that we will need a goverement during the period of socialism? A free association of workers who govern themselves can exist without a state.
If a need for mutual protection arises, when the reaction comes, then these free associations can band togheter as an federalistic unit, organisaed from the lowest layers to the top, instead of the reverse which is true in leninist partys.

[elijahcraig]

The class that control a state are always a ruling class. They maybe rulers who come from the working class but they are still rulers. The state is a specific entity, designed for a specific task. The state exists in order for a ruling class to propogate its authority. Regardless of whether it is bourgeois or Leninist. In order for workers liberation to exist in its entirity, the state has to be destroyed.

If the state is in the hands of the workers, they can exert authority on their former rulers. That what most Marxists called liberation.

Although I don’t necessarily see authority as a bad thing, and I certainly don’t see it as something which can be destroyed.


We understand it, we jsut dont agree with it.

I highly doubt that.


Even more so after the disastrous results of Leninism. Bakunin predicted in the 19th century exactly where Marxism would lead. Not a dictatorship of the Proletariat, but one of the party. Which is exactly what happened, in every single country it was attempted. The reason for this is the theory is flawed.

The REASON for this is commonly viewed as follows: all of these revolutions occurred in third world nations with semi-feudal states; these third world nations with semi-feudal states did not have the industry or the technology to reach the industry at the time of revolution and did not have the state apparatus in order to defend the revolution; this means that when the imperialist nations invaded the socialist nation after the revolution, there was a splintering of the revolution and a massacre of the working class and a destruction of the revolution; THIS resulted in a state apparatus which resulted in a semi-dictatorship instituted by the leaders of the party to defend the government established by the revolution; the country was upheld under a certain ideology, but the revolutionary fervor was gone. This has absolutely nothing to do with anarchist vs. Marxist analysis. In fact, if Anarchism ever had a revolution (which it won’t most likely), it would have done even worse in defense, and collapsed (as it did in Spain), or would have resulted in the same or worse dictatorship (a less likely outcome than collapse). Marx’s dictum that revolution would occur in the most industrialized countries failed, and so did marxism in the twentieth century. Anarchism has nothing to do with this.


How can you give workers freedom while oppressing them. How can you give them power while taking it away from them.


How can you give workers freedom while not oppressing their oppressors? How can you give them power when you won’t allow them to exercise that power through authority over the nation?


They are a vangaurd of a few men and women who may or may not have come from the working class. They monoplize power, centralizing it into their hands and then oppress all opposition.

And this vanguard results from the industrial level of the nation at the time of the revolution. Before the invasion of several nations in Russia, workers were in much higher control of their lives. Although conflict, obviously, did not let this be fully fulfilled.

The same in Nicaragua. The peasants had full control over local government etc, and could do anything they wanted in the political arena—this ended with the imperialist power destroying their country.


We know, through historical fact, that the state can not achieve the objectives we all want and therefore must be replaced with another form of organization. IE, workers federations.

Workers federations are merely decentralized forms of the state. It is STILL power, no matter what you call it. And power has two outcomes: Authority and Submission.

The utopian vision you have in mind (and even Chomsky admits it is utopian) will not work unless it is modified extremely (and, like all theories, will probably not work then either).

And how will you defend the revolution?

Don’t give me “spontaneous, workers militias”—it is no longer, and may have never been, even possible.


QUOTE
And according to our doctrine even when a revolutionary society enters into nonantagonistic step of its development the central authority will be needed to manage production and oppress bourgeoisie elements that may struggle against revolution. Anarchists seem not to understand these points.


Seem only to you. We understand them very well and believe that in fact you will only be able to manage those things. Managment and oppression. Not communism!

Herein lies a paradox: you can only defend the revolution from Imperialists by using central planning, but when the Imperialists invade and you use central planning, this results in dictatorship.


I don't remember a state not being or becoming evil.

First you’d have to give me (and justify using) a definition of the word “evil.”


The class having state power in such a case is a group of technocrats, middle class, proffessional leninists, who seize power in the name of those "dumb workers who need a vanguard".

This certainly was Lenin’s theory in “What is to be Done?”

But, then again, I’ve never been one for the mass “intelligence” of the working class.

Although Stalin wasn’t a middle class man—he was from the working class of Georgia.



The main aim of the revolution is to destroy hierarchies, it doesn't matter which type, if it's the bourgeois over the real workers, or their mercenaries (aka state power), or their propaganda (it doesnt matter if it is about "God", objectivism, "just do it", it's all the same)

The main aim of any revolution is to destroy those in power in whatever area the revolution is carried out. These aims are never fully realized, and never will be.


State = state, doesn't matter what intentions does the rulers have. Socialist state = state = people ends up depending on it and without getting freedoms, unless of course they revolt against the new "enligthened comrades" class.

The problem is that without the state the revolution would no longer exist. As in Spain.

[Revolution Hero]

Dawood:


“But what says that we will need a government during the period of socialism?
A free association of workers who govern themselves can exist without a state.
If a need for mutual protection arises, when the reaction comes, then these free associations can band together as an federalist unit, organized from the lowest layers to the top, instead of the reverse which is true in Leninist parties”.

Socialist society is such kind of society that contains danger inside itself, because it comes right after capitalism and has “birthmarks” of the latter. Even when the foundation of exploitation of one man by another is destroyed by the revolution, bourgeoisie elements still exist, as bourgeoisie consciousness can’t be overcome right with the elimination of its material basis. In fact, if you analyze history of USSR, you will see that many bourgeoisie elements under Khrushchev and Brezhnev found the way to illegally establish capitalist factories and exploit workers, while others speculated reselling products of labor. It should be noticed that these kind of outlaw capitalists appeared after revisionists (that came to power after Stalin’s death) had abandoned dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by Revolution [email protected] 4 2004, 01:05 AM
Dawood:


“But what says that we will need a government during the period of socialism?
A free association of workers who govern themselves can exist without a state.
If a need for mutual protection arises, when the reaction comes, then these free associations can band together as an federalist unit, organized from the lowest layers to the top, instead of the reverse which is true in Leninist parties”.

Socialist society is such kind of society that contains danger inside itself, because it comes right after capitalism and has “birthmarks” of the latter. Even when the foundation of exploitation of one man by another is destroyed by the revolution, bourgeoisie elements still exist, as bourgeoisie consciousness can’t be overcome right with the elimination of its material basis. In fact, if you analyze history of USSR, you will see that many bourgeoisie elements under Khrushchev and Brezhnev found the way to illegally establish capitalist factories and exploit workers, while others speculated reselling products of labor. It should be noticed that these kind of outlaw capitalists appeared after revisionists (that came to power after Stalin’s death) had abandoned dictatorship of the proletariat.
And that has relevance to what I wrote.... how? That is just what I am arguing against. A state will always mean that someone will take advantage of the workers. What we need is workers SELF RULE, workers decides what, when and where will be produced, what it will be used for etc. through democratic councels, soviets, like before the bolsjeviks took power of the russian revolution, or like during the anti-soviet revolution in hungary.

[Revolution Hero]

Originally posted by Dawood+Apr 4 2004, 10:13 AM--> (Dawood @ Apr 4 2004, 10:13 AM)
Revolution [email protected] 4 2004, 01:05 AM
Dawood:


“But what says that we will need a government during the period of socialism?
A free association of workers who govern themselves can exist without a state.
If a need for mutual protection arises, when the reaction comes, then these free associations can band together as an federalist unit, organized from the lowest layers to the top, instead of the reverse which is true in Leninist parties”.

Socialist society is such kind of society that contains danger inside itself, because it comes right after capitalism and has “birthmarks” of the latter. Even when the foundation of exploitation of one man by another is destroyed by the revolution, bourgeoisie elements still exist, as bourgeoisie consciousness can’t be overcome right with the elimination of its material basis. In fact, if you analyze history of USSR, you will see that many bourgeoisie elements under Khrushchev and Brezhnev found the way to illegally establish capitalist factories and exploit workers, while others speculated reselling products of labor. It should be noticed that these kind of outlaw capitalists appeared after revisionists (that came to power after Stalin’s death) had abandoned dictatorship of the proletariat.
And that has relevance to what I wrote.... how? That is just what I am arguing against. A state will always mean that someone will take advantage of the workers. What we need is workers SELF RULE, workers decides what, when and where will be produced, what it will be used for etc. through democratic councels, soviets, like before the bolsjeviks took power of the russian revolution, or like during the anti-soviet revolution in hungary. [/b]
The point of my post was that strong truly workers’ state (just like the one, which existed during comrade Stalin’s life) is needed in order to protect revolution from internal dangers that socialism itself can’t eliminate and that potentially may develop, paving the way to counterrevolution and restoration of capitalism.

[Dawood]

Stalin WAS the danger. Do you mean that the Soviet Union was a workers state? How did the workers hold any influence over the production?

[Blibblob]

I have a question. How do you propose to remove classes by just placing somebody else in power? Power tends to corrupt even the most uncorruptable. It will just decinigrate back to capitalism if you put a group of people in power and ditch the rest. That's what Leninism does. The only workable socialist state is a democracy, that is the only way the workers have the power, otherwise a dictator will seize hold... and well you know the rest of the story, it becomes the USSR. I see this: The point of my post was that strong truly workers’ state (just like the one, which existed during comrade Stalin’s life) is needed in order to protect revolution from internal dangers that socialism itself can’t eliminate and that potentially may develop, paving the way to counterrevolution and restoration of capitalism. as praise. That is a serious logic problem, since it wasn't a worker's state. Unless a workers state involves slavery in work camps.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Revolution [email protected] 3 2004, 04:58 PM
And this ruling class suppresses antagonist class. Just like class of capitalists oppress proletariat under capitalism,
So you admit that the vanguard asserts itself as a ruling class?


workers should oppress class of capitalists during the transitional period

You are correct insofar as it is the workers who physically engage with bourgeois forces, but it is not the workers who control those actions. They are commanded by a leadership, a vangaurd which has asserted itself as a ruling class, and must submit obidiently to their control. Furthermore, the majority of these workers are not fully conscious of their actions. They do not fully understand exactly why they are envolved in these actions. They simply obey orders and are given promises by this leadership who demands not only obideient loyalty, but unquestionable trust, that they will "do the right thing."


[(workers) oppression] which starts right with the beginning of communist revolution and ends with the attainment of complete socialism.

What do you mean by "complete socialism"? Do you mean complete control by the state of the nation and its people?


Proletarian state is the tool of protection of revolution, it function in the interests of working people and defends socialized means of production, which in their turn exclude the existence of any form of exploitation of one man by another. Therefore dictatorship of the proletariat is the only guarantee of liberation of workers.

That is the theory. And it dosnt work. The reason for that is because in order for the state to exist in the context you have described it, it must increase itself in power. I must assert its control in every aspect of society, and must repress any opposition to its authority. Regardless of class. It would negate its own logic if it didnt repress all opposition because it wouldnt be able to function in this way unless it did. Thus, by doing so moves further and further away from communism. In order for the state to propogate itself, it must take power away from the workers and increase itself. How then, can it hand over power to the workers and wither away?


You understand the dictatorship of the proletariat too narrowly. The dictatorship of the proletariat basically implies the oppression of bourgeoisie by the working class or by the working people with the help of state machine.

I do not think it is me who is being narrow, it is you who is being to simple. YOu have outlined the basic theory, but have not addressed ow exactly that theory manifests itself materially. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the working class, it is a vangaurd of people who assert themselves as a ruling class and control the remaining population against the bourgeoisie in order for the vangaurd to remain in power. Then moves to increase itself, hence the contradiction.


If you say that so called “class in power” is formed of people who actually work as state officials, then why don’t you think that officials of proletarian or socialist state would not serve workers and working people as a whole, just like officials of capitalist state serve class of capitalists?

Because they are not serving the working class, they are serving the ruling class. The vangaurd, who has asserted control over the state. These state officials take orders from a central government in the name of the working class, not directly for them. The decisions that these state officials carry out are not made by the working class. They are made by the central government which claims to be working for the workers interests.


Actually communist party as one of the leading forces of revolutionary process represents proletarian vanguard that, incidentally, consists of the politically educated workers.

In contemproary marxist-leninist parties the organization is controlled by a central committee. A clique of middle class intellectuals who give orders to their members. There politically educated workers, in my experience are lower middle class professionals, such as teachers, probabtion officers or social workers.


There can’t exist so called ‘working class opposition’ under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Any opposition to the dictatorship of the proletariat that call itself “working class opposition” is mainly counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie opposition, hiding behind the name of working class.

What about Kronstadt? What about the Makhanoists? These where people who had helped the bolsheviks and who had been betrayed. What about the CNT and FAI? Again, revolutionaries who had fought the bouregoisie and where then betrayed, all in the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even Trotsky said that the state must condem those who "put the right of workers to elect their own representatives above the Party, thus challenging the right of the Party to affirm its dictatorship, even when the dictatorship comes into conflict with the passing moods of the workers democracy."


So will your “workers federations” oppress bourgeoisie counterrevolutionary elements??? If yes, then your federations will be nothing but a number of workers’ states.

And here lies the problem. The leninist misinterpretation of the state. The state is a set of functions used by a ruling class to propogate its authority. In this case a vangaurd. These federations are groups of volunteers who collectivly decide their actions, under the control of no one. These federations do not have authority over the working class. There are no chairmans or general-secrateries, simply humans, working collectivly together. Humans who would organize to defend the revolution against the bourgeoisie, without a centralized state machine and its perpetrators.


As far as socialism develops the state loses its definite functions and therefore “dies away”. It’s a long process, the end of which is conditioned by the achievement of certain level of material and technical basis, high intellectual level of a whole society and favorable international situation.

I put it to you that it can not wither away. It can not be what you claim it must be to defend the revolution and then wither away. Something which has to grow can not wither away. Something which must impliment itself in every aspect of society can not, suddenly, mysteriously, disappear.


Isn’t it clear that only petty – bourgeoisie ideology may negate the need of oppressing bourgeoisie elements during the revolutionary process of new society building thus giving the chance for bourgeoisie to do whatever this class wants?

Anarchists do not sherk their revolutionary responsability in replace for some liberal pacifist agenda. We will fight the ruling class with force if necessary. Anarchist advocates direct action. Even in its organization now. We have no quirms with using violence to defend ourselves in order to achieve an equel society, if that is what is necessary.


Collapse of USSR and world socialist system showed the failure of revisionism, not of Marxism – Leninism.

Plausable denial!

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by Dawood+Apr 4 2004, 02:13 AM--> (Dawood @ Apr 4 2004, 02:13 AM)
Revolution [email protected] 4 2004, 01:05 AM
Dawood:


“But what says that we will need a government during the period of socialism?
A free association of workers who govern themselves can exist without a state.
If a need for mutual protection arises, when the reaction comes, then these free associations can band together as an federalist unit, organized from the lowest layers to the top, instead of the reverse which is true in Leninist parties”.

Socialist society is such kind of society that contains danger inside itself, because it comes right after capitalism and has “birthmarks” of the latter. Even when the foundation of exploitation of one man by another is destroyed by the revolution, bourgeoisie elements still exist, as bourgeoisie consciousness can’t be overcome right with the elimination of its material basis. In fact, if you analyze history of USSR, you will see that many bourgeoisie elements under Khrushchev and Brezhnev found the way to illegally establish capitalist factories and exploit workers, while others speculated reselling products of labor. It should be noticed that these kind of outlaw capitalists appeared after revisionists (that came to power after Stalin’s death) had abandoned dictatorship of the proletariat.
And that has relevance to what I wrote.... how? That is just what I am arguing against. A state will always mean that someone will take advantage of the workers. What we need is workers SELF RULE, workers decides what, when and where will be produced, what it will be used for etc. through democratic councels, soviets, like before the bolsjeviks took power of the russian revolution, or like during the anti-soviet revolution in hungary. [/b]
Don't you think that when the workers start to oppress the rich this will lead to just a new class of rulers ... I mean do you really believe that when the workers get all the power they will just give it away at the end?

[Dawood]

Why the hell would the workers give the power away once they have conquered it?

Besides, when we have workers power there will be no classes, since a class can only exist if there is injustices in the economic system. If you take everything away from a capitalist he isnät a capitalist any longer.

[God of Imperia]

Because at communism or anarchism nobody should have power over another, everyone should be equal, so any kind of dictatorship (even by the workers) isn't equality

[Bianconero]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the working class, it is a vangaurd of people who assert themselves as a ruling class and control the remaining population against the bourgeoisie in order for the vangaurd to remain in power.

When Socialism ceased being a dream of some and became science, we learned that a class is defined by it's relation to the means of production. Under capitalism, the capitalist class owns all means of production, which means that they are the ruling class. The workers on the other hand are not. One could not go as far as to say that the 'capitalists' (all capitalists) are the 'vanguard', as they aren't. They are a class, the ruling class.

Under capitalism, as I proved above, the capitalists themselves are the ruling class, but not a vanguard. The whole ruling class of capitalists is not a vanguard, but that very class has got it's own vanguard. That vanguard consists of some, who are very well connected with the ruling class. That vanguard defends their (the capitalist's) reactionary agenda by maintaining and defending the capitalist's interests in all areas of life. That vanguard is not a 'new class', something the capitalists 'can't controll.' That vanguard is a part of the ruling class. An essential part of the ruling class of capitalists, which helps them to stay in power and exploit labor.

So we have learned that there are two classes, that are antagonists. Two classes, two class-interests, that are diametrically opposed.

Before, during and after any progressive revolution that seeks to overthrow the dictatorship of the capital, the workers themselves, the working class, have a vanguard. That vanguard can never be seen as a 'class', as it is a part of the working class, just like the ruling class has it's own vanguard.

That working class vanguard is connected with the working class like the reactionary vanguard is connected with the old reactionary class of capitalists.

So when you assert that the vanguard 'is a vanguard of people who assert themselves as a ruling class', you are wrong, as I have proved that a vanguard can never be a class on it's own. The vanguard, after any progressive revolution, controlls the means of production, but that does not mean the vanguard is a class, and I won't mark that word again.


And here lies the problem. The leninist misinterpretation of the state. The state is a set of functions used by a ruling class to propogate its authority. In this case a vangaurd. These federations are groups of volunteers who collectivly decide their actions, under the control of no one. These federations do not have authority over the working class. There are no chairmans or general-secrateries, simply humans, working collectivly together. Humans who would organize to defend the revolution against the bourgeoisie, without a centralized state machine and its perpetrators.

Worker's democracy was there for all to be seen in all Marxist-Leninist countries, as long as they were Marxist-Leninist. In Cuba, there are elections, the people are informed about the candidates through the media, through posters on the streets.

The people elect their national assembly. Of course, you won't see anyone who stands for the interests of the former oppressors among the candidates. But elections are elections. And Marxism-Leninism is democracy. The other way round.


I put it to you that it can not wither away. It can not be what you claim it must be to defend the revolution and then wither away. Something which has to grow can not wither away. Something which must impliment itself in every aspect of society can not, suddenly, mysteriously, disappear.

Your assertion is petty-bourgeois thinking. You can not prove that the state 'can not wither away', as we have never seen society enter such a delicate stage of development. For the state to wither away, conditions must be right, which means that the whole world must have entered the stage of Socialism. Then, and only then, we will see something that we can't predict. The workers will, only then, learn to rule themselves, they will learn how to controll, they will be their own vanguard. Reactionary thinking will be eliminated from society and the day will come when the working class will realize that their former oppressors are gone, that they aren't the 'working class' anymore, but a new, united class, that should not even be called 'class' anymore.

They will learn that controll is not necessary anymore, that democracy is not necessary anymore. As ALL OF THESE (controll, democracy etc.) are only forms of oppression of one class by another.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:45 PM
First you’d have to give me (and justify using) a definition of the word “evil.”
Evil, in the case of the state, and to me, means this: corruption, lies, indoctrination, authoritarianism, people's dependance on it for important things in their lives, inefficiency, designed to defend a class system, militarism, opportunist dictatorship, close-mindedness, parasites who hardly work being paid ridicoulously high ammounts, pseudo-democracy, bureaucracy, impositions, control of means of production by those in power (in "Communist" governments), lack of respect for people's freedom, lack of power for most of the population, wars, people controlling other people's lives even if they don't even realize that the controlled exists, unnecessary violence, imposing stupid laws, brainwashing people into accepting one system, useless patriotism, purges, stupid wars against "scapegoats", plus it goes against the stateless, classless system which most leftists seem to want because people edn up depending on the state's existance for everything. I think that's enough.


But, then again, I’ve never been one for the mass “intelligence” of the working class.

Although Stalin wasn’t a middle class man—he was from the working class of Georgia.

That wasn't necessarilly directed to you, but to all this middle class people who feel that they should take power in the name of others. Being on the middle class myself, I see that the middle class and the poorer workers should be in the same "class" but their interests are different, but the problem is that such "enlightened comrades" want to take power without really giving a fuck about the rest of the "ignorant" workers. It's part of this new advanced proletarian class who got "richer" and that meant that they have more access to education, which includes learning about those "bearded revolutionaries", in most cases those who like the word "vanguard". While leninists try to take power in the name of the workers, I DON'T.

Concerning Stalin, it makes no difference to me. There's not much difference between "glorious comrade Stalin who took power and helped the workers" and "a poor but exceptional man who got successful with the glorious capitalism and deserves to have that wealth the socialists who are in power want to take away from them". My problem isn't really that anyway, my problem is this kind of leninists that go around claiming that we are "petit-bourgeois" while they are on a simmilar situation and want to lead with their party the "workers dictatorship" in the name of people they usually aren't that "close" to.


The main aim of any revolution is to destroy those in power in whatever area the revolution is carried out. These aims are never fully realized, and never will be.

Well, then forget about people supporting a dictatorship where 0,5% of the people control the rest's destiny and lives and forces people to do the "common good" or die for being "bourgeois anarchist counter-revolutionaries", even if such people would have been murdered 100 years ago by the previous "comrades". Back to 1984.


The problem is that without the state the revolution would no longer exist. As in Spain.

What???

[Saint-Just]

So you admit that the vanguard asserts itself as a ruling class?

The vanguard becomes the ruling class. The vanguard is working class, imbued with working class ideology; socialism. If the vanguard breaks from working class ideology it has become corrupt, if for example, it becomes a bourgeois ruling class. That is what happened in the USSR and China.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by God of [email protected] 4 2004, 02:35 PM
Because at communism or anarchism nobody should have power over another, everyone should be equal, so any kind of dictatorship (even by the workers) isn't equality
Then we simply take the factories away from the capitalists and then they too are workers and there is no longer any need to oppress them.

[Bianconero]

The working class becomes the ruling class, the vanguard is part of that new ruling class. The vanguard leads the working class as a new ruling class.

[elijahcraig]

Because at communism or anarchism nobody should have power over another, everyone should be equal, so any kind of dictatorship (even by the workers) isn't equality

Everyone should also have the ability to live forever. You know what? It ain’t gonna happen.



Evil, in the case of the state, and to me, means this: corruption, lies, indoctrination, authoritarianism, people's dependance on it for important things in their lives, inefficiency, designed to defend a class system, militarism, opportunist dictatorship, close-mindedness, parasites who hardly work being paid ridicoulously high ammounts, pseudo-democracy, bureaucracy, impositions, control of means of production by those in power (in "Communist" governments), lack of respect for people's freedom, lack of power for most of the population, wars, people controlling other people's lives even if they don't even realize that the controlled exists, unnecessary violence, imposing stupid laws, brainwashing people into accepting one system, useless patriotism, purges, stupid wars against "scapegoats", plus it goes against the stateless, classless system which most leftists seem to want because people edn up depending on the state's existance for everything. I think that's enough.

None of that is “evil,” in my view. Though I oppose most of it.


That wasn't necessarilly directed to you, but to all this middle class people who feel that they should take power in the name of others. Being on the middle class myself, I see that the middle class and the poorer workers should be in the same "class" but their interests are different, but the problem is that such "enlightened comrades" want to take power without really giving a fuck about the rest of the "ignorant" workers. It's part of this new advanced proletarian class who got "richer" and that meant that they have more access to education, which includes learning about those "bearded revolutionaries", in most cases those who like the word "vanguard". While leninists try to take power in the name of the workers, I DON'T.

Concerning Stalin, it makes no difference to me. There's not much difference between "glorious comrade Stalin who took power and helped the workers" and "a poor but exceptional man who got successful with the glorious capitalism and deserves to have that wealth the socialists who are in power want to take away from them". My problem isn't really that anyway, my problem is this kind of leninists that go around claiming that we are "petit-bourgeois" while they are on a simmilar situation and want to lead with their party the "workers dictatorship" in the name of people they usually aren't that "close" to.

That’s a fair criticism I suppose. Maybe a little exaggerated.


Well, then forget about people supporting a dictatorship where 0,5% of the people control the rest's destiny and lives and forces people to do the "common good" or die for being "bourgeois anarchist counter-revolutionaries", even if such people would have been murdered 100 years ago by the previous "comrades". Back to 1984.

What does this mean?


QUOTE
The problem is that without the state the revolution would no longer exist. As in Spain.


What???

If the workers do not assert authority over the state and defend the revolution, it will fail, as in Spain. If they do assert their authority over the state and defend the revolution, dictatorship ensues, as in nearly all former Communist states.


Then we simply take the factories away from the capitalists and then they too are workers and there is no longer any need to oppress them.

And then, as in Russia, they start BOMBING and committing TERRORIST acts on everyone around them. They don’t just “slide on in” to the anarchist workers paradise as you seem to think.


The working class becomes the ruling class, the vanguard is part of that new ruling class. The vanguard leads the working class as a new ruling class.

This sounds a bit like Wilsonian Idealism.

[Dawood]

If the workers do not assert authority over the state and defend the revolution, it will fail, as in Spain.

Spain failed because the leninists abbandoned the revolution and fought togheter with the republicans instead. Trots and stalinists prefered to first fight fascism with the republic, and THEN, when the 'time was right', have a revolution.
With the combined forces of the entire working class fascism in spain would probably ahve been thwarted.


And then, as in Russia, they start BOMBING and committing TERRORIST acts on everyone around them. They don’t just “slide on in” to the anarchist workers paradise as you seem to think.

Then we disarm them, or kills them. Ukraines anarchists were doing fine until the bolsjeviks moved in and crushed them.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 05:15 PM
None of that is “evil,” in my view. Though I oppose most of it.
If you join most of those things, it falls in the "evil" category by many people's standards.


What does this mean?

You posted that "These aims are never fully realized, and never will be". I guess I understood this as you meant that you don't really believe on the success of a revolution. To me it sounds like you want to attemp imposing a dictatorship.


If the workers do not assert authority over the state and defend the revolution, it will fail, as in Spain. If they do assert their authority over the state and defend the revolution, dictatorship ensues, as in nearly all former Communist states.

Excuse me? You mean that for some reason the Anarchists in the Spanish war just "lost" the war by themselves? Surprisingly, it seems the fascists won after the "vanguard" tried to "assert authority over the state". When the POUM was outlawed things started to look ugly.

[elijahcraig]

Spain failed because the leninists abbandoned the revolution and fought togheter with the republicans instead. Trots and stalinists prefered to first fight fascism with the republic, and THEN, when the 'time was right', have a revolution.
With the combined forces of the entire working class fascism in spain would probably ahve been thwarted.


A revolution is expected to have flaws and opportunists, or whatever, emerging. If Anarchism can not deal with the fracturing which will undoubtedly occur, then a revolution will not work.


Then we disarm them, or kills them. Ukraines anarchists were doing fine until the bolsjeviks moved in and crushed them.

O God. Let’s start nancying around with arguing over this. I’d rather not.


If you join most of those things, it falls in the "evil" category by many people's standards.

MOST Americans believe the world was created 6000 years ago. I don’t much care for herd opinion.


You posted that "These aims are never fully realized, and never will be". I guess I understood this as you meant that you don't really believe on the success of a revolution. To me it sounds like you want to attemp imposing a dictatorship.

No. I mean that the ideal of revolution will never be completely fulfilled. You will always be left with a bad mix and harsh rule. As in France, as in Russia, as in China, as in wherever else. That is the nature of Revolution.

My statement in one short blur would be: Ideal Future Leads To Material Failure. Meaning, no ideal of revolution will ever be accomplished. Corruption will always ensue and the revolution will be “betrayed.” This leads to an Established dictatorship or capitalist system, which will again breed its own destruction.


Excuse me? You mean that for some reason the Anarchists in the Spanish war just "lost" the war by themselves? Surprisingly, it seems the fascists won after the "vanguard" tried to "assert authority over the state". When the POUM was outlawed things started to look ugly.

My point is this: Anarchism does not contain the tactical strength to defend itself against all enemies—Leninist, Stalinist, Imperialist, whatever. If a revolution is going to succeed, this will be needed. You can’t count on the opposition to “fall in line” with your ideology. In fact, you have to understand that they will not. You don’t blame them for it, you fight them for control. Anarchism is too weak (anti-authority) to do so, in my opinion.

[Bianconero]

This sounds a bit like Wilsonian Idealism.

I can assure you that I expect one hell of an explanation now. And I hope I'll like it.

[elijahcraig]

I can assure you that I expect one hell of an explanation now. And I hope I'll like it.

Ideal leaders leading the revolution as a vanguard. It is very comparable to the Wilsonian ideal.

My views of past Leninist revolutions is very critical. I think if we (or anyone else) were to attempt another, they should avoid any of the kind of theory of the Ideal leadership few that Lenin put forward in “What is to be Done?”.

[commie kg]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 4 2004, 07:41 AM

So you admit that the vanguard asserts itself as a ruling class?

The vanguard becomes the ruling class. The vanguard is working class, imbued with working class ideology; socialism. If the vanguard breaks from working class ideology it has become corrupt, if for example, it becomes a bourgeois ruling class. That is what happened in the USSR and China.
Great track record there. :lol:

That is the problem. The vanguard will always become a new bourgeois ruling class.

[elijahcraig]

At least as long as revolutions continue to occur in third world--non-industrialized--countries without defense ability and high educational standards.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:40 AM
MOST Americans believe the world was created 6000 years ago. I don’t much care for herd opinion.
It's just that people sometimes don't realize what I mentioned. They do not join those terms under the state, they just think "next government will be better" or "that's what those terrorist chaos-loving anarchist enjoy" without really judging the state.


My statement in one short blur would be: Ideal Future Leads To Material Failure. Meaning, no ideal of revolution will ever be accomplished. Corruption will always ensue and the revolution will be “betrayed.” This leads to an Established dictatorship or capitalist system, which will again breed its own destruction.

Ok, whatever... I don't want to start discussing about this kind of things.


My point is this: Anarchism does not contain the tactical strength to defend itself against all enemies—Leninist, Stalinist, Imperialist, whatever. If a revolution is going to succeed, this will be needed. You can’t count on the opposition to “fall in line” with your ideology. In fact, you have to understand that they will not. You don’t blame them for it, you fight them for control. Anarchism is too weak (anti-authority) to do so, in my opinion.

You are forgetting that the only way an Anarchist society will come by is by a revolution. People won't just realize that "anarchy is good" and accept it all of a sudden, they will get tired of the establishment and destroy it when it is on its biggest crisis. Unfortunately it might time centuries for that to happen.

[elijahcraig]

It's just that people sometimes don't realize what I mentioned. They do not join those terms under the state, they just think "next government will be better" or "that's what those terrorist chaos-loving anarchist enjoy" without really judging the state.

You also have to analyze parts of society which are not part of the State, but function, as Foucault says, seemingly neutral.


Ok, whatever... I don't want to start discussing about this kind of things.

If you can’t make a case for an actual successful revolution, there is no use in attempting to have one.


You are forgetting that the only way an Anarchist society will come by is by a revolution. People won't just realize that "anarchy is good" and accept it all of a sudden, they will get tired of the establishment and destroy it when it is on its biggest crisis. Unfortunately it might time centuries for that to happen.

I’m not “forgetting” anything.

I never said people will just “realize” anything.

This comes back to my point of Anarchist revolution’s inability to defend the revolution:


My point is this: Anarchism does not contain the tactical strength to defend itself against all enemies—Leninist, Stalinist, Imperialist, whatever. If a revolution is going to succeed, this will be needed. You can’t count on the opposition to “fall in line” with your ideology. In fact, you have to understand that they will not. You don’t blame them for it, you fight them for control. Anarchism is too weak (anti-authority) to do so, in my opinion.

THAT’s the issue. I’m not talking about what you replied with.

I also don’t believe that Anarchy is a realizable utopia. Thus the phrase being attached to.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 10:23 PM
If you can’t make a case for an actual successful revolution, there is no use in attempting to have one.
Again, the revolution will happen. It's just not going to happen now. It's hard to predict what will happen after it. We can only assume that, for example, the old rulers will try to get power again but we can't be sure of how the situation will be.


I’m not “forgetting” anything.

I never said people will just “realize” anything.

The problem is that you seem to avoid how would such a system be created. It wont just be "taking power", but I would say that its possible for many people to start seizing workplaces, buildings, military bases, of course when the situation asks for it. That alone could ensure defense against the opposition because they wont have many things they need to survive. Nowadays such attacks happen, poor people take over abandoned factories and set them up again around here to survive. That would probably be the spirit that would inspire such a revolution. It will also depend on the economical situation. If, let's say, theres a huge crisis and the richest 1% can survive while most of the other people can't, then you can be sure that they won't have a good time defending their property.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:45 PM
If the state is in the hands of the workers, they can exert authority on their former rulers. That what most Marxists called liberation.
That's not what Marx called liberation! First of all it is only the working class in name. It is not the working class making decisions. That is left up to people who may or may not have come from the working class and now call themselves "intellectuals."

Secondly, liberation in the classical Marxist sense is communism. Communism being a society, which is stateless, non-hierarchical, non-governmental and thus classless, meaning no rulers and no ruled, with people organizing collectively and by free association.


Although I don’t necessarily see authority as a bad thing, and I certainly don’t see it as something which can be destroyed.

The principle that one human being has control over another human being is fundamentally wrong and a principle, which must be destroyed if communism is ever going to be attained.

As for authority being indestructable, that implies that human beings don’t have the ability to live without authority. Which poses a very simple contradiction. If human beings were unable to live without authority then how do we have leaders?

By saying that authority cannot be destroyed, you are suggesting that it is something which is finite. Something innate in human beings. Innate in the sense that we instinctively crave authority. If that was the case then why have humans in history lived without leaders? Why is it that you have people who reject authority, such as myself, or a teenager who disobeys the authority of her teacher or parent? Are you suggesting that you yourself can only function if you have someone to tell you what to do?

Authority is a human invention. It is a concept developed to allow a ruling class order society and subjugate its people. Presently, authority has taken on a qusi-religious meaning. Everything that exists in society is structured like this. Someone with authority gives orders to those who do not have it. And why do they not have it? Because someone has monopolized it? Why? Because we believe that it is the only way we can survive. Why? Because that is the only form of organization us primitive people can comprehend.

It’s Nonsense! When you and your friends go on a night out and you are deciding where you want to go, does one of your friends assert authority over everyone else? Of course not! Each of you collectively gives an opinion and a compromise is made. Now the argument is that it may work for a small group of people, but not for an entire society. You have to ask why? Because it is more complicated? Of course it is more complicated but the principle remains the same. The principle does not change because the situation got more complicated. You can choose to organize with authority or you can choose to organize without it. Authority is not finite and it can be destroyed, people just have to want it.
That's not what Marx called liberation! First of all it is only the working class in name. It is not the working class making decisions. That is left up to people who may or may not have come from the working class and now call themselves "intellectuals."

Secondly, liberation in the classical Marxist sense is communism. Communism being a society, which is stateless, non-hierarchical, non-governmental and thus classless, meaning no rulers and no ruled, with people organizing collectively and by free association.


Although I don’t necessarily see authority as a bad thing, and I certainly don’t see it as something which can be destroyed.

The principle that one human being has control over another human being is fundamentally wrong and a principle, which must be destroyed if communism is ever going to be attained.

As for authority being indestructable, that implies that human beings don’t have the ability to live without authority. Which poses a very simple contradiction. If human beings were unable to live without authority then how do we have leaders?

By saying that authority cannot be destroyed, you are suggesting that it is something which is finite. Something innate in human beings. Innate in the sense that we instinctively crave authority. If that was the case then why have humans in history lived without leaders? Why is it that you have people who reject authority, such as myself, or a teenager who disobeys the authority of her teacher or parent? Are you suggesting that you yourself can only function if you have someone to tell you what to do?

Authority is a human invention. It is a concept developed to allow a ruling class order society and subjugate its people. Presently, authority has taken on a qusi-religious meaning. Everything that exists in society is structured like this. Someone with authority gives orders to those who do not have it. And why do they not have it? Because someone has monopolized it? Why? Because we believe that it is the only way we can survive. Why? Because that is the only form of organization us primitive people can comprehend.

It’s Nonsense! When you and your friends go on a night out and you are deciding where you want to go, does one of your friends assert authority over everyone else? Of course not! Each of you collectively gives an opinion and a compromise is made. Now the argument is that it may work for a small group of people, but not for an entire society. You have to ask why? Because it is more complicated? Of course it is more complicated but the principle remains the same. The principle does not change because the situation got more complicated. You can choose to organize with authority or you can choose to organize without it. Authority is not finite and it can be destroyed, people just have to want it. In fact, I would say it was pretty-bourgeois to claim that authority is finite.


The REASON for this is commonly viewed as follows: all of these revolutions occurred in third world nations with semi-feudal states; these third world nations with semi-feudal states did not have the industry or the technology to reach the industry at the time of revolution and did not have the state apparatus in order to defend the revolution;

None of this accounts for the failure of leninism and is completly untrue. The state managed to achieve it's objective in every country. Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba. None of these factors played any part with the downfall or revision of the countries politics. The state was perfectly strong enough in all these cases, to repel armies of giant magnitude and with effectivness.


this means that when the imperialist nations invaded the socialist nation after the revolution, there was a splintering of the revolution and a massacre of the working class and a destruction of the revolution;

Which revolution failed? None of the Leninist revolutions failed in terms of achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat. None of these what ifs mean anything?


THIS resulted in a state apparatus which resulted in a semi-dictatorship instituted by the leaders of the party to defend the government established by the revolution;

This was the whole point of the theory. The whole point of leninism is to achieve this and for the reason of defending the revolution....


the country was upheld under a certain ideology, but the revolutionary fervor was gone.

Maybe this lack of revolutionary "fervor" was due to the fact that those who where supposed to have the power [the people] were increasingly marginalized and isolated from the political process.


This has absolutely nothing to do with anarchist vs. Marxist analysis.

Correct!


In fact, if Anarchism ever had a revolution (which it won’t most likely), it would have done even worse in defense, and collapsed (as it did in Spain), or would have resulted in the same or worse dictatorship (a less likely outcome than collapse).

Spain didn't fail because anarchism was proved to be incorrect or inefficient, it collapsed because the comminturn not only refused to assist the collectives, but in the end attacked and destroyed them, smashing the collecitives, shooting the anarchists and ultimatly loosing the revolution. Anarchism worked, as the people like Orwell account in books such as 'Homage to Catalonia', it was because the comminturn betrayed us.


Marx’s dictum that revolution would occur in the most industrialized countries failed, and so did marxism in the twentieth century. Anarchism has nothing to do with this.

Marxism failed because it did not achieve communism. In respect to achieving a workers state it succeeded. And thus creates the contradiction, which ultimatly can not lead to communism, meaning that leninism does not work.


How can you give workers freedom while not oppressing their oppressors?

We must oppress the ruling class in order for society to be free. I never claimed we shouldnt.


How can you give them power when you won’t allow them to exercise that power through authority over the nation?

Idealism! The working class dont have any power. The party vanguard do. If they didnt then they would not be able to achieve their objectives.


Workers federations are merely decentralized forms of the state. It is STILL power, no matter what you call it. And power has two outcomes: Authority and Submission.

I find it amazing how someone can defend something they know nothing about. This is not how you define a state. A state is a centralized group of fucntions, government, army, police force, judicery, controlled by a ruling class for the purpose of perpetrating their control. It is not a federation of collectives democratically organized, which are not cenralized, have not government, leaders, police force or judicery controlled for the purpose of perpetrating the rule of a ruling class. Power is not monopolized into the hands of a vangaurd, it is distrabuted between the working class, the people who are fighting the revolution.

There is a difference between using collective power to achieve workers liberation against the bourgeoisie and the power of a vangaurd over the working class. Especially in the context of giving them liberation. It makes no sense. There is a vast contradiction.


The utopian vision you have in mind (and even Chomsky admits it is utopian) will not work unless it is modified extremely (and, like all theories, will probably not work then either).

Chomsky says alot of things. Saying utopian is not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a utopian society. Claiming that it is unrealistic etc etc etc is like saying, "i want some chocolate ice cream, i just cant be bothered to go to the shop."

Maybe anarchism dosnt work? Who knows? But we wont know until we fight hard to make it work. What we do know to be fact, rather than just an assumption, is that leninism does not work and therefore we should not continue to try and make it work. Like you say, modifying theories does not make it work.


And how will you defend the revolution?

Don’t give me “spontaneous, workers militias”—it is no longer, and may have never been, even possible

I dont know what you mean by spontanous, but workers militias definatly, organized collectivly and democractically, co-ordinated locally, not centrally.



you can only defend the revolution from Imperialists by using central planning,

Why?


The problem is that without the state the revolution would no longer exist. As in Spain.

The state did still exist within the country, however, in many liberated zones, ie catalonia, state organization was replaced by collective organization. And it worked. It worked so well that at one point production was higher than it was before the revolution. People adapted to collective organization well, not only in the cities but also in the countryside. I suggest you do some serious studying on the issue, rather than quoting the usually leninist rhetoric.

[peaccenicked]

The principle that one human being has control over another human being is fundamentally wrong and a principle, which must be destroyed if communism is ever going to be attained.

This is why a workers state is considered a transitional form, and a necessary evil.
Why is it necessary because counter revolution is a real threat. It is not a figment of anyones imagination. Revolution is class war and classlessness just does not become the societal norm because of majority rule.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:49 AM

The principle that one human being has control over another human being is fundamentally wrong and a principle, which must be destroyed if communism is ever going to be attained.

This is why a workers state is considered a transitional form, and a necessary evil.
Why is it necessary because counter revolution is a real threat. It is not a figment of anyones imagination. Revolution is class war and classlessness just does not become the societal norm because of majority rule.
But my point is that the state can not be used to achieve communism because the concept of a state and the concept of workers liberation contradict each other into oblivion.

The state has to exist in a certain way in order for the vangaurd to achieve its objectives. Centralizing power into their hands will be the only way to fight the ruling class and therefore freedom and power has to be taken away from the working class. When the theory is put into practice it creates different material conditions to those which can lead to workers liberation. As history proves, the state will only lead to authotarianism, extreme, in ever case.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:40 AM

Then we disarm them, or kills them. Ukraines anarchists were doing fine until the bolsjeviks moved in and crushed them.

O God. Let’s start nancying around with arguing over this. I’d rather not.
But it was working. The Makhanoists where succesful in implimenting anarchist organization in military, political and economic life. And they were betrayed by the Bolsheviks.

Justify it!

[The Feral Underclass]

EDIT.

[The Feral Underclass]

EDIT

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 03:24 PM
When Socialism ceased being a dream of some and became science, we learned that a class is defined by it's relation to the means of production.
In past Leninst countries who has controlled and organized the economy. The central government controlled and organized it. The reason being because the theory wont allow it. Leninism claims that society has to be structured using centralized control and hierarchy in order to be succesful against the bourgeoisie. If that is the case, how can the economy or means of production if you like be controlled by anyone other than the central government, or vangaurd. It cant be controlled directly by the workers because the theory claims that the workers are incapable of understanding the complexities of running a government.


So we have learned that there are two classes, that are antagonists. Two classes, two class-interests, that are diametrically opposed.

I am not trying to claim that the vangaurd attempts to perpetrate a capitalist agenda. I am claiming that the vangaurd, by the nature of its theory, asserts itself as a new class of rulers. Which it does. It must in order to achieve its objectives.

Lenin may well have wanted to liberate the working class. Indeed, many leninists in the world now wish to do just that. However they cant. Not by perpetrating the state. The theory is flawed as I have already demonstrated.

Out of interest is English your native language?


Before, during and after any progressive revolution that seeks to overthrow the dictatorship of the capital, the workers themselves, the working class, have a vanguard. That vanguard can never be seen as a 'class', as it is a part of the working class, just like the ruling class has it's own vanguard...So when you assert that the vanguard 'is a vanguard of people who assert themselves as a ruling class', you are wrong, as I have proved that a vanguard can never be a class on it's own. The vanguard, after any progressive revolution, controlls the means of production, but that does not mean the vanguard is a class, and I won't mark that word again.

Maybe in a Marxist sense, an maybe they are members of the working class, but that dosnt stop what happens next, happen. Just because Marx said the ruling class means this, and the members of the vangaurd were all the sons and daughters of coal miners does not mean that the theory works.

The vangaurd does assert itself as rulers which in turn creates a new class. A beaurocractic class of those that control, organize and rule, or, a ruling class.


Worker's democracy was there for all to be seen in all Marxist-Leninist countries, as long as they were Marxist-Leninist. In Cuba, there are elections, the people are informed about the candidates through the media, through posters on the streets.

Another contradiction. Kronstadt sailors and workers attempted to democratize further the system of control, bringing more control into the hands of the workers. A move that was met with artillary bombardments. Trotsky even says that the vangaurd must assert itself always, regardless of moves towards workers democracy.

Regardless of that, and of any facts about elections in cuba, the process can never lead to workers liberation. The state can not be used in achieving this goal. The material conditions laid out by the use of the state, and the psychology on people throughout its perpetration has not, and can never, lead to communism.


The people elect their national assembly. Of course, you won't see anyone who stands for the interests of the former oppressors among the candidates.

Or anyone who disagrees with the party line or the direction the vangaurd wishes to take the people. In Russia many officials were opposed asnd ousted from positions if they werent nominated by the party.


Your assertion is petty-bourgeois thinking. You can not prove that the state 'can not wither away', as we have never seen society enter such a delicate stage of development.

But it is perfectly revolutionary to assume that Leninism can work. Even thought the theory has failed over and over again, and indeed has never seen the state wither away.

Neither has Leninism been validated in regasrds to the withering away of the state. Are we allowed to call Leninist dreams that it will petty bourgeois?


For the state to wither away, conditions must be right, which means that the whole world must have entered the stage of Socialism. Then, and only then, we will see something that we can't predict. The workers will, only then, learn to rule themselves, they will learn how to controll, they will be their own vanguard.

The problem here is that we can only assert theory. Of course you allign yourself with the theory that the state can wither away. I do not. I do not, because I understand what a state is. These conditions can never ever be created as long as a state exists. You say that the workers will learn to rule themselves? How can they do that when the vangaurd controls everything, and must centralize control more intensly into their hands. In order for the vangaurd to organize and defend society it must take away freedoms from the workers. The workers, who are ignorant to the vangaurds goal, according to leninist theory, will come into conflict at some point with the party. Just like in Kronstadt. There will be areas of society where other working class movements, such as the anarchist movement, will implement its theories. history has shown that anarchism does work. It has worked. It worked in the Ukraine. The party then must make a choice. The vangaurd has to make a decision. The decision in the past has been to oppress these movements, regardless of how succesful they are. These actions are going to have material and psychological consequences. The vangaurd, in order to achieve its objectives, must, at some point intensify its control. It must take freedoms away from people. People who are ignorant. And at the same time muust propogandize the remaining population to believe that the vangaurd and government is fighting for their interests. What you are then left with is a powerful government, or ruling class, oppressing workers, taking freedom away and acting like a bourgeois government to win support, not for its theories, but for its actions, which ultimatly are against the entire point of the revolution.

Power is not being handed over to the workers, they are not being given control, infact the opposite. How then can the state, how then can all these conditions, suddenly, mysteriously, turn into communism?

[elijahcraig]

Again, the revolution will happen. It's just not going to happen now. It's hard to predict what will happen after it. We can only assume that, for example, the old rulers will try to get power again but we can't be sure of how the situation will be.

I’m not debating whether a revolution will occur—they always do; I am debating whether Anarchism can make a case for materializing the existence it idealizes and wishes to bring into play. I don’t think it does.


The problem is that you seem to avoid how would such a system be created. It wont just be "taking power", but I would say that its possible for many people to start seizing workplaces, buildings, military bases, of course when the situation asks for it. That alone could ensure defense against the opposition because they wont have many things they need to survive. Nowadays such attacks happen, poor people take over abandoned factories and set them up again around here to survive. That would probably be the spirit that would inspire such a revolution. It will also depend on the economical situation. If, let's say, theres a huge crisis and the richest 1% can survive while most of the other people can't, then you can be sure that they won't have a good time defending their property.

Utopian. Period. This is not going to happen in the way Anarchists (or Marxists) envision it to occur. It’s simple romanticizing the “ability” of the “spontaneous” Mass.


That's not what Marx called liberation! First of all it is only the working class in name. It is not the working class making decisions. That is left up to people who may or may not have come from the working class and now call themselves "intellectuals."

Marx did call the workers taking power a liberation. I don’t argue against your latter points, they have effectively been played out in the course of the last century.



Secondly, liberation in the classical Marxist sense is communism. Communism being a society, which is stateless, non-hierarchical, non-governmental and thus classless, meaning no rulers and no ruled, with people organizing collectively and by free association.

Liberation is a course to Freedom—abstract terms in the extreme. Obviously any move towards classless society, in Marx’s view is a process of liberation.


The principle that one human being has control over another human being is fundamentally wrong and a principle, which must be destroyed if communism is ever going to be attained.

Communism will never be attained; there is no fundamental wrong in having authority over another being.


As for authority being indestructable, that implies that human beings don’t have the ability to live without authority. Which poses a very simple contradiction. If human beings were unable to live without authority then how do we have leaders?

By saying that authority cannot be destroyed, you are suggesting that it is something which is finite. Something innate in human beings. Innate in the sense that we instinctively crave authority. If that was the case then why have humans in history lived without leaders? Why is it that you have people who reject authority, such as myself, or a teenager who disobeys the authority of her teacher or parent? Are you suggesting that you yourself can only function if you have someone to tell you what to do?

I don’t know what your “rejection” of certain authorities has to do with the existence of authority in human nature.

If you want my view on authority, read Nietzsche, and to an extent Foucault.


Authority is a human invention. It is a concept developed to allow a ruling class order society and subjugate its people. Presently, authority has taken on a qusi-religious meaning. Everything that exists in society is structured like this. Someone with authority gives orders to those who do not have it. And why do they not have it? Because someone has monopolized it? Why? Because we believe that it is the only way we can survive. Why? Because that is the only form of organization us primitive people can comprehend.

That’s ridiculous. Authority is not something which can be “invented.” Authority exists, period. The myth of need of private property in human nature is an example of a “myth,” which was “invented.” Authority exists on all levels, in all cultures, in all times, everywhere, and forever. Power is in every human action—from having a conversation, to having sexual intercourse, to forging a revolution, to whatever. Saying it is an “invention” of the ruling class to justify their rule is totally foundationless, and simply a notion created to serve your ideological faith.


It’s Nonsense! When you and your friends go on a night out and you are deciding where you want to go, does one of your friends assert authority over everyone else? Of course not! Each of you collectively gives an opinion and a compromise is made.

That’s ridiculous as well. No one “collectively” decides anything. Power is divided into the psychological arena when discussing anything, as is the act of sex a psychological and mental power relation to a large extent. And it is not necessarily—indeed, most likely not—a blatant totalitarian act: Power is a subtle force behind all acts of so-called “democracy.”


Now the argument is that it may work for a small group of people, but not for an entire society. You have to ask why? Because it is more complicated? Of course it is more complicated but the principle remains the same. The principle does not change because the situation got more complicated. You can choose to organize with authority or you can choose to organize without it. Authority is not finite and it can be destroyed, people just have to want it.

I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “Authority is not finite.” This really has no relation to what we are talking about.


None of this accounts for the failure of leninism and is completly untrue. The state managed to achieve it's objective in every country. Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba. None of these factors played any part with the downfall or revision of the countries politics. The state was perfectly strong enough in all these cases, to repel armies of giant magnitude and with effectivness.

You’ve misunderstood what I’ve said.

You’ll find that RedStar most likely agrees with me on the Leninist revolutions of the “third world” throughout the twentieth century.

The “failure of Leninism” is not what I am talking of. I am speaking of the “cause” of what we refer to as “Leninism” (a corrupt form of what was originally intended by Lenin, etc.) Leninism has become the buzzword of every ruler seeking to attempt to control a populace in an organized state based on “socialism.”

I’ve already explained this various times in this thread; if you can’t comprehend, I’ll just call you “slow.”


Which revolution failed? None of the Leninist revolutions failed in terms of achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat. None of these what ifs mean anything?

ALL of them failed in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. They were dictatorships of small amounts of people representing the proletariat. NO revolution has succeeded as was originally intended.


This was the whole point of the theory. The whole point of leninism is to achieve this and for the reason of defending the revolution....

You’re being annoying now because you are speaking from the dogmatic libertarian socialist talking points page.


Maybe this lack of revolutionary "fervor" was due to the fact that those who where supposed to have the power [the people] were increasingly marginalized and isolated from the political process.

And they were marginalized (steal that from Chomsky did you?) precisely because of the Imperialist pressures, economically or militarily.


Spain didn't fail because anarchism was proved to be incorrect or inefficient, it collapsed because the comminturn not only refused to assist the collectives, but in the end attacked and destroyed them, smashing the collecitives, shooting the anarchists and ultimatly loosing the revolution. Anarchism worked, as the people like Orwell account in books such as 'Homage to Catalonia', it was because the comminturn betrayed us.

YES: let me make this clear: I UNDERSTAND why Spain failed in Anarchist terms. I understand the “reasons” the revolution failed. I am saying that unless Anarchism has a defense against ALL opponents, it is worthless. Revolution must be designed to be impenetrable, not full of holes. As all are.


Marxism failed because it did not achieve communism.

Really? Maybe I can answer in replies from now on that state obvious prerequisites also?

How about: This computer allows me to type because it has a keyboard.

These kind of idiotic statements are to be avoided in sane debate.


We must oppress the ruling class in order for society to be free. I never claimed we shouldnt.

And without a State (or small “decentralized” states) this is not possible.


Idealism! The working class dont have any power. The party vanguard do. If they didnt then they would not be able to achieve their objectives.

Herein lies a paradox, as I’ve stated before.

I’m not arguing as a Leninist, but as an observer of past revolutions.

Are you calling me an Idealist? I don’t consider myself a Materialist, so I don’t take it as an insult.


I find it amazing how someone can defend something they know nothing about. This is not how you define a state. A state is a centralized group of fucntions, government, army, police force, judicery, controlled by a ruling class for the purpose of perpetrating their control. It is not a federation of collectives democratically organized, which are not cenralized, have not government, leaders, police force or judicery controlled for the purpose of perpetrating the rule of a ruling class. Power is not monopolized into the hands of a vangaurd, it is distrabuted between the working class, the people who are fighting the revolution.

There is a difference between using collective power to achieve workers liberation against the bourgeoisie and the power of a vangaurd over the working class. Especially in the context of giving them liberation. It makes no sense. There is a vast contradiction.

The State is unified power of authority over the society. Decentralized power in the hands of “workers” is still a state. It is merely acting locally.


Chomsky says alot of things. Saying utopian is not a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a utopian society. Claiming that it is unrealistic etc etc etc is like saying, "i want some chocolate ice cream, i just cant be bothered to go to the shop."

Another problem with your argument: I DON”T want a “workers paradise.” So I have no motivation to go to the “shop.”


Maybe anarchism dosnt work? Who knows? But we wont know until we fight hard to make it work. What we do know to be fact, rather than just an assumption, is that leninism does not work and therefore we should not continue to try and make it work. Like you say, modifying theories does not make it work.

As Joyce says, “Jest on.”


I dont know what you mean by spontanous, but workers militias definatly, organized collectivly and democractically, co-ordinated locally, not centrally.

Makhno’s “militias” certainly weren’t organized so.

And militias in this day and age have absolutely no chance of defending the revolution against Imperialist powers.


Why?

Are you saying there should be no central organization or coordination of ideas behind a revolution? Just people running around disorganized and locally small in number?


The state did still exist within the country, however, in many liberated zones, ie catalonia, state organization was replaced by collective organization. And it worked. It worked so well that at one point production was higher than it was before the revolution. People adapted to collective organization well, not only in the cities but also in the countryside. I suggest you do some serious studying on the issue, rather than quoting the usually leninist rhetoric.

AK Press has good books on Spanish revolution activity. I’m not using “leninist rhetoric.” I also was not arguing against the existence of the state in Spain at the time. You have misinterpreted my argument.


But it was working. The Makhanoists where succesful in implimenting anarchist organization in military, political and economic life. And they were betrayed by the Bolsheviks.

Justify it!

No. They were successful in stirring up opposition amongst the herd against the Bolsheviks’ power, which caused the Bolsheviks to put them down. I do not support either action. I avoid attempting to argue over which convincing argument was right when put to the poor and starving multitude.


The problem here is that we can only assert theory. Of course you allign yourself with the theory that the state can wither away. I do not. I do not, because I understand what a state is. These conditions can never ever be created as long as a state exists. You say that the workers will learn to rule themselves?

I never said that.


How can they do that when the vangaurd controls everything, and must centralize control more intensly into their hands. In order for the vangaurd to organize and defend society it must take away freedoms from the workers. The workers, who are ignorant to the vangaurds goal, according to leninist theory, will come into conflict at some point with the party. Just like in Kronstadt. There will be areas of society where other working class movements, such as the anarchist movement, will implement its theories. history has shown that anarchism does work. It has worked. It worked in the Ukraine. The party then must make a choice. The vangaurd has to make a decision. The decision in the past has been to oppress these movements, regardless of how succesful they are. These actions are going to have material and psychological consequences. The vangaurd, in order to achieve its objectives, must, at some point intensify its control. It must take freedoms away from people. People who are ignorant. And at the same time muust propogandize the remaining population to believe that the vangaurd and government is fighting for their interests. What you are then left with is a powerful government, or ruling class, oppressing workers, taking freedom away and acting like a bourgeois government to win support, not for its theories, but for its actions, which ultimatly are against the entire point of the revolution.

Power is not being handed over to the workers, they are not being given control, infact the opposite. How then can the state, how then can all these conditions, suddenly, mysteriously, turn into communism?

They can’t.



I was also wondering if you aware that the man’s quote in your signature, Prince Kropotkin, supported the First World War (the “Great Imperialist War”).

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:33 PM
Utopian. Period. This is not going to happen in the way Anarchists (or Marxists) envision it to occur. It’s simple romanticizing the “ability” of the “spontaneous” Mass.
So, you recognize that a revolution will happen, but you just claim that such a theory of what could happen is "utopian". Then which is the point of the revolution? Oh I see, "let's take power in the workers name and impose our dictatorship, and kill those who disagree!!!"
It's actually very utopian to think that people will support such a system, especially considering how it is nowadays considered as "evil" and "utopian".

[elijahcraig]

So, you recognize that a revolution will happen, but you just claim that such a theory of what could happen is "utopian". Then which is the point of the revolution? Oh I see, "let's take power in the workers name and impose our dictatorship, and kill those who disagree!!!"
It's actually very utopian to think that people will support such a system, especially considering how it is nowadays considered as "evil" and "utopian".

I don’t “recognize that a revolution will happen,” in fact I haven’t said what direction I expect any future revolutions to take.

Revolutions are inevitable. What form it will take in the future is not my concern, mostly because it is pointless to argue one way or the other.

And you “version” of the former “Leninist” revolutions is ridiculous. Tone the rhetoric down, Zhivago.

[The Feral Underclass]

Liberation is a course to Freedom—abstract terms in the extreme. Obviously any move towards classless society, in Marx’s view is a process of liberation.

This is not what you originally said. What you said, which is what I replied to was, If the state is in the hands of the workers, they can exert authority on their former rulers. That what most Marxists called liberation.

I was replying to you under the impression that you were argueing from a Leninist perspective. To say liberation is when the "workers have authority" is to say that the entire working class have power to make decisions which effect society and their lives, or at least have the opporunity too. If this is the case, then it is not leninism.


Communism will never be attained;

Why?


there is no fundamental wrong in having authority over another being.

A human being having the authority to effect decisions in another human beings life is not acceptable. There is no reason why one human should have that right over another human being. You do not have the right to assert how and why I should live my life, just as I do not have the right to assert the same to you. We should have equal power to effect decisions.


I don’t know what your “rejection” of certain authorities has to do with the existence of authority in human nature.

To say that authority can not be destroyed is to say that it is something which is somehow innate to human beings. Which implies that we can not function as human beings without authority. If that is the case, if we can not live without authority then how is it that I reject authority as a concept and advocate mutual co-operation. If it was innate, surely I would embrace authority as a human need. I do not. Therefore it is not innate, as I am human.


Authority exists on all levels, in all cultures, in all times, everywhere, and forever.

Authority has not always existed. Hunter/gatherers who lived in family units lived their lives based on how they chose. There was no authority telling them how and why they should do it. As our economic necessities shifted it was agreed that authority was needed in order to structure our lives. As our society developed and our needs changed it seemed logical to structure our lives in this way. To quote Kropotkin "In the beginning men lived in small isolated families, and perpetual welfare between them was the normal state of affairs. But on fine day, realizing the at last the disadvantages that resulted from their endless struggles, men decided to join forces."


Power is in every human action—from having a conversation, to having sexual intercourse, to forging a revolution, to whatever.

I agree that there are levels of authority, some being justified and some not being. If your daughter stepped out into the middle of the road and was going to be hit by a car to grab her and pull her away is an act of authority which is justifiable. Fighting for majority control against an exploiting class is authority which again is justifiable. Expoitation or control over peoples lives is not justifiable.

As for having sex and having a conversation, I do not see how power is relevant, unless you are dominating a conversation or raping someone. When I am having a conversation with someone I do not dominate it. It is a mutual act, as is having sex. I do not assert myself in either act as a dominant force. This is the point. Authority is a choice. You can choose to be authotarian and you can choose not to be.


Saying it is an “invention” of the ruling class to justify their rule is totally foundationless, and simply a notion created to serve your ideological faith.

I apologize if I implied that the ruling class created authority in some conscious way. That's not what I meant. To quote Kropotkin again "A social contract was was concluded among the scattered families who willingly submitted themselves to an authority which - need I say? - became the starting point as well as the initiater of all progress."


No one “collectively” decides anything. Power is divided into the psychological arena when discussing anything, as is the act of sex a psychological and mental power relation to a large extent. And it is not necessarily—indeed, most likely not—a blatant totalitarian act: Power is a subtle force behind all acts of so-called “democracy.”

I'm not sure exactly what this means. However, authority, or power as you put it of something, is different to having power or authority over something. Someone maybe an authority at having sex, while another has authority in being a mechanic. This is different from using that authority or power to take control of something or someone.


I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “Authority is not finite.” This really has no relation to what we are talking about.

You said that authority could not be destroyed. I am saying that it is not finite. It is not something which must exist forever. As I have attempt to prove, authority is a human invention. Not an innate human desire. We can decide to organize ourselves without it, just as we chose to organize ourselves with it.


You’ll find that RedStar most likely agrees with me on the Leninist revolutions of the “third world” throughout the twentieth century.

I am glad that redstar agrees with you, although I am unsure how that relates to me.



The “failure of Leninism” is not what I am talking of. I am speaking of the “cause” of what we refer to as “Leninism” (a corrupt form of what was originally intended by Lenin, etc.) Leninism has become the buzzword of every ruler seeking to attempt to control a populace in an organized state based on “socialism.”

I dont think it comes down to me being slow, I just think your not very articulate. If this is what you were trying to say then why did you use what you previously said as a counter argument to my hypothesis of why Leninism is a flawed theory.


You’re being annoying now because you are speaking from the dogmatic libertarian socialist talking points page.

Why were you restricted again? Anyway, I apologize if I am being annoying, and I dont think I am being dogmatic, I am repeating to you a flaw I see in Leninist theory based on how I interprate leninism.


And they were marginalized (steal that from Chomsky did you?) precisely because of the Imperialist pressures, economically or militarily.

I am unsure why you find it necessary to be so provocative. No, as a matter of fact I did not "steal" that from Chomsky.

If this was the case, then how can it be certain that leninism will not go down the same road again? Come a revolution we will meet exactly the same pressures, if not ten times worse. The ruling class are not stupid.


I am saying that unless Anarchism has a defense against ALL opponents, it is worthless. Revolution must be designed to be impenetrable, not full of holes. As all are.

You are absolutly correct. We should not put our faith in Leninists again. We can learn lessons from history and apst experiences and make sure they do not happen again.


Really? Maybe I can answer in replies from now on that state obvious prerequisites also?

How about: This computer allows me to type because it has a keyboard.

These kind of idiotic statements are to be avoided in sane debate.

My point was that it failed for a specific reason. That reason being because leninism is flawed. For the reason I have already outlined in the thread.


And without a State (or small “decentralized” states) this is not possible.

Why?


Herein lies a paradox, as I’ve stated before.

I do not understand the paradox, please explain.



The State is unified power of authority over the society. Decentralized power in the hands of “workers” is still a state. It is merely acting locally.

I have explained what I percieve to be a state, and why I disagree with this assertion.



Are you saying there should be no central organization

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.


or coordination of ideas behind a revolution?

An anarchist revolution will be founded in ideas. Unlike leninism we believe the working class can only achieve true liberation (communism) if they are conscious of their actions.


Just people running around disorganized and locally small in number?

Decentralization and a lack of state does not mean disorganization.


I was also wondering if you aware that the man’s quote in your signature, Prince Kropotkin, supported the First World War (the “Great Imperialist War”).

In the 1860's Kropotkin rejected his princeship and denounced the royal family. He left Russia, refusing any support from his family and was eventually disowned. All in order to become an anarchist activist. Everyone he loved hated him and he lived in poverty for years, all because he believed that fighting for anarcho-communism was far more noble. So please dont use this bullshit as an attempt to rubbish someone.

As for him supporting the First World War, although I dont agree, I can understand why he said it. And people are allowed to make mistakes. He was human after all.

[elijahcraig]

This is not what you originally said. What you said, which is what I replied to was, If the state is in the hands of the workers, they can exert authority on their former rulers. That what most Marxists called liberation.

I was replying to you under the impression that you were argueing from a Leninist perspective. To say liberation is when the "workers have authority" is to say that the entire working class have power to make decisions which effect society and their lives, or at least have the opporunity too. If this is the case, then it is not leninism.

Leninism wishes to put the workers in power. What occurs in reality is a different matter.

My two views do not contradict one another.


Why?

Let’s say this: It PROBABLY will never occur.

The idea is Utopian, and like all ideal systems of revolution—will fail.

I think RAF agrees with me that the state will never disappear.


A human being having the authority to effect decisions in another human beings life is not acceptable. There is no reason why one human should have that right over another human being. You do not have the right to assert how and why I should live my life, just as I do not have the right to assert the same to you. We should have equal power to effect decisions.

Look to Nietzsche for my views on this.

There is no such thing as equality.


To say that authority can not be destroyed is to say that it is something which is somehow innate to human beings. Which implies that we can not function as human beings without authority. If that is the case, if we can not live without authority then how is it that I reject authority as a concept and advocate mutual co-operation. If it was innate, surely I would embrace authority as a human need. I do not. Therefore it is not innate, as I am human.

Mutual cooperation is authority.

I don’t embrace authority either, does that make it unreal? And not innate? No. It does not. It means I oppose one authority, and want to place another in power.

Authority is a trait which is impossible to get away from. “Anti-authoritarians” are merely opposing the existent form of power, and supporting another.


Authority has not always existed. Hunter/gatherers who lived in family units lived their lives based on how they chose. There was no authority telling them how and why they should do it.

In most “family units” there was a leader, this is the father archetype we find in all myth.

Primitive peoples had the most extreme versions of authority. Why? Because it was needed to survive.

“Hunter/gatherers” as you describe them never existed to my knowledge.


As our economic necessities shifted it was agreed that authority was needed in order to structure our lives.

This is fanciful as well. No one “agreed” on anything. The strong plundered the weak, and they took power. ALL states and government relies on the violent authority of one group over another—this took a smaller form at the beginning.


As our society developed and our needs changed it seemed logical to structure our lives in this way. To quote Kropotkin "In the beginning men lived in small isolated families, and perpetual welfare between them was the normal state of affairs. But on fine day, realizing the at last the disadvantages that resulted from their endless struggles, men decided to join forces."

Kropotkin is romanticizing the events as well.

No one “logically” decides anything as for the species—one group takes power and dominates the other, doing what is in their interest.


As for having sex and having a conversation, I do not see how power is relevant, unless you are dominating a conversation or raping someone. When I am having a conversation with someone I do not dominate it. It is a mutual act, as is having sex. I do not assert myself in either act as a dominant force. This is the point. Authority is a choice. You can choose to be authotarian and you can choose not to be.

As I said in my post, it may not even be a conscious “act” so much as an environment you create in someone’s presence.

Mutual act? Sex is, as Foucault said once: “You penetrate, or you are penetrated.” There is nothing mutual about it. It is an act of domination—you take the role of the sadist or the masochist, passive or aggressive, etc.


I apologize if I implied that the ruling class created authority in some conscious way. That's not what I meant. To quote Kropotkin again "A social contract was was concluded among the scattered families who willingly submitted themselves to an authority which - need I say? - became the starting point as well as the initiater of all progress."

What “scattered” families are we talking about? Are you quoting “Mutual Aid”?



I'm not sure exactly what this means. However, authority, or power as you put it of something, is different to having power or authority over something. Someone maybe an authority at having sex, while another has authority in being a mechanic. This is different from using that authority or power to take control of something or someone.

I’m not talking about being an “authority” ON something; I’m talking about being an authority while doing something.

Let’s take Joyce’s Ulysses. Dedalus and Bloom are BOTH passive and not physically dominant. And for an example of being dominated in a conversation, read the episodes “Hades” and “The Cyclops”. He is also dominated in the sexual relationship in the “Circe” episode when he is put in Severin’s position from Venus in Furs. Stephen is as well in most cases, by Buck Mulligan.


You said that authority could not be destroyed. I am saying that it is not finite. It is not something which must exist forever. As I have attempt to prove, authority is a human invention. Not an innate human desire. We can decide to organize ourselves without it, just as we chose to organize ourselves with it.

I think you mean “infinite”. “Finite” implies that it is not a non-stop thing. For example, a line segment is finite; a line is infinite.

Can you prove authority to be a human invention? It exists among ALL animals as well.


I am glad that redstar agrees with you, although I am unsure how that relates to me.

He is an Anarchist, one of the oldest here. Just thought you’d want to know what others thought.


I dont think it comes down to me being slow, I just think your not very articulate. If this is what you were trying to say then why did you use what you previously said as a counter argument to my hypothesis of why Leninism is a flawed theory.

I didn’t use different arguments, I stated my position in a way to try to get you to understand what I meant.


I am unsure why you find it necessary to be so provocative. No, as a matter of fact I did not "steal" that from Chomsky.

If this was the case, then how can it be certain that leninism will not go down the same road again? Come a revolution we will meet exactly the same pressures, if not ten times worse. The ruling class are not stupid.

It can’t be “certain.”


You are absolutly correct. We should not put our faith in Leninists again. We can learn lessons from history and apst experiences and make sure they do not happen again.

I believe Anarchism to be a “utopian socialist” outlet of the Enlightenment, therefore useless in the modern day.


Why?

HOW do you defend something without power and authority? Organization itself is a form of the state.


I do not understand the paradox, please explain.

Go back a few pages and read my posts, I’m not going through this again.


Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.

There should be no coordination among so-called “decentralized” militias?


An anarchist revolution will be founded in ideas. Unlike leninism we believe the working class can only achieve true liberation (communism) if they are conscious of their actions.

That’s a problem. The working class make up the herd mentality of society. Consciousness is something they will NEVER have. At least among the majority. Especially in the imperial nations.


Decentralization and a lack of state does not mean disorganization.

Explain further.


In the 1860's Kropotkin rejected his princeship and denounced the royal family. He left Russia, refusing any support from his family and was eventually disowned. All in order to become an anarchist activist. Everyone he loved hated him and he lived in poverty for years, all because he believed that fighting for anarcho-communism was far more noble. So please dont use this bullshit as an attempt to rubbish someone.

As for him supporting the First World War, although I dont agree, I can understand why he said it. And people are allowed to make mistakes. He was human after all.

He was also a Utopian dreamer.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 03:08 AM
And you “version” of the former “Leninist” revolutions is ridiculous. Tone the rhetoric down, Zhivago.
Ok, so then you don't care much about the revolution. I see. It's not a bad thing. But still I keep my views concerning leninism as an imposed dictatorship.

[elijahcraig]

THE "revolution"? I don't see one.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:28 PM
Leninism wishes to put the workers in power. What occurs in reality is a different matter.
I absolutely agree.


I don’t embrace authority either, does that make it unreal? And not innate? No. It does not. It means I oppose one authority, and want to place another in power.

It doesn’t make it innate in anyway at all. And you wish to replace one authority with another, over replacing it with a form of organization which does not seek to create authority. Authority being something, which places human beings over human beings.


Mutual co-operation is a form of authority....Authority is a trait which is impossible to get away from. “Anti-authoritarians” are merely opposing the existent form of power, and supporting another.

You’re not making any sense. When I talk of authority I am referring to the control that a human being has over another human being. That authority is not justifiable. There is no reason why someone should have control over someone else, nor a need for it. I am not sure how you define authority? Please define it so I know what I am arguing against.


In most “family units” there was a leader, this is the father archetype we find in all myth.

I can accept that this was most probably the case. However, this patriarchal authority again, cannot be justified. Furthermore, these family units were not controlled by an external authority, directing their lives. Regardless of the patriarchal structure of the family, it still worked base on responsibility rather than on command. The woman would tend to the home while the man, being physically stronger and thus making it more logical, would go and hunt and gather food. This action came about through mutual co-operation and agreement. Not from control and force. It was a mutual decision, not one decided for them.


Primitive peoples had the most extreme versions of authority. Why? Because it was needed to survive.

We have developed since then. We have become more sophisticated and understand allot more about ethics and concepts. We do not need to be extreme anymore because we have developed our minds to understand that beating your wife or executing a thief is illogical. Just as the bourgeoisie in 18th century France found feudalism illogical, the working class will eventually find the state and its authority illogical and will move to dismantle it.


This is fanciful as well. No one “agreed” on anything. The strong plundered the weak, and they took power. ALL states and government relies on the violent authority of one group over another—this took a smaller form at the beginning.

But there is a reason for this. Why did the "strong" plunder the "weak?" For economic gain! Economic necessities, development created these concepts of destroying the "weak" etc, because it gave individuals and groups more. It made them economically strong.


Mutual act? Sex is, as Foucault said once: “You penetrate, or you are penetrated.” There is nothing mutual about it. It is an act of domination—you take the role of the sadist or the masochist, passive or aggressive, etc

I am not sure what kind of sex you have been having but I tend to involve the other person more than just penetrating or being penetrated. Foucault was wrong. Again. Maybe for some people the act of sex is a selfish one. For others it is a mutual experience.


What “scattered” families are we talking about? Are you quoting “Mutual Aid”?

No, 'the state: It's historic role.' I think he is referring to the first groups of Homo sapiens, which had no concept of organization or authority. It was the beginning of human consciousness. The dawn of humanity so to speak.


Can you prove authority to be a human invention? It exists among ALL animals as well.

Can you prove that it isn’t? Kropotkin was a scientist, and spent much of his young adulthood traveling Asia studying animals and primitive communities. While in England, to sustain himself he was employed by several environmental journals because of his expertise and vast knowledge of the behavior of animals and concluded that many species of animals act in mutual co-operation.


He is an Anarchist, one of the oldest here. Just thought you’d want to know what others thought.

Redstar is not an anarchist.


HOW do you defend something without power and authority? Organization itself is a form of the state.

Again you misunderstand the anarchist concept of authority. Of course authority is applied when attempting to defend yourself. There is no way to escape that, but it is authority, which is justifiable. It is how human beings organize themselves, which is the question. For me to order you to do something inhibits your freedom and reduces you as a human being. It makes you second to me and that is not right. We are equal and are fighting together. Therefore any decisions must be made mutually so our freedom and humanity is equal.


Go back a few pages and read my posts, I’m not going through this again.

You don’t explain it in a way that I can understand.


There should be no coordination among so-called “decentralized” militias?

Of course there should be.


That’s a problem. The working class make up the herd mentality of society. Consciousness is something they will NEVER have. At least among the majority. Especially in the imperial nations

I don’t agree. I believe the working class will destroy the state and its authority and create a communist society, just as the bourgeoisie destroyed feudalism and replaced it with liberal democracy. Illogical systems cannot exist forever. Sooner or later people find that out. Communism is inevitable and will be ever lasting because it is founded in logic and reason.


Explain further.

You said "Just people running around disorganized and locally small in number?" which implies that you believe that decentralization and state authority somehow means disorganization. State centralization and authority is just one way to organize. Another way to organize which negates oppression and stays true to communist principles is organizing a movement based on federations of workers.

I assume when the revolution comes it will be the culmination of years of disaffection and anger. A movement will have had time to organize and the changing of material conditions will give the movement the opportunity to understand certain situations so we can organize specifically. When the revolution does come it will come fast and widespread. The bourgeoisie, or what is left of them, will be concentrated locally and will be fighting many fronts. Each city may have its own federation with a workers militia. Manchester Federation and Sheffield Federation would co-ordinate between each other and direct each other’s military activities based on what was necessary, through mutual agreement. Any specific responsibility would be mutually agreed upon and if a person needed to be elected the federation would do it.


He was also a Utopian dreamer

There is nothing principally wrong with that. As long as you find a logical way to put your dreams into action and make them a reality. Anarchism is that logical process.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:45 AM
THE "revolution"? I don't see one.
Because you don't see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it will never exist.
My point is that you dont seem to be too interested on a change, you are trying to make some reforms and that's it. At least that's the feeling you're leaving to me.

[elijahcraig]

It doesn’t make it innate in anyway at all. And you wish to replace one authority with another, over replacing it with a form of organization which does not seek to create authority. Authority being something, which places human beings over human beings.

Organization cannot exist without authority.


You’re not making any sense. When I talk of authority I am referring to the control that a human being has over another human being. That authority is not justifiable. There is no reason why someone should have control over someone else, nor a need for it. I am not sure how you define authority? Please define it so I know what I am arguing against.

I’ve already done this when debating throughout this thread.


I can accept that this was most probably the case. However, this patriarchal authority again, cannot be justified. Furthermore, these family units were not controlled by an external authority, directing their lives.

External authority? The US population is controlled by the internal government, not the external authorities. I don’t know what you mean to say by saying it was “not controlled by an external authority.”


Regardless of the patriarchal structure of the family, it still worked base on responsibility rather than on command. The woman would tend to the home while the man, being physically stronger and thus making it more logical, would go and hunt and gather food. This action came about through mutual co-operation and agreement. Not from control and force. It was a mutual decision, not one decided for them.

It was not a mutual cooperation or agreement: it was a natural act of evolution. There was no “democratic” discussion of this. It was, period.


We have developed since then. We have become more sophisticated and understand allot more about ethics and concepts. We do not need to be extreme anymore because we have developed our minds to understand that beating your wife or executing a thief is illogical. Just as the bourgeoisie in 18th century France found feudalism illogical, the working class will eventually find the state and its authority illogical and will move to dismantle it.

The bourgeoisie didn’t find feudalism “illogical,” they found it to be an economic system against their ability to gain wealth. Just as the proletariat don’t find capitalism “illogical,” but against their interests.

And in one former post, the person addressing “primitive tribes” was using them as an example of successful “mutual cooperation,” I didn’t bring it up.


But there is a reason for this. Why did the "strong" plunder the "weak?" For economic gain! Economic necessities, development created these concepts of destroying the "weak" etc, because it gave individuals and groups more. It made them economically strong.

And? That’s the point I made.


I am not sure what kind of sex you have been having but I tend to involve the other person more than just penetrating or being penetrated. Foucault was wrong. Again. Maybe for some people the act of sex is a selfish one. For others it is a mutual experience.


It is a mutual experience. To act as if it is some “mutal act of democracy” or whatever…is utopian and wrong. Foucault was right. He merely stated the obvious: the physical conditions and the psychological conditions created by them render authority the main theme of sex. Sade succeeded in proving this.


No, 'the state: It's historic role.' I think he is referring to the first groups of Homo sapiens, which had no concept of organization or authority. It was the beginning of human consciousness. The dawn of humanity so to speak.

Authority is not a concept it is a fact of existence. Animals use this. They do not understand it. When humans emerged from the primal herd, they naturally asserted power when it was in their interest.


Can you prove that it isn’t?

It is your assertion, thus on you to prove it. Reminds me of a member of the New Black Panther Party who asserted that the Jews planned 9-11, when he was asked to prove that this, he replied, “Can you [I]disprove[/t] it?” Obviously the assertion needs some sort of internal logic and proof for me to even consider it as a possible answer.


Redstar is not an anarchist.

He is a Marxist who argues the exact same points as Anarchists. Name doesn’t matter if it’s the same thing.


Again you misunderstand the anarchist concept of authority. Of course authority is applied when attempting to defend yourself. There is no way to escape that, but it is authority, which is justifiable. It is how human beings organize themselves, which is the question. For me to order you to do something inhibits your freedom and reduces you as a human being. It makes you second to me and that is not right. We are equal and are fighting together. Therefore any decisions must be made mutually so our freedom and humanity is equal.

There is no such thing as “equality” of humanity.

There is also no such thing as a “fixed state of freedom.” Freedom is an act not a state.


I don’t agree. I believe the working class will destroy the state and its authority and create a communist society, just as the bourgeoisie destroyed feudalism and replaced it with liberal democracy. Illogical systems cannot exist forever. Sooner or later people find that out. Communism is inevitable and will be ever lasting because it is founded in logic and reason.

A Christian can argue for Christian Heaven as well as you can argue for a Communist paradise. Don’t make it true.


Because you don't see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it will never exist.
My point is that you dont seem to be too interested on a change, you are trying to make some reforms and that's it. At least that's the feeling you're leaving to me.

I don’t lobby for reforms or revolution.

Change is inevitable. I don’t have to be “interested” in it.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can see we are not going to agree on this issue. We have both made our points. I dont think there is need to debate this further. :)