Anarchism and the Left

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism and the Left (http://anarchism.ws/left.html)

"These are articles from various sources which have an anarchist critique of other socialist ideas including Leninism, Marxism and Social democracy."

The essays include 'Which Way To The Revolution: Anarchism or Leninism', 'The Marxist theory of the State....an anarchist reply', 'The Anarchist Alternative to Leninism', and 'Cuba..socialist paradise or Castro's fiefdom?'. It also has replies to attacks on anarchism by the Socialist Workers Party in Britain.

The sections are:

Anarchism and the Left
Anarchist replies to Leninists
On the Labour Party
Globaliation movement
Socialist Workers Party/International Socialist Tendancy

[elijahcraig]

Anarchists' ridiculous "critique" of Cuban socialism is the main reason at the present why everyone should label Anarchism for what it is: idealistic and utopian.

[mEds]

An anarchist world population would only be fighting itself. People need some form of government and/or leadership. Anarchy abolishes all form of government.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

You're not retarded you know and so are most people. You don't need a babysitter.

Anarchism leaves room for the common man to think about matters more, to develop individuality and more imporant to stand independant, independant from authority, which has proven to be a burden so many times.

[mEds]

Only when authority is corrupt and ignorant of the people. Anarchism leaves no "leaders." No sense of cohesion = fiasco.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:46 PM
Only when authority is corrupt and ignorant of the people. Anarchism leaves no "leaders." No sense of cohesion = fiasco.
This dosnt make any sense. Explain it.

[mEds]

Without leadership things tend to move in disarray.
Since anarchy dis-established government there is no sense of cohesion and people would naturally start forming their own cliques/groups. It just leads to more problems.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:44 PM
Without leadership things tend to move in disarray.
Since anarchy dis-established government there is no sense of cohesion and people would naturally start forming their own cliques/groups. It just leads to more problems.
First of All, StreetSweeper - Leadership is not needed. A anarchist Society would have no authority and the power would not be in the hands of a person or few, it
would be in the Hand of the Workers.

[mEds]

Umm how would it be in the hands of the workers? Technically everyone would have equal power and is like an extreme form of demcoracy; that is one reason why democracies get nothing done.

[Guest1]

Something no one ever mentions, Athenian democracy was leaderless for the decades that it was successful.

Its collapse was a result of the abandonment of that approach.

I'm not saying Athens was Anarchist, just that the "problem" you speak of has been proven to not exist.

[mEds]

One example of something working does not mean it will work most of the time or half of the time. And to my knowledge Athens was not exactly the epicenter of morality either. Lavishness was also quite profound before the common era.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 09:05 PM
Umm how would it be in the hands of the workers? Technically everyone would have equal power and is like an extreme form of demcoracy; that is one reason why democracies get nothing done.
Anarchism doesn't exclude organisation. 2 men working together can do more then 2 men working seperatly. But that doesn't mean that there is the need for a boss. Take away a load of power and privileges and you have; the coordinator!

I have done some thinking about this and I was thinking of "coordinators". Who is only doing what the name suggests. A coordinator is just a member of the group, without privileges, extra power which would give him the power to abuse. The members of the group choose a coordinator, thus leaving the coordinator fragile. As soon as he doesn't do his job right or starts abusing, the members of the group can put him aside. The lack of priviliges, extra power and the fragile position of the coordinator creates a situation in which the coordinator is just "one of the guys".

Edit: I just taught of this. This system doesn't stand quik decisions in the way. He can quikly take decisions and when his decisions take a wrong turn, his comrades apoint a new (more skilled) coordinator.

Don't laugh too hard. Just taught of this system. Plz give me suggestions.

[Guest1]

What about no coordinator?

Basically, let things go through consensus like they should. If someone has an idea, a nack for saying things and making plans, people will vote with him.

That's all, no leaders, no coordinators, just reason and democracy. It would be more like the active would direct, but not really direct, more like suggest. The real direction lies with the entire group, not just one or two "Activists".

[mEds]

But Democracy is flawed an people would naturally highly abuse the system. Democracy promotes weakness, laziness, slowness and a big mish-mosh of ideals. Although something similiar to a democracy like Plato's Polity would be ideal to work in a marxist/communist system.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 16 2004, 09:53 PM
What about no coordinator?

Basically, let things go through consensus like they should. If someone has an idea, a nack for saying things and making plans, people will vote with him.

That's all, no leaders, no coordinators, just reason and democracy. It would be more like the active would direct, but not really direct, more like suggest. The real direction lies with the entire group, not just one or two "Activists".
To sum it up - It's Direct Democracy. Anarchist Society needs no leaders or Coordinators. The power is in the People's Hands.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 04:59 PM
But Democracy is flawed an people would naturally highly abuse the system. Democracy promotes weakness, laziness, slowness and a big mish-mosh of ideals. Although something similiar to a democracy like Plato's Polity would be ideal to work in a marxist/communist system.
Workers aren't smart enough to decide for themselves? How are you a Marxist then?

[mEds]

Stop assuming things about my posts- just listen to the facts. SOME PEOPLE are just plain stupid. Some people just blindly follow whats popular /whatever. Some people would still be pro-capitalists and as such such not have the right to vote in a communist or anrachist society as they would be counter everything.

Most of these posts are just clarification.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by St[email protected] 17 2004, 12:09 AM
SOME PEOPLE are just plain stupid. Some people just blindly follow whats popular /whatever.
What do you think class consciousness is?


Some people would still be pro-capitalists and as such such not have the right to vote in a communist or anrachist society as they would be counter everything.

How do you think this revolution happened? Of course there will be pro-capitalists, but the vast majority of people won't be. Hence the revolution to smash capitalism. If people activly attempted to subvert the revolution then we would fight them.


Most of these posts are just clarification.

Then say something new.

[mEds]

They are in a response to Che y Marijuana accusing me of not being a Marxist. I would not want to be labled a non-MArxist or even worse.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 05:33 PM
They are in a response to Che y Marijuana accusing me of not being a Marxist. I would not want to be labled a non-MArxist or even worse.
I wasn't accusing you man, sorry if it sounded harsh.

I just wanted you to think about it for a bit. The reality is, take out worker's control, and there is no Marxism.

Just somehting to think about.

As for counter-revolutionaries, just as we don't use the state to subvert it, they would never use the collective assemblies to break them up. They would be vastly outnumbered, without mass-propaganda provided by the media for free.

They would take up arms, and we would fight them tooth and nail... and win.

So no, that's not a reason to give up democratic principles. In fact, giving that up would mean a return to the very society you're trying to avoid.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I really do think that something in the line of a coordinator is needed. There is a big difference between coordinator and boss. A boss makes quik decisions, but exploits the workers too. A coordinator makes quik decisions, but can't exploit the workers. Because he is a one of the workers and he doesn't have the power to. A coordinator is the best of both worlds, the advantages of leaders and the advantages or leaderless.

Suppose that you built a bridge. 10 equal workers without any coordination would slow down the work process and it would be inefficienct. 10 equal workers with one of them a coordinator would make room for quik decisions and improve speed and efficiency. The coordinator is choosen and is just one of the workers. Everyone is as valueble as the other in the job, no matter if he is the coordinator or the brick layer. Both are needed.

Comments? I am especially interrested in the Anarchists and Libertarians opinion on this.

[mEds]

Yeah I agree with you on that part but some people no matter what are just plain dumb. There really is no other way to express it- sorry if it sounds crude. That is why I stated that I advocate some of the principles that Plato used in his idea of a Polity.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Inform me more on this. Tell me how your system would look like.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@May 16 2004, 05:45 PM
I really do think that something in the line of a coordinator is needed. There is a big difference between coordinator and boss. A boss makes quik decisions, but exploits the workers too. A coordinator makes quik decisions, but can't exploit the workers. Because he is a one of the workers and he doesn't have the power to. A coordinator is the best of both worlds, the advantages of leaders and the advantages or leaderless.

Suppose that you built a bridge. 10 equal workers without any coordination would slow down the work process and it would be inefficienct. 10 equal workers with one of them a coordinator would make room for quik decisions and improve speed and efficiency. The coordinator is choosen and is just one of the workers. Everyone is as valueble as the other in the job, no matter if he is the coordinator or the brick layer. Both are needed.

Comments? I am especially interrested in the Anarchists and Libertarians opinion on this.
What you speak of are the Activists I spoke of.

Except I'm saying they'll naturally immerge depending on the situation. Furthermore, there's no need to make them an official coordinator or any such thing. They may have some ideas, people might agree.

They don't need to go through a huge long discussion every step of the way. They don't even really need an official vote every time.

More like a vote by action in some cases. If it makes sense people will do it. If it's a problem, they'll talk about it. No need to make "coordinators", people will take charge when the situation calls for it, but always with consent, not by design.

That's my problem with designating coordinators, it limits mobility and cements leadership, even if there isn't much power in it. Leadership that is not designated is based purely on reason and rationality.

[mEds]

It has nothing to do with "ohh, let me make and think of a cool communist society!"
Im just saying what marxist state/society would levitate towards.

[elijahcraig]

Anarchism leaves room for the common man to think about matters more, to develop individuality and more imporant to stand independant, independant from authority, which has proven to be a burden so many times.

It allows for a specific form of thought and no other like all ideologies so perfectly dogmatic.


This dosnt make any sense. Explain it.

People are connected by leaders, as natural existence has shown. People are not leaders in themselves. Some are natural leaders, others are followers thereof.


A anarchist Society would have no authority and the power would not be in the hands of a person or few, it
would be in the Hand of the Workers.

Therefore the authority would be in the hands of the workers, and eventually in a hand of the intelligent classes which evolve.


Athenian democracy was leaderless for the decades that it was successful.

No it wasn’t.


Workers aren't smart enough to decide for themselves? How are you a Marxist then?

No, they are not. Go down to the church to find that out.


What do you think class consciousness is?

An idea seeded in a person which spreads. It doesn’t mean that all workers will be class conscious, most will be not, or partially. A relatively moderate sized portion will be. At least when a revolution comes, which is usually the product of mere discontent with the system, not class consciousness.


As for counter-revolutionaries, just as we don't use the state to subvert it, they would never use the collective assemblies to break them up. They would be vastly outnumbered, without mass-propaganda provided by the media for free.

This may be true if there were no other capitalist nations in the entire world. But, seeing as there is, this is utopian and idealistic. The simple facts are that imperialist nations provide aid, military and economic, to theopposition (as they do in Cuba), which subverts the revolution in a way which requires repression of the opposition. This can either happen, or you can allow the workers revolution to fall easily into the hands of capitalism once again. This is why anarchism is flawed…utopianism and idealism to the real world events.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 08:56 PM
A anarchist Society would have no authority and the power would not be in the hands of a person or few, it
would be in the Hand of the Workers.
And when they make these decisions, wouldnt it be alot more efficent to have an administrative body that focused on it?
To me that is a government.

[Guest1]

Well this is why State Socialism doesn't work, it changes absolutely nothing of substance in society. It is filled with the same hatred and contempt for the working class that the Capitalists harbour towards them today.

If I were to choose between a democratic society radically different from the oppression and theft of today's world, and a society that simply creates another upper class even more powerful, I'll go for the utopian every time.

Ignoring that you know nothing of historical examples of worker's democracy or that you have no desire to see any power given to the working class you so despise, and if we pretend you are right and that it will fail, I will still go for the utopian before ever considering your distopia.

Better to fight for a better world that may never come, than fight for a world of deeper despair and misery under a religious party and reborn God of the Soviets that makes no pretense of fighting for the workers.


and eventually in a hand of the intelligent classes which evolve.
Oh no! Intellectual elitism? Heh, silly me, I thought you were the same person who said the working class was dumb.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Raisa+May 17 2004, 03:31 AM--> (Raisa @ May 17 2004, 03:31 AM)
[email protected] 16 2004, 08:56 PM
A anarchist Society would have no authority and the power would not be in the hands of a person or few, it
would be in the Hand of the Workers.
And when they make these decisions, wouldnt it be alot more efficent to have an administrative body that focused on it?
To me that is a government. [/b]
It may be quicker, if that is how you measure efficiency.

If you define administrative committees as a government, so be it. But my definition of government is a body of people who control a state for the purpose of control.

This is from a pamphlet called 'Basic Bakunin', the reader lays out what Bakunin, the "father" of anarchism thought about the political organisation of society.


Turning to the question of the political organization of society, Bakunin stressed that society should be built in such a way as to achieve order through the realisation of freedom on the basis of the federation of voluntary organisations. In all such political bodies power is to flow “from the base to the summit” and from “the circumference to the centre” In other words, such organizations should be the expressions of individuals and group opinions, not directing centres which control people.

On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all participants so long as they supported the system. Those individuals, groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, nor not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested, as the basic of universal suffrage, would elect all of its functionaries, lawmakers, judges, and administrators of communal property.

The commune would decide its own affairs but, it voluntarily federated to the next tier of administration, the provincial assembly, its constitution must conform to the provincial assembly. Similarly, the participating communes must accept the constitution of the province. The provincial assembly would define rights and obligations existing between communes and pass laws affecting the province as a whole. The composition of the provincial assembly would be decided on the basis of universal suffrage.

Further levels of political organization would be the national body, and, ultimately, the international assembly. As regards international organization, Bakunin proposed that there should be no permanent armed forces, preferring instead, the creation of local citizens’ defence militias. Disputes between nations and their provinces would be settled by an international assembly. This assembly, if required, could wage war against an outside aggressor but should a member nation of the international federation attack another member, then it faces expulsion and the opposition of the federation as a whole.

Thus, from the root to branch, Bakunin’s outline for anarchy is based upon free federation of participants in order to maximise individual and collective well being.

[elijahcraig]

Well this is why State Socialism doesn't work, it changes absolutely nothing of substance in society. It is filled with the same hatred and contempt for the working class that the Capitalists harbour towards them today.

State Socialism IS the workers in control. The only contempt would be held by workers for other workers.


Better to fight for a better world that may never come, than fight for a world of deeper despair and misery under a religious party and reborn God of the Soviets that makes no pretense of fighting for the workers.

God is always reborn, that won’t be avoided.


Oh no! Intellectual elitism? Heh, silly me, I thought you were the same person who said the working class was dumb.

I’ll think of considering the workers my intellectual equal when they stop believing predominantly in creationism and stop killing gays and blacks. ‘Till then, they are simply a resentful class of oppressed people who will serve a function in the world, a revolt against another people who are oppressing.

It is almost naïve and ignorant to think that some people will not become smarter than others in a society, therefore giving rise to the different technological advances, arts, and other “high cultured” things. If this does not happen, we might as well kiss survival goodbye.

[Morpheus]

State Socialism IS the workers in control.

No it isn't, it's the bureaucrats in control. This has been the case in all real life state socialist societies.


I’ll think of considering the workers my intellectual equal when they stop believing predominantly in creationism and stop killing gays and blacks.

The majority of blacks ARE working class. On a world wide basis the working class is overwhelmingly people of color. White workers are just a small, priviledged minority who are bribed to keep the system functional. You have a racist conception of the working class - only considering white workers as workers. Also, most workers don't believe in creationism and they don't want to kill gays. If you trace the funding such ideas are promoted mainly by rich people like Rush Limbagh. If you look at poll data rich people overall tend to be more conservative.

In addition, you have provided no evidence that intelligence exists, that it is not a social construction or learned skill, that variations among the general population are significant or that you happen to be among this so-called intelligent elite. Your arguement assumes all of these to be true, but you haven't shown that. No, disagreeing with you is not proof that someone is dumb, especially given how often you switch positions.

[elijahcraig]

No it isn't, it's the bureaucrats in control. This has been the case in all real life state socialist societies.

No, it hasn’t. The elected officials are the representatives of the workers, and they defend the working class interests.


The majority of blacks ARE working class.

You’ve missed the point of my statement, a big surprise.

I was not saying that whites killing blacks was the problem, but the mentality of the workers wanting to kill someone because they are different.


Also, most workers don't believe in creationism and they don't want to kill gays. If you trace the funding such ideas are promoted mainly by rich people like Rush Limbagh. If you look at poll data rich people overall tend to be more conservative.

According to Chomsky, anarchist leader, this is not true. The majority of workers IN THE WORLD are very fundamentalist towards creationism in their beliefs. Your simple denial of a FACT further shows the inability of “anarchists” to handle the “material conditions of the real world.”


In addition, you have provided no evidence that intelligence exists, that it is not a social construction or learned skill, that variations among the general population are significant or that you happen to be among this so-called intelligent elite. Your arguement assumes all of these to be true, but you haven't shown that. No, disagreeing with you is not proof that someone is dumb, especially given how often you switch positions.

Blah blah blah. I’m not going to “prove that intelligence exists,” which is stupid in itself. Another Anarchist fuckup in thought.

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:43 AM

No it isn't, it's the bureaucrats in control. This has been the case in all real life state socialist societies.

No, it hasn’t. The elected officials are the representatives of the workers, and they defend the working class interests.


Only after they have looked out for themselves, the nomenklatura of Soviet Russia were corrupted, a two tier society inevitabley springs from such circumstances..

Chomsky is no anarchist leader, there are no anarchist "leader's" Least of all him.
The majority of workers in the world are not killers of the oppressed, they are oppressed, their oppression creates conditions such as rascism and homophobia, the liberation of the workers will, in time cure such symptoms..

[redstar2000]

People are connected by leaders, as natural existence has shown. People are not leaders in themselves. Some are natural leaders, others are followers thereof.

--Thus Spake Elijah-thustra.

So we have "natural existence", "natural leaders" and "natural followers"...putting a proper "end" to all "utopian speculations" regarding both communism and anarchism.

Instead, we should "be practical" and focus on "real" matters. Like...um...who's the real "natural leader" here, anyway?

I believe Elijah-thustra has a nomination to make. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas