As a communist, would you oppose an anarchist rev?

[Subversive Pessimist]

As far as I remember, there have been several cases where communists and anarchists have fought against each other, and destroyed each others revolutions.

Do you think this will be a thing in the past, or would you oppose an anarchist revolution? To the anarchists, would you oppose a communist revolution?

[STI]

Well, if by "communist" you mean "Leninist", you're right, they've fought quite a few times.

Real communists, though, want a classless, stateless society, much like the anarchists do.

As a Libertarian Marxist, I would most definately support an anarchist revolution. I would probably be one of the leaders (:P)

[BOZG]

Definately so, all anarchist revolutions must be crushed.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Why?

[BOZG]

Because when you ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers.

[Louis Pio]

First of all a revolution is not communist or anarchist so to speak but a revolution. In the movement several tendencies will fight over control. And yes I would fight against the anarchist line if it naively went against all forms of centralisation when some was needed.

Anyway this question is too abstract to go indeepth with.

[The Role Of Ideology]

Yep, basically as they oppose democracy

[Kaan]

Yep, basically as they oppose democracy
Now where on earth did you hear that?

[DaCuBaN]

Technically what all anarchists want isn't revolution, but revolt. I would support an anarchist revolt, I would never support anyone in revolution - why replace the leaders when you've spent all that time, effort and doubtless life to remove the old ones?

[Anti-Prophet]

The establishment of a socialist state after the overthrow of capitalism is a fundamental part of marxism. I don't think anarchists would support that since they are against every form of state society.

Anarchists would not work with communists (except anarcho-communists).


Real communists, though, want a classless, stateless society, much like the anarchists do.

Communists want a stateless society when its possible, not immediately after the overthrow of capitalism.

[Ian]

Fuck no, I'd be all for it. If I'm driving a car and it's stuttering up a hill in 4th gear I wouldn't slam on the breaks, I floor it (it's probably a dumb thing to do but who cares, it works). Same goes for revolution, if anarchists are climbing the hill of liberty and reactionaries are doing everything they can to prevent it I'd get right behind them.

My post was filled with lame metaphors...

[Hate Is Art]

very lame.

I'd help out any fellow Comrade exept a Stalinist and I would hope any fellow Comrade would help me. I'm very un-dogmatic, if your a lefty then thats cool.

[T_SP]

As one Comrade said, this is a topic that needs a real indepth discussion, firstly I don't believe the Anarchists have anything to offer the working class, they seem to have no or a very flimsy programme for what they intend to do, personally I differ too much with them to support them, however I would not impede them but try and advise on the best course of action to take when to take it and how it should be carried out, this does not mean I would take over but without a strategy and a programme or plan they would be doomed to failure anyway.
I firmly believe that Anarchists have not learnt from past failures and just blindly carry on reapeating the same Mantra's

" Fuck the police"
" Fuck the establishment" Etc.

[SonofRage]

I understand what Trotskyist_SP is saying, but I think we have to take a look at what a "genuine" Anarchist really is. There are plenty of people who think of themselves as being Anarchists who are, quite honestly, nothing but liberal bourgeoisie "lifestyle anarchists" who just want to be rebelious.

Actually, I think it's the Leninists who have not learned from past mistakes. The Leninist model has a failure rate of 100%, often resulting in a brutal dictatorship coming from within. The Anarchist failures have always come from without, and sometimes it has been the result of the betrayal of the "Communists."

I think Anarchists have learnead from past mistakes. The Platformist tradition of Anarchism is a good example.

[Pawn Power]

i would support almost any type of leftist social revolution to get out of the fucking system we are in now!

[Essential Insignificance]

Yes, communist’s support any revolutionary acts against the existing social conditions.

[PRC-UTE]

I don't believe the Anarchists have anything to offer the working class, they seem to have no or a very flimsy programme for what they intend to do, personally I differ too much with them to support them, however I would not impede them but try and advise on the best course of action to take when to take it and how it should be carried out, this does not mean I would take over but without a strategy and a programme or plan they would be doomed to failure anyway.


first of all I'm glad to hear you claim you won't liquate the libertarians during a revolution.

altho' I know many of the obnoxious student/lumpen type anarchists you describe, I've discovered just as many middle class bolsheviks.

I have several anarchist friends who are indeed working class and primarily consider themselves as such simply because they don't want what they call the "parasitic" left to replace the current bosses.

I am an industrial worker and have to laugh when university wankers tell my my sympathies for libertarian communism/syndicalism are "petite burgesoie"! :rolleyes:

[choekiewoekie]

In this case i guess a revolution is (at least) one group standing up against another one. If communists and anarchist agree on the group they want to fight (like our capitalist leaders), it might be an idea to work together. I don't think the Revolution itself will bring any problems, if it's clear what enemy you want to stand up against. But its after the Revolution the problems will start i guess. When it is time to build op your new society...
After all, there are some hugh practical diffrences between the several communist groups and anarchist groups.

But anarchism and communism could work together i feel. After all, we have more incommon with each other than with capitalism, haven't we?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:18 PM
And yes I would fight against the anarchist line if it naively went against all forms of centralisation when some was needed.
Many anarchists during the Russian revolution supported the bolsheviks and compromised their principles greatly. Many anarchists died fighting for the bolsheviks.

What if centralisation was not needed?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 07:41 PM
firstly I don't believe the Anarchists have anything to offer the working class,
How can you make such an assertions? We want to offer them communism. Isn't that what you want?


they seem to have no or a very flimsy programme for what they intend to do,

Such as?


personally I differ too much with them to support them,

Rejecting the concept of authority must be very inconvinient. Shouldn't we support each other because we are all communists?


however I would not impede them but try and advise on the best course of action to take when to take it and how it should be carried out, this does not mean I would take over

Isn't that called anarchism?


without a strategy and a programme or plan they would be doomed to failure anyway.

I find it absolutly hilarious that you say this and then in the next sentence you say...


Anarchists have not learnt from past failures and just blindly carry on reapeating the same Mantra's

Anarchism does negate organisation, strategy or programmes. We accept the need for organisation, hyper-organisation in fact.

Stop repeating what your leaders keep telling you!


" Fuck the police"
" Fuck the establishment"

Are they bad statements to make?

Regardless of that I think if you spent five minutes looking at the anarchist movements in the UK and in Ireland you will see that they are far more serious than running around with a red and black flag with a gas mask on throwing stones! It's extremly patronising and not at all deservent. The Anarchist movement does a huge amount of work both in communities and in the work place.

Workers Solidarity Movement (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm.html)

Solidarity Federation (http://www.solfed.org.uk/)

There is also of course the anarchist communist federation that have collectives in London. There is the Anarchist Prisoners Network who do work with Prisoners. There are non-authotarian groups doing community projects in Leeds and bradford. There is indy media groups across britain not to mention Dissent..

..Anarchists do not want to create this party politics bullshit with positions of power. Anarchists dont want to have this strict control from above. Anarchists want to create a culture, they want to create a feeling...anarchism is not just theory, it isnt just black bloc or class war, its an aesthetic, it is a lifestyle. It's a creative urge to make something we can all be apart of, something we can see and feel right now, not just for the future. Its a rejection of society and of authority and we are every where...even if you cant see us!!!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The Role Of [email protected] 23 2004, 04:11 AM
Yep, basically as they oppose democracy
Can you prove this statement?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 23 2004, 11:24 AM
I'm very un-dogmatic, if your a lefty then thats cool.

So what do you call this....


Looking for another recruit to the Utopian Fantastical rambling of Anarchism??

[CubanFox]

No, I'd play along and then get my socialist friends in to systematically wipe all you silly anarchists out after the revolution is over.

To return to the realm of the serious, I would support any anarchist revolution, but I wouldn't fight with the anarchists. I would either form or join a socialist brigade to fight in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would support an anarchist or communist revolution, but I would oppose a Leninist coup.

[Subversive Pessimist]

To return to the realm of the serious, I would support any anarchist revolution, but I wouldn't fight with the anarchists. I would either form or join a socialist brigade to fight in.

Why is that?

[apathy maybe]

cutie pie's I love you all.

I would support any step towards a fully democratic, equal etc society. I would of course oppose any attempt to establish a centralised structure. Why not learn from the mistakes of the past?

[Palmares]

If a communist rev, convert all to communism.

If anarchist rev, convert all to anarchism.

:lol:

[T_SP]

Anarchists believe in a revolution by the working class which will overthrow the bosses and their governments, and create a society run and controlled by those who actually produce the wealth of the world. We believe that it is possible to live without government and to put in its place councils and assemblies where the "ordinary people" can decide what happens to this wealth. We believe in the equality of all and that maximum solidarity is needed between workers and other oppressed groups if we are to defeat those who live off our sweat.

This I got from your links. Isn't this just Socialism?


And all other quotes.

Electioneering inevitably leads to revolutionaries forsaking their revolutionary principles. They go for whatever is popular and will ensure that they get elected. This becomes more important to them than educating people about the meaning of socialism. It also means that they look on the mass of voters as mere spectators. People are seen as voters, not as people who can be actually involved in politics and bringing socialism about.

Yes, my view of Anarchism is very mainstream and for that I apologise but, isn't this just propaganda? Aren't we spreading the idea of the need for a revolution by knocking on doors campagining? I know I did when I stood in my local elections in June, people won't vote for your if they don't know what you stand for will they!





Socialism cannot come through the Parliament. If we look at a country like Chile we can see why. In 1973 the people elected a moderate socialist government led by President Allende. This democratically elected government was toppled by a CIA backed military coup. Repression followed in which the workers movement was smashed and thousands of militants lost their lives.


We don't think so either, that's why we call for a mass workers party to overthrow Capitalsim, a revolution I believe.



Central to our politics is the belief that ordinary people must make the revolution. Every member of the working class (workers, unemployed, housewives, etc.) has a role to play. Only by this participation can we ensure that anarchism is made real. We believe in a revolution that comes from the bottom up and is based on factory and community councils. Freedom cannot be given, it has to be taken.

This I agree with.



According to him (LENIN) they needed a party of professional revolutionaries to make the revolution for them. What we saw in Russia was nothing to do with socialism. Power rested in the hands of a tiny party elite. The state was the boss and the workers were still exploited and told what to do.

In other words you STILL believe that we cannot learn lessons from past failures! Why?



So we say it is up to ordinary people.

So do we that is why our party is made up of them.



But there are historical examples of anarchism working. The greatest of these happened in 1936 during the Spanish Civil War. It started with an attempted fascist coup. In response to the coup the workers mobilised to defeat fascism. Popular militias were formed by the unions and workers seized factories. Peasants took over land that had been abandoned by the landlords. This marked the beginning of the revolution for the Anarchists. They believed that the Civil War had to be not just a fight against fascism but also against the capitalist system that had spawned fascism in the first place.



In Spain, between 1931 and 1937, workers and peasants tried several times to overthrow Capitalism and Feudalism, gaining at one stage control of two-thirds of the country. They were organised in 4 main parties: The Anarchists, the Socialist Party, the Communist party and the smaller POUM. However, despite the revolutionary aspiriations of their members, the leaders of these parties failed to take the nessecary step to consolidate the gains of the workers and peasants. They failed to explain the need to get rid of the old state apparatus and the nessecary steps to achieve Communism/Socialism. Instead they fell behind the line of the Stalinist Communist leaders, who argued the need for two stages, firstly a period of development of Capitalist democracy in Soain, and only after that the rasing of Socialism/Communism. For them the task was therefore not for the working class to take power, but for power to be handed back to representatives of Capitalism. Tragically, this paved the way for the victory of the fascist Franco in the Spainish Civil War, who porceeded to murder thousands of trade unionists and working class activists and to bring in 40 years of brutal fascist dictatorship. ( From 'the role of a revolutionary party)

[The Feral Underclass]

your reponse is extremly confusing, can you highlight stuff in quotes. I dont know what is yours and what isnt...what am i supposed to reply to?

[bunk]

AS a communist i would support/take part in an Anarchist revolution. Why would you oppose it if you are a communist as communism is anarchism? There is no difference apart from the socialist transition which looks like it never moves forward to communism in all the previous attempts or did they just stop wanting a communist society and liked the power of a socialist dictatorship?

[T_SP]

Sorry TAT I rushed it a bit, will go more indepth if you want. Have amended it now hope it's better.
T_SP

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:11 PM
There is no difference apart from the socialist transition which looks like it never moves forward to communism in all the previous attempts or did they just stop wanting a communist society and liked the power of a socialist dictatorship?
No, the failures in leadership allowed fascist dictators to take control.

[bunk]

Yes, but why would you oppose an anarchist revolution as communism is anarchism?

[little al]

Anarchism is true, until systems are totally equal ,totally fair and totally beyond of corruption then, and only then ,will anarchism be stagnant and disregarded. stalin proved that the best idea for running a world could be sent down the drain,the problem with communism is ,it was never giving a proper chance!

[ComradeIvan]

:hammer: I would definatly crush all Anarchist uprisings. :hammer:
Defend against a Anarchist revolution to the last droplet of blood!

[T_SP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 03:41 AM
:hammer: I would definatly crush all Anarchist uprisings. :hammer:
Defend against a Anarchist revolution to the last droplet of blood!
That's very nice Ivan but what are your reasons for this statement?

[YKTMX]

I wouldn't oppose any social revolution in which the masses where seeking emancipation from capitalism.

I would join that struggle and argue the socialist cause within it.

[h&s]

Yep, basically as they (anarchists) oppose democracy
Says someone with a dictator as their avatar....
On the original question, I would support any Leftist revolution, apart from the Leninst ones. However good their intention, I believe that if revoltuionaries start out as Leninists, they will fail to bring democracy to the people, and will just end up creating another ruling class.
I would support an anarchist revolution as (even though I am not an anarchist) it is my belief that an anarchist society would be best, so as long as we get there, I don't care how.

[tepatoken]

that's not true, anarchist are not oposed to communist and we are not oppose to a communist revolution, also what means that we are nos democratic? we want the absolute freedom for the people and proletarians too, but not with a marxist state as you, we want an anarchist society with no countries, but with the freedom always

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:03 PM
This I got from your links. Isn't this just Socialism?
Anarchism is a form of socialism.


Aren't we spreading the idea of the need for a revolution by knocking on doors campagining? I know I did when I stood in my local elections in June, people won't vote for your if they don't know what you stand for will they!

The point is, anarchism opposes participating in bourgeois elections partly for the reason the statement offers.


In other words you STILL believe that we cannot learn lessons from past failures! Why?

It wasn't a "mistake" it was an inalterable flaw in the entire theory.


So do we that is why our party is made up of them.

The majority of vanguard parties are made up of petty-bourgeois semi-professionals, not working class people. Of course there is exception, and I dont claim to know the inner workings of the Socialist Party, but I can be pretty certain that the majority of its members are not, as you say, "ordinary people."

As for the leaders of this party, would we class them as "ordinary people" to. It sounds like some kind of publicity sound bite. People who weild executive power and decisions making abilities are not "ordinary people." They are political leaders with a political agenda, and that is usually to get themselves into power. Are your leaders any different?


However, despite the revolutionary aspiriations of their members, the leaders of these parties failed to take the nessecary step to consolidate the gains of the workers and peasants. They failed to explain the need to get rid of the old state apparatus and the nessecary steps to achieve Communism/Socialism.

Mistake maybe? Is there not a lesson here to be learnt?


Tragically, this paved the way for the victory of the fascist Franco in the Spainish Civil War, who porceeded to murder thousands of trade unionists and working class activists and to bring in 40 years of brutal fascist dictatorship. ( From 'the role of a revolutionary party)

Catalonia, Barcelona, all collectivised by the anarchist communists. Areas of production both in the cities and in the rural areas had begun, political and social life had been taken over by the workers. Collectives were working. Anarchist organisation was a success, people were being fed, production was working, public services were working, on a federated, voluntary way. The tragedy that let to the rise of Franco, was not simply due to some political areas at the top, it was due to the fact the Communists turned on the anarchists and attacked them. Barcelona and rural collectives came under attack from people who were supposed to be on their side. Anarchists were killed, collectives were smashed. That was what allowed Franco to get his foot in the door. It makes life much easier if your enemy are killing themselves. The anarchists were betrayed!

[Root Pepper]

Yes, I'm against an anarchist movement.

[Fidelbrand]

Anarchism is far beyond our reach, although i support the "idea" of it.

Global imperialist capitalism has just started and how many decades/centuries would it last? When socialism comes, how many decades or centuries would it last ..... ? then, how long would it take to get to state-run communism or Communist/socialist Anarchism?

Personally, i dislike bloodshed. Yes, we sometimes need to sacrifice a bit to get bigger things done. But i think incremental but constant moral persuasion together with the people's awareness of the flaws of capitalism is our first stepping stone for success. Sorry but I just think Anarchism is a bit utopian and not practical to be upheld at this stage, read my lips.. "At this stage" ONLY.

[wet blanket]

I would support an anarchist revolution. I would do my best to begin to educate and organize as well as fight for it. I see no need for another establishment of a state apparatus as we have known it throughout history. The type organization and revolution as demonstrated by the CNT is the type of movement I would throw myself behind.

[Hawker]

I'd oppose it.

Because an Anarchist Society is none progressive.What will you hope to achieve after the social reforms?

Man is meant for something much greater than to just live out their lives in a peaceful society with everything they could ever want.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 09:43 PM
Man is meant for something much greater than to just live out their lives in a peaceful society with everything they could ever want.
:wacko:

[PRC-UTE]

LOL

I agree with wet blanket, the I.W.W. are making a resurgence as well which is good to see.

[Hawker]

I ask you,was man created to witness the wonders of the universe...or to become one?

[Hawker]

Man is meant for something much greater than to just live out their lives in a peaceful society with everything they could ever want.

Sorry what I meant to say is,Man is meant for something much greater than to live in their peaceful societies with no care of what's happening in the universe.

In a couple thousand years,the human race will probably be destroyed,thus bringing the Age of Man to an end,and what I ask you?What do we have to show the universe of our accomplishments,nothing,but insignificant wars over land,money,and political interests.

If the all of Earth was to be united by an Anarchist Government,then how can we leave our mark in a non-progressive society?

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 07:02 PM
Anarchist Government
Rather oxymoronic, wouldn't you say?

What exactly do you mean by an "anarchist government", comrade?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 02:20 AM
I ask you,was man created to witness the wonders of the universe...or to become one?
What does this mean?

[T_SP]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17 2004, 05:31 AM













Anarchism is a form of socialism.
I concur. We agree on something anyways :D



The point is, anarchism opposes participating in bourgeois elections partly for the reason the statement offers.


My point was that Anarchists claim that we stand in elections to try and win Socialism through reforms, as I pointed out my party does not, others may i.e Labourites, RESPECT ( although they are really after power) and other Factions.


It wasn't a "mistake" it was an inalterable flaw in the entire theory.


Lets elborate on this 'Flaw' you speak of, I think this is the real issue here.



The majority of vanguard parties are made up of petty-bourgeois semi-professionals, not working class people. Of course there is exception, and I dont claim to know the inner workings of the Socialist Party, but I can be pretty certain that the majority of its members are not, as you say, "ordinary people." As for the leaders of this party, would we class them as "ordinary people" to. It sounds like some kind of publicity sound bite. People who weild executive power and decisions making abilities are not "ordinary people." They are political leaders with a political agenda, and that is usually to get themselves into power. Are your leaders any different?



I'm not going to say anything un-toward here, though I could, because I respect you and your views. You can think what you like that's your choice and no amount of debate will change that. The fact is our members regardless of class, take a workers wage when elected.
Martin Powell Davis, a very dedicated comrade, was running for the leadership of the NUT he put it to them that instead of the £90000 a year the current leader was getting ( plus benefits and allowances) he would take just £24000 ( all told) he was also, unlike the other candidates and leader, a working school teacher and knew the plight of the students and teachers alike.
I can assure, having met them, the leadership of our party have come from distinct working class bnackground and have the working class at the head of there campagins. Check out our website the link is in my sig.






Mistake maybe? Is there not a lesson here to be learnt?

Not sure what you meant here please elborate for the thick bolshie :D







Catalonia, Barcelona, all collectivised by the anarchist communists. Areas of production both in the cities and in the rural areas had begun, political and social life had been taken over by the workers. Collectives were working. Anarchist organisation was a success, people were being fed, production was working, public services were working, on a federated, voluntary way. The tragedy that led to the rise of Franco, was not simply due to some political areas at the top, it was due to the fact the Communists turned on the anarchists and attacked them. Barcelona and rural collectives came under attack from people who were supposed to be on their side. Anarchists were killed, collectives were smashed. That was what allowed Franco to get his foot in the door. It makes life much easier if your enemy are killing themselves. The anarchists were betrayed!


Yes by bad leaderships and a lack of a Socialist Programme that would have been prepared for all this, the people had the power but not the well trained leadership they needed to take the to the next stage.
Anyway we can debate history forever and I'm sure we will never agree.

The fact is I believe I have changed my mind, supporting an Anarchist revoultion wouldn't be such a bad thing, any change leftist to what we have now could only be an improvement.


Thanx TArT





:lol: :lol: this has been most enjoyable :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 04:07 PM
My point was that Anarchists claim that we stand in elections to try and win Socialism through reforms, as I pointed out my party does not, others may i.e Labourites, RESPECT ( although they are really after power) and other Factions.
No, anarchists claim that nothing can be achieved by participating in bourgeois electoral politics. Nothing. So why waste your time and effort when you can imply more honest tactics. I say honest because we are revolutionaries after all.


Lets elborate on this 'Flaw' you speak of, I think this is the real issue here.

The state cannot wither away. It is materially impossible. Once the vanguard seize power the state must assert itself in a far more dictatorial role than the present day state. You will be at war, with a well organised counter-revolutionary force. There must still remain a devout security force, including secret police, special armed forces, loyal to the party, which is what happened in Russia. There essentially becomes a one party dictatorship because all opposition must be outlawed in order for the state, or the vangaurd to be secure in its dealings within society. The vanguard, state or whatever, must suppress any opposition to its control. This includes executions, censorship and imprisonment.

Not only this, but the state must control every aspect of economic life, including deciding working hours, production, where the food must go etc. The state becomes the boss, the trade union and in order for the state to get to a point where it can wither away, it may be necessary at some point to force the workers into certain areas of labour, regardless of their will. Now, it doesn't matter whether the workers should do what is necessary, the point is that the state is creating material conditions, social and pyschological conditions, which contradict the withering away theory. You are essentially forcing people against they're will to accept the authority of the state, which is a one party dictatorship, and if they disagree, they must be "dealt" with as counter-revolutionaries. If you don't do that, how can the state exist in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and then witheraway?

The purpose of the state, in your theory, is to create a stateless society. In order for society to become stateless, the powers have to be handed over to the working class. There has to be a process or transition of power at some point. How can this tranistion, or change over of power happen when the state needs to control security, the military and the economics of society, which at times may result in the working class being forced to accept their rule, against there will. You have isolated yourself as a ruling class, while at the same time consolidating every aspect of power within soceity into your hands. How then can it wither away? How can you do this, while at the same time transfering power over to the workers? You cannot do both things at the same time, which will lead to the state continuing to exist. The power structure that is created by the existence of this state will become what it starts out as. A dictatorship of a party over a country.

What happens if the revolution isn't international, the state must exist until the rest of the world "falls in line," this could take decades. The state is existing for decades, controlling society. Old leaders die, new leaders, opportunist and not as ideologically sound as their predecessors take control and this dictatorship begins to benifit this new ruling class. This is what happened in Russia after Lenins death, it has happened in China and Vietnam, and when Castro dies, it will happen there too. All of these countries have ended up becoming capitalist nations or on the transition to. When Castro dies, Cuba will become a capitalist nation. 40 years past the revolution, the vangaurd who control the state have long been replaced with people who have forgotton what communism is, the state has become an entity of control for a ruling elite who now have no intention of transfering power.

The only way to safe gaurd a revolution is to destroy the state from the beginning and consolidate power into the hands of the workers, from the beginning, without leaders, or rulers, or vangaurds "acting in their interest." The revolution must be of the workers, for the workers and by the workers. No one else can liberate them on their behalf.


Not sure what you meant here please elborate for the thick bolshie :D

You made reference to a possible flaw in anarchist theory, you also do it in your last post, as if it could never be accepted and dealt with. You say that we should learn from our mistakes. I'm agreeing with you.


The fact is our members regardless of class, take a workers wage when elected.

Very noble, but surely that's the least they can or must do.


I can assure, having met them, the leadership of our party have come from distinct working class bnackground and have the working class at the head of there campagins.

Lenin, Trotky et al may have very well had the workers interests at heart and so may the leaders of the Socialist Party, but the fact is that the outcome of such things is antithetical to communism. As I tried to demonstrate above, the theory of this leadership, consolodating power into their hands at the head of a state can never lead to the objectives, regardless of how well meaning, of this leadership.


Yes by bad leaderships and a lack of a Socialist Programme that would have been prepared for all this,

How do you know that?


the people had the power but not the well trained leadership they needed to take the to the next stage.

There is no evidence to suggest that the failure of the anarchists to defend themselevs from their comrades was because there was no well trained leadership. Maybe naivety, but is that so wrong.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21 2004, 11:53 AM
What does this mean?
It means that man is destined for greatness.

[gaf]

time to get out of cliches or we will be (and already) are doomed
this world need a lot of revolutions and it won't be the ones decided by petty theorician
and for all who think they can do/be better i'have one word... arrogantie ...
this will lose people try to live ,and if you can not do that try to survive then
but you will see eventually that you never ever know ......get the best never forget youre nothing and fight for what you think is right(if you can think by yourself)
killing what you've learn is your first step making what you are is the second one....

[T_SP]

Hello TAT,


Okay I'm gonna break that huge portion of your post down into bite sized chunks so I can try and answer it, If I take anything outta context I apologise.

Maybe this also might be a good time to transfer this to a new thread which is soley for this subject I dunno?



The state cannot wither away. It is materially impossible. Once the vanguard seize power the state must assert itself in a far more dictatorial role than the present day state. You will be at war, with a well organised counter-revolutionary force. There must still remain a devout security force, including secret police, special armed forces, loyal to the party, which is what happened in Russia. There essentially becomes a one party dictatorship because all opposition must be outlawed in order for the state, or the vangaurd to be secure in its dealings within society. The vanguard, state or whatever, must suppress any opposition to its control. This includes executions, censorship and imprisonment.





Maybe in Lenin's day this was true, but essentially we call for a workers party to be built in opposition to the current parties these people will form the democratically elected leadership of the party, also a party built soley from the working class will have the force and the right guidance from the Revolutionary party to defeat counter revolutionary parties.
The vanguard, state or whatever, must suppress any opposition to its control. This includes executions, censorship and imprisonment. This is highly undemocractic, we are not living in the 1930's and this is what I talk about when I say we need to learn from mistakes, you call it a flaw, I call it poor planning. If a counter revoultionary party arises are they really going to have the power to defeat the massive force of the workers? Are leftists really going to object to the revoultion regardless of ideology?










Not only this, but the state must control every aspect of economic life, including deciding working hours, production, where the food must go etc. The state becomes the boss, the trade union and in order for the state to get to a point where it can wither away, it may be necessary at some point to force the workers into certain areas of labour, regardless of their will. Now, it doesn't matter whether the workers should do what is necessary, the point is that the state is creating material conditions, social and pyschological conditions, which contradict the withering away theory. You are essentially forcing people against they're will to accept the authority of the state, which is a one party dictatorship, and if they disagree, they must be "dealt" with as counter-revolutionaries. If you don't do that, how can the state exist in order to suppress the bourgeoisie and then witheraway?




You say this like we are not going to give the mass workers party democratic control! You make the Van. sound like a dictatorship, this is simply not the case. Decisions will be made through the workers tey will have democratic control of the 'state' not the Van. Trade unions will become pointless bueracracy's what makes you think they will still be in place? The state as I have said is the workers, hence 'workers state'. The idea that it will wither away, as this is the point you are pressing on, is exactly that it will wither, not be gone tomorrow but 'wither' away, in time a need for a state will become obselete.





The state cannot wither away. It is materially impossible. Once the vanguard seize power the state must assert itself in a far more dictatorial role than the present day state. You will be at war, with a well organised counter-revolutionary force. There must still remain a devout security force, including secret police, special armed forces, loyal to the party, which is what happened in Russia. There essentially becomes a one party dictatorship because all opposition must be outlawed in order for the state, or the vangaurd to be secure in its dealings within society. The vanguard, state or whatever, must suppress any opposition to its control. This includes executions, censorship and imprisonment.

I'm not being funny but get read up, read Trotsky's 'Transitional programme (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/programme/index.html)' and 'the Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxist.net/trotsky/russia/r2frame.htm?lessons.htm)' He can answer this alot better than I can.









What happens if the revolution isn't international, the state must exist until the rest of the world "falls in line," this could take decades. The state is existing for decades, controlling society. Old leaders die, new leaders, opportunist and not as ideologically sound as their predecessors take control and this dictatorship begins to benifit this new ruling class. This is what happened in Russia after Lenins death, it has happened in China and Vietnam, and when Castro dies, it will happen there too. All of these countries have ended up becoming capitalist nations or on the transition to. When Castro dies, Cuba will become a capitalist nation. 40 years past the revolution, the vangaurd who control the state have long been replaced with people who have forgotton what communism is, the state has become an entity of control for a ruling elite who now have no intention of transfering power.



You are 100% correct anybody who attempts a revoultion without at least some worldwide support would be foolish. Hence the reason we are affliated with the CWI (http://www.socialistworld.net/) the site is pretty self explanatory but I think we have contacts with around about 35 countries or so and it is growing. Without a worldwide revoultion we will see things like what happened in Russia ( some poor English there sorry) and Cuba and others. Cuba has been knackered from the start really because they really have few countries they can trade with and this can lead to a flaling economy. Now however we are going into Marxist economics and that is for another thread.
To reject the ideas of the state and it's withering away is to reject basic Marxist principles. Are you a Marxist?





There is no evidence to suggest that the failure of the anarchists to defend themselevs from their comrades was because there was no well trained leadership. Maybe naivety, but is that so wrong.

YES, beacuse it cost them dearly and further reiterates my point. The Fascist Franco was NOT naive, neither was Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Stalin need I go on. The point is the unorganised state of the Left has allowed all these dictators to get in. It is pretty fair to say if you are unpreapared and rush blindly into a revolution it WILL be doomed from the start.

[T_SP]

Oh, and if I missed anything you specifically wanted answering just say. :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 10:06 PM
It means that man is destined for greatness.
What is this greatness?

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 09:02 AM

Sorry what I meant to say is,Man is meant for something much greater than to live in their peaceful societies with no care of what's happening in the universe.


is that so important if you can not even live together.
step by step we may got something better than greater.... just beeing yourself...is that not great....

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 11:26 AM
Maybe in Lenin's day this was true,
What is so different about the situation now? It will still be necessary to take hold of the state apparatus and it will still be necessary for the state to increase its authority. Why wouldn't it?


essentially we call for a workers party to be built in opposition to the current parties these people will form the democratically elected leadership of the party

But that doesn't alter the fact that it will be necessary for this leadership to secure itself as a dictatorship in order to achieve it's objectives.

Regardless of whether it has been "democratically" elected the actual material realities that this leadership will face once taking power will force them to behave the way Lenin et al behaved.


also a party built soley from the working class will have the force and the right guidance from the Revolutionary party to defeat counter revolutionary parties.

Once counter-revolution has been defined of course, which could be a whole mass of things. Basically it will end up, as it has always in the past, being anything which opposes this "democratically" elected leadership.

Of course, if they didn’t defeat all opposition how would they be able to secure their power in order to achieve their objectives?

Simply saying that the party is built from the working class does not necessarily mean that the party leadership are going to do what is right for the workers. History has proven that when crunch time comes they will be unable to do what is right through fear of losing their grip on control.


This is highly undemocractic, we are not living in the 1930's and this is what I talk about when I say we need to learn from mistakes

What is so different to the1930's? What makes you so certain that this leadership don't in fact model themselves after Lenin and Trotsky. Also remember that Marx, the intellectual father of both those men, and indeed your entire movement said "being is consciousness." Are we to ignore this?

Taking that into consideration, and looking at the situation this need for control will create, is it really in the leaderships best interest to have anarchists, libertarian Marxists et al running around distributing material that stands in direct opposition to them. If not executions, certainly censorship and repression.

They are defiantly mistakes, but they are also inevitable consequences of what you are trying to achieve. You cannot have one without the other.


If a counter revoultionary party arises

Define counter-revolution?


are they really going to have the power to defeat the massive force of the workers?

What makes you think that opposition to this leadership also wants to defeat the workers? What happens if this opposition wants to give control directly to the workers while disbanding this leadership?


You say this like we are not going to give the mass workers party democratic control!

How can you?

You can't. How can the mass workers have control while at the same time this leadership asserts its dictatorship?


You make the Van. sound like a dictatorship,

That's exactly what it is! It can't be anything else, that's my point. It cannot achieve what it sets out to achieve if it doesn't become a dictatorship.

Lenin had no qualms with saying so. He was quite clear about the intentions of the vanguard when he said in his speach, "The Trade Unions, The Present Situation
And Trotsky’s Mistakes", December 1920, "When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party...we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position." Our party aims to obtain political power for itself. There is not the least contradiction between soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power by a few persons."

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/l...1920/dec/30.htm (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)


Decisions will be made through the workers they will have democratic control of the 'state' not the Van.

When the theory is applied it is impossible. The state cannot survive if power is shifted to a mass of people, not too mention it is completely impractical.


Trade unions will become pointless bueracracy's what makes you think they will still be in place?

I don't understand this?


The state as I have said is the workers, hence 'workers state'.

No, that's the name. The reality is something all together different.


The idea that it will wither away, as this is the point you are pressing on, is exactly that it will wither, not be gone tomorrow but 'wither' away, in time a need for a state will become obselete.

You’re missing my point, as do most Leninists when posed with this dilemma. You need to try and move away form what the theory says to what the theory actual creates in reality.

The state cannot whither away because it must increase in order to survive and because there has to be a process of “withering away” at some point, this leadership will find it impossible to do both things at the same time.

The state cannot become obsolete because it must increase and branch out its arm of control in order for it to perpetrate itself.


Are you a Marxist?

It is impossible to ignore his economic and historical analysis. They are 100% correct in my opinion. But that's as far as my Marxism goes.


YES, beacuse it cost them dearly and further reiterates my point.

Did you not say that we should learn from our mistakes?


It is pretty fair to say if you are unpreapared and rush blindly into a revolution it WILL be doomed from the start.

And that's why we will make damn sure that the next time we are fully prepared.

[h&s]

OK, now you may know I'm not the world's biggest fan of the vanguard, but I'll defend it anyway.

What is so different about the situation now? It will still be necessary to take hold of the state apparatus and it will still be necessary for the state to increase its authority. Why wouldn't it
Yes it will be necessary to take over the state, but why would it be necessary to increase its authority? For communists to get into power we need a vast majority of support from the people. Without that it is imposible, and would be wrong, for us to get into power in a modern society, so the extra authority would not be needed.

What makes you think that opposition to this leadership also wants to defeat the workers? What happens if this opposition wants to give control directly to the workers while disbanding this leadership?
Any true vanguard party would include other leftists. By confining itself to just one political theory they will lose sight of their goals. In my opinion a vanguard party should not be one made up of just one political party, that way it probably would just turn into a dictatorship. The actions of a vanguard should always be under constant scrutiny of the whole left, and the people, to prevent one group of people enforcing their views on the people.

The state cannot whither away because it must increase in order to survive and because there has to be a process of “withering away” at some point, this leadership will find it impossible to do both things at the same time.

The state cannot become obsolete because it must increase and branch out its arm of control in order for it to perpetrate itself.
Why would it increase? It would branch out, yes, but not in power. It would branch out to provide local soviets for the people to rule themselves (and I mean proper soviets - not Russian ones). There will come a point where the state has withered away by doing this - it will no longer have any power of its own.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 23 2004, 11:25 AM
OK, now you may know I'm not the world's biggest fan of the vanguard, but I'll defend it anyway.
Why?


Yes it will be necessary to take over the state, but why would it be necessary to increase its authority?

Because it won't be able to survive otherwise.


For communists to get into power we need a vast majority of support from the people.

Then the need for a political elite is unnecessary.


Any true vanguard party would include other leftists.

How?


In my opinion a vanguard party should not be one made up of just one political party, that way it probably would just turn into a dictatorship.

Unfortunatly those in control of these vangaurd parties do not think the same.


The actions of a vanguard should always be under constant scrutiny of the whole left, and the people, to prevent one group of people enforcing their views on the people.

It cannot afford to be under scrutiny from the entire spectrum of the left and all people. It must consolidate its power in order to survive. In the midst of a revolution and with all the preperation that must be made in order for the state to wither away cannot allow opposition of any significance. How can it achieve it's objectives, the re-organisation of society and the destruction of the bourgeoisie with overt opposition.


Why would it increase?

Look at the present state structure and then compare it with what is necessary in a revolutionary society and you will see that the state has to increase its authority in every aspect of society in order to survive. The state isnt just a guardian of an economic elite, it is the organiser of society in every way, from politics and economics to social acivities. The state organises everything for everyone and in order for it to stay where it is, it must repress all opposition, no matter where it comes from. If this is not the case, tell me how the state will be able to consolidate power and suppress the bourgeoisie.

[h&s]

OK, now you may know I'm not the world's biggest fan of the vanguard, but I'll defend it anyway.


Why?
Why defend it or why do I not like it? I'll answer both. I'm not too keen on it for the obvious reasons such as dictatorship that you have mentioned. I'll defend it for the people who want to use it in the proper way, and not to oppress people.

Because it won't be able to survive otherwise.
Thats the point - I don't want it to survive. If you mean surviving a 'counter revolutionary' threat then I (rather naively?) don't think that would be too much of a problem. Dictators make up 'counter revolutionary' threats to persuade the people to let them kep their power. As I have already said for communists to get into power we need a big majority of support. If we have that then the people will be far less prone from supporting any of the borgeoise.

Then the need for a political elite is unnecessary.

Of course. I would never support a 'vanguard' that claimed to be superior to the people. That would just create another social oppressive class. I support a vanguard that wold be run by the grass-roots of the left.

How?
By approaching other suitable (as in non-elitists) leftist groups and saying 'hello do you want to work with us?'(after the revoltion of course)

Unfortunatly those in control of these vangaurd parties do not think the same.
And these are people who I do not support, and need to be gotten rid of.

It cannot afford to be under scrutiny from the entire spectrum of the left and all people. It must consolidate its power in order to survive. In the midst of a revolution and with all the preperation that must be made in order for the state to wither away cannot allow opposition of any significance. How can it achieve it's objectives, the re-organisation of society and the destruction of the bourgeoisie with overt opposition.
What would not be constructive about critisism from the left? Surely that would remind them on the job that they need to do, and would remind them that the power is not there to be abused. Once the communists have a majority the opposition will have no suport, and once the communists get into power, they will have no money either. The right will be impotent once the taxes kick in..... :D

If this is not the case, tell me how the state will be able to consolidate power and suppress the bourgeoisie As I have just said, through taxation. The borgeoise will be a small minority by the time the left get into power, and once they are 'robbed' of their money they will pose no threat.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'll defend it for the people who want to use it in the proper way, and not to oppress people.

But the argument is, can it ever be used in the proper way?


Thats the point - I don't want it to survive.

You’re confusing the argument. If you don't want it to survive how can you want it to exist as well?


Of course. I would never support a 'vanguard' that claimed to be superior to the people.

But they do claim they are superior to the people, that's exactly why they believe that the vanguard is necessary.


That would just create another social oppressive class.

That's precisely what it creates. It cannot create anything else. The vanguard, being the intellectually advanced of the working class, must govern the workers on their behalf, because they have been corrupted by capitalism to such an extent that they cannot be capable of making revolution decisions.

That is why the vanguard is necessary. In Russia a bureaucratic elite was created to administrate all aspects of society and look what it created. The party and the workers.


I support a vanguard that wold be run by the grass-roots of the left.

How does this differ from anarchism?


By approaching other suitable (as in non-elitists) leftist groups and saying 'hello do you want to work with us?'(after the revoltion of course)

You’re missing the point. The vanguard cannot do this if it is going to exist. The theory of the vanguard stipulates that the society must be organised and that the party must direct economic, political and social life in order to consolidate power and defeat the bourgeois class.

If we are going to invite everyone to have a say in the running of society, why do we need this leadership or vanguard. Why can we not just have federated workers collectives or committees, which organised in co-operation with each other. Or anarchism?


And these are people who I do not support, and need to be gotten rid of.

I agree.


What would not be constructive about critisism from the left?

You’re not answering my question. How can it achieve its objectives if it allows criticism the way you describe it?

In the opinion of the vanguardists, there is only one political party that should lead the workers and any other is counter-revolutionary. Even if they did allow some groups to give criticism the final decision is still the ruling parties, and as soon as they step out of line it will be necessary, in their opinion, to repress it in order for the revolution to be secure.


Once the communists have a majority the opposition will have no support, and once the communists get into power, they will have no money either. The right will be impotent once the taxes kick in.....The borgeoise will be a small minority by the time the left get into power, and once they are 'robbed' of their money they will pose no threat.

But opposition to this vanguard-in-power, which is of any threat to them will not come from the right it will come from the left. The left can be united in their opposition to capitalists and fascists. The real threat to their control will come from the libertarian Marxists, anarchists et al.

These are the ideas they will need to suppress if they are going to stay in control, and they will suppress them.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 07:06 PM
is that so important if you can not even live together.
step by step we may got something better than greater.... just beeing yourself...is that not great....
Well living together peacefully is also important but the society that people are in must also be progressive.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 02:37 AM
Technically what all anarchists want isn't revolution, but revolt. I would support an anarchist revolt, I would never support anyone in revolution - why replace the leaders when you've spent all that time, effort and doubtless life to remove the old ones?
way to go man!
and an anarchiste does not need any upper something since he believes in himself
respecting others making him more constructive(not productive)....to be follow
seul les cons ne comprenne pas

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 07:00 PM
Well living together peacefully is also important but the society that people are in must also be progressive.
hence progressive please!

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 07:07 PM
hence progressive please!
Well Anarchy is living peacefully and taking care of the people,that's all it really does,it's a non-achievement society.

[DaCuBaN]

Well Anarchy is living peacefully and taking care of the people,that's all it really does,it's a non-achievement society

I'm intruiged... what exactly do you consider the catalyst for progression? Our current society is geared towards capital progression I agree, with humanist matters taking a back-seat. However in my opinion the true catalyst is the human themselves - sort out 'mans needs and progression is forthcoming.

I feel you may need to clarify exactly what you mean by progression: Removal of world hunger; end of injustice; freedom: These all by my mind are progressive achievements.

[Hawker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 12:43 AM

I'm intruiged... what exactly do you consider the catalyst for progression? Our current society is geared towards capital progression I agree, with humanist matters taking a back-seat. However in my opinion the true catalyst is the human themselves - sort out 'mans needs and progression is forthcoming.

I feel you may need to clarify exactly what you mean by progression: Removal of world hunger; end of injustice; freedom: These all by my mind are progressive achievements.
I'm talking about progression in the fields of technology.I'm sorry if I didn't say that.I just can't see a society making technological advancements in an Anarchist society since most of the efforts will be put on taking care of the population.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:25 AM
I'm talking about progression in the fields of technology.I'm sorry if I didn't say that.I just can't see a society making technological advancements in an Anarchist society since most of the efforts will be put on taking care of the population.
You talk about "taking care of the people" but who are actually refering to? Who is doing the caring.

Anarchist society is based on collective resposnability, which means that we all work fro the benefit of each other. The organisation of society in order to produce what is necessary for us to have a decent standard of living can be organised in a logical way which reduces the amount of work load.

It is possible toa chieve a society where it is only necessary for people to work only 8 hours a week. What do you think people will do with the rest of their time?

The great thing is, they can do anything, and I am absolutly certain that there will be people who wish to persue the task of developing technology.

In a capitalist society our task is to survive. In an anarchist society our task will be to live. I for one would very much like to be apart of space exploration. Of course now, I could never do it. In an anarchist society, I could be apart of it without a problem. I may no know anything about it, but thre are people in the world that do, and I can listen to them, take guidence from them and develop myself as well as contributing to the exploration of space.

The point is, anything is possible.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 02:25 AM
I'm talking about progression in the fields of technology.I'm sorry if I didn't say that.I just can't see a society making technological advancements in an Anarchist society since most of the efforts will be put on taking care of the population.
technologie yeah that is what they do now but i just don't see the advantage of it.
if it is only used to destroy abuse and conquer
and because anarchy is just never achieved doen t mean you won't get something our small minds can even not think about.but freedom will be in my mind the greater catalyst to achieve it

[Hawker]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24 2004, 06:38 AM
You talk about "taking care of the people" but who are actually refering to? Who is doing the caring.

Anarchist society is based on collective resposnability, which means that we all work fro the benefit of each other. The organisation of society in order to produce what is necessary for us to have a decent standard of living can be organised in a logical way which reduces the amount of work load.

It is possible toa chieve a society where it is only necessary for people to work only 8 hours a week. What do you think people will do with the rest of their time?

The great thing is, they can do anything, and I am absolutly certain that there will be people who wish to persue the task of developing technology.

In a capitalist society our task is to survive. In an anarchist society our task will be to live. I for one would very much like to be apart of space exploration. Of course now, I could never do it. In an anarchist society, I could be apart of it without a problem. I may no know anything about it, but thre are people in the world that do, and I can listen to them, take guidence from them and develop myself as well as contributing to the exploration of space.

The point is, anything is possible.
I see.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 08:18 PM
I see.
Good!

[Anarcho-Commie]

a communist state even a democratic one does not serve the needs of the working class because in the end the state will never desolve on its own to create a stateless communist society. and i think there are plenty of examples to back this up. the state will turn to all its evil ways to uphold its existence. But of course communists and anarchists can work together to help create a future free of capitalism.

Crass-"You're far too much of a man for that, if Mao did it so can you. Whats the freedom of us all against the suffering of the few? Thats the kind of self-deception that killed two million jews. Just the same false logic that all power-mongers use. So dont think you can fool me with your political tricks. Political right, political left, you can keep your politics. Government is government and all government is force. Left or right, right or left, it takes the same old course. Oppression and restriction, regulation, rule and law. The seizure of that power is all your revolutions for. You romanticise your heroes, quote from Marx and Mao. Well their ideas of freedom are just oppression now."

[Bold Communist]

Edit: Bah.

[T_SP]

But the argument is, can it ever be used in the proper way?

Yes TAT! Why Can't it? You are so against a revolutionary party yet offer no alternative!


You?re confusing the argument. If you don't want it to survive how can you want it to exist as well?

Ultimately 'The State' & the 'Vanguard' will wither away, c'mon TAT this is basic Marxism!


But they do claim they are superior to the people, that's exactly why they believe that the vanguard is necessary.

A typical sectarian view, already we have covered this, but lets go over it again! The WORKERS control the leadership of the Vanguard and the vanguard are accountable and are able to be recalled whenever they are out of line.


hat's precisely what it creates. It cannot create anything else. The vanguard, being the intellectually advanced of the working class, must govern the workers on their behalf, because they have been corrupted by capitalism to such an extent that they cannot be capable of making revolution decisions.

That is why the vanguard is necessary. In Russia a bureaucratic elite was created to administrate all aspects of society and look what it created. The party and the workers.

You are blaming the Bolsheviks for the rise of Stalinism aren't you!!


You?re missing the point. The vanguard cannot do this if it is going to exist. The theory of the vanguard stipulates that the society must be organised and that the party must direct economic, political and social life in order to consolidate power and defeat the bourgeois class.

If we are going to invite everyone to have a say in the running of society, why do we need this leadership or vanguard. Why can we not just have federated workers collectives or committees, which organised in co-operation with each other. Or anarchism?

This is presciesly what will happen when the revoultion comes! What's the biggie??


You're not answering my question. How can it achieve its objectives if it allows criticism the way you describe it?

If it does not allow criticism how can the Vanguard represent the workers? This is how the Vanguard adapts itself to suit the working classes needs!


In the opinion of the vanguardists, there is only one political party that should lead the workers and any other is counter-revolutionary. Even if they did allow some groups to give criticism the final decision is still the ruling parties, and as soon as they step out of line it will be necessary, in their opinion, to repress it in order for the revolution to be secure.

Being a Trotskyist/Leninist you would know the opinion of them wouldn't you :P Why don't you ask one??


But opposition to this vanguard-in-power, which is of any threat to them will not come from the right it will come from the left. The left can be united in their opposition to capitalists and fascists. The real threat to their control will come from the libertarian Marxists, anarchists et al.

Yet you tell us YOU would support a Socialist revolution! We NEVER claim to be perfect but without a programme for a revolution how can the Anarchists ever hope to suceed??


These are the ideas they will need to suppress if they are going to stay in control, and they will suppress them.

And once again the voice of the Leninists speaks again!!

C'mon TAT, how would the Anarchists carry out a revoultion? How would they secure it against any counter revolution? What programme do the Anarchists have in place??? Please enlighten us, because so far you haven't got me convinced, just confused :blink:

[h&s]

But the argument is, can it ever be used in the proper way?
Can a gun be used in a proper way? (as in target practice)
Sure it has been used in a bad way before, but that doesn't mean that only bad things can only happen because of it.
All it takes are a few people who want it to be used properly to make it so.


You’re confusing the argument. If you don't want it to survive how can you want it to exist as well?
I want it to exist as a revolutionary party to start off with. I don't believe revolution to be possible without some sort of vanguardist leadership. The people wouldn't necessarily be in complete control of the party, but they could organise the party so that the revolution isn't just a bunch of separate strikes and mobs that could be easily put down. From the moment they get into power they would start the process of 'withering away.'


But they do claim they are superior to the people, that's exactly why they believe that the vanguard is necessary.
No, not all. They believe the vanguard is necessary to organise the revolution - they would never claim to be superior, someone has to do the job. Anyone is capable of being in the vanguard. They don't have to be a university educated guy with a superiority complex - it could be any one of the workers.


That's precisely what it creates. It cannot create anything else. The vanguard, being the intellectually advanced of the working class, must govern the workers on their behalf, because they have been corrupted by capitalism to such an extent that they cannot be capable of making revolution decisions.
So you are saying that anti-Stalinists like me could create a Stalinist state? You have personal permission to shoot me if I ever do that!
What you have said would happen would if the vanguard alienated themselves from the working class, like the Bolsheviks did by just moving into the Kremlin. If the vanguard lived in exaclty the same conditions as the people, they could not become isolated from them as it would be in their personal interest to help them.


That is why the vanguard is necessary. In Russia a bureaucratic elite was created to administrate all aspects of society and look what it created. The party and the workers.
Lets not compare everything to the CCCP. We have learned our lessons off their many mistakes, and as a result we have different intentions to the Bolsheviks.


If we are going to invite everyone to have a say in the running of society, why do we need this leadership or vanguard. Why can we not just have federated workers collectives or committees, which organised in co-operation with each other. Or anarchism?
All in good time.... That is the ultimate goal, but things need to be done before that is possible.


In the opinion of the vanguardists, there is only one political party that should lead the workers and any other is counter-revolutionary. Even if they did allow some groups to give criticism the final decision is still the ruling parties, and as soon as they step out of line it will be necessary, in their opinion, to repress it in order for the revolution to be secure.
In the opinion of the elitist vanguardists, not others. The elitists just use that as a excuse to consolodate their power and revert to Stalinism. That is not something that should ever happen.


But opposition to this vanguard-in-power, which is of any threat to them will not come from the right it will come from the left. The left can be united in their opposition to capitalists and fascists. The real threat to their control will come from the libertarian Marxists, anarchists et al.
Again you seem to think we are obsessed with keeping control, which we are not.
The important thing for all communists to remember is " Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another". With that kept in mind, our goals should never be lost. That was one part of the manifesto that Stali convieniately chose to 'forget,' but we shall not.

[James]

Its like lord of the rings...


Hammer+S thinks he can harness the ring's power (like a gun).
TAT doesn't want to use the ring: he knows what the ring is, and what it means!




EDIT:
The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions, carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for with body and soul.

Frederick Engels (1895), intro to The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850

[h&s]

Wow, I'm gollum!
James please note: I only support a vanguard as a last resort - if I see another way that I think is better, I will support it.

[James]

I have never seen a plausible argument for a vanguard. If you "need" one, then usually it means you are trying to have a revolution too soon (meaning the people arn't educated/active enough).

No, its pointless to have a revolution to install a different elite. Defeats the objective of socialism (i.e. equality).

[James]

oh, and no: you are Faramir.

[gaf]

quote to ny
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind."


oh yeah.let's go to the church and prey together.amen.
btw he was not the first(if he ever exist) .search soccii .roman empire that is, who also were not the first proto cappies empire
old as the world is this confrontation either you're to young to see it or to stubern to not
want it

and no bullshit other languages because you understand it .

[The Feral Underclass]

I edited your post because it was a ridiculous mess. Is it possible just to take a little more care on how you present them. I mean, i'm not a nut about this kind of thing and you can do what you want, but at least make it easy to read.

Secondly, this post wasn't directed at you, it was directed at H&S. Your post is on page 3, which you haven't answered.


Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:26 PM
Yes TAT! Why Can't it?
Because the state invariably corrupts due it's nature. Which I have argued already.


You are so against a revolutionary party yet offer no alternative!

Revolutionary organisation I am not against. I am against leninist style of organising because it does not work.

The alternative is anarchist style organsing.


Ultimately 'The State' & the 'Vanguard' will wither away, c'mon TAT this is basic Marxism!

:lol:

"c'mon TAT this is basic marxism"? What is that supposed to mean? Is this a vindication of the theory. Simply asserting it does not make it fact. Yes, I udnerstand it is basic marxist theory, my point is it cannot wither away.


A typical sectarian view, already we have covered this, but lets go over it again! The WORKERS control the leadership of the Vanguard and the vanguard are accountable and are able to be recalled whenever they are out of line.

First of all please explain to me why my view is sectarian?

Secondly you keep asserting theory as if it were fact. I understand what the theory is. You have said it, as have all leninists over and over again. Maybe if you repeat it often enough it will come true.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The workers control the leadership of the vangaurd is the theory. I put it to you that when the theory is applied into material reality it cannot turn out this why. For the reasons I have already stated.


You are blaming the Bolsheviks for the rise of Stalinism aren't you!!

No, i'm blaming Leninism.


This is presciesly what will happen when the revoultion comes! What's the biggie??

Then why is this vangaurd necessary? The vangaurd is what will lead the contradiction. You cannot have leaders, which create oppressive forms of authority which lead the theory to corrupt and no leaders at the same time. You cannot have a state and a state at the same time. Which is it?


If it does not allow criticism how can the Vanguard represent the workers?

The vanguard does what it believes is right. Regardless of the workers.


This is how the Vanguard adapts itself to suit the working classes needs!

What if the workers decide that they do not want a state anymore, or these leaders and want to control society without them using libertarian principles?


Being a Trotskyist/Leninist you would know the opinion of them wouldn't you :P Why don't you ask one??

I use to be one mate. SWP all the way, I even organised for them for a short time. How's that for ya?

In Lenin's own words...

"When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party...we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position." Our party aims to obtain political power for itself. There is not the least contradiction between soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power by a few persons"

http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/l...1920/dec/30.htm (http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)


Yet you tell us YOU would support a Socialist revolution!

Am I to oppose it?


We NEVER claim to be perfect but without a programme for a revolution how can the Anarchists ever hope to suceed??

Nonesense. What programme do anarchists not have?


C'mon TAT, how would the Anarchists carry out a revoultion?

In what sense?


How would they secure it against any counter revolution?

How do you think?


What programme do the Anarchists have in place???

Why have you twisted this argument. It has nothing to do with what the "programme" of the anarchists is. It is about whether or not a vangaurd can succeed in its objectives. The answer being no.

What does programme mean? Do you mean how do we plan to win a revolution? Or how do we plan to organise for one?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 26 2004, 02:52 PM
All it takes are a few people who want it to be used properly to make it so.
That's just idealistic naivity. Some well meaning people are not going to be able to suddenly make this contradiction go away.


I want it to exist as a revolutionary party to start off with.

Why?


I don't believe revolution to be possible without some sort of vanguardist leadership.

But you have already stated that a revolution would have to be through mass participation. In order for that to happen there must be a some level of understanding, right?

That means a vanguardist leadership is unnecessary and that all is required is organisation.


The people wouldn't necessarily be in complete control of the party,

That's the first step...


but they could organise the party so that the revolution isn't just a bunch of separate strikes and mobs that could be easily put down.

Why do we need people to tell us what to do? What can we not just do it?


From the moment they get into power they would start the process of 'withering away.'

How?


They believe the vanguard is necessary to organise the revolution - they would never claim to be superior

But they do. They claim that the vangaurd is the intellectual "elite" of the working class.

They believe the vanguard is necessary to organise the revolution because the workers can't do it for themselves.


someone has to do the job.

Agreed, but it doesnt have to be a leadership.


Anyone is capable of being in the vanguard.

You speak like an anarchist more and more everyday. Bakunin talked of a vanguard of revolutinaries, but the difference between Bakuninist and Leninist vanguards is that the politically conscious were simply guides, rather than leaders and that the vangaud incorporated everyone and that everyone have a say in organisational matters.


it could be any one of the workers.

You make the vanguard more and more unnecessary in every sentence. If the workers can be in the vanguard, then they can organise, which negates the need of a [leninist] vanguard.


So you are saying that anti-Stalinists like me could create a Stalinist state?

I am saying it is inevitable.


If the vanguard lived in exaclty the same conditions as the people, they could not become isolated from them as it would be in their personal interest to help them.

But they will never be "like" the workers once they become politicians and leaders. They will become politicians and leaders. «


All in good time.... That is the ultimate goal, but things need to be done before that is possible.

Such as?


In the opinion of the elitist vanguardists, not others. The elitists just use that as a excuse to consolodate their power and revert to Stalinism. That is not something that should ever happen.

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement"

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.


Again you seem to think we are obsessed with keeping control, which we are not.

No, i'm not talking about what the people in the vanguard are like, i'm talking about the material consequences of their application of Marxism-Leninism.

The things I have mentioned will happen, not because the people are control freaks, possibly, but because the theory is flawed and it will force these circumstances to arise.


The important thing for all communists to remember is " Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another".

But simply remembering it is not going to make it be real. From mind to matter, it cannot succeed.

[ylayali]

im just going to answer the original question.i would oppose any anarchist uprising because anarchy doesnt work.i know many of you hate me now.for an anarchist society to work everyone would have to be a good person.humans by nature are selfesh and for a lack of a better word evil.
any anarchist revolution would end with people looting Sears and happily running home with their new televison sets.yes i know im a pessimist.sorry.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 03:57 PM
im just going to answer the original question.i would oppose any anarchist uprising because anarchy doesnt work.i know many of you hate me now.for an anarachist society to work everyone would have to be a good person.humans by nature are selfesh and for a lack of a better word evil.
any anarchist revolution would end with people looting Sears and happily running home with their new televison sets.yes i know im a pessimist.sorry.
Anarchism is flawed but not for those reasons. I don't believe that human beings are "naturally" flawed or...evil (!). The interesting thing is that some parts of the anarchist doctrine come very close to asserting this very same thing. It could be argued (though not by them obviously) that their belief that "power corrupts" is very close the Christian belief in "original sin". I am a Marxist - as opposed to an anarchist - because I believe that after the workers revolution the stand can and must exist to secure the future for everybody.

[T_SP]

Why have you twisted this argument. It has nothing to do with what the "programme" of the anarchists is. It is about whether or not a vangaurd can succeed in its objectives. The answer being no.

Why have I twisted it? Your argument against the Vanguard, to me, is like telling me I don't need hair and yet not offering me no alternative way of keeping my head warm!!
I have explained how the Vanguard can suceed and yet all you can say is that a revolutionary party will make exactly the same same mistakes as those before them! What are you, clairvoyant? It is not in the nature of a vanguard to immediately become a dictatorship, if you think about it, it is social and economical circumstances that will make them become one. The Vanguard is perfectly able to learn from past failures that is what history is for and so can put into place measures that will prevent leadership from making these mistakes, no?






What does programme mean? Do you mean how do we plan to win a revolution? Or how do we plan to organise for one?

Both! Anyway how can you organise without leadership? What do you do get everyone toether to vote on it?



First of all please explain to me why my view is sectarian?

Because your posts read like all others who oppose the Vanguard what do you people do just pass the song sheet to the left?


useD to be one mate. SWP all the way,

Oh my GOD!!! I'm not going to even go into my opinion of them!! Sectarian! YES!! Revolutionary Party, NO!!!!




T_SP:We NEVER claim to be perfect but without a programme for a revolution how can the Anarchists ever hope to suceed??


TAT:Nonesense. What programme do anarchists not have?



T_SP:C'mon TAT, how would the Anarchists carry out a revoultion?


TAT:In what sense?


T_SP:How would they secure it against any counter revolution?


TAT:How do you think?




I asked the questions cause I wanted them answered and just like all other oppossers of th VG you have thrown the questions back at me instead of answering them!

Does anyone else find my posts confusing or is TAT just being picky??

[T_SP]

delete this please.

[YKTMX]

Oh my GOD!!! I'm not going to even go into my opinion of them!! Sectarian! YES!! Revolutionary Party, NO

:rolleyes: How can you call the organization that has started nearly all the signirficant front groups in British history Sectarian?

In my experience it's little, insignificant sects like yours who are sectarian.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Trotskyi[email protected] 26 2004, 07:12 PM
I have explained how the Vanguard can suceed and yet all you can say is that a revolutionary party will make exactly the same same mistakes as those before them!
I know what you have "explained", you keep on explaining it! What i have said to you is not that the vanguard cannot learn from its mistakes, but that it cannot go any other way. When the theory is applied into practice, going from an idea to material actions it will be unable do anything other than fail.


What are you, clairvoyant?

I have looked at the theory, it's history and have come up with a reason why it has failed. It failed because the theory is flawed, and because of that reason it will continue to happen.


It is not in the nature of a vanguard to immediately become a dictatorship

We are going round in circles now. You have asserted this, and I have given you an explination why I think you are wrong. The vanguard will be unable to assert itself in any other way because of the objectives it needs to achieve.


The Vanguard is perfectly able to learn from past failures

But it has nothing to do with learning from past "failures." The failures were inevitable because the theory is flawed.


that is what history is for and so can put into place measures that will prevent leadership from making these mistakes, no?

The only way to make sure that it does not happen is to scrap the theory all together.


Anyway how can you organise without leadership?

When you are interacting with your friends or family and you need to arrive at a decision is there someone among your friends and family who you elect to make it for you, or do you arrive at a mutually agreed decision?

Responsability is democratically divided between people and a common set of objectives is agreed on for each responsability area. Those people then do their tasks and are accountable to the group as a whole. There is no need to have someone elected or otherwise to delegate work or make decisions on our behalf.


What do you do get everyone toether to vote on it?

Any major decisions effecting the small group or the larger group as a whole should be made democratically with everyone having the right to voice their opinions or objections. It's called democracy.


Because your posts read like all others who oppose the Vanguard what do you people do just pass the song sheet to the left?

This is nonesense. I have posed a legitmate objection to the theory of Leninism which so far you have failed to answer in any clear way.


I asked the questions cause I wanted them answered and just like all other oppossers of th VG you have thrown the questions back at me instead of answering them!

Your questions are inane and off topic.


Does anyone else find my posts confusing or is TAT just being picky??

I'm not the one who is confused, it is you who is confused, and possibly because you are finding it difficult understanding what it is i'm saying. Even though I have said it over and over again.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 06:02 PM
I am a Marxist - as opposed to an anarchist
Bare this in mind people, because then he goes onto say...


interesting thing is that some parts of the anarchist doctrine come very close to asserting this very same thing. It could be argued (though not by them obviously) that their belief that "power corrupts" is very close to the Christian belief in "original sin".

What did Karl Marx, the intellectual father and founder of your beloved Marxism have to say on this matter...?

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. . . ."

You were saying...?

[YKTMX]

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. . . ."

Fine.

So it is your assertion that working class people elected and subject to instant recall, on the same wages, living the same life, same relationhip to the means of production are a experiencing a diffirent "social existence" and automatically will become "corrupt" because they happen to hold a position of "authority" within the "state".

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:01 PM
So it is your assertion that working class people elected and subject to instant recall, on the same wages, living the same life, same relationhip to the means of production are a experiencing a diffirent "social existence" and automatically will become "corrupt" because they happen to hold a position of "authority" within the "state".
These new rulers will not be "living" the same life as the workers. Members of your central, executive committee's etc etc etc will have direct control over political, social and economic life. They will in effect become just like every other ruler the people have had. How many workers in the factories or the armies will be able to adminstrate countries?

Regardless of how much money they are paid or what their office chair looks like they will have power. Great bundles of it. They will be a boss, and as Marx makes clear, if you act as a boss, you will become one.

What does it mean, recallable? You think that you can recall the next Lenin or Trotsky if you disagree with them. Come on, get real.

[DaCuBaN]

So it is your assertion that working class people elected and subject to instant recall, on the same wages, living the same life, same relationhip to the means of production are a experiencing a diffirent "social existence" and automatically will become "corrupt" because they happen to hold a position of "authority" within the "state".

It's a valid observation. People in our current society are very much out for #1, and this would proliferate through any socialist stage. In essence the socialist stage would be there to groom society to be capable of not allowing their own preconceptions and greed to get in the way. An anarchist revolt could well succeed, but under current conditions it would almost certainly be doomed to failure, or at least this is how I perceive it.

If we were to wait for the right conditions - for all members of society to be of the right frame of mind to institute an anarchic society - then the 'wait' before we begin to end injustice in the world would be even longer than that of communism.

This leads me to my final point; that communism and anarchism are synonymous. A communist revolution is in fact a socialist one, using that stage to lead us into an anarchic society, allowing us to progress whilst elements that cling to the old structure still exist, whereas an anarchist revolt would require the 'revolution of the mind' before it could be a reality.

To answer the question of course, which given my perspective that I've outlined, I would support an anarchist revolt from a capitalist society, or from a corrupted socialist society. It very much, however, depends on circumstance.

[YKTMX]

. Members of your central, executive committee's etc etc etc will have direct control over political, social and economic life

Untrue.

Workers will control their own lives directly through Workers committes (soviets) and direct elections of comrades to represent them at all levels of the new state. The members of the CC are also on the same wage and subject to recall and maintain a functional rule rather than a political one during the consolidation after the revolution.

Now, I know your instinct is to say "ahh, but this didn't happen in Russia". This is all "theory" so please don't use examples taken out of historical context and perspective.


How many workers in the factories or the armies will be able to adminstrate countries?

Do I misunderstand your point here or are you suggesting that workers can't be the masters of their own conditions?


Regardless of how much money they are paid or what their office chair looks like they will have power.

Working class power is a great thing.


They will be a boss, and as Marx makes clear, if you act as a boss, you will become one.

A "boss"? How do you reach that conclusion? A boss is someone who administers production when this clearly will not be the case under socialism.


What does it mean, recallable? You think that you can recall the next Lenin or Trotsky if you disagree with them. Come on, get real.

I would love to "get real" but sadly you persist with this line that just because it didn't go perfectly in Russia that it dooms every future effort by Marxists to change the world.

Anarchism (like many other leftist "theories) from never having been "tried" on a major scale. Marxism of course has the albetross of "Russia" and what went wrong. However, your constant referral to what happened in Russia is slightly odd. I'm discussing what the "theory" of Leninism is, of course it your right to give an indication of how you think this might fail but it doesn't help your cause (in my opinion) by insisting that what happened in the most backward country in Europe (at the time) is completely transferrable to the modern world.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 10:39 PM
Workers will control their own lives directly through Workers committes (soviets) and direct elections of comrades to represent them at all levels of the new state. The members of the CC are also on the same wage and subject to recall and maintain a functional rule rather than a political one during the consolidation after the revolution
It makes absolutly no sense. Why, if the workers are incontrol of everything, do we need this central committee. Surely it's just decoration.


Now, I know your instinct is to say "ahh, but this didn't happen in Russia". This is all "theory" so please don't use examples taken out of historical context and perspective.

No, not at all. If this is the case then it makes your vanguard irrelevant and unnecessary.


Do I misunderstand your point here or are you suggesting that workers can't be the masters of their own conditions?

No, my point is that people who run countries are not the same as workers, nor are they "living" like them.

I agree, whole heartedly with you, the workers can indeed be masters of their own conditions, that is the point.


Working class power is a great thing.

It certaintly is. And that's why we don't need any "intellectuals" telling us what to do and how to do it. We can do all that by ourselves.


A "boss"? How do you reach that conclusion? A boss is someone who administers production when this clearly will not be the case under socialism.

Lenin said...

"Until the "higher" phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption;"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...rev/ch05.htm#s2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s2)

Lenin contradicts himself even in this sentence. How can society and the state control these things at the same time?


I'm discussing what the "theory" of Leninism is, of course it your right to give an indication of how you think this might fail but it doesn't help your cause (in my opinion) by insisting that what happened in the most backward country in Europe (at the time) is completely transferrable to the modern world.

What will be so different?

[DaCuBaN]

Why, if the workers are incontrol of everything, do we need this central committee.

Do you wish that no decision are made? Do you wish anarchy in your world? I understand you have incredibly anti-authoritarian leanings, and it's a commendable trait, but people still need to discuss matters, surely...


Lenin contradicts himself even in this sentence. How can society and the state control these things at the same time?

You will no doubt be aware that I reject the vanguard model, but the idea of the state and society controlling everything is in no way ridiculous under proper socialism. If you have full direct democracy, and all industry in state hands then everyone is a part of the state apparatus and shares both the same relationship with the means of production, the same living conditions and the same income.

The only 'negative' is capital.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2004, 11:37 PM
Do you wish that no decision are made? Do you wish anarchy in your world? I understand you have incredibly anti-authoritarian leanings, and it's a commendable trait, but people still need to discuss matters, surely...
Why is the need for making decisions a defence for something which is unnecessary?

Decisions can be reached without the need for a central committee. Just as YKTMX points out "Workers will control their own lives directly through Workers committes."


the idea of the state and society controlling everything is in no way ridiculous under proper socialism.

The state is defined as a group of institutions for the purpose of control, it is materially impossible that a state, being the institutions of control, and society the general population, both control the means of production at the same time.

In order for the state to exist someone has to have authority over it. The argument here is that it is the working class as a whole that have that authority. There is the first contradiction from theory to practice. Far from being materially impossible for the whole of the working class to have control over the state, it will also be impossible to achieve the objectives of the theory, if in fact the majority of working class people have that authority.

For a start, the reason for this vanguard is because they are the "intellectually advanced of the working class." The theory is that capitalism has distroted the workers consciousness to such a degree that the vanguard becomes necessary. That basically means that the vanguard exists in order to direct the workers. So how then, if this is the case, can the workers control the state, when the vanguard, being the intellectually advanced, became necessary because the workers are unable to have control over the state in the first place?

This leads to the second contradiction. If the vanguard is necessary to control the state, what is it's job? Firstly political authority. The suppression of the bourgeoisie, secondly economic authority. The re-distribution of the means of production. Thirdly, military. No doubt there will be violence and counter-revolution. The vanguard now has control over all these aspects of government and it becomes necessary to consolidate all power into their hands, that being the state, and defend themselves from all opposition. If they do not do that, how will they be able to control the state on [i]"the workers behalf" and achieve the objectives they set out?

If they are having to consolidate power into their hands, while suppressing all oppoisiton, which will become necessary, while at the same time controlling every aspect of economic and military affairs how will they be able to wither away the state? There has to be a process of withering away. There has to be a hand over of power to the workers, how and when will that happen?

The argument that society and the state can control the means of production is absurd. Society is the general population, who are ignorant because of capitalism (according to the theory), and the state is the vanguards authority idealised. The point of the state is to control the means of production et al so that there can be a withering away to the point where it is possible for society to control itself. They cannot both have control at the same time.

[DaCuBaN]

Could you take my words in a worse fashion please?


Why is the need for making decisions a defence for something which is unnecessary?

All I'm defending is the need for organisation in society: I do not defend Leninist theory. Fuck; I won't even defend violence so where the hell did you get that idea man?


For a start, the reason for this vanguard is because they are the "intellectually advanced of the working class."

The politically aware would be more accurate: They see the problems, and choose to wield the power of force to get their goals prior to conditions being suitable.

The rest of your post consists mainly of a starter theory in Leninism: Thanks :rolleyes: I reject the idea that the state will ever wither away irregardless - there will always a need for a level of organisation: What is needed is for the 'state' to transcend; become a transparent all-encompassing entity - for everyone to really be involved as an individual in the way their world operates around them.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:46 AM
Could you take my words in a worse fashion please?
What are you talking about? I've notcied a running theme in your posts. You tend to accuse people of this a lot. I didn't take your words out of fashion, I answered your points. Find a new record.


All I'm defending is the need for organisation in society:

Badly I may add. Your "defence" of organisation implies that anarchism negates organisation. That isn't true.


The politically aware would be more accurate:

Not according to Lenin.


They see the problems, and choose to wield the power of force to get their goals prior to conditions being suitable.

Why do you people keep repeating it. You said this in the last post, as did all the others. I know what the theory is. My reply is an explination why that theory is wrong. Is it so difficult to understand.


The rest of your post consists mainly of a starter theory in Leninism: Thanks :rolleyes:

Don't be so arrogant. My post was a reply to your assertion "the idea of the state and society controlling everything is in no way ridiculous under proper socialism." I gave out my argument for why you are wrong.


there will always a need for a level of organisation:

Yes, I understand that, but leninist organisation is not the only form of organisation. It is however one of the most flawed.


What is needed is for the 'state' to transcend; become a transparent all-encompassing entity - for everyone to really be involved as an individual in the way their world operates around them.

Again, you are simply asserting theory. My question was how, why and when?

I'm bored of repeating myself. Either answer my goddamn points or don't bother at all.

[h&s]

That's just idealistic naivity. Some well meaning people are not going to be able to suddenly make this contradiction go away.
I beg to differ. It is the minority that ruin it for the majority - not a majority ruining it for an 'idealistic' minority.
I would only support a vanguard party that wanted a dictator-free, control-free society. I am against a Leninist dictatorship vanguard.




I don't believe revolution to be possible without some sort of vanguardist leadership.



But you have already stated that a revolution would have to be through mass participation. In order for that to happen there must be a some level of understanding, right?

That means a vanguardist leadership is unnecessary and that all is required is organisation.
Yes a revolution would be through mass participation, but to think that it would be possible without organisation is just 'idealistic naivety' to me. Do you really think the authorities wouldn't be able to cope with an unorganised revolution? People would just be shot on the streets and wothout organisation groups would become separated from each other and would be easy to deal with.




The people wouldn't necessarily be in complete control of the party,




That's the first step...
Thats a misquote. By saying that I meant that there wouldn't be a select few people in complete control of the party how they want - the real people would control those in the vanguard.



Why do we need people to tell us what to do? What can we not just do it?
As I have said the government would be able to put down un co-ordinated uprisings with relative ease. Sure the vanguard wouldn't tell people what to do, they would just organise the actions to have the greatest consequence.




From the moment they get into power they would start the process of 'withering away.'



How?
By de-centralising power. Sure that wouldn't happen straight away, but it would certainly happen within a reasonable time.


They claim that the vangaurd is the intellectual "elite" of the working class.

They believe the vanguard is necessary to organise the revolution because the workers can't do it for themselves.
You see I don't consider being more intellectual than another person to be better than them. Sure the vanguard would be more intelligent than Joe Bloggs, but that wouldn't make them elite. Being itellectual is to do with your education, and that is just a lottery who gets it these days.
Again you are constantly claiming that all vanguardists are Leninist wanabe dictators. They don't believe the workers can't do things for themsleves - as I have said the vanguard is required to stop the revolutionary work of the people being crushed by the government.




someone has to do the job.



Agreed, but it doesnt have to be a leadership.
Well I don't think a revolution will be able to survive its 'infancy' without a leadership.



You speak like an anarchist more and more everyday.
I can assure you I am not....
Anarchism and communism are very similar - not many people seem to notice that.




it could be any one of the workers.



You make the vanguard more and more unnecessary in every sentence. If the workers can be in the vanguard, then they can organise, which negates the need of a [leninist] vanguard.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the workers need to be organised together to ensure success. And who said I wanted a Leninist vanguard?


But they will never be "like" the workers once they become politicians and leaders. They will become politicians and leaders. «
They will be workers, I don't believe that they will become alienated.




All in good time.... That is the ultimate goal, but things need to be done before that is possible.



Such as?
Such as organising the system of soviets, nationalising businesses, 'stealing' all wealth from the rich, etc, etc...




In the opinion of the elitist vanguardists, not others. The elitists just use that as a excuse to consolodate their power and revert to Stalinism. That is not something that should ever happen.



"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement"

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.
The understanding of how to organise the revolution. People can interpret Marx however they want - what he wrote isn't set in stone as fact.




Again you seem to think we are obsessed with keeping control, which we are not.



No, i'm not talking about what the people in the vanguard are like, i'm talking about the material consequences of their application of Marxism-Leninism.

The things I have mentioned will happen, not because the people are control freaks, possibly, but because the theory is flawed and it will force these circumstances to arise.
Marxism-Leninism? I don't support that - I support Marxism.

*Edit* Why the fuck did that take me an hour to write?!? I'm losing it... :wacko:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by hammer&sickl[email protected] 27 2004, 01:25 PM
I beg to differ. It is the minority that ruin it for the majority - not a majority ruining it for an 'idealistic' minority.
I would only support a vanguard party that wanted a dictator-free, control-free society. I am against a Leninist dictatorship vanguard.
I'm not going to repeat myself here. All I will say is that you have not answered my points regarding the apparent contradictions in the theory. Will you answer them or not?


Yes a revolution would be through mass participation, but to think that it would be possible without organisation is just 'idealistic naivety' to me.

Human beings are so odd. You made this comment in reply to me saying "That means a vanguardist leadership is unnecessary and that all is required is organisation."

Why is saying that we dont require leaders suddenly mean there is no organisation?


Do you really think the authorities wouldn't be able to cope with an unorganised revolution?

Who said anything about an unorganised revolution?


People would just be shot on the streets and wothout organisation groups would become separated from each other and would be easy to deal with.

All I have said is that the vanguard becomes unnecessary by your reasoning. I never said anything about not having organisation.


By saying that I meant that there wouldn't be a select few people in complete control of the party how they want - the real people would control those in the vanguard.

It's impossible and I have stated my argument over and over again, why it is impossible. Please stop re-asserting the same old thing and answer the points.


By de-centralising power. Sure that wouldn't happen straight away, but it would certainly happen within a reasonable time.

Why couldn't it happen straight away?


but that wouldn't make them elite.

But that's what it would become.


Again you are constantly claiming that all vanguardists are Leninist wanabe dictators.

No I'm not. I'm claiming that when the theory is applied into practice there is no other way for it to go. It is inevitable.


Well I don't think a revolution will be able to survive its 'infancy' without a leadership.

Why?


I can assure you I am not....

We shall see...


I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the workers need to be organised together to ensure success.

Agreed.


And who said I wanted a Leninist vanguard?

Then what is your alternative? (out of interest)


They will be workers,

No they won't. They'll be leaders and politicians. Their relation to the means of production will be, they control it.


I don't believe that they will become alienated.

I know. Why don't you believe it is what i'm interested in?


Such as organising the system of soviets, nationalising businesses, 'stealing' all wealth from the rich, etc, etc...

And we need leaders to do this for us?


The understanding of how to organise the revolution. People can interpret Marx however they want - what he wrote isn't set in stone as fact.

So you reject that particular tenet of Marxism?


Marxism-Leninism? I don't support that - I support Marxism.

Interesting. And how would you envisage Marxism being applied into practice?

[YKTMX]

It makes absolutly no sense. Why, if the workers are incontrol of everything, do we need this central committee. Surely it's just decoration.

Not, not "decoration" but defense. I mean, come on, can you really imagine what it will be like? The socialist revolution sweeping away global capitalism? How chaotic will that be? How violent, possibly? How totally fantastic and wonderful. This won't be the time to let it slip through our fingers but grasp their necks and wring them. We need to oragnise ourself as a class against them and that means (regretabbly) using the state, which as you so stridently consider is a dangerous tactic but it is a better that your answer which I believe amounts to...capitulation. Now, I believe there is merit in your "people's miltias" for the defense of individual sectors or committess but surely, if you accept that the revolution would to lead to the greatest capitalist backlash history then some sort of "state (or state's defense) must be amounted.

Now, no one can predict the future, IF the revolution engulfs the whole world in one fell swoop then maybe "state power" and "socialism" might not play a big role and communism will be immeadiately realised.


No, my point is that people who run countries are not the same as workers, nor are they "living" like them.

Why can't they be? Of course they aren't now or have never been but that isn't to prove that "leaders" (although this is a poor term for the position) will axiomatically live a diffirent to the "led". As I said, if the revolution starts in the major industrial nations the potentialities and the dangers will be enormous.


It certaintly is. And that's why we don't need any "intellectuals" telling us what to do and how to do it. We can do all that by ourselves.

Let's not completely cloud the issue here, I'm in complete agreement here


Until the "higher" phase of communism arrives, the socialists demand the strictest control by society and by the state over the measure of labor and the measure of consumption;"

Let me do Comrade Lenin a favour here (as he obviously can't defend himself) but he wrote State and Revolution in the middle of revolutionary Russia so you have to expect his writings to have a "contemporary and pariochial slant". In our revolutions, in today's societies where resources are so repellently plentiful workers will quite obviously control their own production and consumption. Russia, as you know, was an incredibly backward country and ultimately this affected Lenin's writings. He was after all trying to start a revolution in Russia, not modern day Britain or Germany.


Lenin contradicts himself even in this sentence. How can society and the state control these things at the same time?

Listen, this isn't theology and don't think Lenin wrote on "What is to be Done" on Mount Sinai. I don't think he needs to be right about everything to believe he was correct about most things.


What will be so different?

That question does not do anyone any favours.

[Djehuti]

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement"

Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will just put forth that Marx never talked about formal parties like Lenin.
The communist party was to Marx no party in the sence we talk about it today, not like the democrats, republicans or social democrats, etc. Marx simple meant the material party, more like "takes part for". Marx communist party was simply the proletarians that have taken part for communism, not some real organization.

Read Bordiga vs Pannekoek.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby...a/bvpintro.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3909/bordiga/bvpintro.html)


And anarchist tension, if you critique Marx for elitism, you should really critique Bakunin that you are quoting in your signature. Bakunin wanted a very centralized, Jacobin-like party directed by 100 people.

I wouldnt call Marx a elitist, he constantly put forth that the liberation of the working class has to be the liberation of the working class it self, and not by some elit of communists or some filanstropic bourgeoisie.


"As for ourselves, there is, considering all our antecedents, only one course open to us. For almost 40 years we have emphasised that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes. If the new party organ is to adopt a policy that corresponds to the opinions of these gentlemen, if it is bourgeois and not proletarian, then all we could do — much though we might regret it — would be publicly to declare ourselves opposed to it and abandon the solidarity with which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad. But we hope it won’t come to that."

Marx & Engels in "Circular Letter to August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, Wilhelm Bracke and Others"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/18.htm





AT:
"Interesting. And how would you envisage Marxism being applied into practice?"

Do you mean that leninism is some "marxism in practise"? If so, why?
I think that leninism is a break with marxism, in some ways.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 10:32 PM
We need to oragnise ourself as a class against them and that means (regretabbly) using the state,
No it doesn't,


which as you so stridently consider is a dangerous tactic but it is a better that your answer which I believe amounts to...capitulation.

What this amounts to is your admission that the workers are incapable of organising themselves as a class and directing their own revolution.


Now, I believe there is merit in your "people's miltias" for the defense of individual sectors or committess but surely, if you accept that the revolution would to lead to the greatest capitalist backlash history then some sort of "state (or state's defense) must be amounted.

I fully acknowledge that there will need to be the strictest organisation and of course there must be a huge network of defence, but I do not see the need for centralised authority such as the state. Which is nothing more than institutions of domination, controlled by a political parties leadership.

Any class confrontation will accur at the end of a long period of antagonism and the need for revolutionary organisation will get closer and closer as the time comes nearer. We are capable of doing it ourselves and just because we do not have a centralised authority telling us what to do does not mean we will fail at it.


Why can't they be?

Because adminsitrating a country and making massic political, military and economic decisions is not what workers do.


As I said, if the revolution starts in the major industrial nations the potentialities and the dangers will be enormous.

Yes, i'm aware of the complexties and "potentialities" of a revolution and that is why we cannot afford to hand it over to "professionals" working on our "behalf."


Let's not completely cloud the issue here, I'm in complete agreement here

Which negates the need for centralised authority.


He was after all trying to start a revolution in Russia, not modern day Britain or Germany.

There's no difference.


Listen, this isn't theology and don't think Lenin wrote on "What is to be Done" on Mount Sinai. I don't think he needs to be right about everything to believe he was correct about most things.

I'm beginning to get bored of this, let's not take lenin seriously, when ever it souits you. What if anything, is about Lenin you agree with?


That question does not do anyone any favours.

How inconvinient of me.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:15 AM
anarchist tension, if you critique Marx for elitism, you should really critique Bakunin that you are quoting in your signature. Bakunin wanted a very centralized, Jacobin-like party directed by 100 people.
I have never heard this before. That's doesn't make it false of course, but I would love to see your proof?


Do you mean that leninism is some "marxism in practise"? If so, why?
I think that leninism is a break with marxism, in some ways.

Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat and what it stood for. Lenin attempted to put that into practice. My question was not accusatory, I am simply interested to know, how, if not Leninism, do you envisage Marxism being applied?

From your entire post, you make a convincing argument against Leninism. It reminds me of Sean Sheehans book in which he says "Marxism has a long-overdue appointment with anarchism...Now, finally freed from the shakles of Soviet-statism, the time has come for that appointment to be met."

[YKTMX]

when ever it souits you. What if anything, is about Lenin you agree with?

...the nature of imperialism, democratic centralism, vanguard party, revolution, Marxism, the national question, the need for worldwide revolution, the withering away of the state etc etc.

Your problem is that you think I disagree with what you think Lenin stands for when what I actually stand for is what I believe Lenin sood for. (Rumsfeldism)


Because adminsitrating a country and making massic political, military and economic decisions is not what workers do.

Under socialism it is.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 01:18 PM
Your problem is that you think I disagree with what you think Lenin stands for when what I actually stand for is what I believe Lenin sood for. (Rumsfeldism)
I know what he stands for. That's the problem.


Under socialism it is.

No

[YKTMX]

I can see your trying to kill the debate and that's quite fine.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 02:00 PM
I can see your trying to kill the debate and that's quite fine.
If you want to go back through my post where I answer you point by point and answer me then we can continue.

Until then, there isnt anything I can say without repeating myself.

[YKTMX]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 28 2004, 12:46 PM
If you want to go back through my post where I answer you point by point and answer me then we can continue.

Until then, there isnt anything I can say without repeating myself.
No, this is fine.

[h&s]

OK TAT, I have tried to reply to your post wihout repeating what I have already said (which you don't want me to do) or without attacking anarchism (which I don't want to do), but I failed to do that, so I'm sorry that I can't write anything else on this topic.
However...

So you reject that particular tenet of Marxism?
Yes, in the context that you have shown it, of course. Marx lived over 150 years ago,he wrote stuff that isn't relevant today. I'm not saying that this particular theory was right for his day, but it was then more than it is now. In Marx's day people were far less educated and worldly-aware than they are today, which many would have said required a more elite vanguard.
And as to your 'allegations' that I am an anarchist, I will say that I do support anarchism, and in a perfect world I would be an anarchist, but I do not live in that world, and I believe that the conditions required for anarchism to be a success do not exist here in the west.

[321]

as an anarchist i would help a socialist revolution but i would then fight the socialists because i believe that socialism can never progress to communism. leaders will like their power too much. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by hammer&[email protected] 29 2004, 10:08 PM
I believe that the conditions required for anarchism to be a success do not exist here in the west.
Why? What are these conditions?

[YKTMX]

power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Oh, god help me.

[James]

H+S, how can you say:

"I believe that the conditions required for anarchism to be a success do not exist here in the west."
?

It implies that the conditions for your alternative, leninist (or however you want to spin it) communism, do exist. Which i find amusing. If not shocking.

[redtrigger]

To my understanding even in pure communism the state is still present. I believe in the establishment of the state if for no other reason than to protect its citizenry. In an anarchist state, for lack of a better term, there is no state and therefore the citizens are garanteed no protection. If an uprising should occur and there is no uniting banner then the people of the anachronistic state would be left vulnerable and likely defeated.