Leninism Vs Anarchism

[The Feral Underclass]

Taken from the Debate: Leninism Vs. Marxism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29276) thread...


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Sep 27 2004, 05:24 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Sep 27 2004, 05:24 PM)Why don't you enlighten then?[/b]
You said "predictibly" anarchists dogmatically reject the concept of "concrete "rules"" to organisation, claiming that anarchists adopt "dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time"

Taken from the AF pamphlet 'Basic Bakunin' (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/bakunbas.html)...


"Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state"

Taken from the Pamphlet 'Organisation' (http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/txt_organ_em.htm) by Errico Malatesta...


"Organisation which is, after all, only the practice of co-operation and solidarity, is a natural and necessary condition of social life; it is an inescapable fact which forces itself on everybody, as much on human society in general as on any group of people who are working towards a common objective."

You, as a Leninist, also claimed that anarchism calls for "disorganised strikes". This directly contradicts Alexander Berkman in his book, 'ABC of Anarchism' (http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/ace/abc/) where he said...


I am convinced that the social revolution will not "just happen." It will have to be prepared, organized. Yes, indeed, organized-just as a strike is organized. In truth, it will be a strike, the strike of the united workers of an entire country - a general strike.

In the same book he attacks the idea that anarchism is against organisation by saying...


Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organization is talking nonsense. Organization is everything, and everything is organization. The whole of life is organization, conscious or unconscious. Every nation, every family, why, even every individual is an organization or organism. Every part of every living thing is organized in such a manner that the whole works in harmony. Otherwise the different organs could not function properly and life could not exist.

You are wrong, either through ignorance or through lies...


[email protected] 27 2004, 05:24 PM
I keenly await for all my preconceptions and "party lies" ( :lol: ) to be knocked down.

You are a member of the SWP are you not? I will show a selection of quotes from an article by Pat Stack in the 'Socialist Review' entitled 'Anarchy in the UK'...Pat Stack is a member of the Central Committee is he not?


"the idea that dominates anarchist thought, namely that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed." - Stack

"The Anarchists consider the wage system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress... while combatting the present monopolisation of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the State."- Kropotkin

"I think that equality must be established... by... the collective ownership of producers' associations, freely organised and federated into communes... [and] by the development and organisation... of the social power of the working masses... The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal." - Bakunin


"For Bakunin skilled artisans and organised factory workers, far from being the source of the destruction of capitalism, were 'tainted by pretensions and aspirations' . . . the 'uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate', as he put it, would be his agents for change." - Stack

"Organise the city proletariat . . . unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry . . . Only a wide-sweeping revolution embracing both the city workers and peasants would be sufficiently strong to overthrow . . . the State, backed as it is by all the resources of the possessing classes." - Bakunin


"Kropotkin, far from seeing class conflict as the dynamic for social change... saw co-operation being at the root of the social process... It follows that if class conflict is not the motor of change, the working class is not the agent and collective struggle not the means." - Stack

"Anarchists... have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation." - Kropotkin

"The union is absolutely necessary. It is the only form of workers' grouping which permits the direct struggle to be maintained against capital without falling into parliamentarism." - Kropotkin


"The huge advantage [anarcho-syndicalists] had over other anarchists was their understanding of the power of the working class, the centrality of the point of production (the workplace) and the need for collective action." - Stack

"To become strong you must unite... nothing less is needed than the union of all local and national workers' associations into a worldwide association... It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means trades-unions, organisation." - Bakunin

"Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector - the State." - Kropotkin

You can read the letter sent from Iain McKay (Freedom Press) to the 'Socialist Review' where he corrects the mistakes of the article...'Socialist Review' never published it or corrected the mistakes, or even acknowledged that mistakes had been made...Why do you think that was?

[The Feral Underclass]

Taken from the Debate: Leninism Vs. Marxism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29276) thread...


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Sep 27 2004, 05:24 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Sep 27 2004, 05:24 PM)Why don't you enlighten then?[/b]
You said "predictibly" anarchists dogmatically reject the concept of "concrete "rules"" to organisation, claiming that anarchists adopt "dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time"

Taken from the AF pamphlet 'Basic Bakunin' (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/bakunbas.html)...


"Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state"

Taken from the Pamphlet 'Organisation' (http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/txt_organ_em.htm) by Errico Malatesta...


"Organisation which is, after all, only the practice of co-operation and solidarity, is a natural and necessary condition of social life; it is an inescapable fact which forces itself on everybody, as much on human society in general as on any group of people who are working towards a common objective."

You, as a Leninist, also claimed that anarchism calls for "disorganised strikes". This directly contradicts Alexander Berkman in his book, 'ABC of Anarchism' (http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/ace/abc/) where he said...


I am convinced that the social revolution will not "just happen." It will have to be prepared, organized. Yes, indeed, organized-just as a strike is organized. In truth, it will be a strike, the strike of the united workers of an entire country - a general strike.

In the same book he attacks the idea that anarchism is against organisation by saying...


Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organization is talking nonsense. Organization is everything, and everything is organization. The whole of life is organization, conscious or unconscious. Every nation, every family, why, even every individual is an organization or organism. Every part of every living thing is organized in such a manner that the whole works in harmony. Otherwise the different organs could not function properly and life could not exist.

You are wrong, either through ignorance or through lies...


[email protected] 27 2004, 05:24 PM
I keenly await for all my preconceptions and "party lies" ( :lol: ) to be knocked down.

You are a member of the SWP are you not? I will show a selection of quotes from an article by Pat Stack in the 'Socialist Review' entitled 'Anarchy in the UK'...Pat Stack is a member of the Central Committee is he not?


"the idea that dominates anarchist thought, namely that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed." - Stack

"The Anarchists consider the wage system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress... while combatting the present monopolisation of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the State."- Kropotkin

"I think that equality must be established... by... the collective ownership of producers' associations, freely organised and federated into communes... [and] by the development and organisation... of the social power of the working masses... The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal." - Bakunin


"For Bakunin skilled artisans and organised factory workers, far from being the source of the destruction of capitalism, were 'tainted by pretensions and aspirations' . . . the 'uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate', as he put it, would be his agents for change." - Stack

"Organise the city proletariat . . . unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry . . . Only a wide-sweeping revolution embracing both the city workers and peasants would be sufficiently strong to overthrow . . . the State, backed as it is by all the resources of the possessing classes." - Bakunin


"Kropotkin, far from seeing class conflict as the dynamic for social change... saw co-operation being at the root of the social process... It follows that if class conflict is not the motor of change, the working class is not the agent and collective struggle not the means." - Stack

"Anarchists... have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation." - Kropotkin

"The union is absolutely necessary. It is the only form of workers' grouping which permits the direct struggle to be maintained against capital without falling into parliamentarism." - Kropotkin


"The huge advantage [anarcho-syndicalists] had over other anarchists was their understanding of the power of the working class, the centrality of the point of production (the workplace) and the need for collective action." - Stack

"To become strong you must unite... nothing less is needed than the union of all local and national workers' associations into a worldwide association... It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means trades-unions, organisation." - Bakunin

"Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector - the State." - Kropotkin

You can read the letter sent from Iain McKay (Freedom Press) to the 'Socialist Review' where he corrects the mistakes of the article...'Socialist Review' never published it or corrected the mistakes, or even acknowledged that mistakes had been made...Why do you think that was?

[The Feral Underclass]

Taken from the Debate: Leninism Vs. Marxism (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29276) thread...


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Sep 27 2004, 05:24 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Sep 27 2004, 05:24 PM)Why don't you enlighten then?[/b]
You said "predictibly" anarchists dogmatically reject the concept of "concrete "rules"" to organisation, claiming that anarchists adopt "dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time"

Taken from the AF pamphlet 'Basic Bakunin' (http://flag.blackened.net/af/ace/bakunbas.html)...


"Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state"

Taken from the Pamphlet 'Organisation' (http://www.zabalaza.net/texts/txt_organ_em.htm) by Errico Malatesta...


"Organisation which is, after all, only the practice of co-operation and solidarity, is a natural and necessary condition of social life; it is an inescapable fact which forces itself on everybody, as much on human society in general as on any group of people who are working towards a common objective."

You, as a Leninist, also claimed that anarchism calls for "disorganised strikes". This directly contradicts Alexander Berkman in his book, 'ABC of Anarchism' (http://www.cluefactory.org.uk/ace/abc/) where he said...


I am convinced that the social revolution will not "just happen." It will have to be prepared, organized. Yes, indeed, organized-just as a strike is organized. In truth, it will be a strike, the strike of the united workers of an entire country - a general strike.

In the same book he attacks the idea that anarchism is against organisation by saying...


Any one who tells you that Anarchists don't believe in organization is talking nonsense. Organization is everything, and everything is organization. The whole of life is organization, conscious or unconscious. Every nation, every family, why, even every individual is an organization or organism. Every part of every living thing is organized in such a manner that the whole works in harmony. Otherwise the different organs could not function properly and life could not exist.

You are wrong, either through ignorance or through lies...


[email protected] 27 2004, 05:24 PM
I keenly await for all my preconceptions and "party lies" ( :lol: ) to be knocked down.

You are a member of the SWP are you not? I will show a selection of quotes from an article by Pat Stack in the 'Socialist Review' entitled 'Anarchy in the UK'...Pat Stack is a member of the Central Committee is he not?


"the idea that dominates anarchist thought, namely that the state is the main enemy, rather than identifying the state as one aspect of a class society that has to be destroyed." - Stack

"The Anarchists consider the wage system and capitalist production altogether as an obstacle to progress... while combatting the present monopolisation of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the State."- Kropotkin

"I think that equality must be established... by... the collective ownership of producers' associations, freely organised and federated into communes... [and] by the development and organisation... of the social power of the working masses... The future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal." - Bakunin


"For Bakunin skilled artisans and organised factory workers, far from being the source of the destruction of capitalism, were 'tainted by pretensions and aspirations' . . . the 'uncivilised, disinherited, illiterate', as he put it, would be his agents for change." - Stack

"Organise the city proletariat . . . unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry . . . Only a wide-sweeping revolution embracing both the city workers and peasants would be sufficiently strong to overthrow . . . the State, backed as it is by all the resources of the possessing classes." - Bakunin


"Kropotkin, far from seeing class conflict as the dynamic for social change... saw co-operation being at the root of the social process... It follows that if class conflict is not the motor of change, the working class is not the agent and collective struggle not the means." - Stack

"Anarchists... have endeavoured to promote their ideas directly amongst the labour organisations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital, without placing their faith in parliamentary legislation." - Kropotkin

"The union is absolutely necessary. It is the only form of workers' grouping which permits the direct struggle to be maintained against capital without falling into parliamentarism." - Kropotkin


"The huge advantage [anarcho-syndicalists] had over other anarchists was their understanding of the power of the working class, the centrality of the point of production (the workplace) and the need for collective action." - Stack

"To become strong you must unite... nothing less is needed than the union of all local and national workers' associations into a worldwide association... It means workers' solidarity in their struggle against the bosses. It means trades-unions, organisation." - Bakunin

"Anarchists have always advised taking an active part in those workers' organisations which carry on the direct struggle of Labour against Capital and its protector - the State." - Kropotkin

You can read the letter sent from Iain McKay (Freedom Press) to the 'Socialist Review' where he corrects the mistakes of the article...'Socialist Review' never published it or corrected the mistakes, or even acknowledged that mistakes had been made...Why do you think that was?

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:15 AM
That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there's no getting away from it.
Rewriting dictionaries now too? Sustained does not necessarily mean "directly supported". It can mean continued uninterrupted.

Regardless, support is a secondary action. The blame lies not with those who unconsciously support the current state of affairs, as ignorance cannot be a conscious act, but the principle of command.


Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren't "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.
Exactly, and thus saying that the ignorance of the masses aids and abets the dictatorship is not an attack on the masses. The masses are ignorant because that is the way it is, when they overthrow that ignorance is when they organize a revolution. I don't understand what the hell you're talking about, you're making no sense.


The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it's pointless.
It better illustrates the rediculousness you venture into.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:15 AM
That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there's no getting away from it.
Rewriting dictionaries now too? Sustained does not necessarily mean "directly supported". It can mean continued uninterrupted.

Regardless, support is a secondary action. The blame lies not with those who unconsciously support the current state of affairs, as ignorance cannot be a conscious act, but the principle of command.


Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren't "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.
Exactly, and thus saying that the ignorance of the masses aids and abets the dictatorship is not an attack on the masses. The masses are ignorant because that is the way it is, when they overthrow that ignorance is when they organize a revolution. I don't understand what the hell you're talking about, you're making no sense.


The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it's pointless.
It better illustrates the rediculousness you venture into.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:15 AM
That belief is wrong. Bakunin said that command was "sustained" by the people. Sustained means directly supported, there's no getting away from it.
Rewriting dictionaries now too? Sustained does not necessarily mean "directly supported". It can mean continued uninterrupted.

Regardless, support is a secondary action. The blame lies not with those who unconsciously support the current state of affairs, as ignorance cannot be a conscious act, but the principle of command.


Excuse me, but that is totally meaningless. The people of Salem weren't "born" stupid. They acted ignorantly because of various reasons, nothing to do with personal faults of character.
Exactly, and thus saying that the ignorance of the masses aids and abets the dictatorship is not an attack on the masses. The masses are ignorant because that is the way it is, when they overthrow that ignorance is when they organize a revolution. I don't understand what the hell you're talking about, you're making no sense.


The quote from Bakunin just illustrates the ridicilousness he often ventured into. Stop trying to defend it, it's pointless.
It better illustrates the rediculousness you venture into.

[YKTMX]

It can mean continued uninterrupted

Maybe, I don't think so though.


The blame lies not with those who unconsciously support the current state of affairs, as ignorance cannot be a conscious act

Agreed, so why say it is "sustaining" command then. If the second is a product of the first, how can the second be a reason for the first?


Exactly, and thus saying that the ignorance of the masses aids and abets the dictatorship is not an attack on the masses

Yes it is. It's like saying that part of the reason for slavery was because the slaves were too "ignorant" to rise up sooner. Of course there's a great deal of ideological control under capitalism but I hardly think "ignorant" sums up the issue of class consciousness. Middle class people say working class people are stupid, not socialists.


The masses are ignorant because that is the way it is

What? I hardly think that's a good analysis. You misunderstand capitalist sociology quite profoundly. The modern ruling class don't keep the masses "ignorant", yes they are "unaware" of their power from our point of view, but in fact they are very "aware" of the goals which the system has set them. Ignorance suggests blind following when in fact the "goals" and "values" instilled in the masses are very real from their point of view. Just because the workers have "false" consciousness" doesn't mean they lack a consciousness.


when they overthrow that ignorance is when they organize a revolution

That's even worse. Revolutions don't happen because people "change" their "consciouness", they happen when the mass of people see revolution as the only way to improve their material existence and defend themselves from the worst of capitalism.


It better illustrates the rediculousness you venture into.

:lol: Repeating the thing back to me? Grow up.

[YKTMX]

It can mean continued uninterrupted

Maybe, I don't think so though.


The blame lies not with those who unconsciously support the current state of affairs, as ignorance cannot be a conscious act

Agreed, so why say it is "sustaining" command then. If the second is a product of the first, how can the second be a reason for the first?


Exactly, and thus saying that the ignorance of the masses aids and abets the dictatorship is not an attack on the masses

Yes it is. It's like saying that part of the reason for slavery was because the slaves were too "ignorant" to rise up sooner. Of course there's a great deal of ideological control under capitalism but I hardly think "ignorant" sums up the issue of class consciousness. Middle class people say working class people are stupid, not socialists.


The masses are ignorant because that is the way it is

What? I hardly think that's a good analysis. You misunderstand capitalist sociology quite profoundly. The modern ruling class don't keep the masses "ignorant", yes they are "unaware" of their power from our point of view, but in fact they are very "aware" of the goals which the system has set them. Ignorance suggests blind following when in fact the "goals" and "values" instilled in the masses are very real from their point of view. Just because the workers have "false" consciousness" doesn't mean they lack a consciousness.


when they overthrow that ignorance is when they organize a revolution

That's even worse. Revolutions don't happen because people "change" their "consciouness", they happen when the mass of people see revolution as the only way to improve their material existence and defend themselves from the worst of capitalism.


It better illustrates the rediculousness you venture into.

:lol: Repeating the thing back to me? Grow up.

[YKTMX]

It can mean continued uninterrupted

Maybe, I don't think so though.


The blame lies not with those who unconsciously support the current state of affairs, as ignorance cannot be a conscious act

Agreed, so why say it is "sustaining" command then. If the second is a product of the first, how can the second be a reason for the first?


Exactly, and thus saying that the ignorance of the masses aids and abets the dictatorship is not an attack on the masses

Yes it is. It's like saying that part of the reason for slavery was because the slaves were too "ignorant" to rise up sooner. Of course there's a great deal of ideological control under capitalism but I hardly think "ignorant" sums up the issue of class consciousness. Middle class people say working class people are stupid, not socialists.


The masses are ignorant because that is the way it is

What? I hardly think that's a good analysis. You misunderstand capitalist sociology quite profoundly. The modern ruling class don't keep the masses "ignorant", yes they are "unaware" of their power from our point of view, but in fact they are very "aware" of the goals which the system has set them. Ignorance suggests blind following when in fact the "goals" and "values" instilled in the masses are very real from their point of view. Just because the workers have "false" consciousness" doesn't mean they lack a consciousness.


when they overthrow that ignorance is when they organize a revolution

That's even worse. Revolutions don't happen because people "change" their "consciouness", they happen when the mass of people see revolution as the only way to improve their material existence and defend themselves from the worst of capitalism.


It better illustrates the rediculousness you venture into.

:lol: Repeating the thing back to me? Grow up.

[YKTMX]

I'll try and address these. I've taken many instances from "The Philosophical basis of the Marx-Bakunin conflict" on MIA.


You said "predictibly" anarchists dogmatically reject the concept of "concrete "rules"" to organisation, claiming that anarchists adopt "dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time"

I did say those things. Let's me follow you and quote some Bakunin.


That agent must be the secret universal association of international brothers.

This association stems from the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They come about of themselves, produced by the force of things, the tide of events and facts.... All that a well-organized secret society can do is first to assist the birth of the revolution by sowing ideas corresponding to the instincts of the masses, then to organize, not the army of the revolution – the army must always be the people – but a kind of revolutionary general staff made up of devoted, hardworking and intelligent men, and above all of sincere friends of the people, without ambition or vanity, and capable of acting as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instinct.



Now, a popular attack line of the Anarchists is that Leninsts believe in "professional revolutionaries" and that this tactic leads to "leadership", which from the Anarchist point of view is presumably undesirable. It is odd then that in this passage, Bakunin argues not only for a "revolutionary general staff" made up of "devoted people" but also that this organization must be "secret". Pretty similiar if you ask me.



You are wrong, either through ignorance or through lies...

How so? Anyone can practice rhetorical flourishes about organization but what does organization mean? What does it mean to you? Both those quotes say organziation is neccessary but presumably that's self evident. The question is what kind of organization?


You are a member of the SWP are you not

No.


Pat Stack is a member of the Central Committee is he not?

Not anymore I don't think.


... while combatting the present monopolisation of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the State

You've proved Pats' point actually. Us Marxists don't attack the "state" with the "same energy" because a) We don't see it as a seperate fight and b) We see the state not as not a matter of "oppression" generally, but more specifically of "class domination" therefore the fight against capitalism is the fight against the capitalist state.


"Organise the city proletariat . . . unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry . . . Only a wide-sweeping revolution embracing both the city workers and peasants would be sufficiently strong to overthrow . . . the State, backed as it is by all the resources of the possessing classes."

That's your Bakunin quote, here's mine


By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal ‘meat’, ... that great rabble of the people (underdogs, ‘dregs of society’) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations ... all the seeds of the socialism of the future....

So, what Pat says is correct. Bakunin believed that the lowest people in society, "unpolluted" by the state have "all" the "seeds of socialism".

As I said, I'm not a member of the SWP, so while I'm happy to defend things I've said I don't feel it neccessary to defend Pat Stack.

[YKTMX]

I'll try and address these. I've taken many instances from "The Philosophical basis of the Marx-Bakunin conflict" on MIA.


You said "predictibly" anarchists dogmatically reject the concept of "concrete "rules"" to organisation, claiming that anarchists adopt "dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time"

I did say those things. Let's me follow you and quote some Bakunin.


That agent must be the secret universal association of international brothers.

This association stems from the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They come about of themselves, produced by the force of things, the tide of events and facts.... All that a well-organized secret society can do is first to assist the birth of the revolution by sowing ideas corresponding to the instincts of the masses, then to organize, not the army of the revolution – the army must always be the people – but a kind of revolutionary general staff made up of devoted, hardworking and intelligent men, and above all of sincere friends of the people, without ambition or vanity, and capable of acting as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instinct.



Now, a popular attack line of the Anarchists is that Leninsts believe in "professional revolutionaries" and that this tactic leads to "leadership", which from the Anarchist point of view is presumably undesirable. It is odd then that in this passage, Bakunin argues not only for a "revolutionary general staff" made up of "devoted people" but also that this organization must be "secret". Pretty similiar if you ask me.



You are wrong, either through ignorance or through lies...

How so? Anyone can practice rhetorical flourishes about organization but what does organization mean? What does it mean to you? Both those quotes say organziation is neccessary but presumably that's self evident. The question is what kind of organization?


You are a member of the SWP are you not

No.


Pat Stack is a member of the Central Committee is he not?

Not anymore I don't think.


... while combatting the present monopolisation of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the State

You've proved Pats' point actually. Us Marxists don't attack the "state" with the "same energy" because a) We don't see it as a seperate fight and b) We see the state not as not a matter of "oppression" generally, but more specifically of "class domination" therefore the fight against capitalism is the fight against the capitalist state.


"Organise the city proletariat . . . unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry . . . Only a wide-sweeping revolution embracing both the city workers and peasants would be sufficiently strong to overthrow . . . the State, backed as it is by all the resources of the possessing classes."

That's your Bakunin quote, here's mine


By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal ‘meat’, ... that great rabble of the people (underdogs, ‘dregs of society’) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations ... all the seeds of the socialism of the future....

So, what Pat says is correct. Bakunin believed that the lowest people in society, "unpolluted" by the state have "all" the "seeds of socialism".

As I said, I'm not a member of the SWP, so while I'm happy to defend things I've said I don't feel it neccessary to defend Pat Stack.

[YKTMX]

I'll try and address these. I've taken many instances from "The Philosophical basis of the Marx-Bakunin conflict" on MIA.


You said "predictibly" anarchists dogmatically reject the concept of "concrete "rules"" to organisation, claiming that anarchists adopt "dogmatism and fetishism about organization in favour of any serious attempt to pursue what's needed for the time"

I did say those things. Let's me follow you and quote some Bakunin.


That agent must be the secret universal association of international brothers.

This association stems from the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They come about of themselves, produced by the force of things, the tide of events and facts.... All that a well-organized secret society can do is first to assist the birth of the revolution by sowing ideas corresponding to the instincts of the masses, then to organize, not the army of the revolution – the army must always be the people – but a kind of revolutionary general staff made up of devoted, hardworking and intelligent men, and above all of sincere friends of the people, without ambition or vanity, and capable of acting as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instinct.



Now, a popular attack line of the Anarchists is that Leninsts believe in "professional revolutionaries" and that this tactic leads to "leadership", which from the Anarchist point of view is presumably undesirable. It is odd then that in this passage, Bakunin argues not only for a "revolutionary general staff" made up of "devoted people" but also that this organization must be "secret". Pretty similiar if you ask me.



You are wrong, either through ignorance or through lies...

How so? Anyone can practice rhetorical flourishes about organization but what does organization mean? What does it mean to you? Both those quotes say organziation is neccessary but presumably that's self evident. The question is what kind of organization?


You are a member of the SWP are you not

No.


Pat Stack is a member of the Central Committee is he not?

Not anymore I don't think.


... while combatting the present monopolisation of land, and capitalism altogether, the Anarchists combat with the same energy the State

You've proved Pats' point actually. Us Marxists don't attack the "state" with the "same energy" because a) We don't see it as a seperate fight and b) We see the state not as not a matter of "oppression" generally, but more specifically of "class domination" therefore the fight against capitalism is the fight against the capitalist state.


"Organise the city proletariat . . . unite it into one preparatory organisation together with the peasantry . . . Only a wide-sweeping revolution embracing both the city workers and peasants would be sufficiently strong to overthrow . . . the State, backed as it is by all the resources of the possessing classes."

That's your Bakunin quote, here's mine


By flower of the proletariat, I mean precisely that eternal ‘meat’, ... that great rabble of the people (underdogs, ‘dregs of society’) ordinarily designated by Marx and Engels in the picturesque and contemptuous phrase lumpenproletariat. I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization, which carries in its inner being and in its aspirations ... all the seeds of the socialism of the future....

So, what Pat says is correct. Bakunin believed that the lowest people in society, "unpolluted" by the state have "all" the "seeds of socialism".

As I said, I'm not a member of the SWP, so while I'm happy to defend things I've said I don't feel it neccessary to defend Pat Stack.

[DaCuBaN]

Middle class people say working class people are stupid, not socialists.

Coming from said background, having been taught 'socialism' all my life, I must call this out. Middle class people do not call the working class stupid: Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

It's arrogance and ignorance.

[DaCuBaN]

Middle class people say working class people are stupid, not socialists.

Coming from said background, having been taught 'socialism' all my life, I must call this out. Middle class people do not call the working class stupid: Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

It's arrogance and ignorance.

[DaCuBaN]

Middle class people say working class people are stupid, not socialists.

Coming from said background, having been taught 'socialism' all my life, I must call this out. Middle class people do not call the working class stupid: Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

It's arrogance and ignorance.

[YKTMX]

Coming from said background

There's a surprise.


Middle class people do not call the working class stupid

Obviously not middle class "socialists" but the general middle class population does believe that the working class are in a lower position because they are "stupid".

[YKTMX]

Coming from said background

There's a surprise.


Middle class people do not call the working class stupid

Obviously not middle class "socialists" but the general middle class population does believe that the working class are in a lower position because they are "stupid".

[YKTMX]

Coming from said background

There's a surprise.


Middle class people do not call the working class stupid

Obviously not middle class "socialists" but the general middle class population does believe that the working class are in a lower position because they are "stupid".

[DaCuBaN]

There's a surprise.

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man ;) You failed to address my point however:


Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Social status is irrelevant in this instance.


the general middle class population does believe that the working class are in a lower position because they are "stupid".

To which I cry bullshit!

People come to a political conclusion based on the information presented to them and their opinions of those who have presented it. Most who rise to the middle class - rather than being born there - have done so by climbing over the backs of others. Those 'working class' peoples who have done so, consider those who do not 'stupid', and even more so those who had all the oppertunities to act likewise yet refused to do so.

So frankly, your 'birthright' means jack shit.

[DaCuBaN]

There's a surprise.

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man ;) You failed to address my point however:


Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Social status is irrelevant in this instance.


the general middle class population does believe that the working class are in a lower position because they are "stupid".

To which I cry bullshit!

People come to a political conclusion based on the information presented to them and their opinions of those who have presented it. Most who rise to the middle class - rather than being born there - have done so by climbing over the backs of others. Those 'working class' peoples who have done so, consider those who do not 'stupid', and even more so those who had all the oppertunities to act likewise yet refused to do so.

So frankly, your 'birthright' means jack shit.

[DaCuBaN]

There's a surprise.

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man ;) You failed to address my point however:


Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Social status is irrelevant in this instance.


the general middle class population does believe that the working class are in a lower position because they are "stupid".

To which I cry bullshit!

People come to a political conclusion based on the information presented to them and their opinions of those who have presented it. Most who rise to the middle class - rather than being born there - have done so by climbing over the backs of others. Those 'working class' peoples who have done so, consider those who do not 'stupid', and even more so those who had all the oppertunities to act likewise yet refused to do so.

So frankly, your 'birthright' means jack shit.

[YKTMX]

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man

:lol: That says it all doesn't it?


Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Who's submitting to what idea? This sentence makes no sense. Make it clear what you're trying to say and I'll respond.


People come to a political conclusion based on the information presented to them and their opinions of those who have presented it

They also "come to them" based on what suits their social class.


Those 'working class' peoples who have done so, consider those who do not 'stupid', and even more so those who had all the oppertunities to act likewise yet refused to do so

Not true. If you actually look at research, children born into middle class backgrounds gain the reactionery views of their parents. The class has voted Tory for a century. Your nonsense about the "aspirational working class" is pointless.

[YKTMX]

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man

:lol: That says it all doesn't it?


Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Who's submitting to what idea? This sentence makes no sense. Make it clear what you're trying to say and I'll respond.


People come to a political conclusion based on the information presented to them and their opinions of those who have presented it

They also "come to them" based on what suits their social class.


Those 'working class' peoples who have done so, consider those who do not 'stupid', and even more so those who had all the oppertunities to act likewise yet refused to do so

Not true. If you actually look at research, children born into middle class backgrounds gain the reactionery views of their parents. The class has voted Tory for a century. Your nonsense about the "aspirational working class" is pointless.

[YKTMX]

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man

:lol: That says it all doesn't it?


Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Who's submitting to what idea? This sentence makes no sense. Make it clear what you're trying to say and I'll respond.


People come to a political conclusion based on the information presented to them and their opinions of those who have presented it

They also "come to them" based on what suits their social class.


Those 'working class' peoples who have done so, consider those who do not 'stupid', and even more so those who had all the oppertunities to act likewise yet refused to do so

Not true. If you actually look at research, children born into middle class backgrounds gain the reactionery views of their parents. The class has voted Tory for a century. Your nonsense about the "aspirational working class" is pointless.

[NovelGentry]

That's even worse. Revolutions don't happen because people "change" their "consciouness", they happen when the mass of people see revolution as the only way to improve their material existence and defend themselves from the worst of capitalism.

How exactly do you expect them to recognize that position if they do not change their consciousness. People realize that it is the only way to improve their material condition BECAUSE they've gained consciousness. If they were not conscious of their position they would still think that quite possibly the harder they worked the better it would get, or maybe some idea that 's even more braindead.

[NovelGentry]

That's even worse. Revolutions don't happen because people "change" their "consciouness", they happen when the mass of people see revolution as the only way to improve their material existence and defend themselves from the worst of capitalism.

How exactly do you expect them to recognize that position if they do not change their consciousness. People realize that it is the only way to improve their material condition BECAUSE they've gained consciousness. If they were not conscious of their position they would still think that quite possibly the harder they worked the better it would get, or maybe some idea that 's even more braindead.

[NovelGentry]

That's even worse. Revolutions don't happen because people "change" their "consciouness", they happen when the mass of people see revolution as the only way to improve their material existence and defend themselves from the worst of capitalism.

How exactly do you expect them to recognize that position if they do not change their consciousness. People realize that it is the only way to improve their material condition BECAUSE they've gained consciousness. If they were not conscious of their position they would still think that quite possibly the harder they worked the better it would get, or maybe some idea that 's even more braindead.

[DaCuBaN]

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man

Indeed: You seem to think everyone else is. It will never cease to amaze me how wrong you can be.


This sentence makes no sense.

Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Let me 'break it down' for you YKTMX:

"Stupid people" - those of low intellect.
"Ideas they do not understand" - something they haven't researched/do not have the mental capacity to fathom.

Getting it home? :rolleyes:


[Political opinions] also "come to them" based on what suits their social class.

Yes; provided they are happy with the status quo. I fail to see what relevence apathy has to our current discussion however, nor your statement about the 'middle class' and 'socialism'


If you actually look at research, children born into middle class backgrounds gain the reactionery views of their parents.

Again, those who are apathetic will indeed - and will never challenge these opinions.


The class has voted Tory for a century. Your nonsense about the "aspirational working class" is pointless.

I think it's very relevant indeed.

[DaCuBaN]

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man

Indeed: You seem to think everyone else is. It will never cease to amaze me how wrong you can be.


This sentence makes no sense.

Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Let me 'break it down' for you YKTMX:

"Stupid people" - those of low intellect.
"Ideas they do not understand" - something they haven't researched/do not have the mental capacity to fathom.

Getting it home? :rolleyes:


[Political opinions] also "come to them" based on what suits their social class.

Yes; provided they are happy with the status quo. I fail to see what relevence apathy has to our current discussion however, nor your statement about the 'middle class' and 'socialism'


If you actually look at research, children born into middle class backgrounds gain the reactionery views of their parents.

Again, those who are apathetic will indeed - and will never challenge these opinions.


The class has voted Tory for a century. Your nonsense about the "aspirational working class" is pointless.

I think it's very relevant indeed.

[DaCuBaN]

I think you have issues with 'inferiority' man

Indeed: You seem to think everyone else is. It will never cease to amaze me how wrong you can be.


This sentence makes no sense.

Stupid people call those who submit to ideas they do not understand 'stupid'

Let me 'break it down' for you YKTMX:

"Stupid people" - those of low intellect.
"Ideas they do not understand" - something they haven't researched/do not have the mental capacity to fathom.

Getting it home? :rolleyes:


[Political opinions] also "come to them" based on what suits their social class.

Yes; provided they are happy with the status quo. I fail to see what relevence apathy has to our current discussion however, nor your statement about the 'middle class' and 'socialism'


If you actually look at research, children born into middle class backgrounds gain the reactionery views of their parents.

Again, those who are apathetic will indeed - and will never challenge these opinions.


The class has voted Tory for a century. Your nonsense about the "aspirational working class" is pointless.

I think it's very relevant indeed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:00 PM
I did say those things. Let's me follow you and quote some Bakunin.
When did he write that? 150, 170 years ago?


Now, a popular attack line of the Anarchists is that Leninsts believe in "professional revolutionaries" and that this tactic leads to "leadership"

"Professional revolutionaries" organised as a centralised hierarchy is a leadership. It doesn't lead to one, it is one from the beginning.


which from the Anarchist point of view is presumably undesirable.

Creating a centralised, hierarchical leadership is antithetical to anything, especially something claiming to uphold democracy.


It is odd then that in this passage, Bakunin argues not only for a "revolutionary general staff"

What's your point?


made up of "devoted people"

:o


but also that this organization must be "secret".

Anarchist organisations throughout history have adopted this stance than organisations should be secretive. Class War Federation ask for people to work alongside comrades for 3 months before allowing them to join through fear of police or fascist inflitrators. Which isn't uncommon at all.

Anarchsits are generally paranoid and it's a culture that has to be addressed, but having said all this, i'm not really sure what your point is?


Pretty similiar if you ask me.

How?


How so? Anyone can practice rhetorical flourishes about organization but what does organization mean?

So now you're changing your position? You now admit that anarchists are infact organised, it's their choice of organisation which is questionable.


What does it mean to you?

There are of course many different anarchist trends working together but in their almost "specialised" theoretical field. Solidarity Federation (http://www.solfed.org.uk/) is an anarcho-syndicalist organisation which is active within trade unions and the work place. There is the Anarchist Communist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk) that builds membership around united front issues, such as local council issues, prison issues, anti-war and palestine issues, and has also set up a collective in London which is a centre to build activism. Then there is Class War Federation (http://www.northeastclasswar.org) that organises around anti-fascist campaigns, but most importantly it is about creating direct activism and building networks of support such setting up claimant unions around the Action for Employment shit, which is soul destroying. Then there is Dissent (http://www.dissent.org.uk/Dissent) organising opposition to the G8 summit. However, all of these trends have one thing in common. That their activities are organised in a federated way, not centralised to a party leadership, but decentralised to the members in a certain area. Groups operating independently of each other but connected to a common goal and accountable to the membership as a whole. Direct democracy with decisions decided on collectivly.

Anarchists maintain a vision of direct action, and organsiation has always attempted to maintain a level of creativity in its activism. I think that's important. It shouldn't simply be about boring branch meetings or demonstrations, it should be about actually building up networks and support groups and actually resisting ruling class control. Anarchist organisations are creative in their approach and look for new ways to create radical direct action. Anarchsit confrontation is just that. Confrontation. With the ruling classes, through helping workers defend their properties from debt collectors or things like hunt sabatage. There's a window of opporunity to create direct action. Building for Unviersity occupations, strikes, attacks on the rich and powerful, violent demonstrations. That is what is necessary to create a condition that will lead to revolutionary change.

We want to create situations such as the one with the toffs outside the houses of parliment. We want the people fighting the police to be workers. We want workers storming the houses of parliment and we want workers to be scaling the walls of Buckingham palace. Organising for revolution is not just about building for that big day, somewhere in the future, it's actually about being confrontational. The more the workers confront the ruling class, the quicker we will get there. Anarchist organisation is about fucking off the theory and actually doing it.

That's what it means to me.


No.

Why did you leave?


Not anymore I don't think.

Still, he's up there with the best of 'em.


You've proved Pats' point actually. Us Marxists don't attack the "state" with the "same energy" because a) We don't see it as a seperate fight and b) We see the state not as not a matter of "oppression" generally, but more specifically of "class domination" therefore the fight against capitalism is the fight against the capitalist state.

The quote is saying that the state and capitalism are synonymous with each other, and should be fought against equally. Of course at loggerheads with the Marxist mantra.


So, what Pat says is correct. Bakunin believed that the lowest people in society, "unpolluted" by the state have "all" the "seeds of socialism".

But that's not what Pat is saying at all. He is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state. As the quote proves, Bakunin did not believe that, and your quote is seperate to it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:00 PM
I did say those things. Let's me follow you and quote some Bakunin.
When did he write that? 150, 170 years ago?


Now, a popular attack line of the Anarchists is that Leninsts believe in "professional revolutionaries" and that this tactic leads to "leadership"

"Professional revolutionaries" organised as a centralised hierarchy is a leadership. It doesn't lead to one, it is one from the beginning.


which from the Anarchist point of view is presumably undesirable.

Creating a centralised, hierarchical leadership is antithetical to anything, especially something claiming to uphold democracy.


It is odd then that in this passage, Bakunin argues not only for a "revolutionary general staff"

What's your point?


made up of "devoted people"

:o


but also that this organization must be "secret".

Anarchist organisations throughout history have adopted this stance than organisations should be secretive. Class War Federation ask for people to work alongside comrades for 3 months before allowing them to join through fear of police or fascist inflitrators. Which isn't uncommon at all.

Anarchsits are generally paranoid and it's a culture that has to be addressed, but having said all this, i'm not really sure what your point is?


Pretty similiar if you ask me.

How?


How so? Anyone can practice rhetorical flourishes about organization but what does organization mean?

So now you're changing your position? You now admit that anarchists are infact organised, it's their choice of organisation which is questionable.


What does it mean to you?

There are of course many different anarchist trends working together but in their almost "specialised" theoretical field. Solidarity Federation (http://www.solfed.org.uk/) is an anarcho-syndicalist organisation which is active within trade unions and the work place. There is the Anarchist Communist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk) that builds membership around united front issues, such as local council issues, prison issues, anti-war and palestine issues, and has also set up a collective in London which is a centre to build activism. Then there is Class War Federation (http://www.northeastclasswar.org) that organises around anti-fascist campaigns, but most importantly it is about creating direct activism and building networks of support such setting up claimant unions around the Action for Employment shit, which is soul destroying. Then there is Dissent (http://www.dissent.org.uk/Dissent) organising opposition to the G8 summit. However, all of these trends have one thing in common. That their activities are organised in a federated way, not centralised to a party leadership, but decentralised to the members in a certain area. Groups operating independently of each other but connected to a common goal and accountable to the membership as a whole. Direct democracy with decisions decided on collectivly.

Anarchists maintain a vision of direct action, and organsiation has always attempted to maintain a level of creativity in its activism. I think that's important. It shouldn't simply be about boring branch meetings or demonstrations, it should be about actually building up networks and support groups and actually resisting ruling class control. Anarchist organisations are creative in their approach and look for new ways to create radical direct action. Anarchsit confrontation is just that. Confrontation. With the ruling classes, through helping workers defend their properties from debt collectors or things like hunt sabatage. There's a window of opporunity to create direct action. Building for Unviersity occupations, strikes, attacks on the rich and powerful, violent demonstrations. That is what is necessary to create a condition that will lead to revolutionary change.

We want to create situations such as the one with the toffs outside the houses of parliment. We want the people fighting the police to be workers. We want workers storming the houses of parliment and we want workers to be scaling the walls of Buckingham palace. Organising for revolution is not just about building for that big day, somewhere in the future, it's actually about being confrontational. The more the workers confront the ruling class, the quicker we will get there. Anarchist organisation is about fucking off the theory and actually doing it.

That's what it means to me.


No.

Why did you leave?


Not anymore I don't think.

Still, he's up there with the best of 'em.


You've proved Pats' point actually. Us Marxists don't attack the "state" with the "same energy" because a) We don't see it as a seperate fight and b) We see the state not as not a matter of "oppression" generally, but more specifically of "class domination" therefore the fight against capitalism is the fight against the capitalist state.

The quote is saying that the state and capitalism are synonymous with each other, and should be fought against equally. Of course at loggerheads with the Marxist mantra.


So, what Pat says is correct. Bakunin believed that the lowest people in society, "unpolluted" by the state have "all" the "seeds of socialism".

But that's not what Pat is saying at all. He is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state. As the quote proves, Bakunin did not believe that, and your quote is seperate to it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:00 PM
I did say those things. Let's me follow you and quote some Bakunin.
When did he write that? 150, 170 years ago?


Now, a popular attack line of the Anarchists is that Leninsts believe in "professional revolutionaries" and that this tactic leads to "leadership"

"Professional revolutionaries" organised as a centralised hierarchy is a leadership. It doesn't lead to one, it is one from the beginning.


which from the Anarchist point of view is presumably undesirable.

Creating a centralised, hierarchical leadership is antithetical to anything, especially something claiming to uphold democracy.


It is odd then that in this passage, Bakunin argues not only for a "revolutionary general staff"

What's your point?


made up of "devoted people"

:o


but also that this organization must be "secret".

Anarchist organisations throughout history have adopted this stance than organisations should be secretive. Class War Federation ask for people to work alongside comrades for 3 months before allowing them to join through fear of police or fascist inflitrators. Which isn't uncommon at all.

Anarchsits are generally paranoid and it's a culture that has to be addressed, but having said all this, i'm not really sure what your point is?


Pretty similiar if you ask me.

How?


How so? Anyone can practice rhetorical flourishes about organization but what does organization mean?

So now you're changing your position? You now admit that anarchists are infact organised, it's their choice of organisation which is questionable.


What does it mean to you?

There are of course many different anarchist trends working together but in their almost "specialised" theoretical field. Solidarity Federation (http://www.solfed.org.uk/) is an anarcho-syndicalist organisation which is active within trade unions and the work place. There is the Anarchist Communist Federation (http://www.afed.org.uk) that builds membership around united front issues, such as local council issues, prison issues, anti-war and palestine issues, and has also set up a collective in London which is a centre to build activism. Then there is Class War Federation (http://www.northeastclasswar.org) that organises around anti-fascist campaigns, but most importantly it is about creating direct activism and building networks of support such setting up claimant unions around the Action for Employment shit, which is soul destroying. Then there is Dissent (http://www.dissent.org.uk/Dissent) organising opposition to the G8 summit. However, all of these trends have one thing in common. That their activities are organised in a federated way, not centralised to a party leadership, but decentralised to the members in a certain area. Groups operating independently of each other but connected to a common goal and accountable to the membership as a whole. Direct democracy with decisions decided on collectivly.

Anarchists maintain a vision of direct action, and organsiation has always attempted to maintain a level of creativity in its activism. I think that's important. It shouldn't simply be about boring branch meetings or demonstrations, it should be about actually building up networks and support groups and actually resisting ruling class control. Anarchist organisations are creative in their approach and look for new ways to create radical direct action. Anarchsit confrontation is just that. Confrontation. With the ruling classes, through helping workers defend their properties from debt collectors or things like hunt sabatage. There's a window of opporunity to create direct action. Building for Unviersity occupations, strikes, attacks on the rich and powerful, violent demonstrations. That is what is necessary to create a condition that will lead to revolutionary change.

We want to create situations such as the one with the toffs outside the houses of parliment. We want the people fighting the police to be workers. We want workers storming the houses of parliment and we want workers to be scaling the walls of Buckingham palace. Organising for revolution is not just about building for that big day, somewhere in the future, it's actually about being confrontational. The more the workers confront the ruling class, the quicker we will get there. Anarchist organisation is about fucking off the theory and actually doing it.

That's what it means to me.


No.

Why did you leave?


Not anymore I don't think.

Still, he's up there with the best of 'em.


You've proved Pats' point actually. Us Marxists don't attack the "state" with the "same energy" because a) We don't see it as a seperate fight and b) We see the state not as not a matter of "oppression" generally, but more specifically of "class domination" therefore the fight against capitalism is the fight against the capitalist state.

The quote is saying that the state and capitalism are synonymous with each other, and should be fought against equally. Of course at loggerheads with the Marxist mantra.


So, what Pat says is correct. Bakunin believed that the lowest people in society, "unpolluted" by the state have "all" the "seeds of socialism".

But that's not what Pat is saying at all. He is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state. As the quote proves, Bakunin did not believe that, and your quote is seperate to it.

[rapty]

Why bother going to either extreme? Why not endorse anarcho-leninism? Remember, we must enforce anarchism with an iron fist!! The vanguard must take us directly to a classless, stateless society!

[rapty]

Why bother going to either extreme? Why not endorse anarcho-leninism? Remember, we must enforce anarchism with an iron fist!! The vanguard must take us directly to a classless, stateless society!

[rapty]

Why bother going to either extreme? Why not endorse anarcho-leninism? Remember, we must enforce anarchism with an iron fist!! The vanguard must take us directly to a classless, stateless society!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:16 PM
Why bother going to either extreme? Why not endorse anarcho-leninism? Remember, we must enforce anarchism with an iron fist!! The vanguard must take us directly to a classless, stateless society!
Is this some sort of a joke?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:16 PM
Why bother going to either extreme? Why not endorse anarcho-leninism? Remember, we must enforce anarchism with an iron fist!! The vanguard must take us directly to a classless, stateless society!
Is this some sort of a joke?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 04:16 PM
Why bother going to either extreme? Why not endorse anarcho-leninism? Remember, we must enforce anarchism with an iron fist!! The vanguard must take us directly to a classless, stateless society!
Is this some sort of a joke?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 29 2004, 02:47 PM
Is this some sort of a joke?
Hmm - he must have read Ben Seattle's http://www.communism.com

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 29 2004, 02:47 PM
Is this some sort of a joke?
Hmm - he must have read Ben Seattle's http://www.communism.com

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 29 2004, 02:47 PM
Is this some sort of a joke?
Hmm - he must have read Ben Seattle's http://www.communism.com

[YKTMX]

When did he write that? 150, 170 years ago?

:huh: Odd. You quoted Bakunin a few times and I'm presuming he didn't hand them to you freshly yesterday?


Professional revolutionaries" organised as a centralised hierarchy is a leadership. It doesn't lead to one, it is one from the beginning.

Fetishism about organization. In your dogma, it doesn't matter what type of "centrality"; the calibre or politics of revolutionaries or the merits of the "leadership". As soon as it's "centralized", it's fucked. This is a point of disagreement we can agree upon.


Creating a centralised, hierarchical leadership is antithetical to anything, especially something claiming to uphold democracy.

It's not "hierarchial" though. The individual decide for themselves tactics and positions and then the "leadership" carries out the will of it's members while protecting against vaccillation which is harmful to the movement. It's perfectly democratic.


What's your point?

Well, how is a revolutionary general staff diffirent (except in words) from "professional revolutionaries"?


Anarchsits are generally paranoid and it's a culture that has to be addressed, but having said all this, i'm not really sure what your point is?

Well, how can a secret organization fully interact and influence the people. Surely this has to be restrictive in some sense.


How?

Your either being obtuse or...silly. The are clearly similar.


So now you're changing your position? You now admit that anarchists are infact organised, it's their choice of organisation which is questionable.

Maybe, but what you call "organization" I call "dis-organization".


That is what is necessary to create a condition that will lead to revolutionary change.

Wrong. The conditions arise objectively, not through acts of "direct action".


Anarchist organisation is about fucking off the theory

Maybe that's your problem.


Why did you leave?

I've never been a member.


Still, he's up there with the best of 'em.

Yes, he's a popular member. He's not "up" anywhere with anyone though.


is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state

And Bakunin did say that!

I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization

[YKTMX]

When did he write that? 150, 170 years ago?

:huh: Odd. You quoted Bakunin a few times and I'm presuming he didn't hand them to you freshly yesterday?


Professional revolutionaries" organised as a centralised hierarchy is a leadership. It doesn't lead to one, it is one from the beginning.

Fetishism about organization. In your dogma, it doesn't matter what type of "centrality"; the calibre or politics of revolutionaries or the merits of the "leadership". As soon as it's "centralized", it's fucked. This is a point of disagreement we can agree upon.


Creating a centralised, hierarchical leadership is antithetical to anything, especially something claiming to uphold democracy.

It's not "hierarchial" though. The individual decide for themselves tactics and positions and then the "leadership" carries out the will of it's members while protecting against vaccillation which is harmful to the movement. It's perfectly democratic.


What's your point?

Well, how is a revolutionary general staff diffirent (except in words) from "professional revolutionaries"?


Anarchsits are generally paranoid and it's a culture that has to be addressed, but having said all this, i'm not really sure what your point is?

Well, how can a secret organization fully interact and influence the people. Surely this has to be restrictive in some sense.


How?

Your either being obtuse or...silly. The are clearly similar.


So now you're changing your position? You now admit that anarchists are infact organised, it's their choice of organisation which is questionable.

Maybe, but what you call "organization" I call "dis-organization".


That is what is necessary to create a condition that will lead to revolutionary change.

Wrong. The conditions arise objectively, not through acts of "direct action".


Anarchist organisation is about fucking off the theory

Maybe that's your problem.


Why did you leave?

I've never been a member.


Still, he's up there with the best of 'em.

Yes, he's a popular member. He's not "up" anywhere with anyone though.


is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state

And Bakunin did say that!

I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization

[YKTMX]

When did he write that? 150, 170 years ago?

:huh: Odd. You quoted Bakunin a few times and I'm presuming he didn't hand them to you freshly yesterday?


Professional revolutionaries" organised as a centralised hierarchy is a leadership. It doesn't lead to one, it is one from the beginning.

Fetishism about organization. In your dogma, it doesn't matter what type of "centrality"; the calibre or politics of revolutionaries or the merits of the "leadership". As soon as it's "centralized", it's fucked. This is a point of disagreement we can agree upon.


Creating a centralised, hierarchical leadership is antithetical to anything, especially something claiming to uphold democracy.

It's not "hierarchial" though. The individual decide for themselves tactics and positions and then the "leadership" carries out the will of it's members while protecting against vaccillation which is harmful to the movement. It's perfectly democratic.


What's your point?

Well, how is a revolutionary general staff diffirent (except in words) from "professional revolutionaries"?


Anarchsits are generally paranoid and it's a culture that has to be addressed, but having said all this, i'm not really sure what your point is?

Well, how can a secret organization fully interact and influence the people. Surely this has to be restrictive in some sense.


How?

Your either being obtuse or...silly. The are clearly similar.


So now you're changing your position? You now admit that anarchists are infact organised, it's their choice of organisation which is questionable.

Maybe, but what you call "organization" I call "dis-organization".


That is what is necessary to create a condition that will lead to revolutionary change.

Wrong. The conditions arise objectively, not through acts of "direct action".


Anarchist organisation is about fucking off the theory

Maybe that's your problem.


Why did you leave?

I've never been a member.


Still, he's up there with the best of 'em.

Yes, he's a popular member. He's not "up" anywhere with anyone though.


is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state

And Bakunin did say that!

I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 05:30 PM
Odd. You quoted Bakunin a few times and I'm presuming he didn't hand them to you freshly yesterday
True, and it is my parogative to accept of disregard anything which I may or may not believe. Bakunin did write his stuff decades ago, so it is impossible to believe everything he says.


Fetishism about organization. In your dogma, it doesn't matter what type of "centrality"; the calibre or politics of revolutionaries or the merits of the "leadership". As soon as it's "centralized", it's fucked. This is a point of disagreement we can agree upon.

Why is it dogmatic? I just disagree with the Leninist paradigm that's all. There's nothing dogmatic about not agreeing with Leninists.

And you're actually wrong. I never argued against types of centralism, I argued against centralised leadership. Of course in a revolutionary society it may be necessary to have things organised centrally. Central food stores for example.

What gets fucked is when a leadership centralises it's control and creates hierarchical structures and demands authority over political ideas and actions which is what Leninism is, regardless of the name you give it. Now please show me one example where this has led to anything other than the disasters experienced throughout the last 100 years?


It's not "hierarchial" though. The individual decide for themselves tactics and positions and then the "leadership" carries out the will of it's members while protecting against vaccillation which is harmful to the movement. It's perfectly democratic.

In theory.


Well, how is a revolutionary general staff diffirent (except in words) from "professional revolutionaries"?

I agree, there isn't a vast difference in concept except when you apply it using a Leninist paradigm. Then it differs profoundly to the anarchism.


Well, how can a secret organization fully interact and influence the people. Surely this has to be restrictive in some sense.

I agree.


Your either being obtuse or...silly. The are clearly similar.

I'm neither being obtuse or silly, i'm asking you to tell me how they are similar. How is Leninist organisation similar atoanarchist organsiation? That is what we are discussing right?


Maybe, but what you call "organization" I call "dis-organization".

You're claiming that without a leadership we will become unorganised? You should have more faith in yourself.


Wrong. The conditions arise objectively, not through acts of "direct action".

Objectivly? So your plan is to wait? I agree, the conditions of society will objectivly create the need for revolutionary change but change will only come about through action.


Maybe that's your problem.

And you call me dogmatic.


I've never been a member.

But you have been associated with them. Isn't your mother a member? I have spoken to you before. You have been to marxism and you implied if not out right said you were a member.


Yes, he's a popular member. He's not "up" anywhere with anyone though.

Oh how deluded you are.


I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization

So Bakunin thought that peasents were unpolluted by bourgeois civilisation. Then what?

[YKTMX]

Now please show me one example where this has led to anything other than the disasters experienced throughout the last 100 years?

There has only ever been one "Leninist" revolution and that was in October 1917 in Russia. There are numerous books offering examples of the magical outburst of debate and democracy in Russia under Soviet rule. Of course you'll say "Ahh, but it all went wrong". And of course it did, but I believe it didn't have to, you of course do.


In theory.

Of course.


How is Leninist organisation similar atoanarchist organsiation? That is what we are discussing right?

No, I was talking about Bakunin's "secret revolutionary general staff" and how that is "similar" to Marxist organization.


You're claiming that without a leadership we will become unorganised? You should have more faith in yourself.

I could be leader. You could be leader. Anyone can be leader. Leaders aren't "diffirent" people, they are just normal comrades who happen to be in a position of relative influence and power. They can be removed if neccessary.


So your plan is to wait? I agree, the conditions of society will objectivly create the need for revolutionary change but change will only come about through action

Well, of course agitation and "action" are needed but the masses will only revolt when they see it in their own class interests. These circumstances are mainly products of objective factors.


But you have been associated with them. Isn't your mother a member?

Yes.


implied if not out right said you were a member.

No, because I don't join the rest of you in slating the SWP at every possible opportunity, you assumed I must be some of kind of apparatchik. This merely displays your own ignorance.


Oh how deluded you are.

:)


So Bakunin thought that peasents were unpolluted by bourgeois civilisation. Then what?

Well...it follows that if the peasants aren't unpolluted then who is? The urban working class seem an obvious choice.

[STI]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 29 2004, 02:47 PM
Is this some sort of a joke?
I *think* so. That was my close personal friend....well... never mind his name. He IS a close personal friend of mine, and I DO know him from real life.

It's something he *invented* to piss me off. He and a few of my other friends have been clinging to dispicable social democratic garbage, and I'm constantly teasing them about it. That's when Rapty created "Anarcho-Leninism" to piss me off. It's really funny, once you get to know him.

And that, as they say, is my life story.

And Rapty is a waste of skin. :(

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:55 PM
And of course it did, but I believe it didn't have to, you of course do.
Yes, indeed I do.


No, I was talking about Bakunin's "secret revolutionary general staff" and how that is "similar" to Marxist organization.

No. It isn't similar to Marxist organisation at all. You're secret revolutionary general staff blah blah is a centralised hierarchical leadership, anarchist organisation is not.


I could be leader. You could be leader. Anyone can be leader. Leaders aren't "diffirent" people, they are just normal comrades who happen to be in a position of relative influence and power. They can be removed if neccessary.

In theory it all works well but if you hand over influence and power to some leaders who you want to eventually run a state you will never end up with communism.

And what's more their position is completely unnecessary. The influence and power that these people have would better be used in the hands of the group as a whole.


Well, of course agitation and "action" are needed but the masses will only revolt when they see it in their own class interests.

And how will they ever see? By joining the SWP or going to some branch meeting?


No, because I don't join the rest of you in slating the SWP at every possible opportunity, you assumed I must be some of kind of apparatchik. This merely displays your own ignorance.

Ignorance? You implied you were a member when we spoke about it and you do defend the SWP as if you were a member.


Well...it follows that if the peasants aren't unpolluted then who is? The urban working class seem an obvious choice.

You're not really making very much sense.

[The Feral Underclass]

After doing some research it turns out that Socialist Review did publish Ian Mckay's letter. It's in issue 249 (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr248/letters.htm) (January 2002)

[YKTMX]

You're not really making very much sense.

It's not my problem that your reguarly fail to understand very simple points.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by YouKno[email protected] 2 2004, 11:40 AM

It's not my problem that your reguarly fail to understand very simple points.
Don't be ridiculous. You're point is not clear, as is many of the points you have tried to make. Are you going to explain it?

[YKTMX]

Are you going to explain it?

No. Read the thread again for your own benefit.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:55 PM
There has only ever been one "Leninist" revolution and that was in October 1917 in Russia. There are numerous books offering examples of the magical outburst of debate and democracy in Russia under Soviet rule. Of course you'll say "Ahh, but it all went wrong". And of course it did, but I believe it didn't have to, you of course do.
So you're saying that people who are given more power than others, will just give up that power? Some might, but then suddenly your luck runs out and you get someone like Stalin ...
Whenever people are given more power than others leads this to the temptation to abuse that power, i'm not saying everyone will abuse it, but some will and they will cause enought harm to be feared.

[YKTMX]

So you're saying that people who are given more power than others, will just give up that power?

I don't want the working class or the Marxists to give up power, I want both to hold onto it for dear life.


Some might, but then suddenly your luck runs out and you get someone like Stalin ...

I think the rise of Stalin is slightly more complicated process than you suggest.



Whenever people are given more power than others leads this to the temptation to abuse that power

Why? Are humans naturally faillible?

[God of Imperia]

No, you're twisting my words here, I said it leads to temptation, I never said everyone will abused it. But this isn't a discusion about the nature of humans.
Some people in control will want to stay in control and gain more power. Anarchism doesn't give them that chance, Leninism does.
How are you planning on giving all the power to the working class without giving some people more power than others??

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+Oct 3 2004, 04:11 PM--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX @ Oct 3 2004, 04:11 PM)No. Read the thread again for your own benefit.[/b]
I've read the thread.

You said:


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)So, what Pat says is correct. Bakunin believed that the lowest people in society, "unpolluted" by the state have "all" the "seeds of socialism". [/b]

I said:


Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
But that's not what Pat is saying at all. He is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state. As the quote proves, Bakunin did not believe that, and your quote is seperate to it.

Then you said:


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
And Bakunin did say that!

I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization

I then said:


The Anarchist [email protected]
So Bakunin thought that peasents were unpolluted by bourgeois civilisation. Then what?

To which you replied:


YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Well...it follows that if the peasants aren't unpolluted then who is? The urban working class seem an obvious choice.

It makes no sense. I agree with your statement that Bakunin thought that peasents were unpolluted by bourgeois civilisation, but I fail to see what significance your reply has to anything.

Please explain what you're talking about?

[YKTMX]

This is what you said


He is trying to argue that Bakunin claimed that workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state

and I said that this: I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization means the same thing as workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state.

Ya geddit?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:53 PM
This is what you said



and I said that this: I have in mind the ‘riffraff’, that ‘rabble’ almost unpolluted by bourgeois civilization means the same thing as workers and urban people could not create a revolution because they were tainted by capitalism and the state.

Ya geddit?
Yes, thank you.