Log in

View Full Version : Why do we work with Anarchists?



Colombia
22nd February 2005, 19:35
I have never understood why we have worked with anarchists or why we even tolerate them being here. Our theorys are so far different from each others. To understand my dislike of anarchism please check out this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...chism/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm)

In specific check out Versus the Anarchists by Friedrich Engels and also check out After the revolution: Marx debates Bakunin by Marx.

So why do we communists work alongside them?

RedAnarchist
22nd February 2005, 19:50
Actually, a lot of members here at RL consider themselves Anarchist or Anarcho-Communist.

We work with them beacuse we have common goals and values. They want a revolution, as do we. They want change, so do we. Its just that want to take things a bit further, although that may be putting it too simplistically.

Colombia
22nd February 2005, 19:54
Engels asked this question and so do I. How do s propose to run a factory without one deciding will? Also how are they similiar? They want a different sort of revolution than we communists.

RedLenin
22nd February 2005, 20:18
It can be argued wheather or not you should work with us. Should we work with you? You are statists. But we have a common goal and our numbers are not great. Therefor, it is in all of our best interests to work together. You are right in saying we want a different revolution. We want to get rid of power and alter the social structure of society. You want power. Our differences can be great, but we all aim for the same result. We should continue to work together and put our differences behind us. Plus RL is a leftist, not a marxist, website. All leftists are welcome.

Colombia
22nd February 2005, 20:25
s are neither in favor the left or the right because you all beleive in the abolition of the state and abstention from politics.

We are all aiming for the end of capitalism but again I ask you how you plan to run a factory without a single deciding will?

RedLenin
22nd February 2005, 20:34
The workers can self-manage their factory. Their can be assemblies where the factory votes on issues and elects delegates. These delegates could only act with the authorization of the workers. So management, representatives, etc. would be elected and recalled by the workers. This would insure direct democracy and that ultimate power rests at the bottom, with the workers. Bosses are not necessary. The workers can self-manage and be efficient at the same time.

Also, the reason we do not vote or run for office is because we realize that power corrupts and that direct action is a much better way to get change.

Colombia
22nd February 2005, 20:41
Delegates=power=unequality=some form of rule

So either way you must work in politics and cannot abstain from it yes?

RedLenin
22nd February 2005, 20:57
Delegates do not rule. Every decision they make will be based on the results of a vote taken by the workers. They will not have power and will only do what the workers need them to do. Tell me how this is "some form of rule".

Colombia
22nd February 2005, 21:21
Voting is a political act,especially in an election and is that not a betrayal of principle?

Let us see how much success Bakunist s were in the Spanish revolt of 1873.

Works of Frederick Engels 1873



The Bakuninists at Work
An account of the Spanish revolt in the summer of 1873

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

Written: in September-October 1873;
First published: in Der Volksstaat, Oct. 31, Nov. 2 & 5, 1873;
Source: Engels, Internationales aus dem Volksstaat (1871-1875), Berlin, 1894;
First published in English: K. Marx, F. Engels, Revolution in Spain, Lawrence & Wishart, International Publishers, 1939;
Transcribed: by [email protected]


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

BACKGROUND: This series of articles was written in the wake of the events in Spain during the summer of 1873, which were the culmination of the Spanish bourgeois revolution of 1868-74. Engels focused his attention on the involvement of the Spanish Bakuninists in the abortive cantonal revolts July-September) organised in the south and south-east of the country by the Intransigents, an extremist republican grouping that advocated the partition of Spain into independent cantons. The Intransigents and their Bakuninist allies were dissatisfied with the radical social measures undertaken by the Left republican government of Pi y Margall (sale of state and Church lands, establishment of mixed commissions to regulate labour conditions, a free regime in the colonies, etc.) and with the Constitution drawn up by the Cortes, which proclaimed a federative republic. They weakened the republican camp by forcing Pi y Margall to resign on July 18, 1873, and thus paved the way for the establishment of a military dictatorship in Spain early in 1874 and then for the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy.

Engels drew his information from the periodical press and various documents of the Spanish sections of the International, above all from a report submitted by the New Madrid Federation to the Geneva Congress of the International held on September 8-13, 1873.

Following the publication in Der Volksstaat, Engels' series of articles came out as a pamphlet entitled Die Bakunisten an der Arbeit. Denkschrift über den letzten Aufstand in Spanien (Leipzig, November 1873); in April-May 1874 it was published in the New York Arbeiter-Zeitung (Nos. 11-13 and 15-16). In 1894 The Bakuninists at Work was included in the collection of Engels' articles Internationales aus dein "Volksstaat" (1871-75) published by Vorwärts Publishers in Berlin. For that publication Engels provided the Preliminary Remark (see present edition, Vol. 27) and made several corrections.

The work was published in English for the first time in K. Marx, F. Engels, Revolution in Spain, Lawrence & Wishart, International Publishers, London-New York, 1939.

The text published in Der Volksstaat in 1873 and the reprint of the same year had no author's note, but a reference in brackets: "see the article 'Cagliostro Bakunin' in Der Volksstaat, No. 87 et seqq." This anonymously published article contained a brief summary in German of Marx's and Engels' The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men's Association with excerpts from different chapters. It was written by Adolf Hepner and published in Der Volksstaat, Nos. 87-90 of September 19, 21, 24 and 26, 1873. Engels referred to it because a full German translation of the work about the Alliance was then just being prepared.


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

I
The report just published by the Hague Commission on Mikhail Bakunin's secret Alliance has revealed to the working world the underhand activities, the dirty tricks and phrase-mongery by which the proletarian movement was to be placed at the service of the inflated ambition and selfish ends of a few misunderstood geniuses. Meanwhile these would-be-great men have given us the opportunity in Spain to see something of their practical revolutionary activity. Let us see how they put into practice their ultra-revolutionary phrases about and autonomy, about the abolition of all authority, especially that of the state, and the immediate and complete emancipation of the workers. We are at last able to do this, since, apart from the newspaper reports about the events in Spain, we now have the report of the New Madrid Federation of the International [La Nueva Federacion Madrileña á los delegados al to Congreso general. Madrid 24 de agosto de 1873] presented to the Geneva Congress. 2]

As we know, at the time the split in the International occurred the odds were in favour of the members of the secret Alliance in Spain; the great majority of Spanish workers followed their lead. When the Republic was proclaimed in February 1873, the Spanish members of the Alliance found themselves in a quandary. Spain is such a backward country industrially that there can be no question there of immediate complete emancipation of the working class. Spain will first have to pass through various preliminary stages of development and remove quite a number of obstacles from its path. The Republic offered a chance of going through these stages in the shortest possible time and quickly surmounting the obstacles. But this chance could be taken only if the Spanish working class played an active political role. The labour masses felt this; they strove everywhere to participate in events, to take advantage of the opportunity for action, instead of leaving the propertied classes, as hitherto, a clear field for action and intrigues. The government announced that elections were to be held to the Constituent Cortes. [May 10, 1873] What was the attitude of the International to be? The leaders of the Bakuninists were in a predicament. Continued political inaction became more ridiculous and impossible with every passing day; the workers wanted "to see things done". [J. W. Goethe, Zueignung. -- Ed.] The members of the Alliance on the other hand had been preaching for years that no part should be taken in a revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the working class, that political action of any kind implied recognition of the State, which was the root of all evil, and that therefore participation in any form of elections was a crime worthy of . How they got out of this fix is recounted in the already mentioned Madrid report:

"The same people who rejected the Hague resolution on the political attitude of the working class and who trampled under foot the Rules of the [International Working Men's] Association, thus bringing division, conflict and confusion into the Spanish Section of the International; the same people who had the effrontery to depict us to the workers as ambitious place-hunters, who, under the pretext of establishing the rule of the working class, sought to establish their own rule; the same people who call themselves autonomists, revolutionaries, etc., have on this occasion flung themselves into politics, bourgeois politics of the worst kind. They have worked, not to give political power to the working class -- on the contrary this idea is repugnant to them -- but to help to power a bourgeois faction of adventurers, ambitious men and place-hunters who call themselves Intransigent (irreconcilable) Republicans.

"Already on the eve of the general election to the Constituent Cortes the workers of Barcelona, Alcoy and other towns wanted to know what political line they should adopt in the parliamentary struggle and other campaigns. Two big meetings were therefore held, one in Barcelona, the other in Alcoy; at both meetings the Alliance members went out of their way to prevent any decision being reached as to what political line was to be taken by the International" (note bene: by their own International). "It was therefore decided that the International, as an association, should not engage in an, political activity whatever, but that its members, as individuals, could act on their own as the, thought fit and join the part, they chose, in accordance with their famous doctrine of autonomy! And what was the result of the application of this absurd doctrine? That most of the members of the International, including the s, took part in the elections with no programme, no banner, and no candidates, thereby helping to bring about the election of almost exclusively bourgeois republicans. Only two or three workers got into the Chamber, and they represent absolutely nothing, their voice has not once been raised in defence of the interests of our class, and they cheerfully voted for all the reactionary motions tabled by the majority."

That is what Bakuninist "abstention from politics" leads to. At quiet times, when the proletariat knows beforehand that at best it can get only a few representatives to parliament and have no chance whatever of winning a parliamentary majority, the workers may sometimes be made to believe that it is a great revolutionary action to sit out the elections at home, and in general, not to attack the State in which they live and which oppresses them, but to attack the State as such which exists nowhere and which accordingly cannot defend itself. This is a splendid way of behaving in a revolutionary manner, especially for people who lose heart easily; and the extent to which the leaders of the Spanish Alliance belong to this category of people is shown in some detail in the aforementioned publication.

As soon as events push the proletariat into the fore, however, abstention becomes a palpable absurdity and the active intervention of the working class an inevitable necessity. And this is what happened in Spain. The abdication of Amadeo ousted the radical monarchists [3] from power and deprived them of the possibility of recovering it in the near future; the Alfonsists [4] stood still less chance at the time; as for the Carlists, they, as usual, preferred civil war to an election campaign. [5] All these parties, according to the Spanish custom, abstained. Only the federalist Republicans, split into two wings, and the bulk of the workers took part in the elections. Given the enormous attraction which the name of the International still enjoyed at that time among the Spanish workers and given the excellent organisation of the Spanish Section which, at least for practical purposes, still existed at the time, it was certain that any candidate nominated and supported by the International would be brilliantly successful in the industrial districts of Catalonia, in Valencia, in the Andalusian towns and so on, and that a minority would be elected to the Cortes large enough to decide the issue whenever it came to a vote between the two wings of the Republicans. The workers were aware of this; they felt that the time had come to bring their still powerful organisation into play. But the honourable leaders of the Bakuninist school had been preaching the gospel of unqualified abstention too long to be able suddenly to reverse their line; and so they invented that deplorable way out -- that of having the International abstain as a body, but allowing its members as individuals to vote as they liked. The result of this declaration of political bankruptcy was that the workers, as always in such cases, voted for those who made the most radical speeches, that is, for the Intransigents, and considering themselves therefore more or less responsible for subsequent steps taken by their deputies, became involved in them.

II
The members of the Alliance could not possibly persist in the ridiculous position into which their cunning electoral policy had landed them; it would have meant the end of their control over the International in Spain. They had to act, if only for the sake of appearances. Salvation for them lay in a general STRIKE.

In the Bakuninist programme a general STRIKE is the lever employed by which the social revolution is started. One fine morning all the workers in all the industries of a country, or even of the whole world, stop work, thus forcing the propertied classes either humbly to submit within four weeks at the most, or to attack the workers, who would then have the right to defend themselves and use this opportunity to pull down the entire old society. The idea is far from new; this horse was since 1848 hard ridden by French, and later Belgian socialists; it is originally, however, an English breed. During the rapid and vigorous growth of Chartism among the English workers following the crisis of 1837, the "holy month", a strike on a national scale was advocated as early as 1839 (see Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England, Second Edition [1892], p. 234) and this had such a strong appeal that in July 1842 the industrial workers in northern England tried to put it into practice. -- Great importance was also attached to the general STRIKE at the Geneva Congress of the Alliance held on September 1, 1873, [6] although it was universally admitted that this required a well-formed organisation of the working class and plentiful funds. And there's the rub. On the one hand the governments, especially if encouraged by political abstention, will never allow the organisation or the funds of the workers to reach such a level; on the other hand, political events and oppressive acts by the ruling classes will lead to the liberation of the workers long before the proletariat is able to set up such an ideal organisation and this colossal reserve fund. But if it had them, there would be no need to use the roundabout way of a general STRIKE to achieve its goal.

No one with any knowledge of the secret springs of the Alliance can doubt that the idea of using this well-tried method originated in the Swiss centre. Be that as it may, the Spanish leaders saw in this a way of doing something without actually delving in "politics" and they gladly took it. The miraculous qualities of a general STRIKE were everywhere propounded and preparations were made to start it at Barcelona and Alcoy.

Meanwhile the political situation was steadily heading for a crisis. Castelar and his associates, the old federal republican braggarts, were frightened by the movement, which had outgrown them. They were obliged to hand over the reigns of government to Pi y Margall [June 11, 1873], who sought a compromise with the Intransigents. Of all the official republicans, Pi was the only Socialist, the only one who realised that the republic had to depend on the support of the workers. He promptly produced a programme of social measures which could be carried out immediately and would not only benefit the workers directly but eventually lead to further steps, thus at least giving the first impetus to the social revolution. But the Bakuninist members of the International, who were obliged to reject even the most revolutionary measures if they emanated from the "State", preferred to support the most preposterous swindlers among the Intransigents rather than a minister. Pi's negotiations with the Intransigents dragged on. The Intransigents began to lose patience, and the most hot-headed of them started a cantonal uprising in Andalusia. The leaders of the Alliance now had to act too if they did not want to trail in the wake of the intransigent bourgeois. And so a general STRIKE was ordered.

Presently, among other things, a poster was issued in Barcelona stating:

"Workers! We are calling a general STRIKE to show the profound abhorrence we feel on seeing the government using the army fight our brother workers, while neglecting the struggle against the Carlists", etc. [Engels probably quotes from La Solidarité Révolutionnaire, No. 6, July 16, 1873. -- Ed.]

The workers of Barcelona -- Spain's largest industrial city, which has seen more barricade fighting than any other city in the world -- were asked to oppose the armed government force not with arms in their hands, but with a general strike, that is, a measure directly involving only individual bourgeois, but not their collective representative -- the State power. During the period of peacetime inaction, the workers of Barcelona had been able to listen to the inflammatory phrases of mild men like Alerini, Farga Pellicer and Viñas; but when the time came to act, when Alerini, Farga Pellicer and Viñas first announced their fine election programme, then proceeded to calm passions, and finally, instead of issuing a call to arms declared a general STRIKE, the workers actually despised them. Even the weakest Intransigent showed more energy than the strongest member of the Alliance. The Alliance and the International, which was hoodwinked by it, lost all influence and when these gentlemen called for a general STRIKE claiming that this would paralyse the government the workers simply ridiculed them. What the activities of the false International did achieve, however, was that Barcelona took no part in the cantonal uprising. Barcelona was the only town whose participation could have provided firm support for the working-class element, which was everywhere strongly represented in the; movement, and thus held out the prospect of the workers ultimately controlling the entire movement. Furthermore, with the participation of Barcelona, victory would have been as good as won. But Barcelona did not raise a finger; the workers of Barcelona, who had seen through the Intransigents and been cheated by the Alliance, remained inactive, thus allowing the Madrid government to secure the final victory. All of which did not prevent Alerini and Brousse, members of the Alliance (the report on the Alliance contained further details about themb), from stating in their paper, the Solidarité Révolutionnaire:

"The revolutionary movement is spreading like wildfire throughout the peninsula ... nothing has as yet happened in Barcelona, but the revolution is permanent in the market place!"

But it was the revolution of the Alliancists, which consists in beating the big drum and for this reason remains "permanently" in the same "place".

At the same time the general STRIKE became the order of the day in Alcoy. Alcoy is a new industrial town of some 30,000 inhabitants, where the International, in its Bakuninist form gained a foothold only a year ago and spread rapidly. Socialism, in any form, went down well with these workers, who until then had known nothing of the movement; the same thing happens in Germany where occasionally in some backward town the General Association of German Workers [7] suddenly gains a large temporary following. Alcoy was therefore chosen as the seat of the Bakuninist Federal Commission for Spain, [8] and it is the work of this Federal Commission that we are going to see here.

On July 7, a workers' meeting voted for a general STRIKE and on the following day sent a deputation to the alcalde (the mayor) asking him to summon the manufacturers within 24 hours and present to them the workers' demands. Albors, the alcalde, a bourgeois Republican, stalled off the workers, sent to Alicante for troops and advised the manufacturers not to yield but to barricade themselves in their houses. He himself would remain at his post. After a meeting with the manufacturers -- we are here following the official report of the Alliance Federal Commission dated July 14, 1873 ["A los Trabajadores", La Federación, No. 206, July 26, 1873] -- Albors, who had originally promised the workers to remain neutral, issued a proclamation in which he "insulted and slandered the workers and sided with the manufacturers thus destroying the rights and the freedom of the strikers and challenging them to fight". How the pious wishes of a mayor can destroy the rights and the freedom of the strikers is not made clear. Anyway, the workers led by the Alliance notified the municipal council through a committee that if it did not intend to remain neutral during the strike as it promised, it had better resign in order to avoid a conflict. The committee was turned away and as it was leaving the town hall, the police opened fire on the peaceful and unarmed people standing in the square. This is how the fight started, according to the report of the Alliance. The people armed themselves, and a battle began which was said to have lasted "twenty hours". On one side, the workers, whose number is given by the Solidarité Révolutionnaire as 5,000, on the other, 32 gendarmes in the town hall and a few armed men in four or five houses in the market place. These houses were burnt down by the people in the good Prussian manner. Eventually the gendarmes ran out of ammunition and had to surrender.

"There would have been less misfortunes to lament," says the report of the Alliance Commission, "if the Alcalde Albors had not deceived the people by pretending to surrender and then cowardly ordering the of those who entered the town hall relying on his word. And the Alcalde himself would not have been killed by the justly enraged population had he not fired his revolver point-blank at those who went to arrest him."

And what were the casualties in this battle?

"Although we cannot know exactly the number of and wounded" (on the people's side) "we can nevertheless say that they numbered no less than ten. On the side of provokers there were no less than fifteen and wounded."

This was the first street battle of the Alliance. For twenty hours, 5,000 men fought against 32 gendarmes and a few armed bourgeois, and defeated them after they had run out of ammunition, losing ten men in all. The Alliance may well drum Falstaff's dictum into the heads of its adepts that "the better part of valour is discretion". [Shakespeare, The First Part of King Henry IV, Act V, Scene 4. -- Ed.]

Needless to say, all the horror stories carried by the bourgeois papers about factories senselessly burnt down, numerous gendarmes shot down, and of people having petrol poured over them and set on fire, are pure inventions. The victorious workers, even if led by members of the Alliance whose motto is, "to hell with ceremony!", always treat their defeated adversaries far too generously, and so the latter accuse them of all the misdeeds which they themselves never fail to perpetrate when they are victorious.

And so victory had been won.

The Solidarité Révolutionnaire writes jubilantly: "Our friends in Alcoy, numbering 5,000, are masters of the situation."

And what did these "masters" do with their "situation"?

Here the report of the Alliance and its newspaper leave us in the lurch and we have to rely on the ordinary newspaper reports. From these we learn that a "Committee of Public Safety", that is, a revolutionary government, was then set up in Alcoy. To be sure that their Congress at Saint-Imier [9] (Switzerland), on September 15 1872, the members of the Alliance decided that

"any organisation of political, so-called provisional or revolutionary authority, can be nothing but a new fraud and would be just as dangerous for the proletariat as any of the now existing governments". ["Les deux Congres de Saint-lmier", Bulletin de la Federación jurassienne..., No. 17-18, September 15-October 1, 1872, p. 13.]

The members of the Spanish Federal Commission, meeting at Alcoy, had moreover done everything they could to get this resolution adopted also by the Congress of the Spanish Section of the International. And yet we find that Severino Albarracin, a member of this Commission, and, according to some reports, also Francisco Tomas, its secretary, were members of this provisional and revolutionary government, the Committee of Public Safety, of Alcoy!

And what did this Committee of Public Safety do? What measures did it adopt to bring about "the immediate and complete emancipation of the workers"? It forbade any man to leave the city, although women were allowed to do so, provided they ... had a pass! The enemies of all authority re-introducing a pass! Everything else was utter confusion, inactivity and helplessness.

Meanwhile, General Velarde was coming up from Alicante with troops. The government had every reason for wishing to deal with the local insurrections in the provinces quietly. And the "masters of the situation" in Alcoy had every reason for wanting to extricate themselves from a situation which they did not know how to handle. Accordingly, Deputy Cervera, who acted as a go-between, had an easy task. The Committee of Public Safety resigned, and on July 12 the troops entered the town without meeting any resistance, the only promise made to the Committee of Public Safety for this being ... a general amnesty. The Alliance "masters of the situation" had once again extricated themselves from a tight spot. And there the Alcoy adventure ended.

The Alliance report tells us that at Sanlúcar de Barrameda, near Cádiz,

"the Alcalde closed down the premises of the International and his threats and his incessant attacks on the personal rights of the citizens incensed the workers. A commission demanded of the minister observance of the law and the re-opening of the premises which had been arbitrarily closed down. Mr. Pi agreed to this in principle ... but refused to comply in practice. It became clear to the workers that the Government was determined to outlaw their Association; they dismissed the local authorities and appointed others in their place, who re-opened the premises of the Association." ["A los Trabajadores", La Federación, No. 206, July 26, 1873.]

"In Sanlúcar ... the people are masters of the situation!" the Solidarité Révolutionnaire writes triumphantly. The members of the Alliance, who here too, contrary to their principles, formed a revolutionary government, did not know what to do with their power. They wasted time in futile debates and paper resolutions, and when General Pavía, on August 5, after taking Seville and Cádiz, sent a few companies of the Soria brigade to Sanlúcar he encountered ... no resistance.

Such were the heroic deeds performed by the Alliance where it had no competition.

III
The street fighting in Alcoy was immediately followed by a revolt of the Intransigents in Andalusia. Pi y Margall was still at the helm, engaged in continuous negotiations with the leaders of this party with the object of forming a ministry with them; why then did they begin an uprising before the negotiations had failed? The reason for this rash action has never been properly explained, it is however certain, that the main concern of the Intransigents was the actual establishment of a federal republic as quickly as possible in order to seize power and the many new administrative posts that were to be created in the various cantons. The splitting up of Spain had been deferred too long by the Cortes in Madrid, and so they had to tackle the job themselves and proclaim sovereign cantons everywhere. The attitude hitherto maintained by the (Bakuninist) International, which since the elections was deeply involved in the actions of the Intransigents, gave grounds for counting on the Bakuninists' support: indeed, had not the Bakuninists just seized Alcoy by force and were thus in open conflict with the government? The Bakuninists moreover had for years been preaching that all revolutionary action from above was an evil, and everything should be organised and carried through from below. And now here was an opportunity to apply the famous principle of autonomy from below, at least in a few towns. Predictably, the Bakuninist workers fell into the trap and pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for the Intransigents, only to be rewarded later by their allies with the usual kicks and bullets.

What was the position of the members of the Bakuninist International in all this movement? They helped to evolve its federalist particularism; they put into practice as far as possible their ideal. The same Bakuninists who in Cordoba a few months earlier had declared that to establish a revolutionary government was to betray and cheat the workers, the same Bakuninists now sat in all the revolutionary municipal governments of Andalusia, but always in a minority, so that the Intransigents could do whatever they wished. While the latter retained the political and military leadership, the workers were put off with pompous phrases or resolutions purporting to introduce social reforms of the crudest and most meaningless sort, which moreover existed only on paper. As soon as the Bakuninist leaders demanded real concessions, they were scornfully repulsed. When talking to English newspaper correspondents, the Intransigent leaders of the movement hastened to dissociate themselves from these so-called "members of the International" and to renounce all responsibility for them, declaring that their leaders and all fugitives from the Paris Commune were being kept under strict police supervision. Finally, as we shall see, the Intransigents in Seville, during the battle with the government troops, fired also on their Bakuninist allies.

Thus it happened that within a few days the whole of Andalusia was in the hands of the armed Intransigents. Seville, Malaga, Granada, Cádiz, etc. were taken almost without resistance. Each town proclaimed itself a sovereign canton and set up a revolutionary. committee (junta). Murcia, Cartagena, and Valencia followed suit. A similar attempt, but of a more peaceful nature, was made in Salamanca. Thus, nearly all the large Spanish cities were held by the insurgents, with the exception of Madrid, the capital, which is purely a luxury city and hardly ever plays a decisive role, and of Barcelona. If Barcelona had risen success would have been almost assured, and in addition it would have provided powerful support for the working-class element of the movement. But as we have seen, the Intransigents in Barcelona were comparatively powerless, whereas the Bakuninists, who were still very strong there at the time, used the general STRIKE only for appeasement purposes. Thus Barcelona this time was not at its post.

Nevertheless, the uprising, though started in a senseless way, had a fair chance of success if conducted with some intelligence, even if in the manner of the Spanish military revolts, in which the garrison of one town rises, marches to the next town and wins over the garrison there which had been propagandised in advance, and, growing like an avalanche, advances on the capital, until a successful engagement or the desertion to its side of the troops sent out against it, decides the victory. This method was eminently suited to the occasion. The insurgents had long been organised everywhere into volunteer battalions, whose discipline, it is true, was poor, but certainly no worse than that of the remnants of the old Spanish army, which for the most part had been disbanded. The only reliable troops the government had were the gendarmes (guardias civiles), and these were scattered all over the country. The thing was to prevent the gendarmes from mustering, and this could only be done by boldly giving battle in the open field. No great risk was involved in this since the government could send against the volunteers only troops that were just as undisciplined as they themselves. And if they wanted to win, this was the only way to go about it.

But no. The federalism of the Intransigents and their Bakuninist tail consisted precisely in the fact that each town acted on its own, declaring that the important thing was not co-operation with other towns but separation from them, thus precluding any possibility of a combined attack. What was an unavoidable evil during the German Peasant War and the German insurrections of May 1849, namely, the fragmentation and isolation of the revolutionary forces which enabled the government troops to smash one revolt after the other, [10] was here proclaimed a principle of supreme revolutionary wisdom. Bakunin had that satisfaction. As early as September 1870 (in his Lettres a un franfaisa) he had declared that the only way to drive the Prussians out of France by a revolutionary struggle was to do away with all forms of centralised leadership and leave each town, each village, each parish to wage war on its own. If one thus opposed the Prussian army under its centralised command with unfettered revolutionary passion victory would be ensured. Confronted with the collective mind of the French people, thrown at last on its own resources, the individual mind of Moltke would obviously sink into insignificance. The French then refused to see this, but in Spain Bakunin had won a brilliant victory, as we have already seen and shall yet see.

Meanwhile, this uprising, launched without reason like a bolt from the blue, had made it impossible for Pi y Margall to continue his negotiations with the Intransigents. He was compelled to resign, [July 18, 1873] and was replaced by pure republicans like Castelar, undisguised bourgeois, whose primary aim was to crush the working-class movement, which they had previously used but which had now become a hindrance to them. One division under General Pavía was sent against Andalusia, another under General Campos against Valencia and Cartagena. The main body consisted of gendarmes drawn from all over Spain, all of them old soldiers whose discipline was still unshaken. Here too, as during the attacks of the Versailles army on Paris, the gendarmes were to bolster up the demoralised regulars and to form the spearhead of the attacking columns, a task which in both cases they fulfilled to the best of their abilities. Besides the gendarmes, the divisions contained a few rather diminished line regiments, so that each of them numbered some 3,000 men. This was all the Government was able to raise against the insurgents.

General Pavía took the field round about July 20. A detachment of gendarmes and line troops under Ripoll occupied Cordoba on the 24th. On the 29th Pavía attacked the barricaded Seville, which fell to him on the 30th or 31st, the dates are often not clearly stated in these telegrams. Leaving behind a flying column to put down the surrounding country, he marched against Cádiz, whose defenders only fought on the approaches to the city, and with little spirit at that, and then, on August 4, they allowed themselves to be disarmed without resistance. In the days that followed, Pavía disarmed, also without resistance, Sanlúcar de Barrameda, San Roque, Tarifa, Algeciras, and a great many other small towns each of which had set itself up as a sovereign canton. At the same time he sent detachments against Malaga, which surrendered on August 3, and Granada, which surrendered on August 8, without offering any resistance. Thus by August 10, in less than a fortnight and almost without a struggle, the whole of Andalusia had been subdued.

On July 26, Martinez Campos began the attack on Valencia. The revolt there had been raised by the workers. When the split in the Spanish International occurred, the real International had the majority in Valencia, and the new Spanish Federal Council was transferred there. [11] Soon after the proclamation of the Republic, when revolutionary battles lay ahead, the Bakuninist workers of Valencia, mistrusting the Barcelona leaders who cloaked their appeasement policy with ultra-revolutionary phrases, offered the members of the real International their co-operation in all local movements. When the cantonal movement started, both groups, making use of the Intransigents, immediately attacked and ejected the troops. Who formed the Valencian junta remains unknown, but from the reports of the English newspaper correspondents it appears that workers definitely predominated in the junta, just as they did among the Valencian Volunteers. The same correspondents spoke of the Valencian insurgents with a respect which they were far from showing towards the other rebels, who were mostly Intransigents; they praised their discipline and the order which prevailed in the city, and predicted a long resistance and a hard struggle. They were not mistaken. Valencia, an open city, withstood the attacks of Campos' division from July 26 to August 8, that is longer than the whole of Andalusia.

In the province of Murcia, the capital of the same name was occupied without a fight; after the fall of Valencia Campos moved against Cartagena, one of the strongest fortresses in Spain, protected on the landward side by a rampart and advanced forts on the commanding heights. The 3,000 government troops, who had no siege artillery whatsoever, and whose light field guns were of course powerless against the heavy artillery of the forts, had to confine themselves to laying siege to the city from the landward side. This was of little avail, however, as long as the people of Cartagena ted the sea with the naval vessels they had captured in the harbour. The insurgents, who, while the fight had been going on in Valencia and Andalusia, were wholly preoccupied with their own affairs, began to think of the outside world after the other revolts had been quelled, when they themselves began to run short of money and provisions. Only then did they make an attempt to march on Madrid, which was at least 60 German miles [German mile is equal to 7,420,438 metres. -- Ed.] away, more than twice as far as, for instance, Valencia or Granada! The expedition ended in disaster not far from Cartagena. The siege precluded any possibility of further land sorties, so they attempted sorties with the aid of the fleet. And what sorties! There could be no question of raising revolts again with the aid of Cartagena warships in the coastal towns which had recently been subdued. The fleet of the Sovereign Canton of Cartagena therefore confined itself to threatening to shell the other coastal towns from Valencia to Malaga, which, according to the theory of the people of Cartagena, were likewise sovereign -- and if need be to shell them in actual fact if they failed to deliver on board the required provisions and war contribution in hard cash. While these cities, as sovereign cantons, had been fighting the government, Cartagena adhered to the principle of "every man for himself". Now when they had been defeated the principle which was held to be valid was -- "everyone for Cartagena!" That was how the Intransigents of Cartagena and their Bakuninist supporters interpreted the federalism of the sovereign cantons.

In order to reinforce the ranks of the fighters for liberty, the government of Cartagena released from the local jail about 1,800 convicts -- Spain's worst robbers and ers. After the disclosures made in the report on the Alliance there can no longer be any room for doubt that this revolutionary step was suggested to it by the Bakuninists. The report shows Bakunin enthusiastically advocating the "unleashing of all evil passions" and holding up the Russian brigand as a for all true revolutionaries. What is fair for the Russian is fair for the Spaniard. When the local government of Cartagena released the "evil passions" of the 1,800 jailed cut-throats, thereby carrying demoralisation among its troops to the extreme limit, it acted wholly in the spirit of Bakunin. And when, instead of battering down its own fortifications, the Spanish government awaited the fall of Cartagena through the internal disorganisation of its defenders, it was pursuing an entirely correct policy.

IV
Now let us hear what the report of the New Madrid Federation has to say about the whole movement.

"On the second Sunday in August a Congress was to be held in Valencia, which, among other things, was to determine the attitude the Spanish International Federation was to adopt towards the important political events taking place in Spain since February 11, the day the Republic was proclaimed. But this nonsensical" (descabellada, literally: dishevelled) "cantonal uprising, which was such an abject failure and in which members of the International eagerly took part in almost all the insurgent provinces, has not only brought the work of the Federal Council to a standstill by dispersing most of its members, but has almost completely disorganised the local federations and, what is worse, exposed their members to the full measure of hatred and persecution that an ignominiously started and defeated popular insurrection always entails....

"When the cantonal uprising started, when the juntas, i.e., the cantonal governments, were formed, these people" (the Bakuninists) "who had spoken so violently against political power, and accused us of authoritarianism, lost no time in joining those governments. And in important cities such as Seville, Cádiz, Sanlúcar de Barrameda, Granada and Valencia, many members of the International who call themselves anti-authoritarians sat on the cantonal juntas with no programme other than that of autonomy for the provinces or cantons. This is officially established by the proclamations and other documents issued by those juntas over the signatures of well-known members of this International.

"Such a flagrant contradiction between theory and practice, between propaganda and action, would be of small account if our Association could have derived any benefit from it, or if it could have advanced the organisation of our forces, or in any way furthered the attainment of our main goal -- the emancipation of the working class. Just the opposite took place, as it was bound to in the absence of the primary condition, namely, the active collaboration of the Spanish proletariat, which could have been so easily achieved by acting in the name of the International. There was no agreement between the local federations; the movement was abandoned to individual or local initiative without leadership (apart from that which the mysterious Alliance was able to force upon it, and that Alliance to our shame still tes the Spanish International) and without any programme other than that of our natural enemies, the bourgeois republicans. Thus, the cantonal movement suffered the most ignominious defeat without offering hardly any resistance, and dragging down with it also the prestige and organisation of the International in Spain. For every excess, every crime, every outrage that takes place the republicans today blame the members of the International. We are even assured, that at Seville during the fighting the Intransigents fired at their own allies, the members of the" (Bakuninist) "International. Taking clever advantage of our follies, the reactionaries are inciting the republicans to persecute us and vilify us in the eyes of the indifferent masses; it seems that what they were unable to achieve in the days of Sagasta, i.e., to give the International a bad name among the great mass of Spanish workers, they may be able to achieve now.

"A number of workers' sections in Barcelona dissociated themselves from the International and publicly protested against the people of the newspaper La Federación" (the main organ of the Bakuninists) "and their inexplicable attitude. In Jérez, Puerto de Santa Maria and elsewhere the federations have decided to dissolve themselves. The few members of the International who lived in Loja (Granada province) were expelled by the population. In Madrid, where people still enjoy the greatest freedom, the old" (Bakuninist) "federation shows no sign of life, while ours is compelled to remain inactive and silent if it does not want to take the blame for other people's sins. In the northern cities the Carlist war, which is becoming more bitter day by day, precludes any activity on our part. Finally, in Valencia, where the government won the day after a struggle lasting a fortnight, the members of the International who have not fled are forced to remain in hiding, and the Federal Council has been dissolved."

So much for the Madrid report. As we see, it agrees in all particulars with the above historical account.

What then is the result of our whole investigation?

As soon as they were faced with a serious revolutionary situation, the Bakuninists had to throw the whole of their old programme overboard. First they sacrificed their doctrine of absolute abstention from political, and especially electoral, activities. Then , the abolition of the State, shared the same fate. Instead of abolishing the State they tried, on the contrary, to set up a number of new, small states. They then dropped the principle that the workers must not take part in any revolution that did not have as its aim the immediate and complete emancipation of the proletariat, and they themselves took part in a movement that was notoriously bourgeois. Finally they went against the dogma they had only just proclaimed -- that the establishment of a revolutionary government is but another fraud another betrayal of the working class -- for they sat quite comfortably in the juntas of the various towns, and moreover almost everywhere as an impotent minority outvoted and politically exploited by the bourgeoisie.
This renunciation of the principles they had always been preaching was made moreover in the most cowardly and deceitful manner and was prompted by a guilty conscience, so that neither the Bakuninists themselves nor the masses they led had any programme or knew what they wanted when they joined the movement. What was the natural consequence of this? It was that the Bakuninists either prevented any action from being taken, as in Barcelona, or drifted into sporadic, desultory and senseless uprisings, as in Alcoy and Sanlúcar de Barrameda; or that the leadership of the uprising was taken over by the intransigent bourgeois, as was the case in most of the revolts. Thus, when it came to doing things, the ultra-revolutionary rantings of the Bakuninists either turned into appeasement or into uprisings that were doomed to failure, or, led to their joining a bourgeois party which exploited the workers politically in the most disgraceful manner and treated them to kicks into the bargain.
Nothing remains of the so-called principles of , free federation of independent groups, etc., but the boundless, and senseless fragmentation of the revolutionary resources, which enabled the government to conquer one city after another with a handful of soldiers, practically unresisted.
The outcome of all this is that not only have the once so well organised and numerous Spanish sections of the International -- both the false and the true ones -- found themselves involved in the downfall of the Intransigents and are now actually dissolved, but are also having ascribed to them innumerable atrocities, without which the philistines of all nationalities cannot imagine a workers' uprising, and this may make impossible, perhaps for years to come, the international re-organisation of the Spanish proletariat.
Notes from the Collected Works
2 On July 1, 1873, the General Council in New York officially announced the convocation of the regular congress of the International in Geneva on September 8. It was to discuss revision of the Rules, organisation of an international trades union association, the political activity of the organised workers, labour statistics, and other questions. Initially Marx and Engels intended to be present at the congress and take part in its work but after an analysis of the situation within the International, concluded that the congress could not be really representative. Almost all the organisations of the International, being unable to send delegates, transferred their mandates to members of the Romance Federation of Switzerland. This was also the case with the New Madrid Federation whose leaders sent a copy of their report to the Geneva Congress to Engels in London. What prompted Marx and Engels to change their attitude towards the congress was mainly their growing awareness that the IWMA as a form of international association could no longer meet the needs of the expanding proletarian movement.

At the sixth congress of the International Association in Geneva (September 8-13, 1873) 28 delegates out of 31 belonged to the Swiss organisations of the International or its émigré sections in Switzerland. Only 3 delegates represented other countries.

The congress heard the report of the General Council and reports from the localities. While discussing the Rules the majority of the delegates led by J. Ph. Becker confirmed the decisions of the Hague Congress of 1872 on expanding the functions of the General Council. The congress underlined the need for the working class to carry on a political struggle, and adopted a resolution on further measures to establish an international association of trades unions. New York remained the seat of the General Council. The Geneva Congress of 1873 was the last congress of the International.

3 A reference to the liberal-constitutional monarchists who supported the protégé of the European powers on the Spanish throne, King Amadeo of Savoy.

4 The Alfonsists a reactionary political grouping in Spain who backed Alfonso (son of Isabella II), the Bourbon pretender to the Spanish throne. He was proclaimed King (Alfonso XII) in 1874. The Alfonsists relied on the big landowners, the clergy and the upper crust of the bourgeoisie.

5 The Carlists: A clerical-absolutist group which supported the claims of Don Carlos, King Ferdinand VII's brother, to the Spanish throne in the first half of the 19th century. Leaning for support on the reactionary military circles and Catholic clergy, as well as the backward peasantry from the mountainous regions of Spain the Carlists unleashed a civil war in 1833 which lasted till 1840 (the First Carlist war). When Don Carlos died in 1855, the Carlists supported the candidature of his grandson, Don Carlos, Jr. In 1872, during the political crisis, the Carlists became more active and this led to another civil war (Second Carlist war) which lasted until 1876.

6 A reference to the congress, held in Geneva from September 1 to 6, 1873, of representatives of the and reformist organisations which had challenged the resolutions of the Hague Congress and thereby placed themselves outside the International, as stated in the decisions of the General Council of January 26 and May 30, 1873. The congress was convened by the Bakuninist Geneva Section of Propaganda and Revolutionary Socialist Action (see Note 75). The congress proclaimed the negation of all authority the basic principle of the international association, abolished the General Council, denied congresses the right to adopt resolutions on questions of principle, and dropped Article 7a, on the political action of the working class, from the General Rules.

7 By the Bismarckian socialists, Marx and Engels meant the leaders of the Lassallean General Association of German Workers (founded in May 1863) and they called their newspaper -- the Neue Social-Demokrat -- the police mouthpiece because both pursued a policy of accommodation to the Bismarck regime and attacked the revolutionary proletarian wing in the German workers' movement and in the International.

The name "white shirts" (les blouses blanche) refers to the gangs of declassed elements recruited by the police of the Second Empire. Pretending to be workers, they staged provocatory demonstrations and disturbances, thus providing the authorities with pretexts for persecuting genuine workers' organizations.

8 By decision of the congress of Spanish s in Cordova (see Note 220) of December 30, 1872, the Spanish Federal Council was replaced by a Federal Commission with limited powers (for details see K. Marx and F. Engels, The Alliance of Socialist Democracy, and the International Working Men's Association).

9 A congress of representatives of secret organisations of the Bakuninist Alliance from various countries was held in Saint-Imier on September 15-16 1872, on the initiative of the Jura Federation. The congress decided to reject the resolutions of the Hague Congress and the authority of the General Council. It adopted a resolution against the political struggle of the working class and the necessity of an independent political party of the proletariat. Its address called upon sections to oppose the General Council and to convene their own "anti-authoritarian" congress in six months' time. The decisions of the Saint-Imier Congress signified an actual split in the International

10 A reference to the great insurrection of the German peasants in 1524-25 known as the German Peasant War, and to the uprisings in Saxony, the Rhine Province of Prussia, the Palatinate and Baden in May 1849 in defence of the Imperial Constitution drawn up by the Frankfurt National Assembly but rejected by the German princes. The struggle for the Imperial Constitution (in the Palatinate and Baden it continued until July 1849) was the final stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1848-49 in Germany.

See Engels' The Peasant War in Germany, and The Campaign for the German Imperial Constitution.

11 On the initiative of the New Madrid Federation the adherents of the General Council of the International in Spain formed, in January 1873, a new Spanish Federal Council in Valencia to counterbalance the actions of the federations, which had substituted the Federal Commission for the Federal Council.

Xvall
22nd February 2005, 21:45
Because this website is dedicated to leftism in general and is not exclusive to any one particular form of leftism or socialism. For this reason we accept left-wing anarchists, communists, anarcho-communists, socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, maoists and leninists alike.

VukBZ2005
22nd February 2005, 22:17
1
What you fail to realize is this. You say that Anarchists and Marxists do not
have the same goal. That is a lie. They do have the same goal - the establishment
of a classless, stateless society. Here is the problem that is preventing us from
uniting and seeing what we have in common; In 1848, Marx and Engles thought
that in order for the working class to achieve real communism - there must be a
"dictatorship of the proletariat" that would take out last remenants of class society
and the rich upper class. The argument the Anarchists made during the First
International was that the dictatorship of the proletariat would degenerate into a
dictatorship over the proletariat as time goes on. After the events of the Paris
Commune of 1871 however - Marx realized - that the working class - can not
take control of a organ of class rule. You can find this in the Civil War in France
in the chapter - the Paris Commune when he said that
But the working
class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield
it for its own purposes.(Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, 1871)

[I have not fully explained myself in this text and i will try to post the rest of the
text later on.]

Iepilei
22nd February 2005, 22:19
I always considered Anarchists to be extreme-capitalists. I guess they've changed their guise over the years; but the premice, to me, of "anarchy" means no laws or regulations. Meaning the state is void and people are allowed to act as they please.

...even if it means collecting capital as a means to empower themselves.

Either way, I support the anarchist-socialists out there (seems more fitting) who work to promote change in our society.

Xvall
22nd February 2005, 23:36
Yeah. Be forewarned that there are some anarchists who are extreme capitalists. They're the type of people who insist that the United States is a Communist country and that Somolia is the promiseland.

I'm not sure which type of anarchists are more pleantiful.

JazzRemington
22nd February 2005, 23:44
no, anarchists are not extreme capitalists. Anarchism has always been historically against capitalism as it is oppressive to the individual. These so-called "Anarcho-"Capitalists are just extreme Free Market Capitalists who think they're cool because they looked up "anarchism" in the dictionary and decided it "fit" with what they wanted.

The vast, overwhelming majority of anarchists are socialists. Even some of the earliest anarchists who rejected communism were still socialists.

Iepilei
23rd February 2005, 00:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:44 PM
no, anarchists are not extreme capitalists. Anarchism has always been historically against capitalism as it is oppressive to the individual. These so-called "Anarcho-"Capitalists are just extreme Free Market Capitalists who think they're cool because they looked up "anarchism" in the dictionary and decided it "fit" with what they wanted.

The vast, overwhelming majority of anarchists are socialists. Even some of the earliest anarchists who rejected communism were still socialists.
Many anarcho-capitalists have just changed their names to "libertarians" to make their ideology more attractive to people who are against "oppression."

It seems to be a popular trend, these days, amongst conservatives who want to have that "rough renegade" edge.

rebelworker
23rd February 2005, 01:00
I think you have been missinformed by two strains, fristly I am sad to say that in the United States, especially on the west coast and in the deep south, most peole calling themselves anarchists consider themselves post-leftist anarchists, through rampid individualism and anti cold war propoghanda they have rejected the communist roots of anarchism and have I think hurt the anarchist cause.

perhaps your understanding of anarchism has been hurt by this trend.

Second, what the hell are you doing using debates between Engles and Bakunin, and the history of the 1870's to inform yourself on current revolutionary theory.

I'm sorry but just looking 50 years later in spanish history (still somewhat ancient histroy) you could have found evidence of anarchism as a fighting revolutionary movement with a better attempt at a working communist economy than "soviet"(bolshevik) Russia, bringing togeather millions of people over a few years.

The ultimate goal of communism is a stateless society controled by the woirking class, this is the exact definition of Anarchist Communism (the largest tendancy of Anarchism in the world).

We advocate for revolutionaries to organise in the class struggle and eventually bring about a social revolution.

The only diference in how we get there is that we oppose A vanguardist party taking over the state and ruling over the masses untill they decide we are ready for communism.

I think that you and I are closer together than you think,

In solidarity

one (of many)rebelworker :ph34r:

redstar2000
23rd February 2005, 01:35
Originally posted by Colombia+--> (Colombia)I have never understood why we have worked with anarchists or why we even tolerate them being here. Our theories are so far different from each others.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
Engels asked this question and so do I. How do [anarchists] propose to run a factory without one deciding will? Also how are they similar? They want a different sort of revolution than we communists.


Colombia
[Anarchists] are neither in favor [of] the left or the right because you all believe in the abolition of the state and abstention from politics.

If you are a communist, then you know that things change. The anarchist of 1873 is not the same as the anarchist of 2005...and the same is likewise true of communists as well.

The Convergence of Marxism and Anarchism? (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094664165&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Engels' question was an evasion and I, at least, think he knew that. It's not a matter of a "single will" running a factory, but the source of that will.

Clear decisions must be made -- no one argues that point. A factory or any other collective and purposeful human effort does not happen by chance.

How can it be made to happen in accordance with the will of the workers? That's the real question...and one which the anarchists had a better grasp of than either Marx or Engels.

It's easy enough to "mock" the early anarchist attempts to resolve this as "idealist"...but there's plenty of "mockery" to go around, if you want to take that approach. The gross illusions that both Marx and Engels (and many others) shared about the "usefulness" of bourgeois "democracy", for example.

And whatever the follies of the early anarchists (and they were many), at least they had the good sense never to be caught up in the follies of "dialectics".

At the present time, you must acknowledge that anarchists are the "vanguard" of resistance to capitalist despotism in the "west". Whether they will mature into a serious revolutionary movement with mass working-class participation remains to be seen.

But if you compare them to what most of the people who still call themselves "communist" are doing (wallowing in reformist electoral servility)...it's no contest.

Real communists would be insane not to work with serious anarchists in building the resistance to capitalism!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

JazzRemington
23rd February 2005, 03:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 06:12 PM
Many anarcho-capitalists have just changed their names to "libertarians" to make their ideology more attractive to people who are against "oppression."

It seems to be a popular trend, these days, amongst conservatives who want to have that "rough renegade" edge.
I've noticed that too. For instance, some anarchists are now calling themselves "Libertarian Socialists" and refuse to use the name "anarchist" to describe themselves. I know Libertarian Socialism is another word for anarchism, but it's getting to the point that people are thinking that the two are completely seperate things.

seraphim
23rd February 2005, 14:48
Guys this is a really pointless thread the last thing we need to be doing is arguing amongst ourselves there are to few of us united we stand a chance of effecting change devided we will fall.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
23rd February 2005, 15:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 08:35 PM
I have never understood why we have worked with anarchists or why we even tolerate them being here. Our theorys are so far different from each others. To understand my dislike of anarchism please check out this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...chism/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm)

In specific check out Versus the Anarchists by Friedrich Engels and also check out After the revolution: Marx debates Bakunin by Marx.

So why do we communists work alongside them?
Newsflash! Newsflash! Newsflash! Newsflash! Newsflash! Newsflash! Newsflash!

This is a debating board, not a factory. This is where we debate. People of different leftist ideologies are here on purpose, so that we can shape our political opinions. Another newsflash: Marxism-Leninism failed! Utterly. It's dead. No well thinking prole wants to repeat the joke of 1917.

Colombia
23rd February 2005, 15:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:35 AM


And whatever the follies of the early anarchists (and they were many), at least they had the good sense never to be caught up in the follies of "dialectics".


But if you compare them to what most of the people who still call themselves "communist" are doing (wallowing in reformist electoral servility)...it's no contest.



http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

How can it be made to happen in accordance with the will of the workers? That's the real question...and one which the anarchists had a better grasp of than either Marx or Engels.


How so?


At the present time, you must acknowledge that anarchists are the "vanguard" of resistance to capitalist despotism in the "west". Whether they will mature into a serious revolutionary movement with mass working-class participation remains to be seen.



Real communists would be insane not to work with serious anarchists in building the resistance to capitalism!
That is true but anarchism and communism are two opposing beliefs for a socialist revolution. As soon as the revolution comes about, what is to be done afterwards but a split between the two and then we have anarchists opposed to the communist state.

When did Marxism-Leninism come up all of a sudden?

Colombia
23rd February 2005, 15:43
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:00 AM
Second, what the hell are you doing using debates between Engles and Bakunin, and the history of the 1870's to inform yourself on current revolutionary theory.


The ultimate goal of communism is a stateless society controled by the woirking class, this is the exact definition of Anarchist Communism (the largest tendancy of Anarchism in the world).



What is the current revolutionary theory and what is the difference between anarchist communism and communism?

bunk
23rd February 2005, 15:59
There is no such thing as a communist state. If enough discussions and preparation is done beforehand then Anarchists and communists should be able to find the way to the common goal as i don't believe either side will be dogmatic when they are in a revolutionary situation.

The Feral Underclass
23rd February 2005, 16:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:39 PM
That is true but anarchism and communism are two opposing beliefs for a socialist revolution.
I think this is the [fundamental] downfall of your argument.

Communism and anarchism are not opposing. They are, in basis, exactly the same. They are social theories for the creation of a classless, stateless society.

The difference is between Marxism and anarchism.


As soon as the revolution comes about, what is to be done afterwards but a split between the two and then we have anarchists opposed to the communist state.

You mean the socialist state? Anarchists oppose the dictatorship of the proletariat in theory, and most likely in practice, simply because it is argued by anarchists that it is impossible to achieve our mutual goal of creating a communist society by using the very thing that stops communism from existing.

Having said that, anarchists have been known to compromise principles and you cannot foresee what will happen in the future. If the Leninists happen to be right, which they're not, it will be difficult to oppose them. Perhaps even pointless.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
23rd February 2005, 17:56
I would count the status of the workingclass directly after the revolution, inwhich the workingclass defends themselves against capitalist attacks to be the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Colombia
23rd February 2005, 19:56
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 23 2005, 04:45 PM
Communism and anarchism are not opposing. They are, in basis, exactly the same. They are social theories for the creation of a classless, stateless society.


Yes, they are social theories for the creation of a classless society, but they plan to achieve this goal in completely different ways.

The Feral Underclass
23rd February 2005, 20:58
Originally posted by Colombia+Feb 23 2005, 08:56 PM--> (Colombia @ Feb 23 2005, 08:56 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 23 2005, 04:45 PM
Communism and anarchism are not opposing. They are, in basis, exactly the same. They are social theories for the creation of a classless, stateless society.


Yes, they are social theories for the creation of a classless society, but they plan to achieve this goal in completely different ways. [/b]
Communism doesn’t plan anything. It's a theory.

Marxism is the [scientific] process of how to achieve communism. You have to make that separation in order to argue against anarchism successfully.

Karl Marx wanted to achieve a communist society. That was his goal. In order to do that he developed a scientific analysis to determine why and how to get thre.

This is where the conflict starts.

Marx looked at society and determined how it developed, why it had developed that way and how to achieve communism. Not necessarily because of some fancy idea about how we should all live in peace and love one another, but because it was the logical conclusion of class confrontation.

Communism is, according to his historical materialist theory, inevitable, but that a transitional process must follow the historical stage of capitalism. The one we are in right now.

Marx argued that the state would have to be maintained but be controlled by the workers in order to regulate society and that eventually when that had happened the state would wither away leaving communism.

He never had the chance to see that put into practice and what has happened every time it has been tried are countries like Russia, China et al.

Anarchists believe that maintaining the state will invariably lead to this distortion, and I, not all anarchists though, believe that Marx would have modified, if not completely changed his transitional stage theory, had he witnessed the twentieth century.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
24th February 2005, 08:09
Marx in Soviet Russia would have been purged as some sort of leftist deviationist, I have little doubt.
It seems to me, that a coherent conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat, under current circumstances, might bare such a resemblence to an anarchist vision that the distinctions become usless.
While in backward Russia (Among other nations with victorious 'socialist'/state-capitalist revolutions), a bourgeois state structure was necessary to develop [state-]capitalism, the conditions in modern developed countries is fundamentally different. That is, the working class is developed enough to exercize a direct and democratic self-rule without the so-called leadership of a Leninist vanguard exercizing a monopoly on violence. That is, within a fully developed capitalist society, the only leadership necessary is the leadership of ideas - while it is obvious that the most militant and conscious sectors have a distinct role to play, it is not that of masters, but of comrades.
I see this vision as both authentically Marxist in character, and compatable with anarchist ideals of a free society.

It is 4am. I wish RedZep's thing would just finish downloading. GRRR!

Irish_Bebop
24th February 2005, 08:57
I agree with many on this thread that it is foolish to argue amongst our selves. Why create conflict with anarchists when the fundimental goal of each is social reform? Our enemy, as it were, is capitalism, and it is stronger than anarchism and communism combined, fighting among ourselves, would just be another case of 'devide and conquer', why weaken the cause with irrelivent infighting? as the cliche goes, ' my enemies enemy is my friend' . For now, at least our goals are the same, maybe later the differences will become unbearable, but that is an obsticle that must be faced when it is actuall being put into practice.

This was essencially the downfall of the Trotskyist movement, so many Trotskyists quarreling over trivial issues, leading to split after split, and eventually leading the school into almost total impotence. And while i admire the purety of many Trotskyists and there steadfast belief in their ideals, that kind of idealism is impracticall and eventually gets nothing done when you are faced with the larger enemy at hand.
Don't get me wrong though, there are some defining points of Trotskyism that must be imbrassed, such as open dialogue and debate and evolution within the party. Those traits are essencial when ensuring that the system does not fall into another Stalinist pit.
- But as for the devisions that they became famous for, it was unecissary and if we start to break into elitest little factions our entire movement will die. There is an overwhelming need for unity and cooperation at this stage of the developement, the deviations that exist between the theories are irrelevant so long as neither of us can put those ideas into practice. Unity is what is needed now, why weaken ourselves any more than we need to. I think that those who would alienate anarchists from the greater left are lost in the ideology and retoric of Marxism, and have little practicality when it comes to whats really important.

Severian
24th February 2005, 09:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:35 PM
I have never understood why we have worked with anarchists.... Our theorys are so far different from each others.
Because sometimes anarchism is a part of the working-class movement.

The communist movement's never decided who to work with on the basis of whether their theory is good.

As the Manifesto says, communists "have interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement. "

And in section IV, after describing the communists' attitude towards the various revolutionary trends of the time: "In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."

Having no interests separate from those of the working class as a whole, communists' goal is to unite all working people willing to fight for our rights and against the bosses. The living class struggle comes first, and Marxist theory is not a plan - rather it's the generalization of the experience of working-class struggles.

("Communism is not a doctrine but a movement; it proceeds not from principles but from facts......Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.")society.source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/26.htm)

The first question is whether someone is willing to fight for some of the same things we are. Theory comes later.

While Marx and Engels criticized Bakunin's theories, they didn't exclude his followers from the First International - certainly didn't categorically refuse to work with them - just because their theories were bad. In the article about the Spanish Revolution you posted, it mentions that supporters of the International's majority in Spain joined that uprising...whose other participants were the Bakuninists, and the "natural enemy" republican bourgeoisie.

The worse problem was that Bakunin's middle-class sect sought to impose those theories on the working class by deceit and thuggery. The "Nechaev affair" - the murder, by one of Bakunin's closest lieutenants, of a Russian student activist he saw as a rival for leadership - was merely the most extreme expression of the Bakunin sect's methods. The layers of secret organization, with the full program not even known to the outer membership, were another expression, of the use of deceit and manipulation against the membership of the International.

But for much of the twentieth century, many anarchists have been part of the working-class movement. Sometimes a worthy part, as the Haymarket martyrs. Sometimes a sizeable part, leading the CNT union in Spain for example. It should be obvious why communists shouldn't have refused to work with, say go on strike together with, other workers who were part of these anarchist trends.

Some anarchists helped make the Russian Revolution and even helped strengthen the Soviet power afterwards - Bill Shatov was one of the better-known "soviet anarchists." They put the living class struggle ahead of their flawed theories.

Presently, it seems to me that anarchism has less and less to do with the working-class movement. Not only are most of its followers middle-class youth, but more and more politically reject any orientation to the working class and show little or no interest in its struggles. Among those who've noticed this trend is anarchist writer Murray Bookchin, in his book "Lifestyle Anarchism or Social Anarchism?" Seems to me that Rebelworker's post is talking about basically the same kind of development.

If this trend continues, the question of whether, or how, to work with anarchists just won't come up that often. But still, there's no reason to refuse to work with any anarchists who continue to be part of the working-class movement, any more than communists would refuse to work with any other fighting worker, or young person beginning to look towards our class as the force which can transform society.

As for the website, people can set up a forum for discussion among whatever group of people they want. Currently, this one's defined as "revolutionary leftists", whatever that means exactly.

redstar2000
24th February 2005, 12:52
Originally posted by Colombia
As soon as the revolution comes about, what is to be done afterwards but a split between the two and then we have anarchists opposed to the communist state.

The phrase "communist state" is an oxymoron.

No doubt there will be a many-sided struggle after the revolution on the shape of the new society; will it have a "state" at all and, if it does, what form will that state take?

For example...

1. No centralized state apparatus at all; just local/regional "quasi-states" (geographical or occupational) that possess very limited authority.

2. A "Paris-Commune" state -- ultra-democracy for the working class and the hangman's noose for the old ruling class.

3. A Leninist "enlightened despotism" -- rule by a vanguard party "in the name" of the working class.

Clearly the only reasonable choice is between options one and two...number three is out of the question!

As a communist, I think the first option is to be preferred (it's communism!) -- and if there is no "political center of gravity", that makes it nearly impossible for those tempted by despotism to even get their careers off the ground.

But I could live with the second option for a few decades if we really needed it to make the "transition" to the first option. If the second option does turn out to be necessary, watch out for anyone who requests "temporary emergency powers" for any reason...in fact, people should recall that bastard at once -- he is up to no good! No matter what his "revolutionary reputation".


When did Marxism-Leninism come up all of a sudden?

It's like the corpse in the corner of the living room...no matter how much you try to ignore it, you end up paying attention to it until it's finally removed for burial.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

seraphim
24th February 2005, 12:58
communist state is indeed an oxymoron on a par with military intelligence

Iepilei
24th February 2005, 13:15
In accordance to Marxism, we WILL attain communism. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's not a factor of HOW it will be. It's of when it will be.

PRC-UTE
24th February 2005, 19:52
Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Feb 23 2005, 05:56 PM
I would count the status of the workingclass directly after the revolution, inwhich the workingclass defends themselves against capitalist attacks to be the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
I would as well. It wouldn't be called a 'state' by anarchists, but they too would use workers organisations to suppress the counter-revolution. At least anarcho-syndialists and platformists would.

bayano
24th February 2005, 22:38
without having read the whole damn thing, i wanna say, as a COMMUNIST, that im closer to left red or even green anarchists than i am to stalinists and hoxhaists. we are revolutionaries, and labels are not enough to divide us....

unfortunately, many anarchists are at least as sectarian as Colombia here is, or various leninist groups are...

codyvo
24th February 2005, 23:01
To say that anarchists and communists have the same goal is absolutely wrong. Yes they both want a revolution, yes they both want the downfall of capitalism but communists want to install a communist government and the anarchists would just want to destroy that government as well. Also the whole idea of anarchists uniting is a contridiction within itself. And two enemy groups uniting has never been a good idea even if it is to take down a worse group.
Despite this I dont think the anarchists should be booted from the site because it is all bout political discussion and debate and booting someone just because you disagree with them is fascism.

Red Robe Majere
25th February 2005, 01:05
Anarchists would help us to get the same goal. After that communists and anarchists are very far apart this would cause abunch of things that would weaken the revolution causing a counter-revolution. So in short the communists or the anarchists would have to step down after the revolution.

Tom Joad
25th February 2005, 02:03
First off, allow me to say that we are NOT "arguing" amoungst ourselves, but debating. You see, the only difference between true anarchists (none of this "anarcha-feminism" or "anarcho-capitalism" crap) and Marxists is our method of achieving our common goal. I will admit right now that we at least have a common goal and not simply a common enemy, which unites us far more than most groups who simply oppose a dictator, etc. Having said that, I will attempt to compare both in one simple sentence each:
Marxists - "The means justify the ends." That is to say, creating a dictatorship of the proliteriat (a form of classism and extreme authoritarianism), no matter how bloody, will be absolutely acceptable so long as it brings out the classless, stateless society that all communists (that is, marxists and social anarchists alike) wish to achieve.
Anarchists - "The means determine the ends." As anarchists, we believe that revolution is a process, not merely an event. We are for non-violent forms of social change, and wish not to have any sort of authoritarian behavior as this will only result in a greater power struggle. As visible with the rise of Mao Tse-Deng and CCP, the proliteriat in turn become a neo-bourgeoisie -- just as the bourgeoisie became the neo-feudalists. As you can see, irony knows no bounds.
What I would like for you all to do is see just how easily power corrupts! After all, this is the main argument against capitalism is it not? By giving a certain group of people material as well as political power, we are setting society up to become a fascist state. Granted, we must defend ourselves physically, but this is all that we should do. We must practice the true art of defense -- being the first to catch a fist and last to throw one.
We are not looking to merely overthrow a tyrant; we are trying to form a new society. Capitalism is merely an obstacle in way of achieving our goal. We cannot ever forget this. By resulting in terrorism and other forms of violent protest and oppression we are only engaging in the practices of those we oppose. Is the so-called "working class" so incorruptable that it will truly wish to form a new society, when given such incredible powers? Of course not!
Now, a great misconception that many people have is that, as anarchists, we simply wish to throw open the doors of every prison and let those within run rampant. Bear in mind that we are no fools, nor are we the idealistic, thick-skulled nitwits that most portray us as. Education is the key. Win over the hearts and minds of every single person you come across, change yourself, and one day this planet will be a place free of oppression. This is the only way.

bunk
25th February 2005, 11:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:01 PM
To say that anarchists and communists have the same goal is absolutely wrong. Yes they both want a revolution, yes they both want the downfall of capitalism but communists want to install a communist government and the anarchists would just want to destroy that government as well. Also the whole idea of anarchists uniting is a contridiction within itself. And two enemy groups uniting has never been a good idea even if it is to take down a worse group.
Despite this I dont think the anarchists should be booted from the site because it is all bout political discussion and debate and booting someone just because you disagree with them is fascism.
Communists don't want to install a government they want a stateless, clasless society in common with anarchists.

Iepilei
25th February 2005, 14:30
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:46 AM
Communists don't want to install a government they want a stateless, clasless society in common with anarchists.
Communists use the state as a means of transition.

bunk
25th February 2005, 14:51
The person i quoted said 'To say that anarchists and communists have the same goal is absolutely wrong.' This is in itself clearly wrong, they may have a different way of getting there but they both want the same end product.

Colombia
25th February 2005, 16:00
This is how communists work.

capitalism<socialism<communism<anarchism

Now is this how the As propose to go about the revolution?

capitalism<anarchism

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
25th February 2005, 16:08
Originally posted by Tom [email protected] 25 2005, 03:03 AM
First off, allow me to say that we are NOT "arguing" amoungst ourselves, but debating. You see, the only difference between true anarchists (none of this "anarcha-feminism" or "anarcho-capitalism" crap) and Marxists is our method of achieving our common goal. I will admit right now that we at least have a common goal and not simply a common enemy, which unites us far more than most groups who simply oppose a dictator, etc. Having said that, I will attempt to compare both in one simple sentence each:
Marxists - "The means justify the ends." That is to say, creating a dictatorship of the proliteriat (a form of classism and extreme authoritarianism), no matter how bloody, will be absolutely acceptable so long as it brings out the classless, stateless society that all communists (that is, marxists and social anarchists alike) wish to achieve.
Anarchists - "The means determine the ends." As anarchists, we believe that revolution is a process, not merely an event. We are for non-violent forms of social change, and wish not to have any sort of authoritarian behavior as this will only result in a greater power struggle. As visible with the rise of Mao Tse-Deng and CCP, the proliteriat in turn become a neo-bourgeoisie -- just as the bourgeoisie became the neo-feudalists. As you can see, irony knows no bounds.
What I would like for you all to do is see just how easily power corrupts&#33; After all, this is the main argument against capitalism is it not? By giving a certain group of people material as well as political power, we are setting society up to become a fascist state. Granted, we must defend ourselves physically, but this is all that we should do. We must practice the true art of defense -- being the first to catch a fist and last to throw one.
We are not looking to merely overthrow a tyrant; we are trying to form a new society. Capitalism is merely an obstacle in way of achieving our goal. We cannot ever forget this. By resulting in terrorism and other forms of violent protest and oppression we are only engaging in the practices of those we oppose. Is the so-called "working class" so incorruptable that it will truly wish to form a new society, when given such incredible powers? Of course not&#33;
Now, a great misconception that many people have is that, as anarchists, we simply wish to throw open the doors of every prison and let those within run rampant. Bear in mind that we are no fools, nor are we the idealistic, thick-skulled nitwits that most portray us as. Education is the key. Win over the hearts and minds of every single person you come across, change yourself, and one day this planet will be a place free of oppression. This is the only way.
You couldn&#39;t be more wrong.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
25th February 2005, 16:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:00 PM
This is how communists work.

capitalism<socialism<communism<anarchism

Now is this how the As propose to go about the revolution?

capitalism<anarchism
Yes, do you know why and how?

Colombia
25th February 2005, 16:37
Please explain to me how you plan to make a direct and sudden change from capitalism to anarchism please.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
25th February 2005, 17:10
I won&#39;t. Don&#39;t judge something that you don&#39;t know. Just read up.

JazzRemington
25th February 2005, 18:07
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:37 AM
Please explain to me how you plan to make a direct and sudden change from capitalism to anarchism please.
Sudden? Nah, that won&#39;t work. If anarchy were to happen overnight, it wouldn&#39;t last very long. The majority of anarchists favor a slow, "evolutionary" process in which the general public is educated on anarchism and when the majority of the people want it, a revolution takes place.

Basically, an anarchist revolution will only be successful if the seeds are planted deeply enough.

bunk
25th February 2005, 20:29
Which is much more likely to work than installing a transitionary government and creating a new ruling class or elite.

Colombia
26th February 2005, 12:38
Originally posted by JazzRemington+Feb 25 2005, 06:07 PM--> (JazzRemington @ Feb 25 2005, 06:07 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 10:37 AM
Please explain to me how you plan to make a direct and sudden change from capitalism to anarchism please.
Sudden? Nah, that won&#39;t work. If anarchy were to happen overnight, it wouldn&#39;t last very long. The majority of anarchists favor a slow, "evolutionary" process in which the general public is educated on anarchism and when the majority of the people want it, a revolution takes place.

Basically, an anarchist revolution will only be successful if the seeds are planted deeply enough. [/b]
So we all should just sit down and wait for the masses to decide to do something?

Just felt like posting this also.

Versus the Anarchists
Friedrich Engels

Bakunin, who up to 1868 had intrigued against the International, joined it after he had suffered a fiasco at the Berne Peace Congress and at once began to conspire within it against the General Council. Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and communism, the chief point of which is, in the first place, that he does not regard capital- and therefore the class antagonism between capitalists and wage-workers which has arisen through social development –but the state as the main evil to be abolished. While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that the state power is nothing more than the organization with which the ruling classes-landlords and capitalists- have provided themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by the grace of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state, which must be done away with, and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one: Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is precisely the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production. Now then, inasmuch as to Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can maintain the existence of the state, that is, of any state whether it be a republic, a monarchy or anything else. Hence, complete abstention from politics. To commit a political act, and especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principle. The thing to do is to carry on propaganda, heap abuse upon the state; organize, and when ALL the workers are won over, that is, the majority, depose of all authorities, abolish the state and replace it by the organization of the International. This great act, with which the millennium begins, is called social liquidation. All this sounds extremely radical, and is so simple that it can be taken by heart in five minutes; that is why this theory of Bakunin’s has speedily found favor in Italy and Spain among young lawyers, doctors and other doctrinaires. But the mass of the workers will never allow itself to be persuaded that the public affairs of their countries are not also their own affairs, they are not also their own affairs, they are by nature political and whoever tries to make out to them that they should leave politics alone will in the end be left alone. To preach to the workers that they should in all circumstances abstain from politics is to drive them into arms of the priest or the bourgeois republicans.
Now, as the International, according to Bakunin, was not formed for political struggle but in order that it may at once replace the old state organization as soon as social liquidation takes place, it follows that it must come as near as possible to the Bakuninist ideal of the society of the future. In this society there will above all be no authority, for authority=state=absolute evil. (Indeed, how these people propose to run a factory operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort once deciding will, without single management, they of course do not tell us.) The authority of single management over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous, but as to how a society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin again maintains silence.

bunk
26th February 2005, 13:37
&#39;So we all should just sit down and wait for the masses to decide to do something?&#39;

No, in case you hadn&#39;t noticed anarchists are usually the ones actively resisting.

What it means is that we all have to start working for the revolution now and give people the means to educate themselves now. It is in fact the opposite waiting for things to happen.

redstar2000
26th February 2005, 13:46
Colombia, this excerpt from Engels has little relevance to modern anarchists and, I suspect, even little relevance at the time it was written.

Bakunin&#39;s ideas can certainly be legitimately criticized...but Engels rarely did that. Instead, he caricatured Bakunin.

And, in fact, Bakunin was actually right about staying out of bourgeois elections -- they are fake&#33;

That wasn&#39;t known at the time...but it&#39;s certainly been known since 1914.

If you want to "make a case" for not working with modern anarchists, then you have to use contemporary evidence.

Otherwise, you end up just sounding dogmatic and sectarian...to no useful purpose.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
26th February 2005, 13:59
Why 1914?

redstar2000
26th February 2005, 15:00
The collapse of the 2nd International, of course.

Here were all these parties that thought (sincerely) that the "road to socialism" meant winning a majority in bourgeois parliaments.

But they had become so corrupted by parliamentary cretinism (a very descriptive phrase coined by Lenin) that when World War I began, they almost universally fell in love with "their own" imperialism. (As far as I know, there were only two exceptions: the Bolsheviks in Russia and the Socialist Party in the United States.)

The general "rule" is: the only kind of "socialists" who can be elected to office in bourgeois "elections" are fake.

Note that this may not necessarily be the case when bourgeois "democracy" is "still young" and struggling against the old aristocracy...a few genuine revolutionaries may "slip through the cracks".

But the longer bourgeois "democracy" exists, the worse the chances of electing anyone decent. Today, the chances are as close to zero as makes any difference in all of the advanced capitalist countries.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Aurorus Ruber
26th February 2005, 19:08
I am an anarchist and recognize that anarchism doesn&#39;t really fit will with Marxism, but I also realize that socialists need to do something in the short term to combat all the myths about socialism.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!
26th February 2005, 19:13
Right thanks.

nochastitybelt
26th February 2005, 19:48
I think one of the differences or problems to an anarchist, atleast to me, and a major problem to me at that, is the centralized aspect of everything-- centralized power, the centralized economy. One can hardly participate in a people&#39;s "government" a dictatorship of the proletariat, if one is far from the center of the centralization. In Soviet "communism" Marx-Leninism, this centralization was also known as the Politboro, which was also known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." One cannot really kid themselves into thinking that those three things were not synonomous and cohesive in Russia. That poses a big problem for me and I am hard to be convinced that a benevolent or fair and equal Centralization Liquidation can work. And my question would be: Why would anyone want that? Anarchists understand the alternative that streamlines Communism to The People and unites both Marx and Bakunin.

nochastitybelt
26th February 2005, 20:14
Yes, Anarchism has always been historically against Capitalism. Bakunin was a contemporary of Marx, knew him, was one time Friends with him and also involved in the First International. Those right wing factions of Reactionaries against the State are extreme Far right Capitalists, not anarchists at all, with the express purpose of creating an extreme Laissez Faire economy.

Iepilei
27th February 2005, 01:32
Heh, misread.

The Feral Underclass
27th February 2005, 09:34
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:00 PM
This is how communists work.

capitalism<socialism<communism<anarchism
What is the difference between communism and anarchism here? If anarchism is the final stage of transition, what then is communism?


Now is this how the As propose to go about the revolution?

capitalism<anarchism

No it isn&#39;t. Obviously that&#39;s impossible.

What anarchists do advocate however, is that as soon as the revolution hgas happened we start to use communist methods of organising society.

rebelworker
28th February 2005, 01:51
Ok first I wanna adress the fact that I think everyone is making a mistake in labeling things,

Anarchism = opposition to hierarchy, social and political

Communism = economic order based on democratic or direct controll of the economy

Marxism = varriations of the teachings of Karl Marx who saw communism as a historical certainty.

To say communism vs anarchism is misleading there are just as many communist variations as anarchist.

Marxists don&#39;t have a monopoly on communism, as much as they would like to kill everyone who says otherwise(I&#39;m only half joking here)

Anarchism in itself is not a political vision just part of a critique of power, there are anarchists who see themselves as part of the communist tradition, and others who don&#39;t traditionally Marxism was just one segment of the communist tradition, there were also Ultra-leftists or council communists who oppose all political organisation outside of workplace councils.

Stateless communism has been the stated goal of all these groups historically, the sole difference is how to acheive that goal.

Many Anarchists do not see themselves as a seperate entity from the masses, we look too build a revolutionary movement at the base by educating ourselves, coworkers and members of our community, while at the same time building the foundations of the new society as part of our movement. Sometimes this is in the form of actual institutions like coops, collective housing and farming. Other times we just want to build directly democratic grassroots networks and forms of struggle while agitating against the state and corporate power, This canm look like radsical workers networks or strike comitees capable of combating both the bosses and conservative union leadership, many of these eventually grow to form revolutionary unions or workers centers. This can also look like samller collectives or federations for education, revolutionary propaghanda, and eventuallty millitias or action groups.

Within the platformist tradition of anarchism we see the need for a cohirant revolutionary organisation, but we look to participate li larger social movements, spreading our ideas and leading by exampleand win people over to the ideas of revolution and self organization, not by attempting to take over positions of power in order to "lead" the masses and set up a dictatorship in their name as is the bolshevik model.

Anarchists beleive that the revolution will only work if the working class is educated and organized enough to run the new communist society from the point of insurrection. Obviously in the early days and years it will be a slow and tedious process of working the new economy and replacing hierarchical institutions like corperations, police, prisons and the lot. Noone said revolution is an easy task.

The marxist argumnet is often that it is more realistic/efficient to utilise the state in the name of the workers untill they are ready, but people will only learn by doing and history has shown that the dictatorship of tghe proletariate leads not to a transitional period but a disention into some of the most opressive, alienating and hierarchical regeims in history.

If you want communism, build communism and have faith in the working classes to organise themselves once the ball gets rolling.

In solidarity,
rebelworker

Andy Alexis-Baker
28th February 2005, 06:18
I was tipped to this site and thread by someone. So this is my first post and I am using my real name because I hate how we mask our identities through this technology and make communication 5 steps removed from the face-to-face. I am an anarchist and have friends in NEFAC.

Rebelworker had an interesting and true post on how it is hard to use Bakunin/marx to justify current anarchist practices because many American anarchists are more individualist, and JazzRemington also when he wrote that anarchists favor a slow process of education that ingrains these values deeply in the population over a sudden, catastrophic revolution.

Rebelworker points to a contradiction among some anarchists who oppose capitalism in that we think we can only oppose it by being individualists when that is exactly what capitalism wants from us. Capitalism is out to destroy social bodies and make us dependent upon it, so any kind of individualist stance that starts with "my rights" is bound to fail to create anything outside the system. Anarchists must begin to organize better into localized groups that create sustainable comunity where they are and network into larger federations (i.e. organizations.)

JazzRemington&#39;s post points to a really serious flaw in my opinion in communism in that it is messianic: a sudden change, a revolution will fall like lightening from the sky. The only way revolution will be viable in this scheme is a totalitarian state that will commit mass murder, imprison and oppress the majority of people, etc. That is what has generallly happened as well when revolution suddenly falls like lightening.

Perhaps a better term for what anarchists are about today would be communitarianism. Just a thought...I have been reading Alasdair MacIntyre so the word comes to mind as a possible alternative to communism for anarchists. It has less authoritarian overtones and will not raise those flags if used.

Severian
28th February 2005, 06:21
The major problem with anarchism is very simple: they reject the idea that working people should take state power. &#39;Cause the state is bad, y&#39;know.

In practice, this has also meant leaving state power in the hands of the exploiters. So none of the other stages of the revolutionary process can happen.

Colombia
28th February 2005, 15:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:00 PM
This is how communists work.

capitalism<socialism<communism<anarchism

Now is this how the As propose to go about the revolution?

capitalism<anarchism
Yes, do you know why and how?

Ok.


QUOTE
Now is this how the As propose to go about the revolution?

capitalism<anarchism



No it isn&#39;t. Obviously that&#39;s impossible.

What anarchists do advocate however, is that as soon as the revolution hgas happened we start to use communist methods of organising society.

Ok, that is the exact opposite of what was said before.

If you plan to use communist methods then, why not just call yourselfs communists? Is that why you use the term anarcho-communist then?

bunk
28th February 2005, 15:39
I presume he means autonomous communes not the transitional state tha tyou want.

The Garbage Disposal Unit
28th February 2005, 15:49
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:21 AM
The major problem with anarchism is very simple: they reject the idea that working people should take state power. &#39;Cause the state is bad, y&#39;know.

In practice, this has also meant leaving state power in the hands of the exploiters. So none of the other stages of the revolutionary process can happen.
Contrary to leaving the state in the hands of the exploiters, anarchists recognise the bourgeois state as a tool of the bourgeoisie, and demand a completely different method of working class control, that might authenticly supress class enemies.
I think the historical tendency of "Workers&#39; States" as breeding grounds for capitalist roaders ought to reveal the necessity of this, not just for anarchists, but for any Marxist who witnessed the last hundred years of historical development.
It&#39;s not that the state is "bad" - it&#39;s that it&#39;s a tool designed with the purpose of empowering the minority through monopolization of violence. As communists, we should lead by ideas, and empower the broad mass of workers to smash reaction. Seizing the state is like trying to use a shotgun to perform surgery.

redstar2000
28th February 2005, 16:59
Originally posted by Andy Alexis&#045;Baker+--> (Andy Alexis&#045;Baker)JazzRemington&#39;s post points to a really serious flaw in my opinion in communism in that it is messianic: a sudden change, a revolution will fall like lightening from the sky. The only way revolution will be viable in this scheme is a totalitarian state that will commit mass murder, imprison and oppress the majority of people, etc. That is what has generally happened as well when revolution suddenly falls like lightening.[/b]

Hmm...a rather novel analysis.

But it raises, perforce, a rather unusual question: if you think that revolution can "suddenly fall like lightning", what should be our response? Erect lightning rods???

I don&#39;t really think that revolution ever happens "like lightning"...at least not in the absence of a long period of time in which the thunderheads gather. The great French general strike of May 1968 was "close" to that; on the other hand, I&#39;ve seen one author argue that the Russian Revolution actually began with the famine of 1891.

The danger of revolution leading to a "totalitarian state" is much more widely understood than it was at the beginning of the last century. I think (and I could be wrong, of course) that even "hard-core" Leninists are wary...though not wary enough. :(

But if revolution does "fall like lightening", then I don&#39;t see any sensible response except to "go with it" and "take the risks"...whatever they might turn out to be. We fight for what we really want...and then we&#39;ll see how things turn out.


Virgin Molotov Cocktail
Seizing the state is like trying to use a shotgun to perform surgery.

Indeed&#33; Using the wrong tool for the job has ruined many a project.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

1936
22nd March 2005, 19:18
The authority cant be given to anyone, because power will corupt. Who deserves the right to command and minipulate the lives of others? We can be oppresed by the workers as much as the fat bastards that sit and oppress us now.

Colombia
24th March 2005, 15:54
How would anarchists prevent someone or a group of people from taking over others if there is no existance of a state or laws?

The Feral Underclass
24th March 2005, 15:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:54 PM
How would anarchists prevent someone or a group of people from taking over others if there is no existance of a state or laws?
First of all, why do you think that will happen in the first place?

Secondly, defence can be maintained without a state. Workers can organise to defend themselves.

Guest1
24th March 2005, 16:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:54 AM
How would anarchists prevent someone or a group of people from taking over others if there is no existance of a state or laws?
The question you should be asking is, without a state, centralized military or laws, hhow would a group of people be able to "take over" if everyone is organized into decentralized, democratically armed collectives?

What is there to take over?

The only reason that a "group of people" can take over, is because of the state, which is this massive organizing power that only requires a few people to infiltrate and sway it in its entirety. If there&#39;s no state, suddenly power is 1:1. To take over, they need to actually organize themselves from the ground up and outnumber the workers (who are all armed in decentralized anarchic militias to boot), not just take over a couple of government offices.

nochastitybelt
24th March 2005, 18:07
Yes. See the Boliviano Circles.. in the same vein as July 26, BBP, etc. armed defensive cells, among the other good community things they do.

http://www.workers.org/ww/2002/venezuela0530.php

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=45&ItemID=3971 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=3971)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1026

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/asylum/...on/VEN02001.htm (http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/asylum/ric/documentation/VEN02001.htm)

.

Redmau5
24th March 2005, 19:29
Anarchism can&#39;t work. A transient stage is necessary. The state can&#39;t just be abolished one day, and we&#39;re all living in communes the next. It just wouldn&#39;t happen.

The Feral Underclass
24th March 2005, 19:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:29 PM
Anarchism can&#39;t work. A transient stage is necessary. The state can&#39;t just be abolished one day, and we&#39;re all living in communes the next. It just wouldn&#39;t happen.
*Bangs head against brick wall*

Making Sense of Anarchism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421)

What is Communist Anarchism? (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

Research before you make such bold statements. What you&#39;re saying is simply wrong.

bolshevik butcher
24th March 2005, 22:19
To be honest there isn&#39;t a huge different between, us especially syndiclists. The similaraties between us well outway the differences. Solidarity is vital in the left.

rice349
24th March 2005, 22:56
Anarchists may very well work with communists prior and during the revolution, but after the revolution it would be very, very important afterwards to make sure that we communists assume the power vacuum and initiate a strong, totalitarian worker&#39;s government in its place.

Redmau5
24th March 2005, 23:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:56 PM
Anarchists may very well work with communists prior and during the revolution, but after the revolution it would be very, very important afterwards to make sure that we communists assume the power vacuum and initiate a strong, totalitarian worker&#39;s government in its place.
I actually agree with you on this. It is essential that a strong dictatorship of the proletariat assumes power, which then goes on to deal with the reactionary elements. Anarchists keep teling me that once the state is abolished, workers will form themselves into defensive militia&#39;s. But what&#39;s to stop these militia&#39;s assuming power themselves ?

1936
24th March 2005, 23:38
If the prolatariat takes power, who is to stop him corrupting the system to hes will and benefits?

The individual authoritarian will never work, the human race cant be trusted with power over itself.

rice349
25th March 2005, 01:19
If the prolatariat takes power, who is to stop him corrupting the system to hes will and benefits?

The individual authoritarian will never work, the human race cant be trusted with power over itself.

First, what&#39;s best for the proletariat will ultimately be best for humanity.

Secondly, regardless of what happens after the revolution, there is going to be SOMEONE who&#39;s going to fill that power vacuum. There is too much at stake to go directly into communism (or anarchism). We would be foolish to think that the workers would be organized and disciplined enough to counter a desparate reactionary/capitalist offense?

NovelGentry
25th March 2005, 02:30
The only reason that a "group of people" can take over, is because of the state, which is this massive organizing power that only requires a few people to infiltrate and sway it in its entirety. If there&#39;s no state, suddenly power is 1:1. To take over, they need to actually organize themselves from the ground up and outnumber the workers (who are all armed in decentralized anarchic militias to boot), not just take over a couple of government offices.

This is what seriously cracks me up -- I do see what you&#39;re saying about having a centralized authority, and as I&#39;m sure you and others are well aware I&#39;m all for decentralizing power. But the state is not founded in a few offices, it is not a building that one seizes and suddenly controls the masses.

If indeed people have revolutionary consciousness, a perceived threat within the state, whether internal or external, will NEVER have a chance.

The only place in which the state becomes a true danger is when indeed it is not formed out of that revolutionary consciousness and as a true tool of the working class, but formed by a subset of that working class for the sole purpose of maintaining a form of control. Whether that type of organization comes in the form of the Leninist vanguard, or a complete military coup of an existing state mechanism.

The problem is resolved when you have true revolutionary consciousness, no matter how you cut it. And without that, you&#39;re going to run into the very same problems regardless of whether you have a state or not. Cause without it, those who aren&#39;t truly conscious are going to be just as easily swayed into accepting a new power whether that power is located in a building that you believe actually embodies the state, or right outside their door.

workersunity
25th March 2005, 04:11
they want to idealistically overthrow the state in one whim, and go into an "anarchist" society, we realistically want to overthrow the bourgeois state, thus with the workers having temporary control in the society, and eventually withering away into communism

rice349
27th March 2005, 07:32
we realistically want to overthrow the bourgeois state, thus with the workers having temporary control in the society, and eventually withering away into communism

as well as suppressing to the point of non-existance counter-revolutionaries and the remnants of the bourgeois society.

Colombia
29th March 2005, 01:27
Anarchists would be counterrevolutionaries of the state and therefore should be suppressed.

rice349
29th March 2005, 01:32
Anarchists would be counterrevolutionaries of the state and therefore should be suppressed.

100% agreement, however, we keep that secret until after the revolution so we can solicit their help in overthrowing capitalism, then it&#39;s straight to the gulags with &#39;em&#33;

Black Dagger
29th March 2005, 08:46
Why is that the majority of anarchists that have posted in this thread are well informed about not only about anarchist theory, but marxist theory as well? Where as most of the marxists/leninists, are immersed soley in &#39;classical&#39; marxism and have about as much of a grasp on anarchism as the average investment banker? Why in 2005, are marxists still leering over the sectarian fence and scoffing dated crap about &#39;chaos&#39; and &#39;extreme capitalists&#39; at their anarchist comrades?

Honestly,

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

The Anarchist FAQ, most if not all your questions/misconceptions about anarchism are addressed in the very comprehensive FAQ linked above. Please, please, take the time to check it out, it would definately save a lot of arguments on the board. You dont have to agree with the responses presented (obviously) but at least you might understand/grasp what the anarchist position is, rather than jumping to completely misguided conclusions that locate anarchists somewhere between social democrats and the free marketeers.



The major problem with anarchism is very simple: they reject the idea that working people should take state power. &#39;Cause the state is bad, y&#39;know.

Why is workers power limited to controlling a bourgeois state apparatus? As long as the capitalist state is maintained, privileged classes will be maintained. If we&#39;re gonna talk about &#39;major problems&#39;, the major problem that anarchists have with some marxists is their obsession with maintaing centralised authority, and in turn the privileged political class that results (the &#39;party elite&#39;). Anarchists dont oppose workers taking POWER, that is meaningful, revolutionary power, self-management of the workplace and the community. Not &#39;state&#39; power, it&#39;s horribly cliche but, anarchists oppose the idea that revolution is about replacing one set of bosses (cappies) for another (&#39;communist&#39; vanguard).

Anarchists have no problem (obviously) with working class people empowering themselves, but as soon as you equate working class power (self-management/organisation) with &#39;party&#39; or &#39;vanguard&#39; power, you&#39;ve stepped out, on to the path of glorious leninist dictatorship, no thanks.



In practice, this has also meant leaving state power in the hands of the exploiters. So none of the other stages of the revolutionary process can happen.

:lol: What a load of hog-wash&#33; Because anarchists eschew state power they now in practice endorse the existance of the state&#33;? And of the capitalist state at that&#33;? You do realise that anti-statism means that anarchists oppose state-based organisation, not only in theory, but in practice (ie. with guns)? It doesnt matter if it&#39;s an &#39;enlightened&#39; leninist cadre seizing parliament house and installing a &#39;revolutionary&#39; government or generic capitalist &#39;democracy&#39; A, B, C. Anarchists approach revolution as a process, not an event.

But you (and most marxists in this thread) seem to think that anarchy is an event, rather than a process, *bang* the PM/President is dead, abolish the market and let&#39;s have ourselves some anarchism&#33; As much as that is great at serving the marxist caricature of anarchism, it&#39;s completely divorced from reality.

An anarchist/communist society is the product of a long process of societal change, there&#39;s no single revolutionary day, like ‘back in 1917’. Part of this process, leading to anarchy should be a rise in social consciousness. There can be no anarchism without a long process of social change. It&#39;s a build-up of awareness/unrest/anger in the majority of society (non-ruling class people), this can only happen as a process; the spread of ideas, a growing discontent with the present order, desire for change, the influence of anarchist ideas on people and organizations, and importantly, the creation of anarchist organizations, in the here and now. Things have to be happening. If there isn’t a social awareness in society (i.e. if people have the same ideas as mainstream society at present), when gun-shots ring out, society will most likely revert back to some form of capitalism, and oppressive hierarchies will be re-established and everything will haven been for nil. But that is not to say that anarchism requires &#39;perfect&#39; people, it does not, but nor does it require or desire working class automatons to fall in behind ‘the leaders’.

Moreover, no one is assuming that all grotesque faces of capitalism will be washed away over-night, but I suppose this relates more to your misconception that anarchism will happen in a day, like &#39;traditional&#39; authoritarian revolutions, rather than as a social process of continual struggle. I&#39;m not saying that there will be no attacks on capitalist hierarchies, repressive institutions etc. there will (should) be, there has to be, if the structures for hierarchy still exist there can be no anarchy, because hierarchies embody the authoritarian values that subvert human freedom, and perpetuate the exploitation of one human by another. So there will be days when there will be &#39;attacks&#39; on the present &#39;system and its leaders&#39;, but these are not the sum-total of an anarchist revolution. Those are just violent actions, violence does not make a revolution, it doesn’t (shouldn’t&#33;) define it. it&#39;s the social change  in people, in society that will create the conditions for an anarchist society, actions (smashing the state) in the sense that you&#39;re thinking of, will be the inevitable products of the preceding changes in society, they have to be, otherwise it would not be anarchist at all. These actions (attacks on the state) are not created out of nowhere, they&#39;re happening for a reason not randomly or in a vacuum.

My point is, that it’s the reasoning (the changes in society that have lead to them happening) behind these actions that is the most important part of the process, because they define the direction of a revolution and of society. If a neo-Nazi group or a Marxist vanguard decide to make an assault on the state, and their actions aren’t the expression of a broader social/societal process in that direction (nazism/marxism), then they won’t have any lasting effect. Terrorism doesn’t convince/inspire people, nor do singular acts of violence (as anarchists learnt in the late 19th century with the failed, ‘propaganda by the deed’). Only when expressions of violence against state and against authority are products of bigger revolutions of mind and society will a &#39;real&#39; anarchist revolution occur.

And just to add something else, there will never be an &#39;end&#39; to an anarchist revolution. As anarchism is founded on the back of a process of social change within capitalist society, it must continue in post-capitalist society. New methods of organising can be trialed/tried/implemented/experimented with, things that don’t work will be junked, and new ways of organising will be tried (not capitalism obviously&#33;). There will no doubt be challenges from the outside world, and from within the post-capitalist society. But unlike capitalist/neo-liberal academics, anarchists don’t see an &#39;end of history&#39; like Francis Fukuyama. Post-capitalism is not the &#39;end&#39; of human development, it is not a static &#39;utopia&#39;, society will continue to change and evolve, but it will not be dictated by the philosophies of hierarchy, capitalism or authoritarianism, who knows what will happen from there...?




Anarchists may very well work with communists prior and during the revolution, but after the revolution it would be very, very important afterwards to make sure that we communists assume the power vacuum and initiate a strong, totalitarian worker&#39;s government in its place

I sincerely hope you&#39;re joking. Nothing screams &#39;liberty, equality, solidarity&#39; like an authoritarian state&#33;



I actually agree with you on this. It is essential that a strong dictatorship of the proletariat assumes power, which then goes on to deal with the reactionary elements.

Cool, although i thought show-trials and summary executions were more of 20th century thing, but whatever floats your boat i suppose. The people who disagree with the &#39;workers dictatorship&#39; (you mean unelected &#39;vanguard&#39; right?), these people who disagree with the authoritarian methods (and ends) of this new government, like for example anarchists are to be executed? How can you possibly justify murder like that? Isn&#39;t that opression? And no, &#39;repressing the old elites&#39; does not justify murdering revolutionaries in misguided sectarian hatred.



First, what&#39;s best for the proletariat will ultimately be best for humanity.

I agree, but it depends on exactly who is determing the &#39;best interest&#39; of the proletariat, is it the people themselves or is it their &#39;vanguard&#39;?



Secondly, regardless of what happens after the revolution, there is going to be SOMEONE who&#39;s going to fill that power vacuum. There is too much at stake to go directly into communism (or anarchism).

Someone may try, probably a power-crazed but irrelevant &#39;vanguard&#39; conspiracy, but without grass-roots support their &#39;seize of power&#39; is irrelevant, if there&#39;s no bourgeois state to control &#39;on behalf&#39; of their workers, they&#39;ll have no one to boss around. Anarchists (and i would hope all revolutionaries), approach revolution as a process, not an event. One of the cliches of anarchist theory is to &#39;create anarchism now&#39;, in your work place, in your community, and to spread and foster these ideas as much as possible in present society.

An anarchist revolution should be the culimination of a period of broader social change, there wont be an anarchist revolution tomorrow, next week, or next year (if only), but that&#39;s not the point. The point is to start building the structures and ideas that will serve people during and in the post-capitalist society, NOW. I think this is where marxists bridge their ignorance of anarchist theory, assuming that because anarchists oppose the state (and hierarchy), they propose smashing the state apparatus (replacing it with NO organisation whatsoever, wrong) and magically arriving in an anarchist paradise, quite to the contrary.

If anything anarchists are more aware of the need to create anarchism/communism in our present society; to facilitate the process of change from capitalist to post-capitalist society, more so than marxists. Precisely because in the marxist paradigm the &#39;transistional&#39; socialist phase is supposed to take care of all this change and then &#39;wither&#39; way (explain that one to me, since we&#39;re talking paradigms here).



We would be foolish to think that the workers would be organized and disciplined enough to counter a desparate reactionary/capitalist offense?

Why is that foolish? Are you saying that workers cant organise (&#39;disciplined&#39;? This isnt&#39; primary school)? If workers cant organise to defend their revolution how can you say that communism will EVER be possible? One day they&#39;ll have to organise right? Why does it take an authoritarian state to coerce workers into being &#39;disciplined&#39; and organised? You&#39;re treating the working class like children. How is your assumption not patronising? And besides, if you&#39;re criticising an anarchist revolutionary process, your scenario really doesnt make as much sense as you may think.

If this was an anarchist revolution the majority of the &#39;workers&#39; (people) would have had to come to the conclusion that they reject hierarchy and statism, otherwise an anarchist revolution wouldnt be happening&#33; And if an anarchist revolution was happening, the old-state would be gone (as well big chunks of capitalism/free-market/private property and so forth), so the reactionary counter-revolution would have to start (relatively) from stratch.

Not only that, but they&#39;d be trying to placate a population who in majority would oppose the authority of the state, state violence, and coercion. The only way the reactionaries could maintain such a counter-revolutionary state would be through extreme violence/opression, that i would think, could only serve to alienate the people further from state-based organisation.

That said, i wouldnt rule out the local &#39;communist party&#39; striking a deal with the counter-revolutionary government and establishing yet another distorted &#39;workers state&#39; <_<



They want to idealistically overthrow the state in one whim, and go into an "anarchist" society, we realistically want to overthrow the bourgeois state, thus with the workers having temporary control in the society, and eventually withering away into communism

No, &#39;they&#39; don&#39;t. All the anti-anarchist propaganda crap you may have read/heard, is precisely that, crap. How about you read/listen to what the anarchists THEMSELVES, have to say? http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

As i said above, revolution is not an event, it&#39;s a process, anarchist revolution particularly, because it&#39;s not authoritarian. That is, you cant force a revolution on &#39;the masses&#39; via &#39;elite&#39; decree, if the revolution is not the creative/destructive expression of the working class/majority of people, it&#39;s doomed to failure. How can a legitimate revolution be built when peoples ideas have not changed? That is why anarchism cannot take root tomorrow, you cant&#39; build a revolution of automatons.

And whilst we&#39;re on the subject of &#39;idealism&#39;, how is it any less &#39;idealistic&#39; to assume the communist party dictatorship will &#39;wither away&#39;? Isn&#39;t this one of the problems we have bourgeios &#39;democracy&#39; now? The elite will NEVER just hand over their power, that&#39;s why everyone here is a revolutionary, not a reformist. Why should the vanguardist state be any different? Is the state &#39;withering away&#39; in Cuba? North Korea? China? It did wither away in the USSR, but there&#39;s nothing communistic about robber/baron capitalism.

A russian joke that redstar mentioned in his rant on agnosticism (which was great by the way, i&#39;m currently in the process of linking all the agnostics i know&#33;)... it goes like this...

&#39;socialism is the transistional state between capitalism and capitalism&#39;, that is my fear, when marxists invest hope in state-capitalism &#39;withering away&#39;, yeah ok, but &#39;withering away&#39; to laissze-faire capitalism is not what i had in mind&#33;

The Feral Underclass
29th March 2005, 09:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 02:32 AM

Anarchists would be counterrevolutionaries of the state and therefore should be suppressed.

100% agreement, however, we keep that secret until after the revolution so we can solicit their help in overthrowing capitalism, then it&#39;s straight to the gulags with &#39;em&#33;
Oh no&#33; The cat&#39;s out of the bag now&#33;

Severian
29th March 2005, 12:09
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 02:46 AM
Why is that the majority of anarchists that have posted in this thread are well informed about not only about anarchist theory, but marxist theory as well?
Sorry, no anarchist posting in this thread knows jack about Marxism. For example, you just said:


Why is workers power limited to controlling a bourgeois state apparatus?

See, if you knew something about Marxism, you&#39;d know that&#39;s a straw man. Marxists propose to smash the bourgeois state and replace it with a workers&#39; state. Heck, if you&#39;d bothered to read the thread you&#39;d know that since I pointed it out earlier.


What a load of hog-wash&#33; Because anarchists eschew state power they now in practice endorse the existance of the state&#33;? And of the capitalist state at that&#33;? You do realise that anti-statism means that anarchists oppose state-based organisation, not only in theory, but in practice (ie. with guns)?

In contrast, I know more about the historical record of anarchism than you seem to.

&#39;Cause that&#39;s not what most anarchists did in Spain &#39;36, its not what Kropotkin did in Russia &#39;17, and see Engels on the Bakuninists in Spain, 19th century, pasted earlier in this thread...

I&#39;ve also read Goldman, Berkman, Bakunin....Kropotkin&#39;s Conquest of Bread was the second piece of anticapitalist literature I ever read, after the Manifesto.

Fine words, some of it, but actions speak louder.


Anarchists approach revolution as a process, not an event.

Wow&#33; What a concept&#33; It would never occur to a Marxist that revolution might be a process....

except wait, I just searched one database and found Fidel Castro talking about a "revolutionary process" 245 times. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22revolutionary+process%22+site%3Alanic.utexas .edu&btnG=Search) It&#39;s one of his favorite concepts. That&#39;s just one example that happened to come to mind.

Edit: just to show this ain&#39;t some Cuban peculiarity, Here&#39;s a similar search of Marxists.org (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=revolutionary+process&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=marxists.org&safe=images) 173 results, from a range of Marxists going back to Marx himself.

As usual, whenever an anarchist occasionally comes out with a true and useful idea, it&#39;s usually plagiarized from Marxism. One of the more trite and ABC ideas in Marxism, at that.

Black Dagger
29th March 2005, 15:11
Marxists propose to smash the bourgeois state and replace it with a workers&#39; state.

Will the workers control this &#39;workers state&#39; or will it be controlled by a party &#39;elite&#39;? I understand the difference between a marxist &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; and a bourgeios &#39;democracy&#39;, my point is that functionally, you&#39;ve got unrepresentative &#39;government&#39;, that in both cases claims to &#39;represent&#39; the interests of the people. Whether it&#39;s ruling class crooks representing, the people, or it&#39;s an enlightened (in effect) ruling elite/class of leninists, &#39;representing&#39;, the proletariat/working class, and both are hierarchal and authoritarian. I completely concede what i said was wrong (in that wording), the point i was trying to make, or at least am trying to now (&#33;), is what i have said above.

That is, my problem with the leninst paradigm replacing one set of bosses for another, and the hierarchal and authoritarian nature of this state (not unlike the hierarchal and authoritarian nature of the bourgeios state). Having a set of &#39;leaders&#39; represent me (and an entire class), to me, is very similar to bourgeios notions of &#39;democracy&#39;. The sheep mentality of bourgeios social movements, the centralisation of power (the disempowering of the workers) to an enlightened elite, and so forth.
The state is an organ for one class to opress another, for leninists it&#39;s supposed to be the working class opressing the remaining members of the old ruling class, but who makes these decisions? Who is running this state? A communist party elite?



&#39;Cause that&#39;s not what most anarchists did in Spain &#39;36, its not what Kropotkin did in Russia &#39;17, and see Engels on the Bakuninists in Spain, 19th century, pasted earlier in this thread..

The failures of some spanish anarchists become the failures of anarchism as a theory? And make anarchists pro-state? The CNT was acting in opposition to anarchist theory itself, and against anarchist principles, i don&#39;t dispute that.

But does that mean that the failures of individual leninists or leninist parties & leninist/capitalist state collusion, are the failures of leninism too? Do they suggest an inherent desire for collusion with the ruling class? Or a desire to create authoritarian dictatorships? In Paris in 68&#39; the communist party urged their members to crush the student/worker revolt when it marched on factories, and occupations took hold, the party then united with the government and the bosses (&#33;) to create a series of reforms, they tried to co-opt the movement. What does that say for the leninist &#39;track record&#39;? Does the reformism and electioneering of many &#39;western&#39; leninist parties suggest that leninists will and do try to collude with the ruling class via the parlimentary process? They&#39;ll join the bourgeios state? Isn&#39;t this unfair logic to apply?

Every leninist revolution has resulted in authoritarian dictatorship, far removed from the notion of a &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; or any genuine workers state that marxists propose. To dictatorships of the communist party. What&#39;s the good in smashing the old state, if you just erect a new one and then never leave? If anyone has a tradition of statism it&#39;s leninists, precisely because the leninist paradigm is premised on the desire for a vanguard party elite to direct the flow of a revolution and it&#39;s projectory in a centralised and authoritarian state. There is nothing in anarchist theory that promotes co-operation with the bourgeios state (as you apparently are aware, it&#39;s the opposite), and the mistakes of the CNT or even the misguided american individualist-anarchists (and their electioneering), cannot change that.



Wow&#33; What a concept&#33; It would never occur to a Marxist that revolution might be a process....


Nice try, but you&#39;re missing (deliberately distorting) the point. The point i was making, was that despite ignorant assertions to the contrary, anarchists don&#39;t see things as, one day capitalism, the next day anarchism, which is how anarchism was being portrayed by many marxists in this thread. I was simply explaining that this was not that case, and although anarchists dont see the need for a transistional dictatorship, this is not to say that they think that anarchism can or will magically materialise once the parliament has been set on fire, the national government has been dissolved and/or the ruling class elites have fled the country. I never said that anarchism owned the concept of revolutionary process (that is absurd), though it seems, you think marxists do? To some extent? Nice try though, spin a little harder next time ;)

rice349
29th March 2005, 15:12
Anarchists would be counterrevolutionaries of the state and therefore should be suppressed.


100% agreement, however, we keep that secret until after the revolution so we can solicit their help in overthrowing capitalism, then it&#39;s straight to the gulags with &#39;em&#33;


Oh no&#33; The cat&#39;s out of the bag now&#33;

no it&#39;s not.

Colombia
29th March 2005, 15:40
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 03:11 PM
Will the workers control this &#39;workers state&#39; or will it be controlled by a party &#39;elite&#39;?

The workers will control the state. If a party elitie ever did come to power than it never was a revolution from the people for the people.


Having a set of &#39;leaders&#39; represent me (and an entire class), to me, is very similar to bourgeios notions of &#39;democracy&#39;. The sheep mentality of bourgeios social movements, the centralisation of power (the disempowering of the workers) to an enlightened elite, and so forth.

The workers can self-manage their factory. Their can be assemblies where the factory votes on issues and elects delegates. These delegates could only act with the authorization of the workers. So management, representatives, etc. would be elected and recalled by the workers. This would insure direct democracy and that ultimate power rests at the bottom, with the workers. Bosses are not necessary. The workers can self-manage and be efficient at the same time.

That is what an anarchist said previously. So would&#39;nt the delegates be "leaders" then in your anarchist society?

Asmoo
29th March 2005, 19:12
The main problem that marxists have with anarchists is that in their view the "anarchist revolution" is totally wrong. For anarchists the state is the evil. They don&#39;t see that the state is just a power device in order to set laws to secure the capital. But marxists correctly point something different out, and Albert Einstein couldn&#39;t have stated it better: "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil." (private property = evil )

And this fatal mistake of anarchist thinking derives from no one else but Michail A. Bakunin. You cannot smash the state at once and leave a vacuum. The dictatorship of the proletariat will take over the state.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is socialism&#33; As a matter of fact socialism is democracy in its pure and by its founding fathers inital meaning. (real democracy like the old greek thought of)
Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx

And this is the problem the anarchists have with us, isn&#39;t it? "The dictatorship of the proletariat" I must admit that this is a very critical point indeed. Because history has shown us how it all went wrong.

My best friend is an anarchist and we often debate about this. And this doesn&#39;t make me think that I shouldn&#39;t work with him, because we have the same goal&#33; I totally respect anarchists and I think we should work together with them. Politically they are our next contact persons and I think of them as ideological comrades. So why all the anti-anarchism because of alternative thinking even if it is no alternative :D

PS: Bakunin was a sexist idiot&#33; Proudhon was just a sexist :D but not an idiot.

RedLenin
29th March 2005, 19:36
Originally posted by Colombia+Mar 29 2005, 03:40 PM--> (Colombia @ Mar 29 2005, 03:40 PM)
Black [email protected] 29 2005, 03:11 PM
Will the workers control this &#39;workers state&#39; or will it be controlled by a party &#39;elite&#39;?

The workers will control the state. If a party elitie ever did come to power than it never was a revolution from the people for the people.


Having a set of &#39;leaders&#39; represent me (and an entire class), to me, is very similar to bourgeios notions of &#39;democracy&#39;. The sheep mentality of bourgeios social movements, the centralisation of power (the disempowering of the workers) to an enlightened elite, and so forth.

The workers can self-manage their factory. Their can be assemblies where the factory votes on issues and elects delegates. These delegates could only act with the authorization of the workers. So management, representatives, etc. would be elected and recalled by the workers. This would insure direct democracy and that ultimate power rests at the bottom, with the workers. Bosses are not necessary. The workers can self-manage and be efficient at the same time.

That is what an anarchist said previously. So would&#39;nt the delegates be "leaders" then in your anarchist society? [/b]
These would not be authoritarian leaders. Anarchists do not oppose all leadership, just hierarchial leadership. Since these delegates could only do what the people decided, and are elected and recallable, they are not authoritarian leaders. The real power rests at the bottom. If you would have taken the time to read over the Anarchist FAQ (http://www.anarchism.ws/faq), you would have known that this is how anarchist organization looks like.

Also, I do understand that socialism works in theory. I myself am reletively well educated on marxism and understand that in theory socialism is very democratic. My problem is that I believe power corrupts. Corruption, I fear, would be the downfall of socialism. Understand that a gov officials interests are not the same as a citizens. The gov wishes only to remain in power. This conflict of interest is one of the downfalls of socialism. Once a worker gets into office he feels himself no longer to be a worker. He is in a position of power and will fight to maintain it.

Anarchists are not against organization, not against voting in all forms (just in statist politics), and not againt leadership. Anarchists oppose hierarchy and coercive authority. Anarchists do not even oppose all authority. We do not oppose a new worker looking up to a skilled one. That is authority but it is volutary. We only oppose coercive authority and hierarchy.

Asmoo
30th March 2005, 10:52
Also, I do understand that socialism works in theory. I myself am reletively well educated on marxism and understand that in theory socialism is very democratic. My problem is that I believe power corrupts. Corruption, I fear, would be the downfall of socialism. Understand that a gov officials interests are not the same as a citizens. The gov wishes only to remain in power. This conflict of interest is one of the downfalls of socialism. Once a worker gets into office he feels himself no longer to be a worker. He is in a position of power and will fight to maintain it.

You cannot abolish the state at once, the state dies off. The proletariat takes control of it and turns the means of production into state property. When this process is completed there are no class differences and antagonisms and that is how the state abolishes itself.

I think you all know that... ^^

What I am trying to make clear is that socialism is a condition precedent to communism. Marxists say that grievances that still are obtained in socialism e.g no social equality, are inevitable. You are right when you say power corrupts (fall of the USSR, but not the only reason&#33;) and thats why power has to be replaced and that is in turn why democracy is so important. And clearly it would violate against the spirit and the interests of the revolution that the workers would try everything to maintain at the position of power. In a working democracy there is no chance for one to abuse power. So you anarchists say that socialism will fail because of a conflict in interests? The government you are talking of is the representative of the capitalist state, but the government in socialism contains only representatives of society. The interest of the representatives of society must and can only be the interests of society. The governing council must be replaced and will be replaced by new representatives in socialism otherwise it would not be democratic.

PS: By the way socialism has already worked once see the "Parisian Commune"

Severian
30th March 2005, 11:23
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2005, 09:11 AM


Marxists propose to smash the bourgeois state and replace it with a workers&#39; state.

Will the workers control this &#39;workers state&#39; or will it be controlled by a party &#39;elite&#39;? I understand the difference between a marxist &#39;dictatorship of the proletariat&#39; and a bourgeios &#39;democracy&#39;, my point is that functionally, you&#39;ve got unrepresentative &#39;government&#39;, that in both cases claims to &#39;represent&#39; the interests of the people.
I understand that YOU think it&#39;s the same.

But if you&#39;re trying to explain the difference between Marxism and anarchism, and you don&#39;t want to misrepresent Marxist ideas, you gotta recognize that WE don&#39;t think it&#39;s the same, and intend to smash, and unlike anarchists actually have smashed, the bourgeois state.


The failures of some spanish anarchists become the failures of anarchism as a theory?

Try most. Plus the other historical examples I mentioned, adding up to all revolutionary processes where anarchists have played a significant role. There is no counterexample where anarchists have played a major role in smashing a bourgeois state.

Anarchists seem unable to grok this, but if my political tendency had such a record, I would be seriously digging for the roots of those actions.

By way of example, let me point you to the many deepgoing Marxist analyses of the betrayals committed by parties falsely claiming to be Marxists. Which go into the class interests they serve, the falsity of their so-called theories, really rationalizations for those class interests, etc.

The PCF, for example, was not a Leninist party; it had far more in common with the social democracy, with the sole difference that its social base included not only the labor bureaucracy and municipal administrationos in France, but the apparatchiks in Moscow.

See The Revolution Betrayed, for starters, as an example of such analysis, including the causes in objective conditions for the degeneration of the Russian Revolution.

If any group of anarchists has produced any comparable analysis, I haven&#39;t seen it.

Oh, and the Cuban Revolution is a counterexample, of a revolution that has not experienced a Stalinist counterrevolution. Probably you don&#39;t like it, but that&#39;s an argument for another thread...and has been.



Nice try, but you&#39;re missing (deliberately distorting) the point. The point i was making, was that despite ignorant assertions to the contrary, anarchists don&#39;t see things as, one day capitalism, the next day anarchism, which is how anarchism was being portrayed by many marxists in this thread.

Well, it seemed to me you and others were contrasting anarchism to Marxism with that phrase, which annoyed me greatly. Excuse me if this was a misunderstanding.

Well, what transition stages do you envision, then? All you&#39;ve said so far is that consciousness has to be raised before smashing the bourgeois state. What happens after?

If you require, before smashing bourgeois state power, that there be enough consciousness to allow a fully communist, stateless society....that seems quite unattainable, and a recipe for a permanent excuse for never smashing the state.

Someone with the attitudes appropriate to such a society would, it seems to me, be quite incapable of surviving under capitalism, which requires a certain amount of callousness to others in order to look out for number one and one&#39;s own survival.

I certainly don&#39;t see anarchism as seeing revolution as an event...rather I see it as anti-revolutionary.

The most consistent, clear-thinking anarchist I ever knew once explained to me, when I carelessly assumed the opposite, that he didn&#39;t favor revolution, as part of it is transferring power from one state to another. He&#39;s right, that has been part of all of the many, otherwise very different, revolutions in history, and since anarchists are advocating something different they oughta have another word for it.

(R)evolution of the mind
30th March 2005, 13:44
Well, it seemed to me you and others were contrasting anarchism to Marxism with that phrase, which annoyed me greatly. Excuse me if this was a misunderstanding.

Well, what transition stages do you envision, then? All you&#39;ve said so far is that consciousness has to be raised before smashing the bourgeois state. What happens after?

If you require, before smashing bourgeois state power, that there be enough consciousness to allow a fully communist, stateless society....that seems quite unattainable, and a recipe for a permanent excuse for never smashing the state.

Someone with the attitudes appropriate to such a society would, it seems to me, be quite incapable of surviving under capitalism, which requires a certain amount of callousness to others in order to look out for number one and one&#39;s own survival.

I certainly don&#39;t see anarchism as seeing revolution as an event...rather I see it as anti-revolutionary.

The most consistent, clear-thinking anarchist I ever knew once explained to me, when I carelessly assumed the opposite, that he didn&#39;t favor revolution, as part of it is transferring power from one state to another. He&#39;s right, that has been part of all of the many, otherwise very different, revolutions in history, and since anarchists are advocating something different they oughta have another word for it.


The way I see it, there has to be a sort of "[r]evolution of the mind" :) on a massive scale before communism can happen let alone live for more then a few days. People must shed their slave mentalities, take their lives into their own hands and stop listening to bosses and other authoritarians. The Marxist-Leninists, at least in theory, wish to accelerate this process through socialism. But would the transition to communism from socialism be an evolutionary withering-away, or a violent revolution?
It is impossible to say for sure, but in light of current evidence on the nature of states led by "communist" parties, the latter seems at least as likely as the former, supposing that the transition ever happened. In light of this nature of those states -- which was also predicted by anarchists before there was such states -- we anarchists are highly sceptical of the usefulness of that kind of transitory phase, and prefer to work towards a popular uprising (the high point of the ®evolutionary process; general strike, the moment people start ignoring their bosses by mass, etc. not necessarily violent in itself) within the current system. It may take longer than it would take to orchestrate a socialist coup, but will it take longer than reaching communism through socialism? It is impossible to say, but I do not think so. An essential ingredient for a popular uprising is obviously discontent towards the status quo. The expectedly totalitarian nature of a socialist state would likely increase this discontent, but unless the whole world is under socialist governments, when the socialist state crumbles down through popular discontent, it would seem more likely to adopt the capitalism of the rest of the world than transition to communism -- as evidence again partly suggests, although I am not so sure if popular discontent had much if any play in these transitions to full-fledged capitalism.

In the meanwhile, Anarchists and honest (i.e. those who really do want communism and not just become a socialist dictator) Marxists can work together to spread the message of communism, to educate people of the nature of capitalism and so on. Then, if one day a truly popular uprising happens based on these teachings, it is or at least should up to the people to decide to which kind of social organisation to transition to.

codyvo
31st March 2005, 02:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:56 PM
Anarchists may very well work with communists prior and during the revolution, but after the revolution it would be very, very important afterwards to make sure that we communists assume the power vacuum and initiate a strong, totalitarian worker&#39;s government in its place.
I agree 100%.

If communism is totally stateless like many people keep saying, then communism in it&#39;s truest form along with anarchism. Because of this no one can tell whether it will work or not.

Also in a completely stateless society the ruthless would dominate and no army of the good willing would ever be able to stop them. And anarchism will never work in a country like the US or the UK because their is to much religious conflict.

rice349
31st March 2005, 04:21
It is important to remember though that while we differ in post-revolutionary ideas, anarchists are important great comrades towards revolution. Some of the most dedicated revolutionaries, and those most willing to sacrifice their bodies simply to counter a redneck kkklan rally have been anarchists. I have a lot of respect for anarchists and while i am in 180 degree difference with them in post-revolutionary ideology, i would gladly work with anarchists in any large-scale movement.

Asmoo
31st March 2005, 11:09
rice349 wrote:
...I have a lot of respect for anarchists and while i am in 180 degree difference with them in post-revolutionary ideology, i would gladly work with anarchists in any large-scale movement.

I agree with you that we should work together with anarchists, but what the hell is post-revolutionary ideology???

The revolution is a long process&#33; In fact the revolution is not over untill we live in a communist society&#33;
Our main differences are how to get to this communist or "anarchist" society&#33; We marxists say it is the revolutionary stage of socialism that leads us to communist society and the anarchist say it is "libertarian socialism". I&#39;m sorry to say that I think that&#39;s bullshit...Bakunin was a fool... :lol:

seraphim
31st March 2005, 11:21
Anarchists seem to me to be more useful in terms of direct action

Colombia
31st March 2005, 12:51
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 11:21 AM
Anarchists seem to me to be more useful in terms of direct action
What do you mean?

seraphim
31st March 2005, 12:56
I mean that anarchists seem to get more involved in direct action. Trying to effect a revolution now.

Black Dagger
31st March 2005, 13:03
I&#39;m sorry to say that I think that&#39;s bullshit...Bakunin was a fool.

Criticism is fine, but state why you think that, not just that he&#39;s a &#39;fool&#39;. And besides, you honestly think that bakunin had or has had, nothing to contribute to revolutionary ideas? That&#39;s fine too, but make points. In the same way that redstar talks about &#39;marxism without the crap&#39;, marxists, anarchists---&#62; communists, have to engage as many ideas as possible, not just dismiss them. If you honestly think that there&#39;s nothing of value you there, then ok.


But if you&#39;re trying to explain the difference between Marxism and anarchism, and you don&#39;t want to misrepresent Marxist ideas, you gotta recognize that WE don&#39;t think it&#39;s the same, and intend to smash, and unlike anarchists actually have smashed, the bourgeois state.

I understand that the marxist perception of the state and it&#39;s uses in a post-capitalist are different to that of anarchists (it might surprise you, but I use to be a Marxist, I’m an anarcho-communist btw). Because our definitions (and conceptions) are different, we don’t see eye to eye, but i don’t think that makes either of us &#39;wrong&#39;, it&#39;s just different ideas, and there&#39;s nothing wrong with that, i would hope. I completely support smashing the state as well, i&#39;m not a member of the CNT, i&#39;m not bakunin, i&#39;m a 21st century anarchist, and it&#39;s unfair to box me into a context that other anarchists may have created. I don’t talk to you as if you’re a ‘red flag wavering’ parliamenteer, I know ‘marxists’ who I like that, but I don’t address everyone like that, that’s narrow minded.


There is no counterexample where anarchists have played a major role in smashing a bourgeois state.

Fair point, but there&#39;s no example of a vanguard establishing a genuine (directly-democractic) workers state (nor anything close to a transistion to communism) either, is there? (Cuba is as close as you’re gonna get, and there’s not enough workers control/direct democracy for that to count, in my opinion of course).That doesn’t mean a real democratic workers state will never happen, in the same way you cant pre-determine the future actions of ALL anarchists, by the events of the past. Because some revolutionaries failed in this regard, does not doom every generation to repeat their mistake, if given the chance, i don’t intend to.



Anarchists seem unable to grok this, but if my political tendency had such a record, I would be seriously digging for the roots of those actions.

I dont think there is anything at the &#39;roots&#39; of anarchism that dictates anarchists to support a bougeios state, that&#39;s anti-thetical to the roots themselves&#33; Slinging statements like that is easy to do, is there something at the ‘roots’ of Marxism that leads Marxists to create vanguard dictatorships? I don’t think so, in Leninism yes, but not Marxism, but all the same, such claims are easy to throw around. One thing that worries me alot is the state of north american anarchism. Not living in n. america I’m not involved directly with the organizations there, but the appropiation of anarchism by capitalists (anarcho-capitalists- what a joke&#33;), and the &#39;liberalising&#39; (in the bourgeois sense) of many individualist-anarchists (and even individualist-anarchism itself, which i dislike immensely), are deeply concerning.

I&#39;ve always found it ironic that the most reactionary brand of ‘anarchism’, and even it&#39;s name (individualist), emerged and is almost completely based in, the US, a product of the US social-political culture at large? I&#39;ve certainly not seen any of that where i live, not that Australia is much less individualistic than the US or Canada, I guess the political culture is in some ways different? I don’t really know…



By way of example, let me point you to the many deepgoing Marxist analyses of the betrayals committed by parties falsely claiming to be Marxists. Which go into the class interests they serve, the falsity of their so-called theories, really rationalizations for those class interests, etc.

Australia is full of them, but in the same way these parties and peoples betray Marxist ideas, the co-option of the CNT and so forth, are betrayals of anarchist ideas. I don’t understand why if it&#39;s anarchism, it must be a deeply rooted flaw, but when it&#39;s Marxist groups, it&#39;s not?



If any group of anarchists has produced any comparable analysis, I haven&#39;t seen it.

Of the failures of anarchist movements or Marxist ones? If you&#39;re talking about anarchist movements, the anarchist FAQ has devoted several sections to the Spanish revolution and the failures of the CNT.



Oh, and the Cuban Revolution is a counterexample, of a revolution that has not experienced a Stalinist counterrevolution. Probably you don&#39;t like it, but that&#39;s an argument for another thread...and has been.

Perhaps not Stalinism, but I don’t see direct democracy, workers democracy in Cuba, despite the many achievements of the Cuban revolution.



Well, it seemed to me you and others were contrasting anarchism to Marxism with that phrase, which annoyed me greatly. Excuse me if this was a misunderstanding.

I wasn’t, I was clearing up the misconception that anarchism is a disorganized, &#39;day transition&#39; from capitalism to communism.



Well, what transition stages do you envision, then?

The same as Marxist ones, minus a centralized national authority/government. Instead of re-applying a &#39;nation-state&#39; paradigm, smaller, localised organisations will be important. It&#39;s &#39;government&#39; without the leaders, that is not to say that some organisations and processes will not require delegates (fully recallable of course), but in a simplistic sense, it&#39;s how I think Marxists would idealistically envision communist society, just without an authoritarian central state telling workers how to organize their workplace and community, that is the workers decision. Just because there’s no ‘big dog’ barking orders and structures at people doesn’t mean they’ll wander around dazed and confused, if the revolution had occurred, you would think that a fair proportion (obviously not every single person) would have a fair handle of even the most basic principles of self-management, if they don’t, anarchists (and communists more generally), will have failed big time.


If you require, before smashing bourgeois state power, that there be enough consciousness to allow a fully communist, stateless society....that seems quite unattainable, and a recipe for a permanent excuse for never smashing the state.

No one ever said anything about gliding full on in to a ‘utopia’, again this is a misconception of anarchism. No revolutionary process is or can be perfect obviously, so I don’t think any level of consciousness could ever be sufficient as to allow a complete and unfettered transistion directly into communism. The only difference we have in this regard is organizational, and I would hope in this regard, that you would not seek to impose your ideas on to people who want to organize their own communities and workplaces, without the state.



I certainly don&#39;t see anarchism as seeing revolution as an event...rather I see it as anti-revolutionary.

More unnecessary attacks, there&#39;s nothing &#39;anti-revolutionary&#39; about anarchism, i cant defend the anti-revolutionary activities of anarchists from over 50 years ago, i shouldnt have to, they dont &#39;represent&#39; how i think or approach revolutionary ideas, nor do they in any way represent contemporary anarchism (does the USSR represent you? North Korea? Vietnam?), working with a bourgeois state is diametrically opposed to anarchist thinking. They didn’t have the guts to back their ideas (anarchist ideas) and see what happened, that doesn’t make their ideas a failure, it makes the individuals and groups who didn’t back them, failures.



The most consistent, clear-thinking anarchist I ever knew once explained to me, when I carelessly assumed the opposite, that he didn&#39;t favor revolution, as part of it is transferring power from one state to another. He&#39;s right, that has been part of all of the many, otherwise very different, revolutions in history, and since anarchists are advocating something different they oughta have another word for it.

I&#39;m not your friend, neither is he an &#39;authority&#39; or representative of anarchism. I completely disagree with him, as any real anarchist should, you can’t have communism without a revolution, and without smashing the state, that&#39;s non-sense, so please don’t project his ideas on to me or in any representative fashion, because it’s not the case. Anarchists don’t need &#39;another word&#39; for revolution, anarchism advocates class war, the same as Marxism. The sooner marxists (and anarchists) put this shit aside, and work in solidarity, the sooner we can sack the bosses.

Asmoo
31st March 2005, 14:51
I think I made my point concerning why I think "libertarian socialism" is "bullshit". I don&#39;t know if you&#39;ve happened to read my prior post, but obviously not. But you are right what concerns Bakunin. I have missed to pronounce why he was such a "fool".

Michail Alexandrowitsch Bakunin, sworn enemy of marxism:
In 1868 the russian Bakunin joined the IWA (the international) in order to to build up a second international and because he was such a "decent" man, he proposed himself as chief. (Alliance de la Démocratie Socialiste) His agenda was hotchpotsh including - Equality of classes&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;???? - (now what the hell is that supposed to mean??) - Atheism as a dogma - and as main dogma the political abstention of all members&#33;

I marked the important parts and foolish remarks of Bakunin :D

Friedrich Engels to Theodor Cuno

Bakunin, who up till 1868 had intrigued against the International, joined it after he had made a fiasco at the Berne Peace Conference and at once began to conspire within it against the General Council. Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and communism, the chief point of which is in the first place that he does not regard capital, and therefore the class contradiction between capitalists and wage earners which has arisen through social development, as the main evil to be abolished--instead he regards the state as the main evil. While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists have provided themselves in order to protect their social prerogatives, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by favour of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to hell of itself. We, on the contrary say: do away with capital, the appropriation of the whole means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall away of itself. The difference is an essential one. Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is in itself the social revolution and involves a change in the whole method of production. Further, however, as for Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can maintain the existence of any state, whether it be a republic, a monarchy or whatever it may be. Hence therefore complete abstention from all politics. To perpetrate a political action, and especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principle.The thing to do is to conduct propaganda, abuse the state, organise, and when all the workers are won over, i.e., the majority, depose the authorities, abolish the state and replace it by the organisation of the International. This great act, with which the millennium begins, is called social liquidation.



All this sounds extremely radical, and is so simple that it can be learnt by heart in five minutes ; that is why this theory of Bakunin&#39;s has also speedily found favour in Spain and Italy, among young lawyers, doctors and other doctrinaires.

(....)

Now as, according to Bakunin, the International is not to be formed for political struggle but in order that it may at once replace the old state organisation as soon as social liquidation takes place, it follows that it must come as near as possible to the Bakunist ideal of the society of the future. In this society there will above all be no authority, for authority = state = an absolute evil. (How these people propose to run a factory, work a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without a unified direction, they do not indeed tell us.) The authority of the majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous, but as to how a society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin again remains silent...

rice349
31st March 2005, 17:13
I agree with you that we should work together with anarchists, but what the hell is post-revolutionary ideology???

yeah i worded that a bit oddly, what i meant is that after literal revolution (ousting of the capitalist powers and overthrowing capitalis) after that part of the revolution in which a strong totalitarian socialist state would be established.

Black Dagger
31st March 2005, 17:30
I&#39;m not denying that bakunin is as fallible as any human being, he of course is, but the &#39;evidence&#39; you provide for this assertion is a little weak. Your main source as to Bakunins foolery is letter(s) written by one of his most serious political and ideological enemies? You really think Engels is the best person to present Bakunins ideas? I&#39;m not saying that Bakunin never made a mistake or said stupid shit, because he&#39;s human&#33; Marx, Engels, me, my year 5 maths teacher, your childhood best-friend, george bush II (&#33;), anyone, everyone says stupid shit, and it is very easy to aruge with &#39;damning&#39; quotes. Although these werent quotes at all, merely some ignorant banter betwee Engels and a mate...

Let&#39;s see, the source describes Bakunin as a, &#39;sworn enemy of marxism&#39;, sounds like a really &#39;objective&#39; source you have there&#33;


He does not regard capital, and therefore the class contradiction between capitalists and wage earners which has arisen through social development, as the main evil to be abolished--instead he regards the state as the main evil.

Nice work with the gross-simplification&#33; Hierarchy remember? Class structure enforces and is in fact a hierarchy, in the same way the state is and enforces hierarchy. Anarchism is an anti-capitalist and anti-state philosophy, they&#39;re all &#39;evil&#39;, and Bakunin never advocated that the state be abolished but capitalism should be maintained. I suppose that conforms to the ignorance of an earlier post that anarchists are &#39;extreme capitalists&#39;, but yeah.


Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, that the capitalist has his capital only by favour of the state. As, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to hell of itself.

That&#39;s just an out-right misrepresentation (not suprisingly). Although the state is a focus centre for many people (and as the the supreme embodiment of hierarchy, the state ranks up there as a major contender), anarchists recognise the significance of both &#39;evils&#39;, precisely because of the interplay. They both reflect similar authoritarian principles, and are thus both deserving of the &#39;dust bin&#39;.


Hence therefore complete abstention from all politics. To perpetrate a political action, and especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayal of principle.

The meaning of &#39;poltical action&#39; is different than, &#39;direct action&#39;, or political organisation. &#39;absention from all politics&#39; in this case means an absention from electioneering, from bourgeois &#39;democracy&#39; . This of course does not mean that bakunin or anarchists were opposed to the concepts of electing officials or ballots (ie. voting), that&#39;s completey moronic (and is of course a politically motivated distortion, hello anti-anarchist bias), it meant that he was opposed to voting and participating in bourgeois elections, which i would hope, you are too.


Bakunist ideal of the society of the future. In this society there will above all be no authority, for authority = state = an absolute evil.

Another distortion, although more of ignorance than malice. The concept of &#39;authority&#39; is different than the way it has been interpreted by engels or whoever wrote the thing you&#39;re quoting from. Anarchists arent opposed to organisation, or when neccessary electing delegates (all pertaining to the principles of direct democracy). A rejection of authority is an objection to authoritarian/opressive hierarchies, situations where people have the power to exploit, opress, coerce others into action/in-action/a position/a life-style, whatever. This doesnt mean that people cant organise, vote, elect and make decisions, it just means the power of the organisation will rest at the bottom, not the top with any elite ruler or group/class. Bakunin is opposing hierarchy, not organisation, elections, self-management or decision making.

I havent read your other posts on this topic, but it seems that from this at least, your &#39;evidence&#39;/justification, is largely distortion (from the source), just plain ole&#39; misrepresentation/ignorance.

A better way of understanding his ideas, and anarchists idea would be to read anarchist literature, the anarchist FAQ is a good place to start, here (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/)... rather than reading second-hand and subjective &#39;representations&#39; of what anarchist theory is about, by someone who describes the subject of their writings as an &#39;enemy&#39;.

Colombia
31st March 2005, 21:16
A rejection of authority is an objection to authoritarian/opressive hierarchies, situations where people have the power to exploit, opress, coerce others into action/in-action/a position/a life-style, whatever. This doesnt mean that people cant organise, vote, elect and make decisions, it just means the power of the organisation will rest at the bottom, not the top with any elite ruler or group/classBut even workers at the bottom hold different views. When electing a delegate by voting, you need the majority of people to vote for that one person. What of the rest who voted differently. This alone could be called an act of forcing the people to accept this one person as the groups delegate simply because the majority favor him.

Severian
1st April 2005, 10:39
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2005, 07:03 AM

There is no counterexample where anarchists have played a major role in smashing a bourgeois state.

Fair point, but there&#39;s no example of a vanguard establishing a genuine (directly-democractic) workers state (nor anything close to a transistion to communism) either, is there?
Which is holding communists to a much higher standard than anarchists. Taking the first step vs completing the journey.

Of course communists should hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold any other political tendency, considering what it means to call oneself a communist....but it&#39;s always ironic when our opponents do so.


I&#39;ve always found it ironic that the most reactionary brand of ‘anarchism’, and even it&#39;s name (individualist), emerged and is almost completely based in, the US, a product of the US social-political culture at large? I&#39;ve certainly not seen any of that where i live, not that Australia is much less individualistic than the US or Canada, I guess the political culture is in some ways different? I don’t really know…

I&#39;d suggest the "lifestyle anarchist" phenom has class roots; it&#39;s the complete divorce of that part of anarchism from the working-class movement, which most anarchists were once part of (and some other anarchists are still at least loosely associated with.). Whether that explains the difference you say exists between the U.S. and other countries, I don&#39;t know.

"Individualist anarchism" is not entirely new, as Murray Bookchin explains in his book "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism?" He traces it back to Stirner and others.


I don’t understand why if it&#39;s anarchism, it must be a deeply rooted flaw, but when it&#39;s Marxist groups, it&#39;s not?

No. Please go back and reread.

The betrayals of pseudo-Marxist groups are deeply rooted and those roots have been carefully analyzed.


Of the failures of anarchist movements or Marxist ones? If you&#39;re talking about anarchist movements, the anarchist FAQ has devoted several sections to the Spanish revolution and the failures of the CNT.

OK...so I just read some FAQ sections on Spain and on anarchist society, and I have to say it evades all the real political issues.

Its basic excuse for the CNT leadership is that they were afraid of the victory of fascism; but a justifiable fear of bloody counterrevolution is a factor in every revolution. So if we accept, for the sake of argument, the anarchist FAQ&#39;s explanation, we can easily see why anarchists have behaved the same in all revolutions, and expect them to behave the same in future revolutions, since the same cause has operated and will operate in all of them.

At the beginning of the relevant section, the FAQ quotes Trotsky on all revolutions being exceptional situations and admits he&#39;s right; then it goes ahead and makes an "exceptional situation" argument anyway.

Probably because they have no other argument and no other explanation. They even go out of their way to argue the CNT-FAI leadership was fully anarchist, in theory and practice, right up to the Civil War (in the section responding to Felix Morrow, whose book "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain I recommend. Their response to him is mostly not worth much; some of it&#39;s not remotely relevant to his points.)

Also note that they only mention this stuff at all in response to Marxist criticism; if not for that criticism we would hear about Spanish anarchism only as a heroic example, and of course as the tragically doomed martyrs so beloved by everyone who wants harmless, romanticized pseudo-revolutionaries who will never actually make a revolution.


Perhaps not Stalinism, but I don’t see direct democracy, workers democracy in Cuba, despite the many achievements of the Cuban revolution.

There exists a significant degree of workers&#39; democracy, in content, in Cuba, through the mass organizations, workers&#39; assemblies in the workplace, the Communist Party, etc. Pretty damn good considering the awful objective conditions, I&#39;d say.

It does not have the particular forms your particular ideological shibboleth leads you to demand (nor does it have those of the Trotskyist tradition, soviets etc., for that matter); but putting ideological preconceptions before the living class struggle is the mark of a sectarian. History is complex; it progresses by paradoxes and "two steps forward, one step back"; and its reasonable to expect that the greatest social transformation in human history will be the most complex and paradoxical of all.


I wasn’t, I was clearing up the misconception that anarchism is a disorganized, &#39;day transition&#39; from capitalism to communism.

I notice the anarchist FAQ makes the same point...and quotes Kropotkin on the possibility that it might even take...four or five years&#33; Fer crying out loud. Far smaller transformations - say feudalism to capitalism - have taken centuries, with multiple waves of revolution making different types of change, counterrevolutions and partial reversals, etc.




Well, what transition stages do you envision, then?

The same as Marxist ones, minus a centralized national authority/government.

That&#39;s an evasion not an answer; all the distinctions in the Marxist concept of the dicatatorship of the proletariat, socialism, than communism would have to be revamped if there&#39;s no state from the beginning.


Instead of re-applying a &#39;nation-state&#39; paradigm, smaller, localised organisations will be important. It&#39;s &#39;government&#39; without the leaders,

A localized state remains a state - and can be even more oppressive. As U.S. history shows in exhaustive detail, with the segregationist Southern sheriff, jealously guarding his despotic fiefdom from all "centralized" government, as the ultimate but far from the only example. And not just U.S. history - there&#39;s a reason many of the classic bourgeois-democratic revolutions were centralizing, knocking down the petty baronies and the chartered privileges of the towns.

That&#39;s one of the paradoxes in anarchism, typically covered over with vagueness and evasions, are they seeking to end the state or just make it local.

And all human groups, even the most informal, have leaders.

I&#39;d say you haven&#39;t answered the question, and that the FAQ doesn&#39;t either.


but in a simplistic sense, it&#39;s how I think Marxists would idealistically envision communist society,

That this comes up in answer to a question about transition stages indicates exactly the problem....that anarchists seem to imagine that can happen far quicker than would be realistic.


that you would not seek to impose your ideas on to people who want to organize their own communities and workplaces, without the state.

Which is all that Rockefeller and Dupont ask too, that we don&#39;t impose our ideas on them. As somebody else in this thread points out, democracy includes majority rule, and the majority decision being imposed on the minority. Deal with it, or follow lifestyle anarchist Hakim Bey and proclaim yourself a monarch.


More unnecessary attacks, there&#39;s nothing &#39;anti-revolutionary&#39; about anarchism, i cant defend the anti-revolutionary activities of anarchists from over 50 years ago, i shouldnt have to, they dont &#39;represent&#39; how i think or approach revolutionary ideas, nor do they in any way represent contemporary anarchism (does the USSR represent you? North Korea? Vietnam?), working with a bourgeois state is diametrically opposed to anarchist thinking. They didn’t have the guts to back their ideas (anarchist ideas) and see what happened, that doesn’t make their ideas a failure, it makes the individuals and groups who didn’t back them, failures.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.




The most consistent, clear-thinking anarchist I ever knew once explained to me, when I carelessly assumed the opposite, that he didn&#39;t favor revolution, as part of it is transferring power from one state to another. He&#39;s right, that has been part of all of the many, otherwise very different, revolutions in history, and since anarchists are advocating something different they oughta have another word for it.

I&#39;m not your friend, neither is he an &#39;authority&#39; or representative of anarchism.

He wasn&#39;t a friend, just a worthy opponent.

I mention his point not as an argument from authority, but because it was quite logically consistent, even unassailable. You&#39;ve chosen not to grasp it.

As for working together, I made a post about that earlier in the thread.

***

About Bakunin: he was a very authoritarian leader. He set up secret layers of organization within organization, with the full program not known to the outer layers, in order to manipulate and deceive the membership of the International.

His faction used violence and intimidation against those who criticised them, particularly in Russia and against Russian exiles. One of Bakunin&#39;s closest allies, Nechaev, even murdered a student who he saw as a rival to leadership, justifying this with false accusations that he was a police spy.

In a way all this has nothing to do with the exact content of the ideology; its simply the methods of a petty-bourgeois sect seeking to impose one or another petty-bourgeois ideology on the workers&#39; movement. It could call itself "Marxist-Leninist", anarchist, social-democratic, or something else, no matter. A modern, much larger-scale example is the Shining Path in Peru.

It does indicate, though, that just because someone talks a lot about opposing authority, direct democracy, whatever....that doesn&#39;t automatically mean they are any more democratic in practice.

Sometimes the opposite; as I said earlier all groups have leaders; and those who refuse to elect and define the powers of a leadership usually end up with an unelected, unaccountable leadership.

***

Another founding anarchist writer, Proudhon, is also very interesting: he opposed workers&#39; right to organize and strike and even praised the nobility of employers who had their striking employees gunned down.

Just a little indication of the origins of anarchist ideology outside the workers&#39; movement, in the extreme wing of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions.

Asmoo
1st April 2005, 11:02
I&#39;m not saying that Bakunin never made a mistake or said stupid shit, because he&#39;s human&#33;

"Equality of classes" Bakunin

I agree with you, we all make mistakes, but don&#39;t you think such important issues should be handled more carefully? It just seems that he felt the urge of saying something "different" and then made this and many other stupid statements. And this is what makes the difference between seriousness and someone that centres himself.


...anyone, everyone says stupid shit, and it is very easy to aruge with &#39;damning&#39; quotes. Although these werent quotes at all, merely some ignorant banter between Engels and a mate...

You will have some difficulties finding "stupid shit" from Marx or Engels...and by "stupid shit" I mean such great mistakes as "Equality of classes". "Ignorant banter" you call Engels correspondence with Theodor Cuno???

"free workers would require a free organisation, and this cannot have any other basis than free agreement and free co-operation, without sacrificing the autonomy of the individual."

How is a social relationship between two people (syndicates, whatever&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;) possible without anyone losing some of his autonomy? Bakunin failed to or didn&#39;t even try to explain this.


Let&#39;s see, the source describes Bakunin as a, &#39;sworn enemy of marxism&#39;, sounds like a really &#39;objective&#39; source you have there&#33;

That is a fact. Bakunin was a "sworn enemy of marxism". He himself couldn&#39;t have said it better if you asked him.


Class structure enforces and is in fact a hierarchy, in the same way the state is and enforces hierarchy. Anarchism is an anti-capitalist and anti-state philosophy, they&#39;re all &#39;evil&#39;, and Bakunin never advocated that the state be abolished but capitalism should be maintained. I suppose that conforms to the ignorance of an earlier post that anarchists are &#39;extreme capitalists&#39;, but yeah.

Feudalism? or are you talking about capitalism?
If you by class structure are talking about the relation one has to the means of production, it is actually not a hierarchy. If you are talking about the economic structure you are wrong again since we have anarchy in capitalist production. The state has nothing to do with the anarchy in capitalist production it just makes laws in order to protect the capitalist.

Capitalism should be maintained??? What the hell? Please disabuse me.


That&#39;s just an out-right misrepresentation (not suprisingly). Although the state is a focus centre for many people (and as the the supreme embodiment of hierarchy, the state ranks up there as a major contender), anarchists recognise the significance of both &#39;evils&#39;, precisely because of the interplay. They both reflect similar authoritarian principles, and are thus both deserving of the &#39;dust bin&#39;.

The state is the supreme embodiement of hierarchy?
The state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists have provided themselves in order to protect their social prerogatives.
Anarchists recognise the significance of both evils? Obviously not&#33;

Colombia
3rd April 2005, 07:53
A rejection of authority is an objection to authoritarian/opressive hierarchies, situations where people have the power to exploit, opress, coerce others into action/in-action/a position/a life-style, whatever. This doesnt mean that people cant organise, vote, elect and make decisions, it just means the power of the organisation will rest at the bottom, not the top with any elite ruler or group/class

This means, as we argue in section J.3.6, that anarchists seek to influence the class struggle as equals. Rather than aim for positions of power, anarchists want to influence people by the power of their ideas as expressed in the debates that occur in the organisations created in the social struggle itself. This is because anarchists recognise that there is an unevenness in the level of ideas within the working class. This fact is obvious. Some workers accept the logic of the current system, others are critical of certain aspects, others (usually a minority) are consciously seek a better society (and are anarchists, ecologists, Marxists, etc.) and so on. Only constant discussion, the clash of ideas, combined with collective struggle can develop and narrow the unevenness of ideas within the oppressed. As Malatesta argued, "[o]nly freedom or the struggle for freedom can be the school for freedom." [Life and Ideas, p. 59]

So either way, the minority will still be oppressed and will just have to live with it because "it is not as bad as it could be.&#39;&#39;

DeadFishCorpse
3rd April 2005, 16:27
The way to run a factory is through direct democracy, the workers will vote on the issues of production as far as management goes, the workers elect a temporary manger and rotate.

Vanguard1917
4th April 2005, 02:08
The central question here (which is often avoided) is the state and political power. Anarchists claim that the state is INHERENTLY a "bad thing", no matter who controls it. Marxists also argue that the state is undesirable, but that it is a fact of life in class-divided society; indeed, put bluntly, political power is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another (Marx and Engels). So, as our common aim is to fight for a classless (and hence stateless) society, the key question here is how we achieve this aim.

Although i havent gone through ever dot and comma in the six pages of the post, no anarchist on here seems to have directly addressed the question of how the working class is to fight for its revolutionary aims - in a socialist society - without organising itself into a state with the political aim of repressing the counter-revolutionary demands of the reactionaries. This is so vital, and yet it is not discussed. (Indeed, abstaining from this kind of political discussion often means abstaining from any kind of organised politics.)

A repressive workers&#39; state may sound "authoriatarian" to some, but lets be frank: a revolution (as Engels said) is the most authoritarian of activities. It involves one section of society (albeit, in the socialist sense, the majority of society) ENFORCING it&#39;s demands on other sections. So let&#39;s not delude ourselves with romantic nonsense. Let&#39;s discuss how the working class can achieve its revolutionary demands - against the reactionary wishes of the pre-revolutionary ruling classes - without a means through which it can do this (i.e., in my view, a workers&#39; state - the dictatorship of the working class, the working class organised as a ruling class).

Colombia
20th April 2005, 12:54
What happened? No anarchist has come here yet to say his views on this subject.

The Feral Underclass
20th April 2005, 13:30
What subject?

RedLenin
20th April 2005, 21:04
All right I will sum up my views on the subject. We both agree that revolution is a process and we both agree that revolution is not complete until we are living in a communist society. The big issue here is this so called "workers state". Anarchists favor putting power directly into the hands of the people themselves as opposed to a vanguard or a state. We do not want to swap one set of bosses for another. Understand that the goal of an anarchist revolution is not exactly the same as a marxist one. The goal of an anarchist revolution is to abolish hierarchy and give people control over their own lives. The enemy is not just capitalism or the state but hierarchy in general.

Next, anarchists desire a social revolution. A social revolution is a much different kind of revolution. Social revolution means that the people themselves change society. In order for a social revolution to take place, people must no longer wish to command or obey. For a social revolution to take place, people must want equality and not superiority. A social revolution does not mean fighting. A social revolution means self-liberation, equality, and expropriation for the use of all. We want all to share in the goods of the world. The goal is not just the abolishion of capitalism. The goal is the complete transformation of society by the people themselves, not a vanguard or a state.

In place of a workers state, I envision community assemblies, workers councils, community militias, and the full democratic participation of all. I envision a network of communities and one big union of workplaces all working together to transform society. Much like council communism, we believe that power should rest with community and workers councils made up of the people themselves. Direct democracy is one of the most esential parts of revolution. The people themselves must hold the power, not a state.

As far a defending a revolution, we also recognize the need for a revolutionary defense force. This defense will take the shape of a decentralized network of community militas defending their communities and workplaces agaist reaction.

We also realize that communism will not come at once. During a revolution, necessities will have to be rashioned in order to fullfill the needs of all. I feel that all needs must be met and this will require rashioning at first. After the production increases, we can move on to a money based economy know as collectivism. Once production increases, and there are enough goods in society for the use of all, the money will simply loose its value and we will have communism.

Until we reach communism, the revolution is not complete. The social revolution is a long process where the people themselves completely transform society. The goal of a social revolution will be to abolish the oppression of man by man and to allow all to share in the beauties of the earth.

That is how I envision a social revolution. I have outlined the basic principals, defense, and the social and political structure of this revolution, and even given examples of transition. If you have any questions about this, please ask and I will give some clarification.

Redmau5
20th April 2005, 21:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 08:04 PM
Anarchists favor putting power directly into the hands of the people themselves as opposed to a vanguard or a state.
Marxists also favour putting the state into the hands of the workers. A dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean someone dictating to the proletariat, but rather the proletariat dictating things themselves. Anarchists believe in no state at all, not even for a transitory period.

What you describe as a vanguard group taking power is Marxism-Leninism, not Marxism.

Commie Rat
21st April 2005, 10:57
all i can say is that an enemy of an enemy is a friend
i belive that most anarchits are antifa and anticappie then that previous statement is true