Anarchism is reformism [Archive]

apathy maybe

13th June 2005, 08:16

I wasn't going to lower myself to reply to this, but then I decide that it was just too bad.

Besides all the communists ever did was kill people. Look at Stalin, he slaughtered millions of people with his teeth! Plus he slept with Hitler. That is not to say that Lenin was much better. First he believed in that vanguard crap, tried to implement Marxism in a non-industrialised country and then killed lots of people, with his big toe!. And he slept with Mussolini. (Jeez these communists sure do get around.)

OK then, to the post.

Originally posted by JC1+--> (JC1)Anarchism is reformism. In Spain too it was reformism, aswell as Ukraine. All the anarchists have done is re-distribute land and formed unions with red and black falgs. And like Comrade Lenin said , trade union cousince is the lowest form of class counsince. When ever Anarchists lead a campaign in the west it usualy gets a reform , but it dosent raise the level of workers counsince. Or its cultural agitation in such a fashion it alienates potenial reveloutionaries from the movement.[/b]
Ignoring the nine spelling mistakes, I rebut you thus.
All the anarchists have done is re-distribute land? What about the whole setting up workers councils and things like that then? Besides what do you have against red and black flags? Trades unions in the modern capitalist sense (not militant) may well not do much, but at least it is something. The trade unions established by the anarchists controlled the means of production, were democratically run and all in all better then the "Communist" Party of whichever country you would like to name.

At least something happens when anarchists do stuff. What has a communist party in a "western" country ever done? Prevent a strike, bowed to corporate pressure, loved the capitalist. How dare you claim that anarchist alienate potential revolutionaries considering the history of "communism".

Originally posted by JC1+--> (JC1) Do any anarchists want to respond to this charge , or what ?[/b]
You allow how long? One hour 26 minutes.

Originally posted by redstar2000
Perhaps some will...but if I were in their shoes, I don't think I'd bother contesting such an incoherent and historically unsupported "indictment".

It's not much above the sort of "commies killed millions" trash threads that pop up in Opposing Ideologies all the time.

If you have thoughtful and serious criticisms of anarchism to make, perhaps you'll receive some responses.

But all you've really invited them to do is stick their tongues out and say "nyah, nyah, you're even worse."

Is that what you wanted?
Well I did lower myself though as you said the claims are not much. And I am going "nyah, nyah, you're even worse."

Originally posted by JC1
Why ?

Becuase I dare say that kronsdat was just a wage struggle led by labour aristocrats ?

Becuase I dare say that anarchsit " Collectives " in Spain were simply crude service Co-ops that re-distributed a lil' land ? Same with mahkno. He Slayed members of my class, suppourted the remanants of the black hundreds and re-distributed land. Ukraine under Mahkno looked more like Darfur then a Anarchist Utopia.

And the CNT was just a Trade Union that had black flags.
I assume you meant the Kronstadt uprising. So it was a claim for higher wages, so you slaughter them? Besides they were not even anarchists.

You ignore the fact that the "crude service Co-ops", also established an egalitarian society, and were the best fighters (except that the Communists would not give them any weapons).

Your class? Wow. Which one is that? Sure Ukraine under Makhno was not perfect and not anarchistic, but it was better then what came after. I do not see how you can claim that it is anything like Darfur.

And what do you have against black flags?

Originally posted by JC1
I state the fact that the majority of Anarchist " Activism " is Cultural Agitation that agitates people ... too have disdain anarchism !
You state this now. This might have some truth, but you have hardly proved it.

[email protected]
The only anarchists I have met are Small Buissnis owners and students. Who hang out with Avaikian Worshippers no less !

The Furthest adavance of anarchism in the west was the situationist internatinale ... and that was thourghly Petit-Bourgoise.
I am a student. Fascinating how you could know that. But I have never meet an Avakian Worshipper (not everyone lives in North America you know).
Bah, this is just silly. The Furthest adavance [sic] of was the USSR ... and that was thourghly [sic] fucked-up.

JC1
Anarchism can be sumed up in a few words " Petit-Bourgoise to the west ... Peasntry to the east ".
Riiight. That is really a good succinct argument there. Besides the fact that someone has to represent the peasantry (seeing as the communists do not), you are just ignoring a lot of trade-union stuff, and stuff. Blah. Blah. Blah.

(Can you please also proof-read your posts as well.)

Severian

13th June 2005, 22:53

JC1 doesn't make the argument so well.

But anarchism is indeed reformist in the sense that it's opposed to an essential part of revolution...that is, working people taking political power, aka state power.

JC1

14th June 2005, 00:00

Besides all the communists ever did was kill people. Look at Stalin, he slaughtered millions of people with his teeth! Plus he slept with Hitler. That is not to say that Lenin was much better. First he believed in that vanguard crap, tried to implement Marxism in a non-industrialised country and then killed lots of people, with his big toe!. And he slept with Mussolini. (Jeez these communists sure do get around.

Stalin : Harboured Jews in unlimited Numbers from Germany.
Bukinin : Sat around writing anti-semitic non-sense !

Ignoring the nine spelling mistakes, I rebut you thus.

Straw Man.

All the anarchists have done is re-distribute land? What about the whole setting up workers councils and things like that then?

You ignore the fact that the "crude service Co-ops", also established an egalitarian society, and were the best fighters (except that the Communists would not give them any weapons).

Aparntley you dont know what a service co-op is. A service co-op is awhere a group of farmers share services , but other then that , there estate operate on a capitalist basis. While service co-ops are nice, the regularly occur even under capital's regime !

Trades unions in the modern capitalist sense (not militant) may well not do much, but at least it is something.

Lest we forget that the ALF-CIO is the direct desendant of the IWW. A Union can flop between lines like flapjacks. And the IWW wasnt , even in its heyday , all that radical to begin with.

And yes , a state of dual power existed in spain. But this was cuased by a crisis and the protracted struggles led by the CP and the POUM. The anarchists were around quite a whiole , and for most of the time were major forces. But they never launched General strikes , infact the CNT openly declared it was Non-political. The IWW says the same thing today.

Im not dissing unions , im just saying that they're the lowest form of workin' class orginization , and in the best of times arnt that radical.

Your class? Wow. Which one is that?

The Workin' Class.

Sure Ukraine under Makhno was not perfect and not anarchistic, but it was better then what came after. I do not see how you can claim that it is anything like Darfur.

Originally posted by "http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm"
Makhno led a peasant movement, and so never had a strong base of support in any of the cities. Most of the workers who lived in areas of the Ukraine under Makhno’s control sided either with the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks. The following examples illustrate the attitude that Makhno had towards the working class. When railway and telegraph workers from the Ekaterinoslav-Sinelnikovo line were still suffering after a long period of starvation under Denikin’s occupation, they asked Makhno to pay them for their work. He responded with, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.” In a separate incident, he told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armoured car, I will take this armoured car for free and pay nothing.” (1) Jakovlev J. Machnovshina I Anarchizm (http://sky.kuban.ru/socio_etno/magister/library/revolt/yakoy001.htm)

With clashes between peasants and landlords on the one hand, and clashes between peasants and workers on the other, Makhno was pressed to institute policies that were far from “libertarian”. The real conditions of life for the peasants of the Ukraine from 1919-1921 were cruel and repressive. The cities in Makhno’s territories were not ruled by Soviets. Instead, they were ruled by mayors drawn from Makhno’s military forces. Makhno’s movement was severely centralized, with the leadership in the RevCom deciding everything. Makhno even established a police-security organization (!) led by Leo Zadov (Zinkovsky), a former worker-anarchist who was to become notorious for his brutality. Incidentally, in the early 1920s Zadov returned to the USSR – to join the GPU! He was rewarded for his services with his own execution in 1937. In the Ukraine, we see clearly that the anarchists were committing the same crimes that they accused the Bolsheviks of.

Sounds alot like a war-lord movement from the horn africa !

am a student. Fascinating how you could know that. But I have never meet an Avakian Worshipper (not everyone lives in North America you know).
Bah, this is just silly. The Furthest adavance [sic] of was the USSR ... and that was thourghly [sic] fucked-up.

I was just sayin' the anarchist I know.

You state this now. This might have some truth, but you have hardly proved it.

I apologize , my statement was quite absolute.

The Grapes of Wrath

14th June 2005, 00:31

I'm not an Anarchist in any form, but I can't help but correct some inaccuracies that are bothering me. I am an advocate of the truth.

Lest we forget that the ALF-CIO is the direct desendant of the IWW.

Dude, the AFL was around about 19 years (1886) before the IWW was created in 1905. And the CIO was highly influenced by the Communist Party USA before they were banished from the Organization in the late 1930s ... while Anarchists were surely in these groups, they were not the majority and nor were they created by them.

QUOTE ("http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm")

Makhno led a peasant movement, and so never had a strong base of support in any of the cities. Most of the workers who lived in areas of the Ukraine under Makhno’s control sided either with the Bolsheviks or the Mensheviks. The following examples illustrate the attitude that Makhno had towards the working class. When railway and telegraph workers from the Ekaterinoslav-Sinelnikovo line were still suffering after a long period of starvation under Denikin’s occupation, they asked Makhno to pay them for their work. He responded with, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.” In a separate incident, he told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armoured car, I will take this armoured car for free and pay nothing.” (1) Jakovlev J. Machnovshina I Anarchizm (http://sky.kuban.ru/socio_etno/magister/library/revolt/yakoy001.htm)

With clashes between peasants and landlords on the one hand, and clashes between peasants and workers on the other, Makhno was pressed to institute policies that were far from “libertarian”. The real conditions of life for the peasants of the Ukraine from 1919-1921 were cruel and repressive. The cities in Makhno’s territories were not ruled by Soviets. Instead, they were ruled by mayors drawn from Makhno’s military forces. Makhno’s movement was severely centralized, with the leadership in the RevCom deciding everything. Makhno even established a police-security organization (!) led by Leo Zadov (Zinkovsky), a former worker-anarchist who was to become notorious for his brutality. Incidentally, in the early 1920s Zadov returned to the USSR – to join the GPU! He was rewarded for his services with his own execution in 1937. In the Ukraine, we see clearly that the anarchists were committing the same crimes that they accused the Bolsheviks of.

Reality, politics and ideology often conflict. Sometimes you have to compromise to reach a greater goal, or to not advance today so you are in a better position to advance tomorrow. Cut them some slack! The same can be said of Stalin, although I still believe that he went a little overboard (and "a little" is an understatement).

Im not dissing unions , im just saying that they're the lowest form of workin' class orginization , and in the best of times arnt that radical.

This you are right in it has been shown. More often than not unions are not radical in any shape or form. However, you need to admit that the IWW and their equivalents in Spain (CNT-FAI) are much more radical than their other colleagues today, but especially at that time.

infact the CNT openly declared it was Non-political.

It did indeed. The FAI (Federacion Anarquista Iberica) was the political pressure group within the CNT. An Anarchist political pressure group involved in government, an oxymoron, I know. But again, back to the ideology vs. reality paragraph.

But anarchism is indeed reformist in the sense that it's opposed to an essential part of revolution...that is, working people taking political power, aka state power.

And here is where Anarchists and communists will never get along.

Anarchism is destruction of the state to create utopia, and communists is the use of the state in a phase called socialism to reach utopia.

I say "tuh-may-toe" you so "toe-mah-toe." Let's call the whole thing off?? ... Quit *****in'.

TGOW

JC1

14th June 2005, 03:19

Dude, the AFL was around about 19 years (1886) before the IWW was created in 1905. And the CIO was highly influenced by the Communist Party USA before they were banished from the Organization in the late 1930s ... while Anarchists were surely in these groups, they were not the majority and nor were they created by them.

My bad. However , my point stands , the anarchist led unions that did not completly disintergrate ended up in the major unions.

Reality, politics and ideology often conflict. Sometimes you have to compromise to reach a greater goal, or to not advance today so you are in a better position to advance tomorrow. Cut them some slack! The same can be said of Stalin, although I still believe that he went a little overboard (and "a little" is an understatement

All lot of people say Stalin killed too many people. No more then 700,000 (Albeit he requires critisism for this) . However , Makhno repped the peasntry, killed workers constantly AND conditions were simmiliar to darfur. At least stalins excesses were a means to an end. I aint cutting makhno slack.

This you are right in it has been shown. More often than not unions are not radical in any shape or form. However, you need to admit that the IWW and their equivalents in Spain (CNT-FAI) are much more radical than their other colleagues today, but especially at that time.

They were millitant , yes. But , they were still unions. And thats not to say we shouldnt participate in unions.

It did indeed. The FAI (Federacion Anarquista Iberica) was the political pressure group within the CNT. An Anarchist political pressure group involved in government, an oxymoron, I know. But again, back to the ideology vs. reality paragraph.

This only accomplishs one thing. The Countinuing of the minimization of the Role of anarchism in the spanish working class. And this just shows that Anarchism usualy develoves into Reformist Racketering ( Chomsky comes too mind ).

Severian

14th June 2005, 03:59

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13 2005, 01:16 AM
Besides all the communists ever did was kill people. Look at Stalin, he slaughtered millions of people with his teeth!
I want an appointment with his dentist.

Plus he slept with Hitler.

I'm sorry, but the Hitler/Stalin pairing squicks me.

cph_shawarma

14th June 2005, 12:24

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 13 2005, 11:31 PM
Anarchism is destruction of the state to create utopia, and communists is the use of the state in a phase called socialism to reach utopia.
None of this is true. Most historical anarchists have, first of all, been communists. The difference between marxian and anarchist communists have been the view of the state, as you state, but not in the way you put it. Marxian communists has, in my opinion, been more honest and straightforward in their terminology and view of the death of the state. However, most reasonable anarchists (as the insurrectionalists, platformists etc.) would probably agree with most of the concepts of marxian destruction of the state.

Nothing in marxian communism advocates the construction of a permanent state that will later whither away. Marx's notion of the state is of class supremacy and since it is the proletariat that may one day rid the world of itself and capital in its totality, it must use class supremacy (i.e. state) to crush the state. However contradictory this may sound, this is what has happened in communist insurrections throughout the history. The proletariat has unified and used unified coercion and force (class supremacy, i.e. state) to rid the world of all the fetischised forms of social humanity: capital in its totality. Thus, no true communist, neither marxian nor anarchist upholds the idea of a permanent state as a "stage" which must be passed through. It is merely a difference in perspective on the crushing of the state and all forms of fetishised humanity.

JC1

15th June 2005, 00:29

None of this is true. Most historical anarchists have, first of all, been communists. The difference between marxian and anarchist communists have been the view of the state, as you state, but not in the way you put it. Marxian communists has, in my opinion, been more honest and straightforward in their terminology and view of the death of the state. However, most reasonable anarchists (as the insurrectionalists, platformists etc.) would probably agree with most of the concepts of marxian destruction of the state.

Nothing in marxian communism advocates the construction of a permanent state that will later whither away. Marx's notion of the state is of class supremacy and since it is the proletariat that may one day rid the world of itself and capital in its totality, it must use class supremacy (i.e. state) to crush the state. However contradictory this may sound, this is what has happened in communist insurrections throughout the history. The proletariat has unified and used unified coercion and force (class supremacy, i.e. state) to rid the world of all the fetischised forms of social humanity: capital in its totality. Thus, no true communist, neither marxian nor anarchist upholds the idea of a permanent state as a "stage" which must be passed through. It is merely a difference in perspective on the crushing of the state and all forms of fetishised humanity.

This is another strawman put up by a defender of anarchism ( Albeit , with nice situationist wordplay). We are not disscusing the Idealogical parameters of Anarchism , we are disscusing its social role. And it serves as a form of
reformism. Dewelling on Spontaniety , and falling down the same path as the economists and the terrorists and the deleonists.

Regarding tthe class supremecay point brought up by comrade cph_shawarma,
What about forign imperialist , we should abolish Class supremecay before we've dealt with tem?

STI

15th June 2005, 18:30

But anarchism is indeed reformist in the sense that it's opposed to an essential part of revolution...that is, working people taking political power, aka state power.

Because we know the only kind of power ever is state power and nothing besides state power can really be power.

OleMarxco

15th June 2005, 19:05

Horseshit. The day Anarchism miracously and trough magic becomes Reformism.....Capitalism has suddently become Pro-Union! :lol:

Seriously, 'tho. As a Council Communist/Luxembourgist, I 'spose I'm one of the farthest close you can get to Anarchist on here, beside (the) "Anarchist" Tension of course, but he's in a managerial and ESPECIALLY authitorian position, so how couldn't he be (a) LYING (whore)!? So I guess I'll answer on'ris, as an "representant" for them black-flaggers.....what happened in Spain, don't count as that much. But what happened, with trade union n'shit, was very goddamn anarchistic of them...y'right, z'right.....AND some red ones too...very decantralized, huh? Q'ed.... How the hell can something against Governments be for Reforms?.... Full of shit, You are...

STI

15th June 2005, 19:07

I'm frightened! :huh:

Severian

15th June 2005, 21:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:30 AM

But anarchism is indeed reformist in the sense that it's opposed to an essential part of revolution...that is, working people taking political power, aka state power.

Because we know the only kind of power ever is state power and nothing besides state power can really be power.
Because taking state power has been an essential part of every revolution in history.

JC1

15th June 2005, 22:17

Seriously, 'tho. As a Council Communist/Luxembourgist, I 'spose I'm one of the farthest close you can get to Anarchist on here, beside (the) "Anarchist" Tension of course, but he's in a managerial and ESPECIALLY authitorian position, so how couldn't he be (a) LYING (whore)!? So I guess I'll answer on'ris, as an "representant" for them black-flaggers.....what happened in Spain, don't count as that much. But what happened, with trade union n'shit, was very goddamn anarchistic of them...y'right, z'right.....AND some red ones too...very decantralized, huh? Q'ed.... How the hell can something against Governments be for Reforms?.... Full of shit, You are...

This made no sense.

Because taking state power has been an essential part of every revolution in history.

We only need to enforce Classs Supremecacy becuase we still gotta defend our gains from Imperial powers. The only reveloutions that havent been put down by forign arms was october and pro-moscow reveloutions.

EnragÃ©

15th June 2005, 22:21

"But anarchism is indeed reformist in the sense that it's opposed to an essential part of revolution...that is, working people taking political power, aka state power"

bullshit. Anarchism is the most revolutionary ideology on earth precisely because of that. Just because they do not seek power they break with the traditional ideas of every political group, and thus become the most fundamentally different ideology.

On a side note, though anarchism is awesome, im sticking to marxism, because i fear the evil which is the state, is necessary for the proletariat to defend itself from the governments we are fighting.

JC1

15th June 2005, 22:34

bullshit. Anarchism is the most revolutionary ideology on earth precisely because of that. Just because they do not seek power they break with the traditional ideas of every political group, and thus become the most fundamentally different ideology.

Becuase they have no ability to realize there " Awesome" program , they become Carbon Copys of reformists , a hinderance to our class capturing state power.

EnragÃ©

15th June 2005, 22:38

why wouldnt they have said ability?

JC1

16th June 2005, 01:26

Becuase they

A) Abstain from struggle

B) Struggle in backwards , reformist way ( Trade Unionism and Direct Action(Not to say that we should abstain from this , but it should not be prioritizied)

STI

16th June 2005, 03:22

Because taking state power has been an essential part of every revolution in history.

And every time "State power" has been taken by the working class, it's resulted in what?

We only need to enforce Classs Supremecacy becuase we still gotta defend our gains from Imperial powers.

And this can't be done without a state?

The only reveloutions that havent been put down by forign arms was october and pro-moscow reveloutions.

So, then, are you saying that the ones which were put down were because they weren't statist? Come on.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

16th June 2005, 10:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:53 PM
JC1 doesn't make the argument so well.

But anarchism is indeed reformist in the sense that it's opposed to an essential part of revolution...that is, working people taking political power, aka state power.
That's ridiculous. Political power does not equal state power. It's so wonderfull to see the actual moderates accuse anarchists of reformism. Nevermind that the workers have 100% power in anarchism or that we cut out the unnecessary, yet harmfull state. Since when did workingclass people take power in any of the failed Leninist experiments? Seemed like a dictatorship to me.

JC1 doesn't even deserve a response. I could make the same assertion on the other side: see how the Stalinists destroyed the social revolution. Women were no longer allowed to fight, democratic processes were banned, initiatives outside the state were disallowed, anarchists and socialists got excecuted by the Stallies, the militias were banned.

Read before you make assertions. I dare you to proof that anarchists are more reformist then leninists.

EnragÃ©

16th June 2005, 13:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:26 AM
Becuase they

A) Abstain from struggle

B) Struggle in backwards , reformist way ( Trade Unionism and Direct Action(Not to say that we should abstain from this , but it should not be prioritizied)
abstain from struggle? Take a look at history moron (spanish civil war would be a good place to start)

and Trade Unionism and Direct Action are only used if this brings the revolution closer. Not to try to reform the system.

JC1

16th June 2005, 21:30

And this can't be done without a state?

no. Not when youre oppents have trillions of dollars for arms and nuculear weapons.

So, then, are you saying that the ones which were put down were because they weren't statist? Come on.

No, Im saying those are the only Workin' Class insurgencys that were seccsesful. Its a fact !

bstain from struggle? Take a look at history moron (spanish civil war would be a good place to start)

and Trade Unionism and Direct Action are only used if this brings the revolution closer. Not to try to reform the system.

There are 2 major strands of anarchism:

Lite Anarchism AKA Green/Lifestyle Anarchism ( Obviously , we can see the Bunkness of this Pasifism-Esque aproach )

and then there is Hard Anarchism: IWW ( Whose permenant goal is the Union )

And Direct Action Affinity groups (They get results EG the elimination of Sub Fares and such San Francisco , but how do thes REFORMS get workers Counsince Eleveted ).

And we have already Dealt with Spanish Anarchism , witch can divided into three
Movements.

A Pressure group with in the major Union.

A "Anarchist" parlimentary Grouping.

A Land Reform movement.

Contributions were made, but this was mainly becuase a Reveloutionary Situation was already existing ( And being Led mainly by the "Statist" CP and the POUM ).

STI

16th June 2005, 21:35

B) Struggle in backwards , reformist way ( Trade Unionism and Direct Action(Not to say that we should abstain from this , but it should not be prioritizied)

Most anarchists don't even bother with unions (this is seen as a negative thing by many anarchists).

How the hell is direct action "reformist"?

JC1

16th June 2005, 22:41

How the hell is direct action "reformist"?

It gets results ( Concessicions AKA Reforms ) but dosent further the development of workers counsince.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

16th June 2005, 23:19

no. Not when youre oppents have trillions of dollars for arms and nuculear weapons.

Uhm, we can handle nuclear weapons without a state. Nor do we need trillions of dollars, because money is only a means of trade. If you don't need trade, then you don't need money.

No, Im saying those are the only Workin' Class insurgencys that were seccsesful. Its a fact !

What workingclass insurgency was succesfull?

There are 2 major strands of anarchism:

Lite Anarchism AKA Green/Lifestyle Anarchism ( Obviously , we can see the Bunkness of this Pasifism-Esque aproach )

and then there is Hard Anarchism: IWW ( Whose permenant goal is the Union )

How very very wrong. There is a massive difference between "anarcho"-primivitsts and lifestylists. There is a world difference in theory, in practice, in everything between those two.

Second. The IWW is not anarchist. It's a militant union, which has anarchist but also socialist and communist members. Nor is the permanent goal of anarchism an union. The union is simply a method to weaken or even bring down capitalism (depending on the anarchist branch). Don't talk like you know facts.

A Pressure group with in the major Union.

What major union?

A Land Reform movement.

How exactly is shooting the landowners and then democraticly collectivize the lands reformism? I would say that allowing "petit-capitalism" and "petit-landownership" is reformism.

Contributions were made, but this was mainly becuase a Reveloutionary Situation was already existing ( And being Led mainly by the "Statist" CP and the POUM ).

Can you back this up with facts? No, ofcourse you can't. Even before the civil war started the anarchist scene in Spain was pretty big, there were already some farmlands democraticly and factories collectivized. Already the anarchists were battling racism, sexism, homophbia. While the CP'ers required "their" women to cook and clean for them, the anarchist women were shooting rapists and fascists. How is that for progressive? The anarchists are four steps ahead of you and still walking.

It gets results ( Concessicions AKA Reforms ) but dosent further the development of workers counsince.

Actually an anarchist society is the worst thing that can happen to a lazy mind and a Leninist dictatorship is the best thing. In an anarchist society you are required to think for yourself, you have to make your own decisions, these decisions will directly affect everything. As a worker in an anarchist society you are pretty much required to develop your own consciouss. Anarchists have always been very big on this.

On the other hand, we got the Leninists. The leninists do not tolerated criticism, do not tolerate anything that can be interpreted as criticism, do not tolerate opposing views. Ofcourse for a very obvious reason; the worker isn't suppossed to think, he is suppossed to listen to the "grand masters".

JC1 how is a radical change in power, privilege and wealth reformism? If that is reformism, then I am a radical reformist.

JC1

17th June 2005, 01:04

we can handle nuclear weapons without a state.

My infatilism radar is goin off right about now.

How very very wrong. There is a massive difference between "anarcho"-primivitsts and lifestylists. There is a world difference in theory, in practice, in everything between those two.

Second. The IWW is not anarchist. It's a militant union, which has anarchist but also socialist and communist members. Nor is the permanent goal of anarchism an union. The union is simply a method to weaken or even bring down capitalism (depending on the anarchist branch). Don't talk like you know facts.

Ok , now you have trimed youre movement down two thirds. But I will still condiser these wings of the anarchist, becuase it was self proclaimed due to the lack of a anarchist idealogiocal center dictating what is and isnt anarchist.

What major union?

The CNT. the FAI was jus' a pressure group, not the mass mov't you make it out to be.

How exactly is shooting the landowners and then democraticly collectivize the lands reformism? I would say that allowing "petit-capitalism" and "petit-landownership" is reformism.

Mao and Stalin did the same thing. Cept' they actualy created Collectives, you guys jus' re-distributed land and created sevice co-op's.

Can you back this up with facts? No, ofcourse you can't.

You sound like a thesit , asking a athesit to proove a negative.

Even before the civil war started the anarchist scene in Spain was pretty big, there were already some farmlands democraticly and factories collectivized.

There were strikes , and there were land reforms. The same thing is going on in nepal. Except the events in spain were not cuased by a anarchist movement, but by dual power conditions existing in the country.

Already the anarchists were battling racism, sexism, homophbia.

proof.

While the CP'ers required "their" women to cook and clean for them, the anarchist women were shooting rapists and fascists.

proof.

In an anarchist society you are required to think for yourself, you have to make your own decisions, these decisions will directly affect everything. As a worker in an anarchist society you are pretty much required to develop your own consciouss. Anarchists have always been very big on this.

There hasnt even been a spark of anarchist society. How can you make these asertions ?

On the other hand, we got the Leninists. The leninists do not tolerated criticism, do not tolerate anything that can be interpreted as criticism, do not tolerate opposing views.

I tolerate oppising views. You dont see me beating Anarchists on the streets.

Ofcourse for a very obvious reason; the worker isn't suppossed to think, he is suppossed to listen to the "grand masters".

Im a worker , Im thinking AND im a leninist too boot. Thats 3 strikes against me in youre anarchist mans world. A thinking Worker. Attributes Ive never encontered amongst anarchists.

JC1

17th June 2005, 20:27

dont engage me then abstain from disscusion.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

17th June 2005, 23:43

Why not? I thought that I could engage in an intelligent discussion then I get this:

You sound like a thesit , asking a athesit to proove a negative.

You use this, not to give answers. On the other hand:

proof.

Nor do you seem to have any sense of history:

There hasnt even been a spark of anarchist society. How can you make these asertions ?

And ofcourse the same old jibberish against anarchism, which I and my comrades have refuted countless times. I don't feel like refuting them again, especially because I don't think you are open-minded. If some other anarchist wants to take over, fine with me, but I ain't doing this again. Had enough of this type of "discussion" over at EG.

I mean where do you have get the idea that anarchists are anti-intellectuals. Don't answer, I won't.

cph_shawarma

19th June 2005, 17:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:29 PM
This is another strawman put up by a defender of anarchism ( Albeit , with nice situationist wordplay). We are not disscusing the Idealogical parameters of Anarchism , we are disscusing its social role. And it serves as a form of
reformism. Dewelling on Spontaniety , and falling down the same path as the economists and the terrorists and the deleonists.

Regarding tthe class supremecay point brought up by comrade cph_shawarma,
What about forign imperialist , we should abolish Class supremecay before we've dealt with tem?
First of all, I'm not an anarchist. I'm a marxian communist with strong influences from the Italian Communist Left (mostly Amadeo Bordiga), Gilles Dauvé and Karl Nesic. Anarchism has many problems, as I state in my previous post, which you ignore due to lack of understanding. However, anarchism can not be criticised by your strawman-arguments. FYI, I'm no situationist either.

Because of your misunderstanding of both anarchism and marxian communism, you end up completely missing the target. The social role of "anarchism" has been very different from time to time, some of it good and some of it bad, some times it's been a part of the material communist movement, sometimes not. The ideology of anarchism may serve as a form of reformism, but nothing in the essence of anarchism prevents anarchists from being communists and being part of the material communist movement.

Regarding imperialism, I say as Gilles Dauvé: I am against imperialism, but I'm not an anti-imperialist. Anti-imperialism implies several ideological (i.e. false) notions on the causes of imperialism and thus also the remedy. Capital (not class supremacy) is the cause of imperialism (as well as class supremacy). Therefore the only road which will abolish imperialism is the road which abolishes capital. Imperialism will always exist under the rule of capital.

The Ghost of Tom Joad

23rd June 2005, 00:50

OKAY! Before we continue any more of this a-squabblin', I just need to set the record straight:
ONE: The Spanish Republic's anarchism was a type of anarchism called "anarcho-syndicalism." Anarcho-syndicalism incorporates the ideas of both Marx and Bakunin. It takes Bakunin's libertarian attitudes towards the state and Marx's hegelian belief of revolution through the working-class and finds a middle ground. Anarcho-syndicalism brings about stateless socialism not through a proliterian state, but a proliterian ECONOMY, hence the "one big union" that LC1 is referring to. The "one big union" is merely an economic federation of co-operatives such as factories and farms that operate based upon the needs of the people and the management of the workers. They are all democratically run and greatly resemble (from what I have heard) the Fair-Trade co-ops that produce such wonderful foods and drinks as coffee and bananas (Starbucks only has the liscence for Fair-Trade...they don't actually use Fair-Trade coffee, so don't be fooled by their trickery!) While many aspects of Fair-Trade are reactionary, it does have anarcho-syndicalist influences.
TWO: The main schools of anarchism are individualist and social anarchism. From these two schools branch many sub-schools of thought, i.e. anarcho-communism and mutualism. There are also misc. schools of anarchist thought that could very fall under both categories such as anarcha-feminism. While I realize this post most likely belongs in an explanaitory thread and these things have probably been stated before, I just wanted to set the record straight.

Some great resources of classical anarchism include:
Anarcho-syndicalism by Rudolf Rocker
Pretty much anything by Bakunin or Kropotkin (for the record, a lot of rumors were spread about Bakunin by none other than Karl Marx for the sake of expelling him from the First International. Their rivalry is a subject of quite a bit of studying, and I highly suggest reading comparisons from BOTH anarchists and marxists.)
The Ego and Its Own by Max Stirner (one of the fouding fathers of indivdualist anarchism and a HUGE influence on Nietzsche, highly recommended)
What is Property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon for historical reference and a good understanding of mutualist socialism, which is in fact a mixture of individualist and social anarchism.
Pretty much anything by Emma Goldman, who in fact participated in the Bolshevik Revolution and experienced the "glory" of Soviet Russia first-hand.
*Deep breath* WHEW! Now that that's all done with...please continue your debate.

Hiero

23rd June 2005, 02:28

that the workers have 100% power in anarchism or that we cut out the unnecessary, yet harmfull state.

Wow never before have i heard more Utopian bullshit then ever. You dismiss the facts of a counter revolutionary movement that will attempt to take power, also the reactonaries and the on going class war. All these conflicts stop the working class having 100% power.

Now to the question of the state. We Marxist propose the use of a state not because we want to but because its historical. Where ever there is class there is conflict and to control this conflict a state emerges.

When the proleteriat overthrows the bourgeois they smash the bourgeois state and replace it with the proleteriat state. Regardless if there is a Communist or Anarchist movement, a state will emerge as it always has emerged where there is still class. Now if the state is not emerged as a correct proleteriat state then the bourgeois will overthrow the proleteriat.

Some in this thread and others claim that the "Leninist experiments" have failed due to the use of a State. This is rather narrow view and idealist. The wider picture is that the "Leninist experiments" failed because the class war overwhelm the proleterait and the revisionist took control of the proleteriat state.

In conclusion the use of the state throughout history is installed on us, where there is class. Anarchist propose no states because they simply dont like the idea.

JazzRemington

23rd June 2005, 05:04

When did Bakunin write anti-semitic propaganda?

JC1

24th June 2005, 20:39

Regarding imperialism, I say as Gilles Dauvé: I am against imperialism, but I'm not an anti-imperialist. Anti-imperialism implies several ideological (i.e. false) notions on the causes of imperialism and thus also the remedy. Capital (not class supremacy) is the cause of imperialism (as well as class supremacy). Therefore the only road which will abolish imperialism is the road which abolishes capital. Imperialism will always exist under the rule of capital.

by Class supremecay I was refering to the workers state I.E the supremecay of the the toilers against the imperialist "Interventionist". Of Course, we cant destroy capital in one swing, so fopr a while the Workin' Class must retain some class supremecay.

And ofcourse the same old jibberish against anarchism, which I and my comrades have refuted countless times. I don't feel like refuting them again, especially because I don't think you are open-minded. If some other anarchist wants to take over, fine with me, but I ain't doing this again. Had enough of this type of "discussion" over at EG.

The service coops of spain and the " Ukranian Darfur" are the only examples of self-countinous anarchist rule. Maybe we should add non- self countious anarchist rule like Cambodia or " Ukranian Darfur on acid " or what?

First of all, I'm not an anarchist. I'm a marxian communist with strong influences from the Italian Communist Left (mostly Amadeo Bordiga), Gilles Dauvé and Karl Nesic. Anarchism has many problems, as I state in my previous post, which you ignore due to lack of understanding. However, anarchism can not be criticised by your strawman-arguments. FYI, I'm no situationist either.

Because of your misunderstanding of both anarchism and marxian communism, you end up completely missing the target. The social role of "anarchism" has been very different from time to time, some of it good and some of it bad, some times it's been a part of the material communist movement, sometimes not. The ideology of anarchism may serve as a form of reformism, but nothing in the essence of anarchism prevents anarchists from being communists and being part of the material communist movement.

A testament to form, a act of demolition of essence. You call me stupid then repeat youre vague " Piracy is the furthest advance of communism" arguments.

JC1

PS: Would an anarchist please tell me how you can handle nuculear armed imperialists without some semblance of a state ?

STI

24th June 2005, 20:48

PS: Would an anarchist please tell me how you can handle nuculear armed imperialists without some semblance of a state ?

Odds are, foreign imperialists won't use nukes against us. Think about it. They'll be having enough trouble with their own working class, the last thing they'll need is a shitload of anti-war and anti-nuclear riots.

Plus, there's nothing saying we'll somehow just make the nukes in our area disappear.

If they'd use nukes on us, they'd use nukes on a state-country.

JC1

25th June 2005, 20:57

Odds are, foreign imperialists won't use nukes against us. Think about it. They'll be having enough trouble with their own working class, the last thing they'll need is a shitload of anti-war and anti-nuclear riots.

Plus, there's nothing saying we'll somehow just make the nukes in our area disappear.

If they'd use nukes on us, they'd use nukes on a state-country.

This is not a conmvincing argument at all. And how can the workin' class utilize there nuculear Weapons without a state?

JC1

26th June 2005, 20:30

There has been a fauliure to respond to my points.

Leme me reiterate my self :

Anarchism in the west is generaly Lifestylism and Trade Unionism( And the manner inwitch this agitation takes place does not spread workers counsince), and in the the Under Developed world , it is generaly mindless land reformism that never takes political power ( EG, Chiapas( And the Zapitistas have stated they have no desire to do so) or desends into mindless nilhism ( EG, Mahkno's Ukraine).

Lifestylism is so infatile it needs not be examined, but Anarcho-Syndascilism is a trap many good comrades fall into. Syndicalisms many incarnation was the IWW. There usefull to orginize super-exploited layers, but once these layers are orginizied , they enter the general union movement. Anti-Capitilism may have been nessecary in the early stages of the Trade Uniuon movement but, Trade Unuionism always devolves into reformism.

The other Major Incarnation of Anarcho-Unionism was the FAI within the CNT. They are very much so over rated , becuase they were simply a pressure group.

And then there is peaseant Anarchiosm. We have seen this do no more then re-distriobute land and set upervice co-ops. Chiapas : Still under Capitilism , Mahknos Territorys : A over rated version of Darfur, Cantalonia : Capitilism, With Service Co-ops.

They say the Peaseant Anarchist Fighters in the ciovil war were the best bunch of soldiers. Maybe this was becuase they had property intrests to die for ?

cph_shawarma

26th June 2005, 21:11

Regarding imperialism, I say as Gilles Dauvé: I am against imperialism, but I'm not an anti-imperialist. Anti-imperialism implies several ideological (i.e. false) notions on the causes of imperialism and thus also the remedy. Capital (not class supremacy) is the cause of imperialism (as well as class supremacy). Therefore the only road which will abolish imperialism is the road which abolishes capital. Imperialism will always exist under the rule of capital.
by Class supremecay I was refering to the workers state I.E the supremecay of the the toilers against the imperialist "Interventionist". Of Course, we cant destroy capital in one swing, so fopr a while the Workin' Class must retain some class supremecay.
First of all, what has this to do with what I wrote? Please don't make a fool of yourself. The workers' state is a leninist notion, which implies the construction of a permanent or "semi-permanent" (which a state never can be) state. This is a total opposite notion from that of proletarian dictatorship. The character of proletarian dictatorship is a state as a half-state or non-state (Marx). Its implications are that the bourgeois state is crushed (along with capital in its totality), with the use of unified coercion, force and violence (proletarian dictatorship). Instead of fighting sectionally, the proletariat fights capitalism in a unified and total manner (see Marx's rebuttal to Bakunin).

First of all, I'm not an anarchist. I'm a marxian communist with strong influences from the Italian Communist Left (mostly Amadeo Bordiga), Gilles Dauvé and Karl Nesic. Anarchism has many problems, as I state in my previous post, which you ignore due to lack of understanding. However, anarchism can not be criticised by your strawman-arguments. FYI, I'm no situationist either.

Because of your misunderstanding of both anarchism and marxian communism, you end up completely missing the target. The social role of "anarchism" has been very different from time to time, some of it good and some of it bad, some times it's been a part of the material communist movement, sometimes not. The ideology of anarchism may serve as a form of reformism, but nothing in the essence of anarchism prevents anarchists from being communists and being part of the material communist movement.

A testament to form, a act of demolition of essence. You call me stupid then repeat youre vague " Piracy is the furthest advance of communism" arguments.
Have you nothing more to say? No arguments left? I have never said that piracy is the furthest advance of communism, I used it as an example of capital-negating tendencies (i.e. communism as movement) within capital. I use it since it is easy to grasp, but there are more examples, that creates outsides to capital where new human practice (i.e. communism as community) can be created.

Further I would say that you have a testament to form, but are demolishing the essence of Marx's project. While appraising some few learned clichées from some "Marxist ABC", you have no idea of the theoretical project which Marx started nor a capability to form own syntheses (at the moment). First learn Marx's method, add some anti-dogmatism and start synthesising.

De omnibus debutandum.

JC1

26th June 2005, 23:25

First of all, what has this to do with what I wrote?

Becuase you misinterpreted what I said.

Have you nothing more to say? No arguments left? I have never said that piracy is the furthest advance of communism, I used it as an example of capital-negating tendencies (i.e. communism as movement) within capital. I use it since it is easy to grasp, but there are more examples, that creates outsides to capital where new human practice (i.e. communism as community) can be created.

These Nageations of capital are Objectivly Communist, yes. And infact they do increase the the scope of workers counsince, true. But they are not totaly usefull , becuase there not at the point of production.

apathy maybe

27th June 2005, 01:59

Leninism is reformism 'cause they just want to use the state to crush the capitalist classes, rather then just crushing them. And they want to use Nukes against peasents.

Originally posted by JC1+--> (JC1)
Anarchism in the west is generaly Lifestylism and Trade Unionism( And the manner inwitch this agitation takes place does not spread workers counsince), and in the the Under Developed world , it is generaly mindless land reformism that never takes political power ( EG, Chiapas( And the Zapitistas have stated they have no desire to do so) or desends into mindless nilhism ( EG, Mahkno's Ukraine).[/b]
Leninism in the west is generally lifestylism and fucking around (and in a manner which does not spread workers consiouness). In the less developed world, it is generally mindless land reformism (e.g. Russia 1917) and/or an extension such as Maoism.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Lifestylism is so infatile it needs not be examined, but Anarcho-Syndascilism is a trap many good comrades fall into. Syndicalisms many incarnation was the IWW. There usefull to orginize super-exploited layers, but once these layers are orginizied , they enter the general union movement. Anti-Capitilism may have been nessecary in the early stages of the Trade Uniuon movement but, Trade Unuionism always devolves into reformism.
The other Major Incarnation of Anarcho-Unionism was the FAI within the CNT. They are very much so over rated , becuase they were simply a pressure group.

Lifestylism is so infantile, it needs not be examined. But generally fucking around is a trap many good comrades fall into. They join the party and go to all the meetings. They organise rallies which 12 or 20 people turn up to. Sometimes they join with another group and get all that group's (generally unions) members along.
If they ever do succeed in gaining power they don't do much with it, rather they become just a reformist party. (And when the USSR was around, many 'Communist' parties argued against revolution.)

JC1
And then there is peaseant Anarchiosm. We have seen this do no more then re-distriobute land and set upervice co-ops. Chiapas : Still under Capitilism , Mahknos Territorys : A over rated version of Darfur, Cantalonia : Capitilism, With Service Co-ops.

They say the Peaseant Anarchist Fighters in the ciovil war were the best bunch of soldiers. Maybe this was becuase they had property intrests to die for ?
Then there is the peoples war. Yes it has done good things, but then they just set up another dictatorship of the party over the people.

And maybe it is true that peasent anarchist fighters were the best, during the Spanish Civil War, because they had land. At least they didn't sell out because a democratic Socialist society would have been bad for the image of the USSR.

JC1

27th June 2005, 03:48

Leninism is reformism 'cause they just want to use the state to crush the capitalist classes, rather then just crushing them. And they want to use Nukes against peasents.

Are you on glue ?

Leninism in the west is generally lifestylism and fucking around (and in a manner which does not spread workers consiouness).

Me doing concrete work in the Workin' Class and mass orginizations and connecting immideiate struggles to the struggle for socialism is "Just fuckin around" how ?

In the less developed world, it is generally mindless land reformism (e.g. Russia 1917)

By establishing soviets and , umm, liqidating the peasntry as a class is just peaseant agitation ? Whereas Mahkno killed some landlords, re-distributed land then his movement just sorta disbanded.

and/or an extension such as Maoism.

You have a point. Lets , however , compare a 3rd world maoist mov't with a 3rd world anarchist mov't.

The Nepalis are fighting for political power.

The Chiapas Mov't has pretty much acomplished all its goals and there is no movent left to speak of.

Then there is the peoples war. Yes it has done good things, but then they just set up another dictatorship of the party over the people.

Blah Blah Blah ... Create a ahistorical Class that just suddenly appears whenever there a reveloution you dont like ... blah blah blah.

JazzRemington

27th June 2005, 05:31

Well, I know anarcho-syndicalism is essencially reformist, but only in order to gain numbers and overthrown capitalism.

I know for a fact that anarchism in general rejects reforms as they are useless and don't solve the problem at hand.

cph_shawarma

27th June 2005, 09:56

First of all, what has this to do with what I wrote?

Becuase you misinterpreted what I said.
No, I did not. I am capable of reading (which implies that I am able to read badly written clichées too). And since you do not answer me, I suppose you were unable to form any substantial criticism.

Have you nothing more to say? No arguments left? I have never said that piracy is the furthest advance of communism, I used it as an example of capital-negating tendencies (i.e. communism as movement) within capital. I use it since it is easy to grasp, but there are more examples, that creates outsides to capital where new human practice (i.e. communism as community) can be created.

These Nageations of capital are Objectivly Communist, yes. And infact they do increase the the scope of workers counsince, true. But they are not totaly usefull , becuase there not at the point of production.
Why are you babbling about workers' counscience? It has nothing to do with their conscience. The argument of capital-negation, as a movement, is that this social movement appears as a consequence of the disposition of the proletariat in the current social relationship: capital. Well, struggles that don't break totally with capital, are not "totally useful", duh. Why are you trying to form some critique out of strawmen and truisms? Please do it properly, if at all.

The Feral Underclass

27th June 2005, 11:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:31 AM
Well, I know anarcho-syndicalism is essencially reformist, but only in order to gain numbers and overthrown capitalism.
How are you making this statement?

JazzRemington

27th June 2005, 17:57

Isn't the goal of anarcho-syndicalism to seek reforms under capitalism until anarcho-syndicalist unions are strong enough to overthrow it?

JC1

27th June 2005, 21:33

Well, struggles that don't break totally with capital, are not "totally useful", duh.

So you agree Capital-Negation is a dead end movent ?

The Feral Underclass

28th June 2005, 13:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:57 PM
Isn't the goal of anarcho-syndicalism to seek reforms under capitalism until anarcho-syndicalist unions are strong enough to overthrow it?
No, it is to use the Unions as vehicles for revolutionary struggle. Every organisation struggles for certain reforms. Anarcho-syndicalists are very similar to anarchist communists, the only difference being they see revolutionary self managment and struggle happening in the Unions and work place. They advocate workplace direct action and the General strike as means for creating an anarchist society. The IWW being the best example of an anarcho-syndicalist movement.

Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://www.nucleus.com/~markv/aslinks.html)

cph_shawarma

28th June 2005, 13:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:33 PM

Well, struggles that don't break totally with capital, are not "totally useful", duh.

So you agree Capital-Negation is a dead end movent ?
What? No? You seem to be just another of these ideological socialists with a nag for teaching people, administrating capitalism and babbling about some "common sense" (which actually is the superideology of capitalism). Capital negation is a premise for the establishment of communism, it's not a dead end. Total capital negation is the premise for a total revolution, and the total reconstitution of society.

Again, please form some criticism...

JC1

28th June 2005, 17:04

Capital negation is a premise for the establishment of communism, it's not a dead end. Total capital negation is the premise for a total revolution, and the total reconstitution of society.

Capital Negation is becoming more about capital then its negation. Jus' look at linux. Alotta Reveloutionarys uphold this project, even though its continued existence is a result of capitals expanse. Company's are useing this to scale down the level of there capital is consumed by Constant Capital. This is true of the general open source movement and too a certain extent the piracy movement. Capital Negation is the simply the negation of capital by other capitals.

cph_shawarma

29th June 2005, 14:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:04 PM

Capital negation is a premise for the establishment of communism, it's not a dead end. Total capital negation is the premise for a total revolution, and the total reconstitution of society.

Capital Negation is becoming more about capital then its negation. Jus' look at linux. Alotta Reveloutionarys uphold this project, even though its continued existence is a result of capitals expanse. Company's are useing this to scale down the level of there capital is consumed by Constant Capital. This is true of the general open source movement and too a certain extent the piracy movement. Capital Negation is the simply the negation of capital by other capitals.
Well, of course capitalism will try to subsume the capital negative actions and make them possible under capital. That has happened thousands or even millions of times in the past. However, that does not imply that capital negation is a dead end. It is still a premise for a communist insurrection or revolution. If a negation of capital is not total (i.e. a revolution), then of course the negation is not a hundred percent "clean" (and in some cases gains other capitals). However, the radical nature of capital negation is that it supercedes the moral order and (to the extent possible) escapes the relationship of capital. This is what we know as class struggle; the interference of capital. And as such capital negation is the premise for a revolution (even if it is not enough).

Led Zeppelin

29th June 2005, 18:11

Anarchism is reformism.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Anarchism is completely opposed to reform, it does not support it.

One could say that Marxist-Leninists are reformists, of course i am not.

JC1

29th June 2005, 18:52

Anarchism is completely opposed to reform, it does not support it.

It dosent opppose reform . Just look hear, http://www.infoshop.org/myep/love2.htm

And one thing to remeber, ML, is that everone is a shadow accouint for Ix.

Led Zeppelin

29th June 2005, 19:30

And one thing to remeber, ML, is that everone is a shadow accouint for Ix.

Red Kathmandu i presume?

http://www.infoshop.org/myep/love2.htm

Does not work.

JC1

29th June 2005, 19:54

Red Kathmandu i presume?

Actualy, MC_Bolshie.

Does not work.

Thats strange. Its was a example of anarchist Refomism. these guys were fighting a fare hike in the subways of San Francisco. Just becuase anarchist dont use parliment dosent mean they are not reformists.

Invader Zim

29th June 2005, 23:37

Anarchism does not seek to reform any current theories, such as Marxism. While it certinly has many parrallels, it is not the same, and does not share the same origions.

JC1

30th June 2005, 03:53

Anarchism does not seek to reform any current theories, such as Marxism. While it certinly has many parrallels, it is not the same, and does not share the same origions.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in china, or the price of rice in japan, or the price of glue in norway house ?

violencia.Proletariat

30th June 2005, 04:05

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 28 2005, 07:09 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 28 2005, 07:09 AM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 05:57 PM
Isn't the goal of anarcho-syndicalism to seek reforms under capitalism until anarcho-syndicalist unions are strong enough to overthrow it?
No, it is to use the Unions as vehicles for revolutionary struggle. Every organisation struggles for certain reforms. Anarcho-syndicalists are very similar to anarchist communists, the only difference being they see revolutionary self managment and struggle happening in the Unions and work place. They advocate workplace direct action and the General strike as means for creating an anarchist society. The IWW being the best example of an anarcho-syndicalist movement.

Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://www.nucleus.com/~markv/aslinks.html) [/b]
anarcho communism supports the general strike theory too no? i see anarcho syndicalism as a way of obtaining anarcho communism

Invader Zim

30th June 2005, 19:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:53 AM

Anarchism does not seek to reform any current theories, such as Marxism. While it certinly has many parrallels, it is not the same, and does not share the same origions.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in china, or the price of rice in japan, or the price of glue in norway house ?
I was on topic. This is a discussion about 'anarchism being reformism', which is in fact a flawed thesis, the type made by only the truly ignorant.

You may want help trying to take the piss in future, your not very good at it.

JC1

30th June 2005, 20:15

I was on topic. This is a discussion about 'anarchism being reformism', which is in fact a flawed thesis, the type made by only the truly ignorant.

You may want help trying to take the piss in future, your not very good at it.

Just becuase im taking a unpopular position, sure as hell dsent make me wrong.
You said something vague as hell about idea's, while were talking about the material reality of anarchism. I have been citing the major citations of anarchist practice and showing it to be refrom minded in nature, and no one has been abel to back up there claim anarchism is reveloutionistic.

romanm

30th June 2005, 20:19

Of course I agree mostly with JC1's points. Most anarchist politics are objectively reformist despite their claims to be revolutionary. The reason for this isn't just because anarchism is either labor reformist like the IWW or utopian as the green currents are. The real fundamental flaw is that most anarchism is oriented toward mobilizing the 1st world labor aristocracy either for its interests in the case of the IWW or against its interests as in the anti-civilization currents.

Even from a 1st world labor aristocracy point of view anarchism is stupid. Social democrats and mainstream unions have proved "better reformers" than anarchists. So, the labor aristocracy has always chosen mainstream social democracy and labor aristocrat trade unionism over the IWW. I think IWW support is mostly from people who are on some kind of nostalgia trip.

In the case of anti-civilization anarchism, again, it denies basic class analysis. Amerikans want more TVs, not less. Anti-civilization politics is a fantasy world. And, so, it is completely utopian and ineffective.

So, I could go on about other currents as well, but in all these cases the social democratic status quo is left alone. At the most, it is reformed. So, JC1 is right Anarchism is objectively reformist, even if it isn't subjectively so. The 1st world isn't revolutionary, so all groups which orient toward the 1st world labor aristocracy are at most reformist.

Now, there are proletarian camp anarchists. I am thinking of John Sakai or maybe David Gilbert. I would include part of the old L&R in this camp. These forces correctly understand that the 1st world isn't going to make revolution, so they write it off. They orient correctly toward the 3rd world and oppressed captive nations. They don't buy into the whole Maoist picture about the GPCR. However, these forces even if anarchist, are more revolutionary than those who call themselves communist who are based in the labor aristocracy. This kind of anarchist is friend and needs to be won over.

marxleninmao.proboards43.com

redstar2000

1st July 2005, 00:27

Well, I waited to see how JC1 would develop his thesis that "anarchism is reformism"...and thus far, the results are disappointing.

JC1 makes much of the fact that anarchist groups participate in struggles with a reformist character...but so do Leninists.

He also mentions one of those "anarchist celebrities" supporting Kerry; but there were plenty of Leninists in the U.S. who did likewise.

JC1 has a low opinion of anarchist practice in Spain and in the Ukraine...which is his privilege. But what of Leninist practice in the USSR, China, etc.?

The fact is that both anarchists and Leninists participate in popular struggles...but I think the evidence would show that anarchists are more likely than Leninists, as a rule, to attempt to push those struggles in a more radical or even revolutionary direction.

And anarchists do emphasize direct action -- most Leninists (in the "west") can usually be found in the hallways of some "left" bourgeois political party, begging for handouts.

Moreover, anarchist rhetoric is, generally speaking, much more critical of capitalist society than Leninist rhetoric. Most Leninist rhetoric speaks of "defending" or "recovering" bourgeois rights...anarchists usually go considerably beyond that.

There are certainly explicit trends within the anarchist milieu that are, shall we say, distinctly un-revolutionary. And there are certainly a few Leninist groups that seem to be sincerely revolutionary...however limited their understanding of revolution might be.

But right now, the folks who seem to be upholding a revolutionary perspective in the most consistent way, are largely anarchists.

In the 20th century, it was pretty much "all Leninism"...and the outcome was not a happy one.

Thus anarchism has a "window of opportunity" in this century...and we shall see what they make of it.

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

romanm

1st July 2005, 00:55

Redstar says: And anarchists do emphasize direct action -- most Leninists (in the "west") can usually be found in the hallways of some "left" bourgeois political party, begging for handouts.

Yes. I am in mostly agreement with you here. Most Leninists in the West are phonies. I would challenge your contention anarchists have done more "direct action" than those describing themselves as Leninist. This may be true of recent years, but looking back, you'll find of between anarchism and leninism, most of the "urban guerrilla" groups described themselves as one varient of Leninism or another. I would also add, that even more "direct action" was done by national liberation movements than either Leninists or anarchists.

If you are talking about "direct action" in a more general way - the, I have no idea. All kinds of groups do "direct action" in the broad sense. Here I am talking about everything from work slow downs to nuns who throw bloos on missle silos.

Even though I agree with the spirit of your post, which was to unmask phony Leninism. I would say that direct action is not a measure of how revolutionary a movement is.

redstar2000

1st July 2005, 04:18

Originally posted by romanm
I would challenge your contention anarchists have done more "direct action" than those describing themselves as Leninist. This may be true of recent years, but looking back, you'll find of between anarchism and leninism, most of the "urban guerrilla" groups described themselves as one variant of Leninism or another. I would also add, that even more "direct action" was done by national liberation movements than either Leninists or anarchists.

It's difficult to measure, but I'll concede that there's certainly some justification for your view...particularly with regard to national liberation movements.

Whatever "democratic" charades may be mounted for consumption in the imperial homeland, it's always clear that the colonized/neo-colonized countries have no "peaceful road" to liberation from the Empire...fight they must and fight they do. And if one generation is defeated, the next one will take up the struggle. And, if necessary, the one after that!

My real point, however, is that today the anarchists are no longer "under the shadow" of Lenin...they have a real opportunity to show what they can accomplish.

JC1 and many others say that "the anarchists will never do shit".

Up to them; I prefer to keep an open mind on the subject.

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

JC1

1st July 2005, 05:09

Well, I waited to see how JC1 would develop his thesis that "anarchism is reformism"...and thus far, the results are disappointing.

No. you just have a Psycological investment in Anarchism.

C1 makes much of the fact that anarchist groups participate in struggles with a reformist character...but so do Leninists.

Yes, but Leninists conect the popular struggle with the struggle against class society. Whereas anarchist monkeying around just alienates people. For example , i saw a anarchist verbaly assualting a women for walking out of a starbucks ON A MAYDAY MARCH.

JC1 has a low opinion of anarchist practice in Spain and in the Ukraine...which is his privilege. But what of Leninist practice in the USSR, China, etc.?

You may contend that socialism in those cxountrys wasnt going anywhere ( And thats not the issue ) but atleast leninism moved beyond capitilist property forms.

The fact is that both anarchists and Leninists participate in popular struggles...but I think the evidence would show that anarchists are more likely than Leninists, as a rule, to attempt to push those struggles in a more radical or even revolutionary direction.

I dont think this hold alotta weight. for one , radical practice in the "West" has been dictated by leninism up till the llate 80's, so there hasnt been alotta ime for anarchism to be tersted. And I would argue that majority of people in the radical movement, even now, are mainly leninists. Just march on May first.

But right now, the folks who seem to be upholding a revolutionary perspective in the most consistent way, are largely anarchists.

ecept ... Anarchists fight for dirct consecions and not political power ... and its a movement made up largly of middle class squaters. And remember "Being Determines Counsince".

A Demoralised Mortal

1st July 2005, 14:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 11:10 PM
Anarchism is reformism. In Spain too it was reformism, aswell as Ukraine. All the anarchists have done is re-distribute land and formed unions with red and black falgs. When ever Anarchists lead a campaign in the west it usualy gets a reform , but it dosent raise the level of workers counsince. Or its cultural agitation in such a fashion it alienates potenial reveloutionaries from the movement.
This can be re-written in the following way: "Anarchism is not revolutionary because they have never instigated the type of revolution that I want."

Really now, if you do not agree with anarchism, then fair enough, but to dismiss two examples that are so obviously revolutionary (since they very much did change the political and social situation in their limited time frames) as unrevolutionary is ridiculous.

Remember folks: it is revolutionary if a radical change in the political and social situation is effected, no matter whether you agree with the content or not.

When ever Anarchists lead a campaign in the west it usualy gets a reform...

And what could possibly be the problem of using extra-parliamentary activity to make the life of western citizens (sorry, we are western consumers these days) better?

Does the thought of a reform to make life just that little bit better frighten you?

...but it dosent raise the level of workers counsince.

I suppose you mean "conscience"?

If anarchists lead a campaign and it results in a reform (which hardly happens... you give them too much credit in saying that "whenever anarchists lead a campaign in the west it usually gets a reform"!), then would that not suggest that they have raised "the level of workers' conscience"?

The presumption that should be made in the successful attempt of gaining a reform is that they have managed to raise the conscience of a significant number of workers, because they would have had to garner enough support to force through a reform via extra-parliamentary means.

... [the anarchists' cultural agitation is done in such a fashion that it] alienates potenial reveloutionaries from the movement.

Well, I do not see why that would bother you, since you are obviously not of the anarchist movement!

Rather, it should make you happy, since it would make it easier for sensible people like yourself to garner support for serious political work.

"Look at those anarchists mucking about, while 'we' are doing this X and Y and so fourth."

JC1

1st July 2005, 16:56

Remember folks: it is revolutionary if a radical change in the political and social situation is effected, no matter whether you agree with the content or not.

Sure it was a reveloution. But Mahkno's Darfur and the Anarchist spanish experince were Bourgoise reveloutions. And of course there not the kind of reveloutions I want, not becuase im a " Authoritarian Meanie " , but its becuase im not a landless peaseant.

And what could possibly be the problem of using extra-parliamentary activity to make the life of western citizens (sorry, we are western consumers these days) better?

Nothing, but it becomes a problem when it concumes all of youre activity.

The presumption that should be made in the successful attempt of gaining a reform is that they have managed to raise the conscience of a significant number of workers, because they would have had to garner enough support to force through a reform via extra-parliamentary means.

If sign a petion, does that raise m,y level counsince? No. But when that rare occasion
where when a reform is won by the anarchists, its usualy becuase the anarchists discarded the workin' class and orginizied some students, small buisnis people, intelectuals, ect to occupy a buliding or sabatoge. This reminds me of when the french reveloution in 68 took place, the workers forbid the anarchists from entering striking factorys so the students would not destroy the machines. When the anarchist realy gets some where, he usualy becomes contridictory to the worker.

Well, I do not see why that would bother you, since you are obviously not of the anarchist movement!

Rather, it should make you happy, since it would make it easier for sensible people like yourself to garner support for serious political work.

Regardless of my prefrences, surely you can agree the way that anarchists carry cultural agitation alienates the masses. And therefore is a bankrupt tactic.

cph_shawarma

1st July 2005, 18:51

No. you just have a Psycological investment in Anarchism.
Why do you insist on calling people, who are rejecting your strawmen, anarchists? As far as I know, neither me nor RS2K are anarchists. We (well, at least me) have criticisms of anarchism, but not from some uninitiated approach.

For example , i saw a anarchist verbaly assualting a women for walking out of a starbucks ON A MAYDAY MARCH.
Well, what has this to do with anarchism as a theory or practice? If you are to found a critique of anarchism on these vague arguments, you don't have much of a case. On the same grounds you could accuse any of the bourgeois-leftist (leninist, anarchist etc.) of reformism. Some confused individuals put certain capitals in front of other (anti-fascists, anti-imperialists etc.).

You may contend that socialism in those cxountrys wasnt going anywhere ( And thats not the issue ) but atleast leninism moved beyond capitilist property forms.
Even if it's off topic I have to say no. Communal private property is not the same as communal property.

ecept ... Anarchists fight for dirct consecions and not political power ... and its a movement made up largly of middle class squaters. And remember "Being Determines Counsince".
Well, communists in general do not aspire political power in the bourgeois sense. As Marx stated in "King of Prussia", a communist revolution is political in that it overthrows the political power of today, but when communism manifests itself it throws society's political mask away. The most recent number of riff-raff is available at English and has "critique of political organisation" as its theme. Available at http://www.riff-raff.se/en/

A Demoralised Mortal

1st July 2005, 18:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:56 PM
Sure it was a reveloution. But Mahkno's Darfur and the Anarchist spanish experince were Bourgoise reveloutions.
Great!

You originally said that they were only examples of "reformism", but you have backed down and called them "reveloutions" (revolutions!).

I cannot help but laugh at the ridiculous suggestion that they were "bourgeois" revolutions, though.

The Ukraine revolution was obviously one for the peasants, and the Spanish revolution of the proletariat and the peasants.

Your being unable to differentiate the difference between the "bourgeoisie", the "proletariat", and the "peasantry" is absolutely shocking.

Nothing, but it becomes a problem when it concumes all of youre activity.
A slanderous accusation, and a hypocritical one at that, since the Communist Party of Canada (of whom you link in your profile) bases their whole "road to socialism" programme on "democratic reforms" (http://communist-party.ca/contact/about.html).

Gee, and working within the parliamentary frame (http://communist-party.ca/news/Statements/2004/communistsready.htm) is not reformism?

Ha!

Making change via parliament is the very definition of reformism (and whether the beloved CPC will ever actually get in that position is another morbid question altogether).

But how am I ever going to counter that latest accusation anyway, since the whole anarchist paradigm is "reformist" anyway, according to you.

It took a lot of squirming on your part to acknowledge two anarchist revolutions were actually revolutions, so I do not imagine it is worth the time to bother with that other point.

If sign a petion, does that raise m,y level counsince? No.
This is an obvious slur and an ignorance of history in the countries that are now "advanced capitalist societies".

No reform was or is ever won with the mere signing of petitions.

Regardless of my prefrences, surely you can agree the way that anarchists carry cultural agitation alienates the masses. And therefore is a bankrupt tactic.
Who are you to tell anarchists what to do?

No-one.

If they think that what they are doing is the right way to go, then let them carry on their work.

They do alienate the masses, like anyone who is not neo-conservative or at least conservative.

Get your own house in order.

If anything, the very name of the Communist Party of Canada is doing more to "alienate the masses" than anything the anarchists are doing right now.

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

But when that rare occasion
where when a reform is won by the anarchists, its usualy becuase the anarchists discarded the workin' class and orginizied some students, small buisnis people, intelectuals, ect to occupy a buliding or sabatoge.

...

When the anarchist realy gets some where, he usualy becomes contridictory to the worker.
Here is a tip: when you make such a brash generalisation on the whole history of the practice of anarchism ("the anarchists usually discard the working class"), you have to produce numerous examples of such happening, and not just one example (your May 1968 example, of which the chain of events appears to be questionable due to the lack of a source on the matter).

I can contradict your sentiment on one point: as far as I have observed, the working class was never discarded in Spain--they were the oxygen of the anarchist revolution.

This reminds me of when the french reveloution in 68 took place, the workers forbid the anarchists from entering striking factorys so the students would not destroy the machines.
No doubt some sort of amateur historian and May 1968 buff can confirm or deny or debate this point, as I am not educated on the specifics of this event.

Led Zeppelin

1st July 2005, 21:43

JC1 and romanm should start reading Lenin's works before they call themselves Leninists:

"Unlike the anarchists, the Marxists recognise struggle for reforms, i.e., for measures that improve the conditions if the working people without destroying the power of the ruling class. At the same time, however, the Marxists wage a most resolute struggle against the reformists, who, directly or indirectly, restrict the aims and activities of the working class to the winning of reforms. Reformism is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage-slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital.

The liberal bourgeoisie grant reforms with one hand, and with the other always take them back, reduce them to nought, use them to enslave the workers, to divide them into separate groups and perpetuate wage-slavery. For that reason reformism, even when quite sincere, in practice becomes a weapon by means of which the bourgeoisie corrupt and weaken the workers. The experience of all countries shows that the workers who put their trust in the reformists are always fooled." Lenin

Marxism and Reformism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/12b.htm)

JC1

2nd July 2005, 20:13

You originally said that they were only examples of "reformism", but you have backed down and called them "reveloutions" (revolutions!).

Perhaps I should derentiate between Reveloutionary and Reformist Anarchism. In the first world, anarchism behaves as reformism. However, in settings with a peaseantry present, it behaves as a mildly reveloutionary tendency.

The Ukraine revolution was obviously one for the peasants,

Peaseants Just want land. There only real demand was the re-distribution of land. Then they purged workin' people.

and the Spanish revolution of the proletariat and the peasants.

The anarchists practice in that reveloution ( Witch never passed beyond dual power) was praticipation in some one elses union ( The CNT ) , Land Reform, and Parlimentary Creitienism. Dont glorify black-flagged Menshiviks.

A slanderous accusation, and a hypocritical one at that, since the Communist Party of Canada (of whom you link in your profile) bases their whole "road to socialism" programme on "democratic reforms".

they have a minimum program, but they deferantiate between minimum and maximum. Listen Here :

We know that the democratic reforms proposed in our People's Alternative, in themselves, cannot resolve the systemic crisis of capitalism.

Why do you insist on calling people, who are rejecting your strawmen, anarchists? As far as I know, neither me nor RS2K are anarchists. We (well, at least me) have criticisms of anarchism, but not from some uninitiated approach.

Obviously, that comment was not directected at you. And RS2K may not be a anarchist, but he does have a beef with leninism and he does seem to hope this is a anarchist century.

Well, what has this to do with anarchism as a theory or practice?

That was just an illistration. I base myself on the history of anarchist practice ( Or lack thereof ).

And ML, I did not say that we should discard Reforms, I said that the problem with anarchism is that the fight for reforms without connecting it with the struggle for our class' emancipaction.

And I dont care if lenin said the problem with reformism was that it disragarded reforms, Lenin never sat down and did a systematic analysis of anarchism.

cph_shawarma

2nd July 2005, 22:06

Obviously, that comment was not directected at you. And RS2K may not be a anarchist, but he does have a beef with leninism and he does seem to hope this is a anarchist century.
Does that forbid me to answer your drunken rambling? I have a beef with leninism too, it generally sucks in a diametrical opposite way of how council communism sucks. Leninism being practice without theory (and thus reformist) and council communism being theory without practice. I would root more for insurrectional anarchists than I would any f***ing leninist.

That was just an illistration. I base myself on the history of anarchist practice ( Or lack thereof ).
Well, it wasn't much of an illustration of anarchist practice, which is why you are sent to the shame corner. If you want to exemplify anarchist practice, you may start with Barcelona 1936, not some confused leftist liberal who opposes McDonald's or Starbucks or whatever... Why won't you stop using dishonest arguments and moreover making a complete fool of yourself? Are you so blinded by your ideology that you can't see straight?

JC1

3rd July 2005, 02:15

Does that forbid me to answer your drunken rambling? I have a beef with leninism too, it generally sucks in a diametrical opposite way of how council communism sucks. Leninism being practice without theory (and thus reformist) and council communism being theory without practice.

Yeah. Just 48' volumes of lenin. And there are these called guys named Mao , Trosky, Dimitrov, Connoly maybe you have heard of some of them ?

I would root more for insurrectional anarchists than I would any f***ing leninist.

Frank, my dear shawarma, I dont give a damn.

Well, it wasn't much of an illustration of anarchist practice, which is why you are sent to the shame corner. If you want to exemplify anarchist practice, you may start with Barcelona 1936, not some confused leftist liberal who opposes McDonald's or Starbucks or whatever... Why won't you stop using dishonest arguments and moreover making a complete fool of yourself? Are you so blinded by your ideology that you can't see straight?

I point out that the FAI was not the instrumental force in the spanish reveloution it was made out to be, merely a pressure group within a large a-political union. I am ignored. I point out the spanish peaseant collectives were mereluy service co-ops( And point out that peaseants class interests is against anarchism ), i am ignored. I point out the case is the same with Chiapas and the Ukraine ( And there arent even service co-ops in those locales ). I am Ignored. I point out the IWW served not as a brigner of reveloutionary counsince, but as a orginizier, i am ignored.

The only ones who Dishonest are those reformist-pukes who ignore the crux of my argument and harp on the elements regardin' lifestylists and librelals.

cph_shawarma

3rd July 2005, 02:42

Yeah. Just 48' volumes of lenin. And there are these called guys named Mao , Trosky, Dimitrov, Connoly maybe you have heard of some of them ?
Well, if you want to call these idealists and half-witted stalinists theorists, fine by me, but I won't even compare them to real theorists like Marx, Engels, Bordiga, Dauvé, Thompson etc. It was a practice without revolutionary theory, and thus it was not revolutionary practice.

I point out that the FAI was not the instrumental force in the spanish reveloution it was made out to be, merely a pressure group within a large a-political union. I am ignored. I point out the spanish peaseant collectives were mereluy service co-ops( And point out that peaseants class interests is against anarchism ), i am ignored. I point out the case is the same with Chiapas and the Ukraine ( And there arent even service co-ops in those locales ). I am Ignored. I point out the IWW served not as a brigner of reveloutionary counsince, but as a orginizier, i am ignored.
Well, is anarchism (or any social movement) just the official organisation to you. Wow, another organisation chauvinist with an attitude. CNT-FAI was definitely a counter-revolutionary entity, but I was not talking about CNT-FAI but the self-movement of the proletariat in Barcelona under the flag of anarchism. This was indeed a communist movement and it proves that the color of your flag or your organisation does not make you this or that, but only your actions will make you a communist.

The only ones who Dishonest are those reformist-pukes who ignore the crux of my argument and harp on the elements regardin' lifestylists and librelals.
You haven't posed any arguments.

JC1

3rd July 2005, 03:16

Well, is anarchism (or any social movement) just the official organisation to you. Wow, another organisation chauvinist with an attitude. CNT-FAI was definitely a counter-revolutionary entity, but I was not talking about CNT-FAI but the self-movement of the proletariat in Barcelona under the flag of anarchism. This was indeed a communist movement and it proves that the color of your flag or your organisation does not make you this or that, but only your actions will make you a communist.

Now we have something to work with. I agree with you the unorginizied workers in barecelona were objectivly communist. But I dont know a single anarchist who dosent uphold the CNT-FAI.

A Demoralised Mortal

3rd July 2005, 07:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:13 PM
Peaseants Just want land. There only real demand was the re-distribution of land. Then they purged workin' people.
Sources? Particularly for the part of which I emphasised?

You are very weak on sources, you see, and it makes the readers of this thread attempt to scratch the bottom of the cauldron for any scrap of credibility.

The anarchists practice in that reveloution ( Witch never passed beyond dual power) was praticipation in some one elses union ( The CNT ) , Land Reform, and Parlimentary Creitienism. Dont glorify black-flagged Menshiviks.

From http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr7/spain.html:

Although it was in the countryside where the most far-reaching anarchist socialisation took place, the revolution took place in the cities and the towns too. At that time in Spain almost 2 million out of a total population of 24 million worked in industry, 70% of which was concentrated in one area - Catalonia. There, within hours of the fascist assault, workers had seized control of 3000 enterprises. This included all public transportation services, shipping, electric and power companies, gas and water works, engineering and automobile assembly plants, mines, cement works, textile mills and paper factories, electrical and chemical concerns, glass bottle factories and perfumeries, food processing plants and breweries.

That appears to be far more than you credit the anarchists for.

As for using the CNT ("someone else's union"): the union was there to be taken by anyone, and power struggles did indeed take place between anarchists and others with competing interested parties.

The anarchist revolution did indeed pass beyond dual power, because I do recall reading a direct quote from a Republican, but setting an example, I will let you discount it until I can produce a source.

As for the accusation of parliamentary cretinism: that is something that the CPC aspire to!

It is quite hypocritical of you to accuse anyone of that, you understand.

At any rate, the chain of events that has led you to accuse the anarchist as an exercise of "parliamentary cretinism" is as follows:

- in 1937 the CNT leadership had a shift in power and decided to give up what power the workers had without the consultation of the membership;

- the Republican and so-called "communist" forces then proceeded to disarm what was left of the workers' strongholds, which included the key telephone exchange (there was no broadband internet or satellite devices for communication back then!), in which, if my memory serves me correctly, there was quite a struggle put up to defend it.

From in the relative safety of my armchair in 2005, I can easily say that something was not right and that this should never have happened, especially as this shift in power was born from the fact that some anarchists shifted from their principles.

Indeed, as an unaligned party and judge, I observe that a betrayal of principles did take place (although on the part of a few in the leadership).

I do allow them a concession: in the face of the ever-threatening doom from the Falangist and pro-Catholic and pro-monarchist forces under the command of General Francesco Franco, they would have felt tremendous pressure to firstly rid Spain of those forces.

I suppose I can let them have another concession: the anarchists are always quick to point out the ills of hierarchy, and since the CNT was in some form hierarchical, it was, from their view point, inevitable that a betrayal was to take place.

At any rate, is the regrettable betrayal of the revolution the crime of the century?

Hardly.

Will the CPC ever find itself in a revolutionary situation, let alone in any position that is even close to this level of revolutionary practice?

Perhaps in a parallel universe.

JC1

4th July 2005, 00:30

Sources? Particularly for the part of which I emphasised?

http://www.marxist.com/History/russia_peasants.htm . I also think it is common sense to know that the main demand of the peaseantry is land. There a petit bourgoise grouping.

That appears to be far more than you credit the anarchists for.

Actualy, it just says that workers seizied industry. Anarchists were not the saviours you make them out to be.

As for using the CNT ("someone else's union"): the union was there to be taken by anyone, and power struggles did indeed take place between anarchists and others with competing interested parties.

But at no point were the anarchists the leadership.

As for the accusation of parliamentary cretinism: that is something that the CPC aspire to!

They agitate at the ballot, but were hardly parlimentary creitins. Plus, the CPCs prospective Parlimentary Reps are too take payucuts and wages no greater then that of the average worker. The Anarchist Parlimentary delegation didnt.

- in 1937 the CNT leadership had a shift in power and decided to give up what power the workers had without the consultation of the membership;

I think that this is a fair assesment, however the fact everybody was rocking the unions unity didnt help.

- the Republican and so-called "communist" forces then proceeded to disarm what was left of the workers' strongholds, which included the key telephone exchange (there was no broadband internet or satellite devices for communication back then!), in which, if my memory serves me correctly, there was quite a struggle put up to defend it.

It was Actualy POUM and a handfull of workers local to that buliding that defended it. Not the " Saviours from on high" from the FOD and FAI. ( Source : Homage to Cantalonia )

In this " Chain of Events", you fail to disscuss the parlimentary pressence of the anarchists.

From in the relative safety of my armchair in 2005, I can easily say that something was not right and that this should never have happened, especially as this shift in power was born from the fact that some anarchists shifted from their principles.

But what is the material source of this Idealogical Vaciliation ? Perhaps its in the Petit-Bourgoise inate predisposition to vacilation.

Will the CPC ever find itself in a revolutionary situation, let alone in any position that is even close to this level of revolutionary practice?

Speculation.

cph_shawarma

4th July 2005, 20:39

romanm

4th July 2005, 22:14

Marxist-Leninist,

Where did I condemn all reform? In fact I am very supportive of some reform, for example, prison reform. I think agitating for some reform can aid revolutionary long term goals.

When did i say that i oppose reform? I oppose reform with no other goal in mind, that is i oppose reform in itself - which is also Lenin's position.

Led Zeppelin

4th July 2005, 22:34

You claimed that "anarchism is reformism" (or for some part reformist), see the emphasized section of that Lenin quote.

JC1

4th July 2005, 22:46

ML: Anarchists may declare there against reform, but, as we have observed from there practice , there objectivly reformists. However, the fact you mechanicly hide behind a lenin qoute and treat Marxism as a rote disipline , not a science, is troubling.

Led Zeppelin

4th July 2005, 23:01

Anarchists may declare there against reform, but, as we have observed from there practice , there objectivly reformists.

I dont know how you have "observed" this, but Lenin "missed it".

You must be a hell of a lot smarter than him. Or your observing skills are probably better.

In fact some parties that call themselves Leninist (but are in reality revisionist) are reformist.

However, the fact you mechanicly hide behind a lenin qoute and treat Marxism as a rote disipline , not a science, is troubling.

So i cant agree with Lenin when he is right because it pisses you off?

JC1

4th July 2005, 23:19

I dont know how you have "observed" this, but Lenin "missed it".

You must be a hell of a lot smarter than him. Or your observing skills are probably better.

In fact some parties that call themselves Leninist (but are in reality revisionist) are reformist

Listen. Lenin made observations about the anarchist movement while it was in its cellulear stage, and with not a lot of data amased about anarchist practice. He made a mistake. Leninism is not a church, and Lenin can be incorrect.

So i cant agree with Lenin when he is right because it pisses you off?

Nahh. But Lenin was wrong, and your are by proxy.

Led Zeppelin

4th July 2005, 23:21

Listen. Lenin made observations about the anarchist movement while it was in its cellulear stage, and with not a lot of data amased about anarchist practice.

I do not agree.

Leninism is not a church, and Lenin can be incorrect.

I agree, i never said that Lenin cannot be incorrect.

cph_shawarma

5th July 2005, 09:52

It seems like an obvious statement in this debate that JC1 is locked in his position and will not succumb to arguments posted by myself and others. You may note how he completely ignores my last post, since it utterly crushes his thesis that "anarchism is reformism" by essence. By the same means one may say that "communism is reformism" since most self-announced communists of today are working in reformist parties. The argument is wrong and the logical chain doesn't even exist. JC1, do us a favour and found your arguments next time you open up a debate.

JC1

5th July 2005, 21:56

JC1

5th July 2005, 22:06

Well I do know several anarchists (and entire currents of anarchism, e.g. insurrectionalists and platformists) that actually do attack CNT-FAI, and who have realised its true character...

This utterly crushes my thesis how , my edible freind shawarma ?

By the same means one may say that "communism is reformism" since most self-announced communists of today are working in reformist parties.

This may have a token of truth to it, but this is not the subject of debate.

The argument is wrong and the logical chain doesn't even exist.

Let me re-iterate.

The Majority of Anarchist practice has been

- Land Reform ( EG The Spanish experiment , and the Ukrainian Darfur)

- Economism ( EG The IWW and The CNT-FAI )

- Cultural Agitation ( EG Crimethinc and Ad Busters ) and Lifestylism

And these main fronts of struggle have been conducted in a way that offers no Spectre of entertaining Mass Supourt and/or spreading reveloutionary counsince.

Severian

6th July 2005, 10:04

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 13 2005, 08:59 PM--> (Severian @ Jun 13 2005, 08:59 PM)
apathy [email protected] 13 2005, 01:16 AM
Besides all the communists ever did was kill people. Look at Stalin, he slaughtered millions of people with his teeth!
I want an appointment with his dentist.

Plus he slept with Hitler.

I'm sorry, but the Hitler/Stalin pairing squicks me. [/b]
This went right by everyone, didn't it? Damn. One of my best posts ever, if I dare say so myself.

Vanguard1917

7th July 2005, 01:51

redstar2000

7th July 2005, 05:12

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Anarchism is essentially a petit-bourgeois ideology - i.e. it is a knee-jerk, spontaneous reaction of the petit-bourgeois (i.e. small capitalists) to the effects of capitalist large-scale production. The petit-bourgeois class sees that its very existence is in jeopardy due to large-scale production and responds by destroying productive technology.

Have some evidence for this, do you?

Like, for example, a study of the class origins and present class status of 2,000 people who consider themselves anarchists?

Or perhaps a similar investigation of the class background of 200 prominent anarchist theoreticians/organizers, past and present.

I predict that you're going to find that those "small capitalists" are pretty rare.

As a control, of course, you must do a similar study of members of Leninist vanguard parties...in case there are any "small capitalists" lurking in their midst. :lol:

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

Vanguard1917

7th July 2005, 06:11

Redstar, when we call an anarchist organisation 'petit-bourgois' we are saying, from our Marxist reading of society, that that organisation is representing the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie. It does not follow that they must actually be members of that class.

cph_shawarma

7th July 2005, 10:35

Well I do know several anarchists (and entire currents of anarchism, e.g. insurrectionalists and platformists) that actually do attack CNT-FAI, and who have realised its true character...

This utterly crushes my thesis how , my edible freind shawarma ?
Since you have chosen to use an inductive method, with highly selective data, this definitely crushes your thesis. You have taken some of the theory and practice of something named "anarchism". Thereby your statement can be crushed by showing that your thesis is not able to capture the entire anarchist movement. You have been selective in data gathering, and follow an illogical chain, which ultimately leads to the incorrectness of your statement.

By the same means one may say that "communism is reformism" since most self-announced communists of today are working in reformist parties.

This may have a token of truth to it, but this is not the subject of debate.
You are unwilling to reply to this, since it will force you to question your ideology (i.e. false consciousness). This has definitely to do with the subject of debate, you won't get away that easy. If "anarchism is reformism" is true based on your reasoning, then "[enter anything] is reformism" is also true. Thus your argument has no substance.

The argument is wrong and the logical chain doesn't even exist.

Let me re-iterate.

The Majority of Anarchist practice has been

- Land Reform ( EG The Spanish experiment , and the Ukrainian Darfur)

- Economism ( EG The IWW and The CNT-FAI )

- Cultural Agitation ( EG Crimethinc and Ad Busters ) and Lifestylism
Land Reform? You call Spain 1936 a land reform? You must be crazy or uneducated.

Economism may be true of Bakunin, but not of the modern anarchists (insurrectionalists, platformists once again). You can't charge an entire theory based on some of its currents, as I have told you. That would be like criticising evolutionary theorists for creationalistic idiotic outbursts.

Crimethinc, Adbusting and Lifestylism is not exclusive to "anarchists" (which these people are not). Lifestylism is very much existent in Stalinist parties, adbusting is more of radical liberalism (as is crimethinc). Please put up some arguments ffs.

And these main fronts of struggle have been conducted in a way that offers no Spectre of entertaining Mass Supourt and/or spreading reveloutionary counsince.
What's this? Ah, the old leninist notion of the "people" and "inducing revolutionary conscience". Well, then I ought to recommend a re-reading of Marx & Engels, but I don't think will actually gain something from it, since you are stuck in "common sense" (i.e. ideology, false consciousness).

redstar2000

7th July 2005, 16:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:11 AM
Redstar, when we call an anarchist organisation 'petit-bourgois' we are saying, from our Marxist reading of society, that that organisation is representing the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie. It does not follow that they must actually be members of that class.
Actually, in the U.S., it's usually the "Chamber of Commerce" of each locality that represents the interests of the "small capitalists". Even "stranger", some young anarchists appear to be particularly hostile to small capitalists...or at least that's how they act when charging through the streets smashing storefront windows ("break the glass of the ruling class", etc.).

Further, just how is anarchism "in the interests" of small capitalists? True, their large competitors would no longer exist; but why would they assume that they would be permitted to go on doing "business as usual"?

Rather than anarchism "representing the interests of small capitalists", it seems to me that fascism is far more appealing to them. Fascism promises them a "fixed position" above the working class and claims that it will protect their interests against the depredations of their large competitors. (The promises are lies, of course...but the small capitalists were very supportive of the Nazi party in the German elections of the early 1930s.)

If anarchism "represents the class interests of small capitalists", then why don't small capitalists support it?

We all start from the historical materialist premise that ideologies don't just "fall out of the sky" but do indeed reflect the various classes in society and their objective material interests.

The roots of both communism and anarchism are found, I think, in the artisan class of both Germany and France c.1840CE. Both were later adopted by the international working class and were modified considerably in the process.

In our own time, there are many versions of anarchism and communism...that represent many different class (or sub-class) interests. Anarchism and communism are far removed from their original "class of origin".

It seems to me that the most sensible approach to the question "what class does this ideology represent" is to ask ourselves what class supports this ideology?.

Otherwise, things get...mystical. Ideologies are claimed to "represent" certain classes even though, in the real world, the classes so designated actually oppose those ideologies.

That doesn't make any sense.

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

A Demoralised Mortal

7th July 2005, 16:09

Originally posted by A Demoralised Mortal
Sure it was a reveloution.
As to not embarrass yourself, you added that they were "bourgeois" revolutions, strangely.

Why did not you speak in a plural, as I referred to two examples?

You did not proof read your post, quite clearly.

Why do you keep on insisting that they were reformist experiences (again!) after that admittance?

I am not sure, but I hazard a guess that it has something to do with your inability to sustain an argument under criticism.

The notion that "anarchism is revolutionary" in your statement is as clear as day, though.

It was Actualy POUM and a handfull of workers local to that buliding that defended it [the telephone exchange]". Not the " Saviours from on high" from the FOD and FAI. ( Source : Homage to Cantalonia )
Actually, it was the CNT (and I presume they collaborated with the FAI as well) and a handful of workers local to that building that defended the telephone exchange.

Here is some specific confirmation of that:

On the 3rd May 1937, Rodriguez Salas, the Chief of Police, ordered the Civil Guard and the Assault Guard to take over the Telephone Exchange, which had been operated by the CNT since the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. Members of the CNT in the Telephone Exchange were armed and refused to give up the building.

Source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPmontseny.htm

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

This is what you have to do JC1: you have to clearly state whether you think anarchism is reformism or not.

You cannot change your position when it suits you, as you have done several times in this thread.

Well, you can (you have already executed several more U-turns than that Liverpudlian, Steven Gerrard), but you have lost a tonne of credibility in the eyes of many posters and readers of this thread as a consequence.

So what is your stance, Mr. CPC?

Is anarchism an ideology of reformism or of revolutionism?

For once and for all...

redstar2000

7th July 2005, 19:24

Originally posted by A Demoralised Mortal
A change in the means of production is not a revolutionary achievement?

Damn well it is.

Karl Marx recognised a change in the means of production as the key factor in determining revolution.

Actually, I think what you mean to refer to here is a change in the relations of production.

The phrase "means of production" is generally understood to refer to technology. It's widely accepted among Marxists that changes in technology, over time, cause changes in the relations of production.

When the Spanish CNT took over the running of the economy in Barcelona, displacing the capitalist class in that city, that represented a change in the relations of production.

Unfortunately, the CNT failed to displace the capitalist political apparatus as well...allowing it to "re-group" and eventually counter-attack and destroy the CNT economy.

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

A Demoralised Mortal

7th July 2005, 19:47

There you go... my sneaking suspicion of an incorrection (intimated in my request for a confirmation of my sentiment) was well-founded.

The argument still stands, though: the difference now being a change in terms to the relations of production.

And I also agree with your last contention, of course, and I suspect an underlying reason for this was because the strength of the CNT and allied forces was simply not great enough.

bombeverything

7th July 2005, 23:04

Anarchism is essentially a petit-bourgeois ideology - i.e. it is a knee-jerk, spontaneous reaction of the petit-bourgeois (i.e. small capitalists) to the effects of capitalist large-scale production. The petit-bourgeois class sees that its very existance is in jeopardy due to large-scale production and responds by destroying productive technology.

Your post is based on nothing but ignorant assumptions. Anarchism existed before industrialisation. Your claim that anarchists are simply jealous of the ruling class is absurd, and is based on nothing but a naive interpretation of anarchism as a middle-class ideology.

We can see this tendency in the petit-bourgeois class in today's society. Consider protests againsts GM technology (agricultural production at its most advanced) and the increase in demand for organic food (primitive agricultural production). Consider environmentalism and calls for sustainable development. These are the class perspectives of the petit-bourgeoisie. It is no accident therefore that anarchists share such perspectives. In this sense, anarchism is not reformist - it is actually a backward ideology.

What? How is environmentalism a backward ideology? A concern for the future is looking backwards? You are the one that clearly shares a desire for increased GM technology and unbridled production, just like the capitalist class.

So, when we talk about the difference between communists and anarchists, it is not enough to merely say 'one believes that the state should be abolished and the other doesn't'. We need to look at the class dynamic of each ideology.

What class dynamic? Anarchists are reformers simply because some anarchists are environmentalists, and some were born middle class? Shock horror: many Marxists were also born middle-class. Maybe even you! Anarchism and communism are the same thing. You seem to be unaware that Anarchists call for the liberation of the working class by the working class themself. As a result, there is no movement more in line with the interests of the working class than anarchism.

Warren Peace

8th July 2005, 00:27

;) This makes no sense. Anarchism is not reformism. Anarchism supports kickass, violent revolution.

I just got here and when I introduced myself I was talking about how we need to put aside our differences and work together in a United Front! And already I see a communist dissing his anarchist brothers! And for what reason!?

Severian

8th July 2005, 14:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:04 PM
Anarchism existed before industrialisation.
True. Which indicates it ain't an ideology produced by the working class and its interests.

Severian

8th July 2005, 15:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:24 PM
Unfortunately, the CNT failed to displace the capitalist political apparatus as well...allowing it to "re-group" and eventually counter-attack and destroy the CNT economy.
Yes, exactly. Which is why anarchism is reformist: if workers don't take state power, it remains in the hands of the bosses.

Many posters have pointed out that anarchism is ultraleft, super-revolutionary in its rhetoric, etc. One even quoted Lenin to that effect. This is all pretty obvious.

But ultraleftism is often just the flip side of the coin from reformism, and anarchists have proved this in every revolutionary crisis where they've been a factor, most famously the Spanish Civil War.

Morpheus

8th July 2005, 23:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:19 PM
Yes, exactly. Which is why anarchism is reformist: if workers don't take state power, it remains in the hands of the bosses.
Unless you destroy state power, then it is not in the hands of the bosses or anyone else.

bombeverything

9th July 2005, 00:39

True. Which indicates it ain't an ideology produced by the working class and its interests.

I was simply replying to Vanguard1917's post, which claimed that anarchism, was a middle-class ideology. I never claimed that anarchism was 'produced' by the working class as such. However, anarchist thought was clearly shaped by an environment of exploitation and domination of the majority by a privileged elite. For instance, anarchism has been traced back to the Taoists of ancient China, who lived within a feudal society that was becoming increasingly centralised and bureaucratic. This resulted in a rejection of government and a call for a classless society.

Yes, exactly. Which is why anarchism is reformist: if workers don't take state power, it remains in the hands of the bosses.

Anarchists wish to abolish power altogether.

But ultraleftism is often just the flip side of the coin from reformism, and anarchists have proved this in every revolutionary crisis where they've been a factor, most famously the Spanish Civil War.

Please elaborate on this.

Warren Peace

9th July 2005, 01:26

Like I said before, anarchism IS NOT REFORMISM, because it supports violence against the government! This whole debate is pointless!

redstar2000

9th July 2005, 03:16

Originally posted by Severian
Which is why anarchism is reformist: if workers don't take state power, it remains in the hands of the bosses.

Not necessarily.

For example, if the CNT had simply dispersed the capitalist political apparatus in Catalonia, without replacing it with a new one, would that have not sufficed to prevent the capitalists from returning to power there?

At least not until Franco's army entered Catalonia.

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

Severian

9th July 2005, 09:13

Originally posted by Morpheus+Jul 8 2005, 04:54 PM--> (Morpheus @ Jul 8 2005, 04:54 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 02:19 PM
Yes, exactly. Which is why anarchism is reformist: if workers don't take state power, it remains in the hands of the bosses.
Unless you destroy state power, then it is not in the hands of the bosses or anyone else. [/b]
Something that has never happened in the history of the world. Fantasyland stuff, which covers anarchists' real-life reformist actions.

In revolutions, the new state is built up before the old one is smashed, and is needed to smash the old one. The Paris Commune and National Guard, the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, guerilla armies and the administration of the zones they control....Marxists call this side-by-side existence of conflicting states, "Dual Power." It's been a feature of all workers' revolutions I can think of...including 1930's Spain. But there, it didn't develop far enough to smash the bourgeois state.

I was simply replying to Vanguard1917's post, which claimed that anarchism, was a middle-class ideology. I never claimed that anarchism was 'produced' by the working class as such.

So, not the workers, and not the middle classes. That leaves...an upper-class ideology? No? What class interests does anarchism serve then?

I would suggest modern anarchism began as an extreme wing of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions. (E.g. Godwin. Or even Proudhon, who was hostile to workers unionizing and striking.) Which is to say, a form of petty-bourgeois radical democracy.

May have even had a certain justification in that time, but certainly the working-class movement doesn't benefit from being influenced by this petty-bourgeois ideology.

In response to Redstar's earlier comment on this, most anarchist groups in my experience certainly are middle-class in composition as well as program. As for groups considering themselves communist...it depends on the group.

Vanguard1917

9th July 2005, 15:30

If anarchism "represents the class interests of small capitalists", then why don't small capitalists support it?

In terms of political alliance and class ideology, different conditions give way to differing trends. As the far as the petit-bourgeoisie is concerned, I think these can be reactionary trends - e.g. fascism, as Redstar pointed out - or as Severian pointed out, radical trends: e.g. anarchism.

If anarchism is a petit-bourgeois ideology, why does the petit-bourgeoisie not support it? Partly because, in our current climate, petit-bourgeois interests are already given representation in western ruling parties (e.g. the British Labour Party) or in opposition parties (e.g. the US Democrats). These parties talk of "sustainable development" and "the environment": i.e. petit-bourgeois perspectives, coincidently also supported by anarchists. The petit-bourgeoisie may not be lining up in support for anarchism, but anarchists sure are lining up up in support for petit-bourgeois ideas.

It seems to me that the most sensible approach to the question "what class does this ideology represent" is to ask ourselves what class supports this ideology?.

Masses of working class people support the conservative Republican Party in America. Does this make conservatism a working class ideology? According to our Marxist understanding of society, of course not.

redstar2000

9th July 2005, 17:27

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
Masses of working class people support the conservative Republican Party in America. Does this make conservatism a working class ideology?

Yes it does...that's what large numbers of backward workers in the United States believe in. Don't forget that there were plenty of backward workers in Germany that supported the Nazis with considerable enthusiasm. And in the U.K., there has always been a substantial base of support for the Conservative Party in the British working class.

But most workers do not support the Republican Party. Most German workers did not support the Nazis. Most workers in the U.K. have never supported the Conservative Party.

Another important factor to consider: people in different classes mean different things even when they are nominally adherents of a single ideology. A working-class Republican conservative does not mean the same thing as a ruling class Republican...even when they use the same words.

Take, for example, a phrase like "illegal immigrants". The working class Republican means by that phrase "people who will compete with me in the job market at a lower wage". The ruling class Republican means "people who are worthless as workers and will end up on welfare".

Working class conservatism is a "different animal" from ruling class reaction.

At the present time, the working classes in the advanced capitalist countries are all essentially reformist...they all, in one fashion or another, want to make capitalism "work better" -- more "humanely".

That is most unfortunate...but a crucial aspect of present-day social reality that no serious Marxist would deny.

But neither Marxists nor most anarchists accept the proposition that "it will always be that way". Our collective assumption is that classes can and will change their ideologies as their material conditions change...and that this applies especially to the working class.

We look towards an era in which the working class itself will seek out revolutionary alternatives to capitalism. Even if it takes another century or so, we expect this to happen as a product of the normal functioning of capitalism itself.

Until that does happen, reformism will inevitably influence and corrupt some communist and anarchist currents...there's simply no "guaranteed escape".

The only thing that serious Marxists and serious anarchists can do is struggle against reformism in all its variants as best we can...upholding the revolutionary alternative no matter how "crazy" it sounds now.

Times change...and what sounds "crazy" now may well become plain common sense in the future.

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

Warren Peace

9th July 2005, 19:49

Awesome argument, very good point. But...

Even if it takes another century or so, we expect this to happen as a product of the normal functioning of capitalism itself.

...You're way too patient. Don't you want to see a revolution against the Class Enemy while you're still alive?

The Garbage Disposal Unit

9th July 2005, 20:24

The base of this argument seems to be "Is the state the only practical method of class control?"
The problem then, comes down to how we define the "state". If we mean any monopoly on violence, by definition, of course "state power" is a necessity. However, I think, it is posible to secure a monopoly on violence and establish class control through ultrademocratic methods - through federations of autonomous collectives, with organized militia, etc. Spain offered a practical example that we could build upon (though certainly, it had its failings, and the Spanish revolution, obviously, ultimately failed). Point being, of course, that this is what anarchists advocate - they don't advocate leaving power in the hands of reactionaries, but, rather, differently organizing and carrying out the tasks that most Leninists would insist can only be carried out by a centralized state.

As to Revolt Now!, while we'd all love to see a revolution tomorrow, its not the sort of thing that can simply spring from an abyss. Until Imperialism is defeated abroad, the first-world masses aren't going to be roused from complacency and reformism.

Severian

10th July 2005, 01:23

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2005, 01:24 PM
Point being, of course, that this is what anarchists advocate - they don't advocate leaving power in the hands of reactionaries,
Never said anarchists advocated it.

But that's what anarchists do. What they've done again and again.

Actions speak louder.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

10th July 2005, 04:39

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 10 2005, 12:23 AM--> (Severian @ Jul 10 2005, 12:23 AM)
Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2005, 01:24 PM
Point being, of course, that this is what anarchists advocate - they don't advocate leaving power in the hands of reactionaries,
Never said anarchists advocated it.

But that's what anarchists do. What they've done again and again.

Actions speak louder. [/b]
But, similarly, "Marxist-Leninist" revolutions have similarly ended in reactionary forces seizing power. This comes out of the conditions in the times/places where there have been revolutions, failures of revolutionaries of all stripes resulting not from theoretical holes (though those certainly exist) but from relevent questions of global and regional historical development.
Until we have an example where anarchists failed and "Marxist-Leninists" succeeded, yr attacks along those lines hold little weight.

Vanguard1917

10th July 2005, 09:29

QUOTE (Vanguard1917)
Masses of working class people support the conservative Republican Party in America. Does this make conservatism a working class ideology?

Yes it does...that's what large numbers of backward workers in the United States believe in.

Just because working class people believe in conservative ideas it doesn't mean that such ideas are working class ideas. They are the ruling ideas of the ruling classes. "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. The class which is the ruling material force in society is, at the same time, the ruling intellectual force." (Marx and Engels)

Another important factor to consider: people in different classes mean different things even when they are nominally adherents of a single ideology. A working-class Republican conservative does not mean the same thing as a ruling class Republican...even when they use the same words.

Take, for example, a phrase like "illegal immigrants". The working class Republican means by that phrase "people who will compete with me in the job market at a lower wage". The ruling class Republican means "people who are worthless as workers and will end up on welfare".

I think that's a very important point. However: if, objectively, the American working class has a common interest with immigrant workers (i.e. the overthrow of capitalist society and the establishment of a socialist one), but, subjectively, it doesn't see that it has such a common interest, then this means that it has nonetheless been subjected to the ideas of the ruling classes.

Our collective assumption is that classes can and will change their ideologies as their material conditions change [my emphasis]...and that this applies especially to the working class.

You are just seeing things in the purely objective sense. What about the subjective factors involved in challenging the ruling ideas among society. Workers have to be won over to socialist ideas; these ideas do not come about as a natural outcome of objective conditions.

Even if it takes another century or so, we expect this to happen as a product of the normal functioning of capitalism itself.

Again, you're seeing the overthrow of capitalism as a natural, spontaneous process of capitalist development. The point of being a revolutionary is to intervene in the spontaneous development of capitalism. The alternative is a defeatist tailism; or, as Lenin said, bowing slavishless to spontaneity.

redstar2000

10th July 2005, 15:12

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
You are just seeing things in the purely objective sense...

Again, you're seeing the overthrow of capitalism as a natural, spontaneous process of capitalist development.

Guilty!

You see, the opposite of that assumption lands you in the swamp. If you assume that proletarian revolution can take place simply because people "want" it to take place...then you do indeed make a very vigorous effort to "win over" the subjective views of the proletariat to socialism.

But unless the objective conditions are present, you won't get socialism even if you win state power. Your "socialism" will actually be capitalism without capitalists...and will degenerate back into capitalism with capitalists.

Proletarian revolution has a deep objective cause -- capitalism has ceased to function effectively. The conflict between the means of production and the relations of production has become permanently irreconcilable.

The working class chooses communism because that's the only option that makes any sense.

I'm aware that this view is frequently criticized by Leninists and others as "tailing spontaneity" or as "doing nothing while waiting for the revolution".

It is, in fact, objectively true that we could do nothing at all and the revolution would nevertheless take place...and "on schedule" to boot.

But we subjectively find this "unsatisfying"...so we do indeed "do things" to "advance the struggle" in whatever way we can.

Do we "make a difference"? Does the revolution happen "earlier" because of our efforts? It's possible...but I doubt it. And it certainly won't happen "much" earlier...objective conditions won't permit that.

Do our efforts make the revolution "easier"? Here, there may be something to show for our efforts. The greater the number of workers who have already been won over to communist ideas prior to "the final crisis", the less resistance the revolution will meet and the smoother and less bloody its path will be.

We will have "eased the birth-pangs" (in Marx's words) of the new society.

But we are not going to "give birth" ourselves to a new society...that is more than any small minority could possibly accomplish.

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

The Feral Underclass

10th July 2005, 15:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 12:30 AM
Plus, the CPCs prospective Parlimentary Reps are too take payucuts and wages no greater then that of the average worker. The Anarchist Parlimentary delegation didnt.
What are you talking about!? There wasn't one. There never has been. You're just a liar.

Severian

10th July 2005, 22:40

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov Cocktail+Jul 9 2005, 09:39 PM--> (Virgin Molotov Cocktail @ Jul 9 2005, 09:39 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:23 AM

Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2005, 01:24 PM
Point being, of course, that this is what anarchists advocate - they don't advocate leaving power in the hands of reactionaries,
Never said anarchists advocated it.

But that's what anarchists do. What they've done again and again.

Actions speak louder.
But, similarly, "Marxist-Leninist" revolutions have similarly ended in reactionary forces seizing power. This comes out of the conditions in the times/places where there have been revolutions, failures of revolutionaries of all stripes resulting not from theoretical holes (though those certainly exist) but from relevent questions of global and regional historical development.
Until we have an example where anarchists failed and "Marxist-Leninists" succeeded, yr attacks along those lines hold little weight. [/b]
I'll stand by the record of the early Soviet government (Lenin's time) and the Cuban revolutionary government. On balance, they did and are doing a good job of dealing with a difficult situation.

As for the revolutions led by Stalinists from the beginning, it makes no more sense to hold Marxists or Leninists responsible for the actions of Stalinists, than for the actions of social democrats.

Odd to see that response from a self-described "anarcho-Maoist", also.

Until we have an example where anarchists failed and "Marxist-Leninists" succeeded, yr attacks along those lines hold little weight.

We do. Russia 1917. Who led the revolution?

The Feral Underclass

10th July 2005, 22:43

1917 was not a success.

bombeverything

10th July 2005, 23:41

So, not the workers, and not the middle classes. That leaves...an upper-class ideology? No? What class interests does anarchism serve then?

What I meant was that anarchism is not something that was created by any class of people, but the result of life. We are not idealists. Anarchism is based upon organisation from the bottom up, rather than a top-down authoritarian approach where power is concentrated in the hands of the few. As anarchists are against power, they do not wish to create a new ruling class. They wish to eliminate authority and domination altogether.

Capturing state power, strengthening the state, and somehow expecting it to 'dissolve' is illogical and contradictory, and based on an abstract idea created by a minority of intellectuals outside of the everyday life of the workers. As such, the laws created will never be up to date with the development and change happening within society at any given time. Thus, anarchism will always serve the interests of the oppressed majority against the ruling elite (whether this be former workers, or the capitalist class).

I would suggest modern anarchism began as an extreme wing of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions. (E.g. Godwin. Or even Proudhon, who was hostile to workers unionizing and striking.) Which is to say, a form of petty-bourgeois radical democracy.

'Petty-bourgeois radical democracy' is hardly what everyone advocated. Least of all the anarchists.

Severian

10th July 2005, 23:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:41 PM

So, not the workers, and not the middle classes. That leaves...an upper-class ideology? No? What class interests does anarchism serve then?

What I meant was that anarchism is not something that was created by any class of people, but the result of life.
Marxists find it useful to analyze things in terms of class interests. Which are of course a "result of life."

JC1

11th July 2005, 06:15

What I meant was that anarchism is not something that was created by any class of people, but the result of life. We are not idealists. Anarchism is based upon organisation from the bottom up, rather than a top-down authoritarian approach where power is concentrated in the hands of the few. As anarchists are against power, they do not wish to create a new ruling class. They wish to eliminate authority and domination altogether.

The ruling party in spain is called the Socialist Party. But Spain is Imperialist. Strange how words dont match actions, eh?

In my hometown, the majority of the IWWers are members of this Profit producing "Co-operative",witch all members are effectivly share holders, witch under capitalism makes them petit-bourgoise. The Anarchist Agenda is a hodge podge of things like small property intrests ( Cited in the Above Mentioned, Spanish and Ukrainian examples ), Apolitical Unionism, Advocating "Green" Capital, and Lifestylism. But they march around with Red and Black Flags. While the anarchist program generaly does contain prolatarian elements, thats becuase the petit-bourgoise tends vacilate. Thats why Anarchism is appealing to the middle classes , becuase like the middle class its rubble.. err.. rablle.

Severian

11th July 2005, 09:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:12 AM
It is, in fact, objectively true that we could do nothing at all and the revolution would nevertheless take place...and "on schedule" to boot.

But we subjectively find this "unsatisfying"...so we do indeed "do things" to "advance the struggle" in whatever way we can.
This seems more likely to result in doing whatever seems subjectively satisfying, rather than doing what objectively serves the interests of the revolution. In other words, picking whatever tactic is the most fun.

The greater the number of workers who have already been won over to communist ideas prior to "the final crisis", the less resistance the revolution will meet and the smoother and less bloody its path will be.
(earlier post)
The only thing that serious Marxists and serious anarchists can do is struggle against reformism in all its variants as best we can...upholding the revolutionary alternative no matter how "crazy" it sounds now.

Hm. Redstar's expressed this more clearly in the past: that the thing to do is propagandize for the goal of communism.

Despite the anti-utopian emphasis on the role of objective conditions, this conclusion is the same as the utopian socialists' conclusion on what to do. They projected a future society society, and then they propagandized for it. As Engels described their approach in Socialism:Utopian and Scientific, "It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments." Only the model experiments (communes) is missing from the modern version.

In contrast, Marxists emphasize participation in the class struggle of today, in order to advance the struggle through its various stages of development towards the revolution. " In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." as the Manifesto puts it.

redstar2000

11th July 2005, 16:26

Originally posted by Severian
This seems more likely to result in doing whatever seems subjectively satisfying, rather than doing what objectively serves the interests of the revolution. In other words, picking whatever tactic is the most fun.

If you like.

Leninists seem to think of revolution as a "job"...a sequence of grim and tedious tasks which one must laboriously complete.

"Sell the paper", "hand out the leaflet", "organize the demonstration", "get out the vote", "praise the leader", etc.

Perhaps this comes from Lenin's concept of "professional" revolutionaries.

Some forms of revolutionary activity probably do serve to "advance the struggle" more than others -- in my opinion, anything which serves to encourage direct action in resistance to the despotism of capital is "the best road to take".

Sometimes anarchists do this; sometimes Leninists also do this. Often, people who are otherwise completely a-political do this. And sometimes, nobody does this...and that's a damn shame.

This was my own approach in the days when I was physically active...and it's the approach I urge others to take now.

But if people don't feel comfortable (for any reason) with that approach, then there's not a whole lot I can do about that.

I encourage people to find a form and level of political activity with which they are comfortable -- they enjoy doing it and are good at it. Because that's what will sustain them for a lifetime of political work.

The Leninists show a marked tendency to "use people up" and "burn them out" in a year or two of frantic activity. I think that's a really crappy approach.

And probably does nothing of consequence in the way of "objectively serving the interests of the revolution".

Despite the anti-utopian emphasis on the role of objective conditions, this conclusion is the same as the utopian socialists' conclusion on what to do. They projected a future society, and then they propagandized for it.

Yes.

In contrast, Marxists emphasize participation in the class struggle of today, in order to advance the struggle through its various stages of development towards the revolution. "In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." as the Manifesto puts it.

Well, how do communists "represent the interests of the movement as a whole" if they don't propagandize for those interests?

Do you imagine that the mere presence of a communist spreads communist ideas by "osmosis"?

Your emphasis on the "class struggle of today" is also...suspicious. There's very little in the way of organized class struggle in the United States at the present time...and what there is of it is not very radical. That will change in the future, of course. But right now, a communist active in an American trade union is, with rare exceptions, a reformist.

Until workers themselves begin to spontaneously break with reformism, I don't see much in the way of practical activity that a communist can actually do to "represent the interests of the movement as a whole".

Maybe gain a precarious position writing for a union newspaper...and try to smuggle in some good stuff while not getting fired.

To be sure, there is the Trotskyist hypothesis of "transitional demands"...the idea that there's a special "category" of demands that will radicalize workers "in spite of themselves". Perhaps there's something to that...but probably not all that much.

A radical reform is still a reform...and the people who advocate it are still perceived as reformists.

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

Invader Zim

11th July 2005, 19:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:15 PM

I was on topic. This is a discussion about 'anarchism being reformism', which is in fact a flawed thesis, the type made by only the truly ignorant.

You may want help trying to take the piss in future, your not very good at it.

Just becuase im taking a unpopular position, sure as hell dsent make me wrong.
You said something vague as hell about idea's, while were talking about the material reality of anarchism. I have been citing the major citations of anarchist practice and showing it to be refrom minded in nature, and no one has been abel to back up there claim anarchism is reveloutionistic.
The reason why your position is being continually challenged, is not because it is unpopular, but because it is inaccurate.

bombeverything

12th July 2005, 01:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 10:53 PM
Marxists find it useful to analyze things in terms of class interests. Which are of course a "result of life."

Anarchists see state power as underpinning the division of society into classes and a class hierarchy. Within a state, those in power will clearly end up with significant material benefits. The view that a political revolution should somehow precede a social revolution is illogical, as any revolution taking place without a social revolution would end up being a bourgeois revolution.

You have the right to your own analysis of society, however anarchists do not believe that anyone has the right to impose their own analysis of society on others through laws. That is not a natural result of life, as such laws come from outside of the society, from the top down rather than from the bottom up: from the workers themselves. Such domination would destroy freedom and ignore the everyday experience of the working class, which would be insulting and misguided.

bombeverything

12th July 2005, 01:24

In my hometown, the majority of the IWWers are members of this Profit producing "Co-operative",witch all members are effectivly share holders, witch under capitalism makes them petit-bourgoise.

How is sharing money in order to create an international workers union to fight against capitalist exploitation an act of the petit-bourgeoisie? IWW members are not aiming for a personal profit (as you seem to be suggesting): they are aiming to work together to build the influence of the union so that it can contribute to change.

JC1

12th July 2005, 03:15

Yep. Operating a coffee shop is soooo reveloutionary. That petit bourgoise.

bombeverything

12th July 2005, 13:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:15 AM
Yep. Operating a coffee shop is soooo reveloutionary. That petit bourgoise.

And your idea of a revolutionary act would be what exactly?

JC1

12th July 2005, 20:00

And your idea of a revolutionary act would be what exactly?

Well, being a member of the reveloutionary class ( E.g. the working class) helps.

bombeverything

13th July 2005, 01:41

As a 'socialist' you should understand that people do not have a choice where they are born, and what social class they are born into. Are you saying that people with middle-class backgrounds are incapable of being revolutionaries?

JC1

13th July 2005, 23:56

Are you saying that people with middle-class backgrounds are incapable of being revolutionaries?

Perhaps you heard of this fellow "Karl Marx" ? He said " Being Determines Counsince". Or in other words , middle class pukes act like ... middle class pukes. If they brake with there backround, then yes, they can become consistent reveloutionaries ... however.

Some forms of revolutionary activity probably do serve to "advance the struggle" more than others -- in my opinion, anything which serves to encourage direct action in resistance to the despotism of capital is "the best road to take".

What does this even mean ? The AFL-CIO participates in dircet action ... but needless to say, that orginization is permeated with bourgoise ideaology.

Well, how do communists "represent the interests of the movement as a whole" if they don't propagandize for those interests?

Do you imagine that the mere presence of a communist spreads communist ideas by "osmosis"?

Your emphasis on the "class struggle of today" is also...suspicious. There's very little in the way of organized class struggle in the United States at the present time...and what there is of it is not very radical. That will change in the future, of course. But right now, a communist active in an American trade union is, with rare exceptions, a reformist.

Umm ... not if that communist connects his reform struggle with class struggle.

A radical reform is still a reform...and the people who advocate it are still perceived as reformists.

Speak to people ... if you connect socialism with that reform you suddenly leave the reformist catagory. If i distribute a leaflet at a union meeting that states that our gains cant be rollbacked under socialism ... people will see me difrent then youre run of the mill trade union reformist.

And So ... you have gone from saying "Anarchists are reformists ?!? ... thats bullshit !" to " Anarchists are reformists, prolly, but its not there fualt" .

bombeverything

14th July 2005, 02:03

Perhaps you heard of this fellow "Karl Marx" ?

Yeah maybe once or twice.

He said " Being Determines Counsince". Or in other words , middle class pukes act like ... middle class pukes. If they brake with there backround, then yes, they can become consistent reveloutionaries ... however.

And breaking away from a middle class background necessitates joining an authoritarian political party? Talk about reformism. :lol:

The state itself is a bourgeois institution, and the only way to break with this tradition is to abolish all organizations that support it, most importantly the state.

JC1

14th July 2005, 02:38

And breaking away from a middle class background necessitates joining an authoritarian political party? Talk about reformism.

Nope. By gettin' a real job and re-positioning themselves in the there relation to production. duhh.

The state itself is a bourgeois institution, and the only way to break with this tradition is to abolish all organizations that support it, most importantly the state.

the state has existed long before the capital.

bombeverything

14th July 2005, 04:51

the state has existed long before the capital.

I am talking referring to the centralised, national state (not simply authority). The state did not appear until about 5500 years ago in Egypt. The state emerged with inequality. Laws were made to protect private property and enforced by a group of armed men.

Nope. By gettin' a real job and re-positioning themselves in the there relation to production. duhh.

Then according to that logic I am a revolutionary rather than a reformist as I have a 'real' working class job.

cph_shawarma

14th July 2005, 10:48

Perhaps you heard of this fellow "Karl Marx" ? He said " Being Determines Counsince". Or in other words , middle class pukes act like ... middle class pukes. If they brake with there backround, then yes, they can become consistent reveloutionaries ... however.
With your vulgar reading of Marx proles would automatically be revolutionaries and petit-bourgeois reactionaries. Amadeo Bordiga attacks (as did Marx) this notion in "Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle". The notion of conscience is not to be seen as mechanically determined by one's class position, but seen as dialectically intertwined with the social relations constituting capital. This is the true essence of "the ruling thoughts are in all times the thoughts of the ruling" (Marx, German Ideology). Your stalinist bullcrap about "proletarising" one self is just the rebirth of 70's maoism, but this time it shows it face as a farse, instead of as a tragedy.

What does this even mean ? The AFL-CIO participates in dircet action ... but needless to say, that orginization is permeated with bourgoise ideaology.

"For their part, the Trotskyists clung to Lenin's ideas and recited "What Is To Be Done?" Humanity's crisis, is nothing but the crisis of leadership, said Trotsky: so a leadership must be created at any cost. This is the ultimate idealism, the history of the world is explained as a crisis of consciousness." Gilles Dauvé, The "Renegade" Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin

This can also be said of you, your critique is merely founded on the "crisis of consciousness", which is utter idealism.

And So ... you have gone from saying "Anarchists are reformists ?!? ... thats bullshit !" to " Anarchists are reformists, prolly, but its not there fualt" .
Here, you start coming to a point (even if you reject it). If anarchists or communists act in a reformist way, it is often because of the current state of the world ("being determines conscience", remember?). The intervention of parts of the working class towards other parts of the working class may at certain areas break this "formula", but in a state of defensive class struggle on behalf of the working class, it is certainly not the case. Your usage of the word "reformism" only is connected to the ideological issues of anarchism or any other movement, but not to the material existence in which we all live. Idealism, not for me!

JC1

14th July 2005, 19:00

With your vulgar reading of Marx proles would automatically be revolutionaries and petit-bourgeois reactionaries. Amadeo Bordiga attacks (as did Marx) this notion in "Force, Violence and Dictatorship in the Class Struggle". The notion of conscience is not to be seen as mechanically determined by one's class position, but seen as dialectically intertwined with the social relations constituting capital. This is the true essence of "the ruling thoughts are in all times the thoughts of the ruling" (Marx, German Ideology). Your stalinist bullcrap about "proletarising" one self is just the rebirth of 70's maoism, but this time it shows it face as a farse, instead of as a tragedy.

Where did I say that Workers are automaticly cousince ? All I said was that ( In the current epoch) for ones cousince to cosistent it should match up with material conditions.

This can also be said of you, your critique is merely founded on the "crisis of consciousness", which is utter idealism.

The crisis of Counsince ( In Unions ) is based on the labour Aristocracys dictatorship over orginizied labour, not the dictatorship of ideas.

Here, you start coming to a point (even if you reject it). If anarchists or communists act in a reformist way, it is often because of the current state of the world ("being determines conscience", remember?).

But communists for the most part, act in a consistent manner. Whereas Anarchist fluctuate, as that is the petit bourgoise manner.

JC1

15th July 2005, 18:53

CPH Falafel, Plz Reply

The Garbage Disposal Unit

15th July 2005, 20:28

You seem a bit confused JC1 - do anarchists fluctuate because they're anarchists, or because they're petit-bourgeois? Are you postulating that anarchists are necessarily petit-bourgeois? Historical evidence would certainly suggest otherwise - there have been extremely vibrant working class anarchist movements at multiple points throughout history.
In looking at class consciousness, we can not be mechanistic or reductionist.

As for yr claim that communists act in a consistant manner, I think it's rather obviously not true - ideology never survives confrontation with reality. Certainly, we could say communists who behave inconsistently aren't really communists, but then we're playing word games instead of dealing with substance.

JC1

17th July 2005, 20:43

You seem a bit confused JC1 - do anarchists fluctuate because they're anarchists, or because they're petit-bourgeois? Are you postulating that anarchists are necessarily petit-bourgeois?

Yes. Otherwise they would not have the programs the have,have the lines they have, or vaciliate the way they do.

Historical evidence would certainly suggest otherwise - there have been extremely vibrant working class anarchist movements at multiple points throughout history.

If you would like to point some instances out, please do.

As for yr claim that communists act in a consistant manner, I think it's rather obviously not true - ideology never survives confrontation with reality.

Reality Determines Idealogy. Material Conditions determine Ideas.

And you forget that Marxism is a all encompasing science. So it is much more adaptable and Usefull then say, Pragmatism.

I Guess CPH Falafel wont reply.

cph_shawarma

17th July 2005, 22:00

Where did I say that Workers are automaticly cousince ? All I said was that ( In the current epoch) for ones cousince to cosistent it should match up with material conditions.
What does this mean? Is this your opinion? Or is it something factual? If this was true, Marx could not have been consistent in his theories, and thus we would have to reject them, or is his theories an extraordinary exception? Of course the "material conditions" (I have an idea of what you mean, and it isn't what neither me nor Marx meant by it) influence the empirical knowledge of communist practice, but your separation of theory and practice is another example of your reformist illusions - ideology, which is the separation of "theory" (purely anti-theoretical) and practice (which is non-existent in "marxist" organisations).

The crisis of Counsince ( In Unions ) is based on the labour Aristocracys dictatorship over orginizied labour, not the dictatorship of ideas.
You say here exactly what I said you said. You critisise the leadership of the proletariat, and claim this is the reason for low-level class war on behalf of the proletariat. This is idealism (the ideas ["leaders"] are the determinants, not the material conditions, eg. the status of the class war).

But communists for the most part, act in a consistent manner. Whereas Anarchist fluctuate, as that is the petit bourgoise manner.
Which "communists" are you talking about? The leninists and reformists? They have certainly acted in quite incosistent manners over the decades. The invariance to be found in class war is merely the material invariance, the communist practice of the proletariat, ie. the attack on value.

JC1

17th July 2005, 23:18

What does this mean? Is this your opinion? Or is it something factual? If this was true, Marx could not have been consistent in his theories, and thus we would have to reject them, or is his theories an extraordinary exception?

In his [marx's] epoch, members of the intelegensia were capable of producing a reveloutionary line.

Of course the "material conditions" (I have an idea of what you mean, and it isn't what neither me nor Marx meant by it) influence the empirical knowledge of communist practice, but your separation of theory and practice is another example of your reformist illusions - ideology, which is the separation of "theory" (purely anti-theoretical) and practice (which is non-existent in "marxist" organisations).

Please Clarify this goblydy goop.

Indeed, what was gatherable from youre approach was rather idealist. You Charge me with divorcing theory from ptractice. For one, Theory is developeded ( But not spawned by) from application.

You critisise the leadership of the proletariat, and claim this is the reason for low-level class war on behalf of the proletariat. This is idealism (the ideas ["leaders"] are the determinants, not the material conditions, eg. the status of the class war).

I said that a strategic section of the working class ( That being the leading section of orginizied labour) is bribed by the bourgoise to the point witch the Intrests of this section match those of the capitilist class. This section is called the Labour Aristocracy.

black magick hustla

18th July 2005, 03:59

Ahahahahaha.

I haven't followed all the debate, mainly because I am new and I can't afford loosing brain cells by reading someone that types by slamming his face to the keyboard (JC1), but I'll gladly refutate this:

If you would like to point some instances out, please do.

Man, all those guys who fought under the black and red flag of the CNT and FAI were PETITE BURGEOISE. I mean, why would workers want to fight for it. After all, Collectivization and syndicalism is a petite burgoeise thing, don't you think. :rolleyes:

Also, I like how you are overly dogmatic about Marx''s and Lenin's Work. You cling to them like a Christian clings to the Bible. I love when people like you don't realize that Marx lived in the 19th century and that his works were pertaining the industrial capitalism of that age.

JC1

18th July 2005, 19:33

After all, Collectivization and syndicalism is a petite burgoeise thing, don't you think.

Unions are inhertently reformist ... and land reform defentily is highly petit bourgoise. You do know what land reform is, right ? Its when peoperty is distributed to pettty bourhoise , or small land owners. I have dealt with this ( And anarchisms bestdefender on this board, CPH Falafel, agrees with me) and the reformist nature of the anarchist experiment in Spain.

Also, I like how you are overly dogmatic about Marx''s and Lenin's Work. You cling to them like a Christian clings to the Bible. I love when people like you don't realize that Marx lived in the 19th century and that his works were pertaining the industrial capitalism of that age.

I Citisied lenins approach regarding anarchism for one thing. Another is : Os it wrong to uphold some one when there correct. A third thing is, whats exactly dont you agree with that Marx or Lenin said?

black magick hustla

18th July 2005, 22:03

Unions are inhertently reformist ... and land reform defentily is highly petit bourgoise. You do know what land reform is, right ? Its when peoperty is distributed to pettty bourhoise , or small land owners. I have dealt with this ( And anarchisms bestdefender on this board, CPH Falafel, agrees with me) and the reformist nature of the anarchist experiment in Spain.

I know what is a land reform.

Sorry but, I don't know how SYNDICATES WERE EVERYTHING WAS DONE THROUGH DIRECT DEMOCRACY WITHOUT HIERARCHY is "reformist". Sure, there are many reformist unons that try to live under the yolk of capitalism, and who are inherently corrupt. But saying that EVERY UNION is reformist is outrageous.

I don't know who is that CPH falafel guy. The thing is that, by saying that all that there was in the spanish LAND REFORMS was only DISTRIBUTION OF LAND says you don't know what the fuck are you talking about. Farmers practiacally collectivized every littlle thing they planted, and "Teams" were assigned for each small unit of land. In some places, money practically dissapeared, where you could go to a storage house and TAKE EVERYTHING YOU WANT without Limits. The industrial syndcates weren't as sucesful mainly because they had the Republican government on their asses, but in the Agricultural part, in some places it was pretty much libertarian communism.

Again, what was reformist about it?

I Citisied lenins approach regarding anarchism for one thing. Another is : Os it wrong to uphold some one when there correct. A third thing is, whats exactly dont you agree with that Marx or Lenin said?

I don't deny the genius of Marx, but I do realize that he was a "human". and he wasn't a clairvoyant. The thing is that many marxists need to EVOLVE from those documents. Not destroying them.

However if marxists do that, they will be called revisionists by the kind of you.

You would pretty much deduce that I as an anarchist, disagree with Lenin and Marx in some parts right? Like the "socialist" transitional stage and the "vanguard" party.

JC1

18th July 2005, 23:42

Sorry but, I don't know how SYNDICATES WERE EVERYTHING WAS DONE THROUGH DIRECT DEMOCRACY WITHOUT HIERARCHY is "reformist".

There wernt even Ararcho Syndicalist unions, buddy. There was a pressure group ( The FAI ) witch worked inside the large left wing version of the AFL-CIO, the CNT.

I don't know who is that CPH falafel guy. The thing is that, by saying that all that there was in the spanish LAND REFORMS was only DISTRIBUTION OF LAND says you don't know what the fuck are you talking about. Farmers practiacally collectivized every littlle thing they planted, and "Teams" were assigned for each small unit of land. In some places, money practically dissapeared, where you could go to a storage house and TAKE EVERYTHING YOU WANT without Limits. The industrial syndcates weren't as sucesful mainly because they had the Republican government on their asses, but in the Agricultural part, in some places it was pretty much libertarian communism.

Sources, please. Also, It should be pointed out that A) No one is denying the existence of service co-ops B) Communism cant be bulit on an agrarian basis.

I don't deny the genius of Marx, but I do realize that he was a "human". and he wasn't a clairvoyant. The thing is that many marxists need to EVOLVE from those documents. Not destroying them.

Leme repeat myself. What about Marx's Theories dont you like ? Alll I have talked about is class counsince and Beings relationship to Counsince.

black magick hustla

19th July 2005, 01:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:42 PM

Sorry but, I don't know how SYNDICATES WERE EVERYTHING WAS DONE THROUGH DIRECT DEMOCRACY WITHOUT HIERARCHY is "reformist".

T.

I don't know who is that CPH falafel guy. The thing is that, by saying that all that there was in the spanish LAND REFORMS was only DISTRIBUTION OF LAND says you don't know what the fuck are you talking about. Farmers practiacally collectivized every littlle thing they planted, and "Teams" were assigned for each small unit of land. In some places, money practically dissapeared, where you could go to a storage house and TAKE EVERYTHING YOU WANT without Limits. The industrial syndcates weren't as sucesful mainly because they had the Republican government on their asses, but in the Agricultural part, in some places it was pretty much libertarian communism.

I don't deny the genius of Marx, but I do realize that he was a "human". and he wasn't a clairvoyant. The thing is that many marxists need to EVOLVE from those documents. Not destroying them.

Leme repeat myself. What about Marx's Theories dont you like ? Alll I have talked about is class counsince and Beings relationship to Counsince.

There wernt even Ararcho Syndicalist unions, buddy. There was a pressure group ( The FAI ) witch worked inside the large left wing version of the AFL-CIO, the CN

Rofl. How WEREN'T THEY Anarcho-Syndicalist unions? Can you explain it please? Sure, there were still WAGES, if that is what you are talking about. There were unions for alot of industries (textile, etc.). It wasn't ALL A BIG UNION.

Sources to prove your stance? I am talking about real eye witness accounts, no an article written by a marxist leninist angry boy.

Sources, please. Also, It should be pointed out that A) No one is denying the existence of service co-ops B) Communism cant be bulit on an agrarian basis.

Who said it was just being built in an agrarian basis? I just said that the industrial part wasn't perfected as the agricultural part.

Read this, you need it: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/ws56_spain.html

Or the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution

If you are so sure about your stance, then please change this article.

We don't want people reading inaccurate information, don't we? :)

Leme repeat myself. What about Marx's Theories dont you like ? Alll I have talked about is class counsince and Beings relationship to Counsince.

What, I already told you:
-I DONT WANT A VANGUARD PARTY
-I DONT WANT A SOCIALIST STATE TRANSITION

Please proof read your posts. Is really annoying to read two mispelled words for every sentence. I am being serious.

JC1

19th July 2005, 20:45

Rofl. How WEREN'T THEY Anarcho-Syndicalist unions? Can you explain it please? Sure, there were still WAGES, if that is what you are talking about. There were unions for alot of industries (textile, etc.). It wasn't ALL A BIG UNION.

The FAI participated inside the FAI. It was like the anarchist version the british
"Millitant" orginization.

Read this, you need it: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/ws56_spain.html

Or the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_revolution

If you are so sure about your stance, then please change this article.

What is the validity of these ? please provide empirical evidence of some sort.

cph_shawarma

20th July 2005, 12:48

In his [marx's] epoch, members of the intelegensia were capable of producing a reveloutionary line.
What's this lame-ass excuse? Can't you give some evidential indication that this is true or is it just another dogma of The Party? Why was Marx's "epoch" different? How was it different, and why would this difference deduce an impossibility for non-proles to become communists?

Of course the "material conditions" (I have an idea of what you mean, and it isn't what neither me nor Marx meant by it) influence the empirical knowledge of communist practice, but your separation of theory and practice is another example of your reformist illusions - ideology, which is the separation of "theory" (purely anti-theoretical) and practice (which is non-existent in "marxist" organisations).

Please Clarify this goblydy goop.

Indeed, what was gatherable from youre approach was rather idealist. You Charge me with divorcing theory from ptractice. For one, Theory is developeded ( But not spawned by) from application.
What the fuck is idealistic about my approach to study the material tendencies of class struggle, in order to shut down the relationship of capital? You just throw out stuff in the air with no justification, unlike me when I critisize your supposed "critique" of leadership as idealism (which it is). My theory - communist theory (see www.riff-raff.se/en/) - is deeply intertwined with my practice - communist practice. Quite unlike stalinist mumbo-jumbo where anti-communist theory is deeply intertwined with anti-communist practice.

I said that a strategic section of the working class ( That being the leading section of orginizied labour) is bribed by the bourgoise to the point witch the Intrests of this section match those of the capitilist class. This section is called the Labour Aristocracy.
Exactly my point. You don't see the problem in the working class, but in it's leadership. Pure idealism.

JC1

20th July 2005, 19:21

What's this lame-ass excuse? Can't you give some evidential indication that this is true or is it just another dogma of The Party? Why was Marx's "epoch" different? How was it different, and why would this difference deduce an impossibility for non-proles to become communists?

This was during a period when Capital was a frend of science and when Capital was still a proggresive force.

What the fuck is idealistic about my approach to study the material tendencies of class struggle, in order to shut down the relationship of capital? You just throw out stuff in the air with no justification, unlike me when I critisize your supposed "critique" of leadership as idealism (which it is). My theory - communist theory (see www.riff-raff.se/en/) - is deeply intertwined with my practice - communist practice. Quite unlike stalinist mumbo-jumbo where anti-communist theory is deeply intertwined with anti-communist practice

If my line isnt representing the class im a member off - the working class - and its not representing the line of capital - then who's line is it anyways ?

Exactly my point. You don't see the problem in the working class, but in it's leadership. Pure idealism.

Its not idealism if I point out a objective tendency, buddy.

comradestephen

21st July 2005, 23:31

Holy crap, this is a long thread and I don't have time to go on this board often enough to keep up with it but in general I agree with JC1 and Severian. They seem to get it. Yes, anarchism is reformist and ultimately anti-revolutionary despite all its 'revolutionary' phrases. Besides just looking at it theoretically it has been proven by history and JC1 has given us some examples we can all study if we want to see for ourselves. The working class must sieze state power!

The idea that we can just crush capitalism and have a classless society just like that without a transition period, without a workers state, without the dictatorship of the proletariat is just plain utopianism.

I also heard here that Stalin was in bed with Hitler. That's pretty interesting considering the Soviet Union crushed Hitlerite fascism.

JC1

21st July 2005, 23:59

Holy crap, this is a long thread and I don't have time to go on this board often enough to keep up with it but in general I agree with JC1 and Severian. They seem to get it. Yes, anarchism is reformist and ultimately anti-revolutionary despite all its 'revolutionary' phrases. Besides just looking at it theoretically it has been proven by history and JC1 has given us some examples we can all study if we want to see for ourselves. The working class must sieze state power!

Thank you, Comrade.

I also heard here that Stalin was in bed with Hitler. That's pretty interesting considering the Soviet Union crushed Hitlerite fascism.

I think the basis for this is some handshake diplomacy that took place in the 30's. However, Handshake diplomacy is just that, Handshake diplomacy.

Donnie

22nd July 2005, 00:02

The idea that we can just crush capitalism and have a classless society just like that without a transition period, without a workers state, without the dictatorship of the proletariat is just plain utopianism.
Anarchism never says that once the state and the capitalist system is smashed everything the next day will sort it self out.
The organizing of society will be constructed while the capitalist system and the state is being smashed.

The reason why I reject the Marxist analysis of state seizer is because I don't need telling how to organize my self in my workplace. I know what has to be done, I’ve read theories on socialism, communism and anarchism and I certainly don’t need telling how to do it.

Also with the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" it leaves it open and venerable to corruption and I'm not prepared to take that risk when the revolution takes place.
The revolution should be carried out by my common revolutionary class and I'm certainly not going to be bossed around by some small group of elitist intellectuals. I may not be the greatest theorist but as I said before I know how my workplace and life works and I can organize my self and so can my common comrades.

Yes, anarchism is reformist and ultimately anti-revolutionary despite all its 'revolutionary' phrases.
I certainly see no reformism as we don’t use the state to get to our ends neither do we fuss about who should be party leader in a system of politics. Instead of messing around branding everybody reactionaries and reformist in the left movement and discussing party leadership, we as an anarchist movement have got our heads knuckled down discussing collectively action against the system.

Hiero

22nd July 2005, 01:08

The reason why I reject the Marxist analysis of state seizer is because I don't need telling how to organize my self in my workplace.

Well thats unscientific. We do no create a state, it is something that is forced on us. It was forced on society as soon as the first classes developed.

JC1

22nd July 2005, 03:06

Anarchism never says that once the state and the capitalist system is smashed everything the next day will sort it self out.
The organizing of society will be constructed while the capitalist system and the state is being smashed.

The reason why I reject the Marxist analysis of state seizer is because I don't need telling how to organize my self in my workplace. I know what has to be done, I’ve read theories on socialism, communism and anarchism and I certainly don’t need telling how to do it.

Also with the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" it leaves it open and venerable to corruption and I'm not prepared to take that risk when the revolution takes place.
The revolution should be carried out by my common revolutionary class and I'm certainly not going to be bossed around by some small group of elitist intellectuals. I may not be the greatest theorist but as I said before I know how my workplace and life works and I can organize my self and so can my common comrades.

Corruption is not independent of Material Conditions. Socialism creates the material Conditions for a stateless society. A Socialist Society buliding communism is constanly repressing the material conditions requried for capitals restoration.

Also, what does a central plan have too do with you not running youre factory/workplace committee ?

I certainly see no reformism as we don’t use the state to get to our ends neither do we fuss about who should be party leader in a system of politics. Instead of messing around branding everybody reactionaries and reformist in the left movement and discussing party leadership, we as an anarchist movement have got our heads knuckled down discussing collectively action against the system

See, I dont see the Anarchist leading any action against Capital.

apathy maybe

22nd July 2005, 03:57

I've been away which is why I haven't been replying. I must say it is interesting to read this thread. What I will do is ignore the stupid arguments that claim that anarchism is reformist (It is true that some anarchists support reforms, I think any person who sees something wrong with the world would want it fixed. They want it fixed now, not when the revolution comes. Would you like to see cops continue to bash and kill people, or to reform the system? Most anarchists would also like a revolution, but I can't see one coming in the next few years.), and address the points that Leninism is reformist.

Originally posted by JC1 @ Jun 27 2005+ 12:48 PM--> (JC1 @ Jun 27 2005 @ 12:48 PM) Are you on glue ?[/b]
Yes.

Originally posted by JC1+--> (JC1) Me doing concrete work in the Workin' Class and mass orginizations and connecting immideiate struggles to the struggle for socialism is "Just fuckin around" how ? [/b]
What have you actually achieved? Either reforms (oh no! something you accused the nasty anarchists of doing!) or nothing. Either way you haven't encouraged more then a handful of workers to seriously look at Leninism or overthrowing capitalism. Thus you have failed to "spread workers consciousness".

Originally posted by JC1
By establishing soviets and , umm, liqidating the peasntry as a class is just peaseant agitation ?
I didn't say anything about peasants. I simply mentioned that Lenin reformed how land was distributed. He just so happen to distribute it to the peasants.

Originally posted by JC1
Whereas Mahkno killed some landlords, re-distributed land then his movement just sorta disbanded. ...
The Chiapas Mov't has pretty much acomplished all its goals and there is no movent left to speak of.
I fail to see what is wrong with disbanding or stopping if all of ones goals are realised. Far better then to try and seize state control.

[email protected]
Blah Blah Blah ... Create a ahistorical Class that just suddenly appears whenever there a reveloution you dont like ... blah blah blah.
Sounds like fun. Creating history I mean. You seem to have done it. Anyway, look at each instance of a Leninist "revolution", it has ended up a dictatorship. This has then either moved back to capitalism or has collapsed (resulting in capitalism).

redstar2000
JC1 makes much of the fact that anarchist groups participate in struggles with a reformist character...but so do Leninists.
Quite right.

Ar heck, I can't be bothered quoting anyone else. All the Leninists that I have meet or parties that I have heard about don't do anything. They fuck around; handing out leaflets (which often are simply thrown away); organising protests, which a large number of people turn up to, only if organised with another group (example a union); sell papers; fight for reforms. Many encourage people to vote in elections and support their party (and then for some reason the Labor/Labour party).
They have little camps and meetings where they pat each other on the back or try and organise the next big rally or scold people for not selling enough papers or badges.

That is not to say that anarchists have done much more. It seems to me that anarchists are more likely to actually own a business or land then Leninists. They are more likely to do things like break the windows of corporations. More likely to engage in struggles with police. But they also fight for reforms and against regressive policies (because we want a better world NOW!, and a revolution is too far away). Most anarchists don't encourage people to vote in elections, but they will work with other groups to achieve things now.

And finally a question to all those Leninists who are arguing (pointlessly) that anarchism is reformism, are you a member of a union? Do you fight for better working conditions? If you answered yes to either or both question, guess what? YOU'RE A REFORMIST! Fucking A.

cph_shawarma

22nd July 2005, 12:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:21 PM

What's this lame-ass excuse? Can't you give some evidential indication that this is true or is it just another dogma of The Party? Why was Marx's "epoch" different? How was it different, and why would this difference deduce an impossibility for non-proles to become communists?

This was during a period when Capital was a frend of science and when Capital was still a proggresive force.
Do you call this evidence? Another party dogma up for display. Please, for the love of God, come up with something that is actually true. I asked you big questions, you give me clichées. Pathetic, to say the least.

What the fuck is idealistic about my approach to study the material tendencies of class struggle, in order to shut down the relationship of capital? You just throw out stuff in the air with no justification, unlike me when I critisize your supposed "critique" of leadership as idealism (which it is). My theory - communist theory (see www.riff-raff.se/en/) - is deeply intertwined with my practice - communist practice. Quite unlike stalinist mumbo-jumbo where anti-communist theory is deeply intertwined with anti-communist practice

If my line isnt representing the class im a member off - the working class - and its not representing the line of capital - then who's line is it anyways ?
What are you talking about? Your "theory" is definitely not communist, it is definitely bourgeois ideology. Read some fucking Marx, for crying out loud.

Exactly my point. You don't see the problem in the working class, but in it's leadership. Pure idealism.

Its not idealism if I point out a objective tendency, buddy.
What's this jibberish? I have explained to you, over and over, that if you equate the problem of the working class with the problem of its leadership, you claim that the real problem is not the state of the proletariat, but the state of its leadership. This is utter idealism.

The Feral Underclass

22nd July 2005, 13:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 03:06 AM
I dont see the Anarchist leading any action against Capital.
Well, we're doing it every day, so maybe you should open your eyes a little more. Draw back the curtains maybe?

Anarchists and anarchist groups all over the world attack capital, it's process and it's protector. As opposed to Marxists who generally attempt to win power through bourgeois politics, anarchists directly attempt to subvert capital through direct action.

Organising community direct aciton or workplace direct action is something that Anarchists have always done. Direct action, as Rob Sparrow points out, "...is the distinctive contribution of anarchists in the realm of political method."

He goes on to point out: "While reformists advocate the ballot box, liberals have their lobbying and their letter writing, bureaucrats have their work through "the proper channels" and socialists have their vanguard parties, we anarchists have direct action."

JC1

23rd July 2005, 01:02

I've been away which is why I haven't been replying. I must say it is interesting to read this thread. What I will do is ignore the stupid arguments that claim that anarchism is reformist (It is true that some anarchists support reforms, I think any person who sees something wrong with the world would want it fixed. They want it fixed now, not when the revolution comes. Would you like to see cops continue to bash and kill people, or to reform the system? Most anarchists would also like a revolution, but I can't see one coming in the next few years.), and address the points that Leninism is reformist.

Nothin' wrong with reform. But Reform struggle with red paraphanalia isnt the great new thing.

What have you actually achieved? Either reforms (oh no! something you accused the nasty anarchists of doing!) or nothing. Either way you haven't encouraged more then a handful of workers to seriously look at Leninism or overthrowing capitalism. Thus you have failed to "spread workers consciousness".

I have participated in struggle for reforms and won at the same connecting it with socialism. I have developed my understanding of marxism. And I have won a few hearts and minds, but its hard in this reactionary era.

Ar heck, I can't be bothered quoting anyone else. All the Leninists that I have meet or parties that I have heard about don't do anything. They fuck around; handing out leaflets (which often are simply thrown away); organising protests, which a large number of people turn up to, only if organised with another group (example a union); sell papers; fight for reforms. Many encourage people to vote in elections and support their party (and then for some reason the Labor/Labour party).
They have little camps and meetings where they pat each other on the back or try and organise the next big rally or scold people for not selling enough papers or badges.

Great critism. Based on empirical evidence , eh ?

I didn't say anything about peasants. I simply mentioned that Lenin reformed how land was distributed. He just so happen to distribute it to the peasants.

And those 5 year plans ... just left the rural petit bourgoise alone ?

Sounds like fun. Creating history I mean. You seem to have done it. Anyway, look at each instance of a Leninist "revolution", it has ended up a dictatorship. This has then either moved back to capitalism or has collapsed (resulting in capitalism).

Uh-huh ... diss leninist history ... lets diss anarchist history ... Oh , I forgot, I already did that (There wasnt much too work with).

Well, we're doing it every day, so maybe you should open your eyes a little more. Draw back the curtains maybe?

Anarchists and anarchist groups all over the world attack capital, it's process and it's protector. As opposed to Marxists who generally attempt to win power through bourgeois politics, anarchists directly attempt to subvert capital through direct action.

Organising community direct aciton or workplace direct action is something that Anarchists have always done. Direct action, as Rob Sparrow points out, "...is the distinctive contribution of anarchists in the realm of political method."

He goes on to point out: "While reformists advocate the ballot box, liberals have their lobbying and their letter writing, bureaucrats have their work through "the proper channels" and socialists have their vanguard parties, we anarchists have direct action."

Uh-huh. Lots of empiricaly based arguments.

Hiero

23rd July 2005, 04:42

As opposed to Marxists who generally attempt to win power through bourgeois politics

In the 3rd world today it is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups that are doing the fighting.

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2005, 12:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:02 AM
Uh-huh. Lots of empiricaly based arguments.
I am an anarchist and apart of the anarchist movement, so unless the work that I am involved in and the work that I know other anarchists are involved in is actually a figment of my imagination, what I have said is empirical.

The Feral Underclass

23rd July 2005, 12:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:42 AM

As opposed to Marxists who generally attempt to win power through bourgeois politics

In the 3rd world today it is Marxist-Leninist-Maoist groups that are doing the fighting.
That's true.

JC1

23rd July 2005, 16:46

I am an anarchist and apart of the anarchist movement, so unless the work that I am involved in and the work that I know other anarchists are involved in is actually a figment of my imagination, what I have said is empirical.

naaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,its antecdodal.

rebelworker

24th July 2005, 21:53

For the record the CNT was not like the left leaning AFL-CIO, it officially supported anarchist communism, this position was passed at a general congress shortl;yBEFORE the civil war broke out and the sraklinist shit stains started killing everybody and taking shit over while the real revolutionaries where at the front lines fighting facism(at the start of the war there were two million members of anarchist organizations and 20,000 members of the communist party, they didnt get to the top in one year by doing the hard work of building a revolutionary movement...).

Also marxism influence in the third world has just as much to do with massive funding from the dictatorial stalinist state than any rwl ideological victory, The Communist Party(not very communist though) Funded like minded groups, and helped to eliminate libertarian competition, anarchism was a much larger tendancy world wide, including the third world, before the russian revolution, and everybody jumped ship to bolshevism after the great "workers paradise" was foarmed, too bad they didnt wait to see how things were going to turn out. The fact that marxism is still dominant in most of the world has more to do with old habits dying hard than any real ideological or even practical victory. Look how long it still takes for some people to figure out Stalin has nothuing to do with revolution and Leninist practice put him there(as one of my favorite pamphlets from africa puts it "Stalin didnt fall from the moon".

everywhere, Spain is just a perfect example of this, when authoritarians got going they phisically eliminated any revolutionary competition. We are slowly turning the tide again with third world anarchist movements on the rise again.

We have much more work to be done before we can put authoritarian counterrevolutionary trash in th dustbin of history once and for all, but atlest we are finally gaining ground.

For working class revolution,(not supression in our name)
rebelworker

JC1

24th July 2005, 22:23

for the record the CNT was not like the left leaning AFL-CIO, it officially supported anarchist communism, this position was passed at a general congress shortl;yBEFORE the civil war broke out and the sraklinist shit stains started killing everybody and taking shit over while the real revolutionaries where at the front lines fighting facism(at the start of the war there were two million members of anarchist organizations and 20,000 members of the communist party, they didnt get to the top in one year by doing the hard work of building a revolutionary movement...).

The CNT was, as stated before, a union witch albeit had the had the anarchist FAI particpating in it, was "Non-Political". Also, the POUM had 40,000 members in 36' , and the CP was much larger then it.

It should be pointed out the "anarchists" had a seated leadership witch had no problm particapating in the (opritunist) Popular Front.

The rest of youre post is too tedious too refute.

The Feral Underclass

25th July 2005, 15:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:46 PM

I am an anarchist and apart of the anarchist movement, so unless the work that I am involved in and the work that I know other anarchists are involved in is actually a figment of my imagination, what I have said is empirical.

naaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,its antecdodal.
How is this a response?

You claim that anarchism does nothing to threaten capital and the state and that is patanetly not true.

Unless you want to claim that I am, in fact a liar.

JC1

25th July 2005, 16:18

How is this a response?

You claim that anarchism does nothing to threaten capital and the state and that is patanetly not true.

Unless you want to claim that I am, in fact a liar.

Yes, in fact you are a liar.

And how is that a responce ? I asked for Empirical evidence, you gave me antecdodal evidence ( Just like every anarchist else in this thread ) and I demanded truth.

rebelworker

25th July 2005, 18:03

I just clearly stated that the CNT did infact hold a position in support of anarchist communism, the same was true when they re emerged with 100,000 mebers after the dictatorship ended and the same is tru today of the much smaller (10,000) union today and their much larger split The CGT. In the last round of union elections in Spain the CGT received votes from hundreds of thousands of workers, and they maintain a dues paying membership of near 100,000 making them the third largest union in Spain.

They they are part of International Libertarian Solidarity(as is NEFAC and The Federation Anarchist in Farnce WSM in Irealnd and the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Fed. in south africa to name a few) which some could argue makes them the largest revolutionary organization in Europe.

Anarchist syndicalism is alive and well in Spain! You cant re write history to make Bolshevism the center of the univers any longer, we are too many and too well organized again.

In Slolidarity to the rest,
rebelworker

redmafiosi

25th July 2005, 18:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 11:10 PM
Anarchism is reformism.
Who told you?
Where from you got the idea?
Do you really have any knowledge about anarchism?
or you are just another rotten capitalist in disguise!

zendo

25th July 2005, 19:13

There are some worthy anarchist movements that I respect actually, so no I do not think Anarchy is reformism.

Anarchist Freedom

25th July 2005, 19:37

No stalinist I know supports anarchists.

zendo

25th July 2005, 19:42

ANARCHIST FREEDOM

KARL MARX DID NOT SUPPORT ANARCHISTS EITHER, THERE WERE BIG DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN MARXISTS AND ANARCHISTS.

I FRANKLY DONT GIVE A SHIT IF THEY SUPPORTED ANARCHISTS OR NOT, I PERSONALLY RESPECT SOME ANARCHIST MOVEMENTS SO I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ANARCHISTS.

JC1

25th July 2005, 20:12

I just clearly stated that the CNT did infact hold a position in support of anarchist communism, the same was true when they re emerged with 100,000 mebers after the dictatorship ended and the same is tru today of the much smaller (10,000) union today and their much larger split The CGT. In the last round of union elections in Spain the CGT received votes from hundreds of thousands of workers, and they maintain a dues paying membership of near 100,000 making them the third largest union in Spain.

The CNT became Anarchist after the dictatorship. For one, i am sure youre numbers are bloated, For two, im not even sure how open there anarchism is.

And if there Fraternal with the Irish WSM, then they must be a very reactionary orginization. I mean, the WSM defaced the Connoly Monument.

rebelworker

26th July 2005, 03:09

You clearly are getting your facts about spain from some pretty sectarian sources, I have seen numersous interviews with CNT militants who talked about the organizations anarchism, I have friends who have been to spain and seen the CNT in practice They are anarchists.

As for my figures again history speaks for itself, many places, when you want to couter with anything other than your own disbeleif at the lies you are obviously being fed b your organization. Give me sme #'s and some sources and well talk untill then get over it, You have been feeding on a distorted history edited time and again to justify the deception and crinmes against the working class of your tendancy.

As far as the WSM is concerned, ive never heard about this connely monumnet buisness, i think it would be a wate of time but he did sighn the treaty that leadt to the split of Ireland(he was played by some of his superiors but either way).

You think my numbers are bloated, Your not sure about the position of the CNT, you are living in a world created by a very narrow interpretation of history, like zelots interpreting the bible the Communist party has built an imaginary world for itself that dosnt hold up to outside scrutiy without resoting to dogmatic accusations of Capitalist propaghanda.

Im sure you are genuine in your feelings for revolution but might I suggest you do some reading across the board instead of swallowing your parties line.

The Feral Underclass

26th July 2005, 13:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:18 PM
Yes, in fact you are a liar.
:blink:

How very convenient for you.

And how is that a responce ? I asked for Empirical evidence, you gave me antecdodal evidence ( Just like every anarchist else in this thread ) and I demanded truth.

The community direct action, which I am involved in, is the creation of a new social centre. We are also setting up a working group to attempt to get some workers in one of our rundown communities to set up a workers run supermarket.

There is the G8, Dissent, AntiFa, the Wilkinson’s campaign, Defy ID, anti-casualisation, not to mention work place struggles.

It would help if you were involved in the communist movement, because then you'd be able to see the work anarchists do. I mean you can dismiss it as me lying and demand empirical evidence, but the only way you can get that is if you're actually involved in something more than this website.

How can you realistically deny that anarchists do nothing to challenge capitalism? What empirical evidence do you have to support your bizarre claim.

It just proves how misinformed and inexperienced you actually are.

Severian

26th July 2005, 18:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:03 AM
I just clearly stated that the CNT did infact hold a position in support of anarchist communism, the same was true when they re emerged with 100,000 mebers after the dictatorship ended and the same is tru today of the much smaller (10,000) union today and their much larger split The CGT. In the last round of union elections in Spain the CGT received votes from hundreds of thousands of workers, and they maintain a dues paying membership of near 100,000 making them the third largest union in Spain.

They they are part of International Libertarian Solidarity(as is NEFAC and The Federation Anarchist in Farnce WSM in Irealnd and the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Fed. in south africa to name a few) which some could argue makes them the largest revolutionary organization in Europe.

Anarchist syndicalism is alive and well in Spain! You cant re write history to make Bolshevism the center of the univers any longer, we are too many and too well organized again.

In Slolidarity to the rest,
rebelworker
Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain#Today)

The CNT is still active today. Their influence, however, is limited. The CNT, in 1979, split into two factions: CNT/AIT and CNT/U. The CNT/AIT claimed the original "CNT" name, which led the CNT/U to change its name to Confederación General del Trabajo (CGT) in 1989, which retains most of the CNT's principles. The CGT is much larger, with perhaps 50,000 members. An important cause for the split and the main practical difference between the two trade unions today is that the CGT participates, just like any other Spanish trade union, in elecciones sindicales, where workers choose their representatives who sign their collective bargaining agreements. CGT has an important number of representatives in, for example, SEAT, the Spanish car manufacturer and still the largest enterprise in Catalonia and also in the public railroad system, e.g.: it holds the majority in Barcelona's underground. CNT does not participate in elecciones sindicales and criticizes this model.

And that's probably written by an anarchist.

It should also be pointed out that choosing a union as a workplace representative doesn't automatically imply agreement with its politics; many CNT members or workplace voters may just consider it a more militant or effective union than, say, the CP-led union.

Certainly anarchism is much less of a factor in Spanish politics today than in the past.

rebelworker

26th July 2005, 23:43

I cannot disagree that anarchism is less wide spread in spain than in the past but after the last wave of elections the CGT(I read their report) had nearly 100,000 dues paying members(thoes who agree with the ideology) and several hundred thousand more just voted to be represented by them.

They have elected representative(not full controll over ) in workplaces totaling nearly 2 million workers.
As to the CNT obviously their influence is limited but with 10,000 members this still makes them one of the largest revolutionary organizations in europe and even the world.

After being the cheif rival of a facist regeim and surviving undergroud for more than 40 years with tens of thousands of their militants put into concentration camps in spain and tens of thousands more fleeing to foreign nations often to meet the same fate(Most spaniards fleeing into neighboring france were put in prison camps) and still maintaing a guerilla campaign and some labour organizing under the dictatorship AND STILL coming out the other side with a coherant organization is more than most revolutionary organizations can claim.

WHO SAID AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP IS NESSESARY TO SURVIVE STATE REPRESSION!!!!

The facts speak for themselves,
rebelworker

JC1

27th July 2005, 00:38

The community direct action, which I am involved in, is the creation of a new social centre. We are also setting up a working group to attempt to get some workers in one of our rundown communities to set up a workers run supermarket.

Youre going to set up a small buissnis ? Not interested.

There is the G8, Dissent, AntiFa, the Wilkinson’s campaign, Defy ID, anti-casualisation, not to mention work place struggles.

These are all great things, and not all exclusivly anarchist BUT there still reform orginizations ( These ones more so then others ).

It would help if you were involved in the communist movement, because then you'd be able to see the work anarchists do. I mean you can dismiss it as me lying and demand empirical evidence, but the only way you can get that is if you're actually involved in something more than this website.

My experince is limited to my locale, but the anarchists here all work in there little bookshop (A small buissnis). And when they come too the rally's, all they do is run around and alienate passerbyers.

In hamilton last month, the CPC orginizied a 200 person get together. The biggest anarchist gathering I can think of in this country was a ARA rally witch had 300 attendee's. And ARA isnt even Exclusivly anarchist. The Toronto ARA leader is a (Crazy) Hardcore maoist.

The Feral Underclass

27th July 2005, 13:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:38 AM
Youre going to set up a small buissnis ? Not interested.
Please use a spell check.

A business by its nature is designed to create profit. That's not what we are trying to do.

What we are trying to do is create a worker's run community based project so that people on very low incomes can control certain standards of living. The opportunities for empowerment and class understanding that this could create are [potentially] vast.

In any post-revolutionary society, "business" will be collectivised and run by their community. Isn't that the point?

There is the G8, Dissent, AntiFa, the Wilkinson’s campaign, Defy ID, anti-casualisation, not to mention work place struggles.

These are all great things, and not all exclusively anarchist BUT there still reform organisations

Erm, no they're not.

All these campaigns I've mentioned are based on direct action to directly challenge the authority of the state or capitalism. They have no desire to create reform, and quite clearly have a revolutionary class analysis in content.

( These ones more so then others ).

Then maybe I am misinformed? Would you share with me your vast knowledge on these organisations and campaigns? Could you also please clarify how they are reform organisations?

My experince is limited to my locale, but the anarchists here all work in there little bookshop (A small buissnis). And when they come too the rally's, all they do is run around and alienate passerbyers.

You may very well be telling the truth, but I think that you simply don't know what the anarchists in your area do. Why would you?

In hamilton last month, the CPC orginizied a 200 person get together.

And that challenges capitalism, how?

What do you actually think the anarchist movement or a communist movement in generally should be doing?

JC1

27th July 2005, 23:13

A business by its nature is designed to create profit. That's not what we are trying to do.

From experince, an anarchist " Co-operative" isa usauly just a ultra-democratic business indevor. Everytrhing is disscussed, but all members take there cut of the profits.

There are exceptions. This may be one. But the exceptions develop into capital accumulation rackets.

All these campaigns I've mentioned are based on direct action to directly challenge the authority of the state or capitalism. They have no desire to create reform, and quite clearly have a revolutionary class analysis in content.

Just look at AntiFa. Its goal isnt the otherthrow of capitalism, its to confront Facism. While AntiFa is a great orginization, its still centered around a reform.

You may very well be telling the truth, but I think that you simply don't know what the anarchists in your area do. Why would you?

Becuase as someone who is generaly involed in the movement against capital, I should know what goin' in the various camps.

What do you actually think the anarchist movement or a communist movement in generally should be doing?

First of all, we gotta purge our ranks of members of the petit-bourgoise. I suppourt the IWPA's and ClassWars prolatarian admission policy.

And then, we gotta focus on issues that affect members of the pleb class like us. Stop wasting oure time on bullshit struggles, like Animal Rights.

And enough of this sectarianism. For example why cant Communists and Anarchist unite (Atleast) in there workplaces?

Thats where we gotta start.

Donnie

27th July 2005, 23:43

Youre going to set up a small buissnis ? Not interested.
You're not interested in setting up a workers run supermarket? Isn't that the point behind the communist ideology? Workers control?

These are all great things, and not all exclusivly anarchist BUT there still reform orginizations ( These ones more so then others ).
If these were reform organisation we would be standing outside wilko's with a megaphone shouting out “better pay for prison slavery” but instead were conducting direct action at destroying prison slavery full stop!
You seem to think that these are little reforms we want? These campaigns are just little idea's we have to get raising consciousness about state repression and capitalist exploitation on our class.

Antifa Reform? I see no reform in Antifa! I would see "ANal" as a reform organisation not Antifa. Antifa is about kicking racism off our streets as I said before its little idea's we have got going to raise consciousness about or aims etc.

I would prefer to be out reclaiming the street and raising consciousness about anarchist idea's instead of stuck in little Marxist-Leninist meeting's yapping on about 'how the revolution will come" and occasionally holding an odd demo.

My experince is limited to my locale, but the anarchists here all work in there little bookshop (A small buissnis). And when they come too the rally's, all they do is run around and alienate passerbyers.
Seems to me like a workers owned bookshop, which the anarchists are trying to show. It's about raising consciousness instead of producing little party papers to you're 100 or so party members.
As TAT said how do you know what there up to? You're obviously not involved in the anarchist movement.
You're little text book talks on socialism can only take you so far. Wouldn't it be better to get on to you're council estate and take back the streets while promoting anarchist communist ideas? That’s what I’m trying to do with my local town.

JC1

27th July 2005, 23:57

You're not interested in setting up a workers run supermarket? Isn't that the point behind the communist ideology? Workers control?

This is a futile exersise under capitalism.

If these were reform organisation we would be standing outside wilko's with a megaphone shouting out “better pay for prison slavery” but instead were conducting direct action at destroying prison slavery full stop!
You seem to think that these are little reforms we want? These campaigns are just little idea's we have to get raising consciousness about state repression and capitalist exploitation on our class.

Antifa Reform? I see no reform in Antifa! I would see "ANal" as a reform organisation not Antifa. Antifa is about kicking racism off our streets as I said before its little idea's we have got going to raise consciousness about or aims etc.

I would prefer to be out reclaiming the street and raising consciousness about anarchist idea's instead of stuck in little Marxist-Leninist meeting's yapping on about 'how the revolution will come" and occasionally holding an odd demo.

Listen, smshing pin slavery is a lofy reform, can be done, should be done, and should be done. But you have demonstrated so much bankruptcy that wont even calla reform a reform !

What is reform? A reform is progress that stops short of crushing capital.

Seems to me like a workers owned bookshop, which the anarchists are trying to show. It's about raising consciousness instead of producing little party papers to you're 100 or so party members.

For one, the bookshop started out as a venue for counsince, but its become about profit becuase a shift in social being cuased a shift in social counsince. and What do you know about my party?

rebelworker

28th July 2005, 06:58

For the record probably the most politically active area in canada is quebec, and there on mayday the anarchist contingent was in the hundreds, probably between 400 and 600.

We regularly have meetings attended by several hundred people, clac general assemblies(members only) are often 100 people, public meetings much larger. Also nefac recently organized a speking tour of a former black panther turned anarchist it stoped in 7 differtn cities and towns, with three seperate talks in montrweal in a week the smallest attended by 50 people, the largest probably 200 and the other meeting had to turn dozens away after the room hit capacity at about 80 people.

Anarchist groups are very large, very active and engaged in serious social struggles(labour organizing, anti poverty, police brutality, pro immigrant rights... just to name a few things).

rebelworker

The Feral Underclass

28th July 2005, 12:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:13 PM
From experince, an anarchist " Co-operative" isa usauly just a ultra-democratic business indevor. Everytrhing is disscussed, but all members take there cut of the profits.
What experience? Name three anarchist co-operatives which are run like this.

Just look at AntiFa. Its goal isnt the otherthrow of capitalism, its to confront Facism. While AntiFa is a great orginization, its still centered around a reform.

But that's not true. AntiFa have a specific anti-capitalist nature to it. Where do you think Black Bloc came from?

And how is Antifa "centered around reform"?

First of all, we gotta purge our ranks of members of the petit-bourgoise.

I think that's a futile and pointless endeavour. What happens if members of the middle classes want communism?

And then, we gotta focus on issues that affect members of the pleb class like us.

But that's what the anarchist movement is doing!?

is is a futile exersise under capitalism.

How can you claim that empowering workers to take control of an aspect of their lives futile?

Will it create a revolution? No, probably not on its own, but the point is to show working class people that they have the power to change their lives, environment and ultimately their society. I don't see how that is futile?

What is reform? A reform is progress that stops short of crushing capital.

But you cannot abstractly call for the destruction of capitalism. Building revolutionary consciousness comes through actions such as fighting prison slavery because it brings to bare the contradictions in society. How else do you expect to get working class people to see and understand what you are saying?

Severian

28th July 2005, 21:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:43 PM
I cannot disagree that anarchism is less wide spread in spain than in the past but after the last wave of elections the CGT(I read their report) had nearly 100,000 dues paying members(thoes who agree with the ideology)
That last sounds like an assumption.

After being the cheif rival of a facist regeim

Unfortunately I think the Spanish CP was bigger under/after the Franco regime. Believe me, they're much worse than the anarchists from my viewpoint, but that's the reality from what I know.

rebelworker

28th July 2005, 21:25

Ok probably not every single member if the CGT thinks the exact same thing, many probably do not eevn delf identify as anarchists, the poit is that the position of the organization is anarchist, their structure and practice reflect anarchist theory, they come from the tradition of the CNT THAT WAS ANARCHIST.... they are big and active the only point I was trying to make.

As for the CP, you think again is not enough, the figures i have seen put them at 20,000 members in 1936. The only reason they had the influence they did is because they worked with the republicans and through the infuence they brought with Stalins Weapons(only CCCP and Mexico provided arms to republic) they slowly took over the army and police and killed their opponents and starved them of arms.

Donnie

28th July 2005, 23:49

As I said before direct action of the anarchist movement is a great idea. By attacking capitalist industries with a class analysis it gains mass attention and many people begin to think about or ideas.

For example in the Edinburgh riots the Anarchist Festival of Full Enjoyment gained much attention by people in Edinburgh. When things started kicking off many of the people in the shops became sympathetic to our cause and would let us hide out till things had blown down. I remember when I was in a Pub at the time two people started talking about us and saying generally good things about the movement. Obviously we were getting attention across Scotland.

People failed to see what the Marxists were doing. Why did people fail to see what they were doing? Oh because they weren’t doing anything. I occasionally saw a few stands of Marxists selling there party papers but that was it, I fail to see how that’s raising consciousness? Out of the whole event in Edinburgh I saw two Leninist flags the rest were either Black or Black and Red.

When we were at Stirling train station two locals came up to talk to us about our ideas, they mentioned that they had seen our comrades in the papers and began to ask us about our idea’s etc.

I fail to see how our movement is reform? The whole point of our campaigns is about raising consciousness it not about reform.

First of all, we gotta purge our ranks of members of the petit-bourgoise.
This does not help you’re cause after all when we have a communist society everybody will be living in solidarity. In my view when the revolution comes the middle class will split; one half will side with the bourgeois to protect their private property and the other half will stand along the lines of the proletariat.
I’m sure in the Spanish Civil war people of middle class origin would have gone and fought for the proletariat.

JC1

29th July 2005, 00:44

What experience? Name three anarchist co-operatives which are run like this.

The Mondragon Co-op in Winnipeg, An anarchist bookstore in Toronto ( Dont know the name) and Mondragon Bike Co-Op.

And how is Antifa "centered around reform"?

The goal of AntiFa is to smash facism. Thats a reform. Its not nessecarily bad, but AntiFa is still a Mass Movement, not an Idealogical Movement.

I think that's a futile and pointless endeavour. What happens if members of the middle classes want communism?

We dont need the "Middle" class infect our movement with there prejudices. Social Being determines Social Counsince.

But that's what the anarchist movement is doing!?

How ?

Anarchist Freedom

29th July 2005, 03:58

Destroying something is not reform if you used that logic then everything is reformism!

Donnie

29th July 2005, 23:44

The goal of AntiFa is to smash facism. Thats a reform. Its not nessecarily bad, but AntifFa is still a Mass Movement, not an Idealogical Movement.
Anti-Fascism is part of the Class struggle. You can't ignore fascism while you're trying to raise consciousness.

Surely the Marxist movement has Anti-fascist organisation, I would hardly think you’re movement ignores fascism?

If Antifa was a reform organisation we would be working with government officials to limit fascist propaganda but instead where trying to destroy fascism with a class analysis just like were trying to destroy the state and capitalism with a class analysis.

We dont need the "Middle" class infect our movement with there prejudices. Social Being determines Social Counsince.
I have a comrade who parents are middle class and he was brought up middle class, but he is the most pro-working class struggler out of some of my other working class comrades. I bet he could give you're working class emancipation idea's a run for you're money.
You do know when communism comes about everybody on this earth will be involved?. Remember where attacking private property here and the state. Without property the bourgeois is not bourgeois.

Severian

30th July 2005, 01:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:25 PM
As for the CP, you think again is not enough, the figures i have seen put them at 20,000 members in 1936. The only reason they had the influence they did is because they worked with the republicans and through the infuence they brought with Stalins Weapons(only CCCP and Mexico provided arms to republic) they slowly took over the army and police and killed their opponents and starved them of arms.
I said, during/after the Franco regime the CP was larger.

During the Spanish Civil War, the CP was submerged within the SP...a small faction, yes, and influential not only for the reasons you give but because they were the most consistent reformists among a lot of inconsistent reformists...including the rest of the SP, the anarchists, the POUM...unlike the vacillating semi-reformists, the total reformists of the CP knew what they wanted and they knew how to get it.

JC1

1st August 2005, 20:44

I have a comrade who parents are middle class and he was brought up middle class, but he is the most pro-working class struggler out of some of my other working class comrades.

Did he break with the "middle class" ? A change in conditions usualy leads to a change in counsince.

Without property the bourgeois is not bourgeois.

I sugguest you read the book "Poverty of Philosophy".

The Feral Underclass

2nd August 2005, 14:40

Originally posted by JC1+Jul 29 2005, 12:44 AM--> (JC1 @ Jul 29 2005, 12:44 AM) The goal of AntiFa is to smash facism. Thats a reform. Its not nessecarily bad, but AntiFa is still a Mass Movement, not an Idealogical Movement. [/b]
AntiFa doesn't necessarily have an objective except to challange Fascism through direct action and violence if necessary. The majority of AntiFa members I know are also members of other wider class struggle organisations.

From the website: AntiFa, UK (http://www.antifa.org.uk/)

AntiFa Website
Antifa is a collective of militant anti-fascists committed to opposing the rise of the far-right in Britain and abroad. We believe in the 'no platform' philosophy and the tradition of fighting fascism/racism stretching back to Cable Street, Red Lion Square, Lewisham, and Waterloo.

We are a network of various organisations and individuals who see anti-fascism as part of the class struggle. After decades of underperforming, the far-right now poses a significant threat politically.

This initiative aims to bring together those who wish to act rather than talk. We aim to oppose the far-right's electoral politics and where possible by means of direct action. As well as street activities we aim to promote militant anti-fascism in the football and music areas. This website will serve as an information and activity site, we will post up any intelligence on far-right activities and invite other anti-fascists to join us in counter activities.

The 'Antifa' initiative has come from members of the Anarchist Federation, Class War Federation, and No Platform. Although we come from the anarchist tradition we are open to work with any group/individual that is serious about militant anti-fascism, but we will NOT work with any state affiliated groups.

Please tell me how that is reformist?

We dont need the "Middle" class infect our movement with there prejudices. Social Being determines Social Counsince.

It's spelt conscious: The quote is: "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness"

Marx was not referring to peoples abilities to join in revolutionary working class struggle.

I agree that middle class people tend to have certiain attitudes and prejudices, but you cannot exclude people who genuinley want to achieve communism from a struggle simply on the grounds of class. It's like cutting your nose of to spite your face.

Middle class people have the ability to be class conscious.

But that's what the anarchist movement is doing!?

How ?

By being involved in working class and community struggles.

STI

2nd August 2005, 18:10

We dont need the "Middle" class infect our movement with there prejudices. Social Being determines Social Counsince.

I think one of the big problems with even referring to the "middle class" is that it's subject to a crapload of different definitions. Some people would define "middle class" as "any person, no matter what their job, who can afford to live in a house and drive a car". That doesn't make much sense, of course. Others would define it as "low-level or middle-level managers, as well as small business owners". I personally think this definition is a little more accurate.

These people are definately not working class, but not ruling class, either. Their consciousness is bound to be affected by their condition, of course, and I think we should probably be very wary of the intentions of these people if they are communists/anarchists. If for whatever reason (hell, I don't know, maybe person X used to be a worker and is now self-employed but is failing miserably), but is genuinely anarchist/communist, we should be skeptical and careful, but still allow them in our groups.

I think it's a bit different with the children of middle class people, though. They have to go to school, which is basically Work's little brother, and most of them work actual jobs in their non-school time. Hell, my parents are both middle-level managers (one government, one private), and I've been working, on-and-off, full-time and part-time, since I was 14 (and I'm still likely to end up with a nice pile of debt after university, even if I manage to get a co-op placement).

I just got a thought, actually. Maybe there could be two types of groups. One for working class people as well as middle-class supporters, and another for workers only. That way, genuine middle-class supporters can still be involved, but if their group gets "infected" or whatever, working class people can easily get the hell away.

coda

10th August 2005, 14:21

Anarchys objective is to abolish the State. Capital and other institutions of hierarchial power. thus, not leaving those former structures intact to reform--- therefore, how can it be reformist?

I would say leaving the State intact though implementing a power shift and some policy changes would be closer to reformism than a complete abolition.

<<PS: Would an anarchist please tell me how you can handle nuculear armed imperialists without some semblance of a state ?>>>

Well, that's why you aim for communism in All countries rather than just one.

coda

10th August 2005, 15:41

also i wanted to add about anarchist syndicalism,
revolutionary syndicalism has only been vaguely touched on by anarchist theory -- it can be greatly expanded on.

I'm leaning toward revolutionary syndicalism as the front line base of struggle and the means of acheiving everything. i see everything else as affinity to that. The wage workers are the economic engine of capitalism and the economic engine of the state. Withdrawal production output and it will send the system headlong into a tailspin of collapse. So, it's there that determines everything.

JC1

10th August 2005, 16:57

Anarchys objective is to abolish the State. Capital and other institutions of hierarchial power. thus, not leaving those former structures intact to reform--- therefore, how can it be reformist?

Thats its paper program. When Anarchism has become the leadin' ideaology, it has simply de-articulated the state ( E.G. Mahkno's Ukraine). Also, it should be pointed out that private property,exchange, et cet era existed in Spain and in Ukraine.

Well, that's why you aim for communism in All countries rather than just one.

Thats not feasible. You arnt gonna have a crisis in ALL countries at the same time.

STI

11th August 2005, 04:35

Thats its paper program. When Anarchism has become the leadin' ideaology, it has simply de-articulated the state ( E.G. Mahkno's Ukraine).

That's actually a valid criticism, but it's more a criticism of anarchist practice, not anarchism fundamentally. The problem you've brought up can be solved within the framework of anarchism.

Also, it should be pointed out that private property,exchange, et cet era existed in Spain and in Ukraine.

And we should do things differently next time.

Thats not feasible. You arnt gonna have a crisis in ALL countries at the same time.

That's true. I think I spoke to your concern earlier, though.

saint max

12th August 2005, 11:34

Perhaps it would be interesting to point out that all Leftism (read: Modern liberation ideologies of the last 200 yrs or so) are reformist. yeah, that includes yours sunshine.

From an egoistic, or nihilist, or anti-civ, or insurrectional perspective, all ideology would arguably to be reformist.

And if we're basing all of our conclusions off of history, I'd love to see the grand example of the slaves...opps, i mean "workers" paradise. Cuba ain't doing it, and the shirts with that dead guy on it, they sell at hot topic are'nt making any good arguements either.

But I think you're right JC1 (JC!?, jesus christ?) "anarchism" is reformist, even though most of the discussion has been based around anarchism's corpse: classical anarchism. However, anarchy, may be just the cure to the common ideology and economic-reductionism...

JC1

12th August 2005, 18:43

saint max

15th August 2005, 06:42

Hot air maybe, but rhetoric? I think not. You see any sloganeering?

Here's some rhetoric and dry wit...

My point is that both classical anarchism, and Marxism (and all Leftism) incorrectly identifies 'the totality' or root of oppressive power-dynamics. Leftism is essentially economic-deductionist. On its better days Leftism moralistically includes gender and race and on its worse days opportunistically includes them. None the less, Power does'nt all of a sudden emerge and consume the world with problematic relationships with industrial capitalism or fuedalism for that matter. It probably finds its epistemology in Mesopotania (sp?) and is problemecized soon there after with agriculture, domestication, and gender binary systems. (and so on...)

From my perspective, to merely change the face of hierarchy or the rulers of The World (whether the flag is black or red) is essentially reformist. Where does my desire to not exchange my labor for bread come in? Where does every other species of life on earth desire to procreate and not go extinct come in? How can any coal/ore be mined to produce any metals without destroying mountains? ETC.

Leftist "revolution" merely changes the architech of civilizing logic of domination...progress.

And besides the situs, it's just been pretty booooorrring.

cheers,
-max

STI

15th August 2005, 07:18

I think we got a crimethinc'r on our hands! :o

saint max

15th August 2005, 08:37

I think we got a crimethinc'r on our hands!

oops, wrong stereotype! STI, get it together. While I may have props for some NC crimethinc folk, an insurrectional anti-civ approach is quite a bit different then the assumed post-situ token crimethinc romance novel. dig?

ps: NEFAC!? please...Worth what? 6.50 an hour?

STI

15th August 2005, 15:22

Crimethinc'rs are steps away from anti-civism (they seem to have some objection to waiting in line to use the washroom!). I must have got you confused.

(worth following the link and checking them out).

Invader Zim

15th August 2005, 17:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:56 AM

And breaking away from a middle class background necessitates joining an authoritarian political party? Talk about reformism.

Nope. By gettin' a real job and re-positioning themselves in the there relation to production. duhh.

Something I doubt you have ever done. I have said it before, and i will say it again, I doubt you have done a real days work in your life.

coda

15th August 2005, 18:21

I don't get why you anti-civs and paleo-prims think you need to have a big movement and get everybody to go out in the woods with you. What is it--- so you have less of a chance personally of getting eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger? Just go! Why wait to take down all of civilization? why do you even care?

saint max

15th August 2005, 19:00

I mean sabre-tooth tigers are pretty scary.

Myself and my other green anarchist coharts, like most anarchists disagree on a lot of things. Waiting out collapse is one of those things. My worst fear, is that civilization will not collapse on its own. If you need, I can get into that? But none the less, most GA and prim folk I know are'nt actually too interested in 'getting others to convert' or whatever, but rather finding other like minded insurgents with similar self-interests. dig? I feel if I can help deconstrcut the ideological veneer, I can find a lot of cool folk just about anywhere. Also aut-ops, and other anti-state communists, tend to have some interesting shit to say. Just think about Camatte.

cheers,
-max

STI

16th August 2005, 05:30

coda

16th August 2005, 06:32

<<< My worst fear, is that civilization will not collapse on its own. If you need, I can get into that?>>>

I think you're probably right on that.. but Sure, go ahead.. I'd like to hear.

On a serious note however, if worse comes to worst, you guys can always become boyscout leaders or wilderness training guides.

saint max

16th August 2005, 08:30

I'm not sure if you primmies are aware, but the world's population is sitting at about 6 billion right now. Now, how on earth do you expect the world's population to survive without using modern agricultural technology?

To elaborate on that one asshole's joke "you gotta break a few eggs, about 5 billion of them..."

But you're right. There is no conceivable way The World as we know it, including the population density, will continue. But I do have an interest in humanity not going completely extinct, and this is perhaps the only way.

max: My worst fear, is that civilization will not collapse on its own. If you need, I can get into that?

I think you're probably right on that.. but Sure, go ahead.. I'd like to hear.

To continue from the previous point. Maybe human civilization will not collapse, and finds a way to manage the ecological and social crisis. My feelings are, if this is possible, human civilization will continue, but our current understandings of what it means to be human may not. That is to say a slight elaboration of biological, genetic and nano technology will result in a non-life. Not to say we don't already live a toxic parody of wild-life, but Imagine the total modernization (and postmodernization) of the world. Imagine a totally homogenous global village where all the problematics of the global north have been exported. Imagine a world where everyone is litterally a slave to progress and content with it. Where what was the rich and what was the poor now share the same horrific fate of emotionless reproduction. Imagine having no will or desire for freedom.

It won't seem as dystopian, and it won't happen overnight, but if human civilization survives its impending doom, I think it's quite probable what we understand as life (having the ability to adapt to it's surroundings, and die,) will not.

And if you can come up with something more fun and interesting and liberatory than destroying The World as we know it, I'd love to hear it.

cheers,
-t

ps: Idigo, that was funny, but predictable. I demand better, more witty "your mom" jokes...

coda

16th August 2005, 19:16

<<ps: Idigo, that was funny, but predictable. I demand better, more witty "your mom" jokes...
>>>

that was no joke. I was trying to see how you could mainifest your feral idiosyncrasy in a constructive way without having to destroy all of civilization to do it. as such, you're inclined to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Capitalism is the problem-- not civilization. Capitalism is driven by money so is indifferent to anything else.

As far as techology is concerned-- I'm in agreement with Kirkpatrick Sale and the bioregional anarchists in that there should be limits on technological progress --- weighed against the human benefits, looked at from a long-range generational perspective, like the Greens believe -- 200 years.

What you are proposing, the sustained destruction of civilization, is impossible to begin with. I can only see that happening through nuclear annhilation, and even then those who survive would begin building again. You could say the whole story of the human species since the beginning of "man" is to make easier the conditions of survival. if that were not the case-- he would have never used fire, made tools, built shelters, made clothing, or separated off into tribes and family units, then villages and cities. The human species is bent toward making survival as easy as possible. the dystopic vision of anti-civilization is in direct contrast to that, making the struggle of basic survival secondary to retaining abstract human concepts such as freedom and self-expression. What you propose is a struggle that is 2-fold, first pitting people against themselves in a fight for elementary survival, and secondly, pitting people against their inhospitable environment. At this point of the game.. there isn't even enough fresh water that is consumable outside the icecaps, without having to go through a water treatment facility. so, ok, let's indulge this scenario --- you dig some groundwater and boil it over a fire to purify it of contaminates left over from civilization-- thus now you need some kind of container to hold the water in over the fire, so now you gotta go out looking for a shell or a concave rock or wait for winter to arrive and melt snow. do you see the insurmountable never-ending struggle to this type of existance? then there is the problem of what to do with all the trillions of tons of concrete rubble which use to be houses, stores and factories. Where are you going to put all that? or are we just going to have ghost towns with the people living within the small boundaries of national parks and forests? There's just a lot of issues to the anti-civilization theory that is not plausible or taken into account. If it's much easier than i anticipate-- then please clue me in here.

Well, if you haven't read this Jack London story yet. I am sure you will enjoy it. It's about life before civilization..actually one of my favorite writings.
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/BeforeAdam/

JC1

17th August 2005, 00:17

Something I doubt you have ever done. I have said it before, and i will say it again, I doubt you have done a real days work in your life.

It disturbes me that a "Comie" Club member is involved in so much red baiting.
Was this an attempt to get me to reaveal personal detail's ?

Invader Zim

18th August 2005, 19:03

No, it was, i believe, an accurate observation of your character.

But, tell us, as you think that you are so much better than the rest of the people on this board, what stirrlingly hard work have you done?

rebelworker

19th August 2005, 04:51

Ok the point about the mondragon was correct, not too thrilled about most of the work of most of the anarchists in the peg(although some I know are doing excellent indigenous solidarity work and I didnt see much going on in the marxist front other than that crazy guy in the apple cart gang... or is that you zaps).

You totally avoided my point around anarchist activity in quebec.

As for our Green friend, I am always amazed to see how much classic amarican rugged individualism has infected most of the "post left" anarchist scene.

Do you have any Idea what life was like for most people in north america without the labour movement, you would have a ruff time printing your magazine, where would you get the resources? the company store that you were forced to work at?

And as liberating as the mountain man life would have been(I grew up in the country and know a few folks who live pretty free of the land to some extent) it was just a matter of time before the big mining and logging companies rolled in and eneded all that. The only reason that we have any freedom and envyroment left id because the labour movment gave average people at least a semblance of say in society.

Thousands of people died so we can even have this debate, you could at least respect that fact when making up your mind as to what to do about the sorry state of the world.

I grew up an envyromentalist in the country, at a certain point in my life i became a logger to get by, you might not have to make that kind of a choice in suburbia but try and understand that for millions of poeple here in north america(nevr mind globally) thast a reality we have to face to keep our communities from droipping even further into abject poverty. Thats the relity of today, respect the fatc that a workers movement is the only way Im gonna get enough say in this world to change that!

rebelworker