The "Withering Away" of the State [Archive]

Martin Blank

27th July 2005, 10:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:03 PM
I was reading State and Revolution today which I bought earlier this morning. And to my surprise, I noticed something very interesting.

Lenin says that once the proletariat seizes power of the state, it automatically withers away, as the state's purpose (oppression of a class by another) no longer exists.

Except, he goes on to contradict himself, and says that the dictatorship of the proletarian will be there to oppress the bourgeois.

So what exactly is he meaning here?

Does he mean that the state will almost automatically wither away, or that it will stay for a while? And for that matter, when does the oppression of the bourgeois stop so that the "withering away" occurs?
First of all, the concept of the "withering away" of the state was not Lenin's. Marx used that formulation in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

When the working class seizes power and establishes the dictatorship (rule) of the proletariat, a new dynamic between society and the state begins to develop. Historically, the state has been the instrument that a minority ruling class has used to maintain its "order" and suppress the majority.

With the victory of the proletarian revolution, however, the majority of society holds power. Under those conditions, the purpose for the state, in the classical sense, becomes meaningless except for the need to suppress movements actively seeking to restore the old class relations.

As classes are abolished, through the integration of members of the dispossessed classes into the proletariat, the need for the state disappears proportionately. Hence, it begins to "wither away". When classes disappear altogether, so does the need for the state. It is at that point when the rule over people is replaced by the administration of things.

Miles

The Feral Underclass

27th July 2005, 14:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:20 AM
Once class exploitation, and well, classes, have ended, there is no more need for one class to suppress another, and then the state will begin to wither away..
That's the idea, Clarksist. What we have seen from history is something entirely different.

In every "transitional" country since Russia we have seen the emergence of a bureaucratic class, designed to control the state and direct country administration. From what the press can print to what food you ate. From the army to the police, from the fields to the factories the state directs and if you oppose it, you are a counter-revolutionary and either imprisoned or shot.

The state organises these things on "behalf" of society for the very reason: "While privileged classes continue to exist it is still necessary for the working class to suppress them" and that cannot happen, in Leninist terms, unless their is a strong State to guide it.

This means that in practical terms the new bureaucratic leadership becomes more and more important as the complexities of organising society and "defending" the revolution become more demanding.

The contradiction that is created is: The state is to wither away, but in order for it to wither away it must be defended and to be defended the state must become bigger and bigger. At what point does the state become obsolete? Do we then trust the new powerful bureaucratic class to give up its power? Just like the bourgeoisie?

Historically what has happened is that the state must be maintained for a large period of time to suppress the capitalist class. Over this period of time the new bureaucratic class become happy in their positions and start to make justifications for its existence. As time continues the people loose faith, the control becomes unbearable and the state grapples with attempting to keep a revolutionary spirit alive, only now this spirit is only necessary insofar as it gives the regime legitimacy.

Historically, the old guard dies, the new guard, born into this power have new and "up to date" ideas about the future. Neo-Liberalism begins to creep in slowly and surely and within the next fifty years we will see a full-blown return to capitalism in China, Cuba and Vietnam. It already happened in Russia.

The withering away of the state is a myth. It was an idea that failed and will always fail. The state cannot be maintained in order to create communism. You cannot use a state to create a stateless society. You cannot give power to a minority in order to create a society without power. The only real transition to communism that we have ever seen is when the state is smashed in the first instance.

Communists need to reject this theory of transition, because when put into practice it fails and it does so on a catastrophic scale. Leninists maintain “it will be better next time,” They want us to “trust” them, but how can we? Or better still why should we?...

Entrails Konfetti

27th July 2005, 19:16

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2005, 01:15 PM

You cannot use a state to create a stateless society.

Not unless the state is equally distributed. You have to organize somewhere, how are you going to decide what portions get developed into villages and what not ?
That can only start with a democratic state.

The only real transition to communism that we have ever seen is when the state is smashed in the first instance.

Yes and because the upper-class wasn't surpressed,they decided to come back and take it over.

The Feral Underclass

27th July 2005, 21:14

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 27 2005, 07:16 PM
Not unless the state is equally distributed. You have to organize somewhere, how are you going to decide what portions get developed into villages and what not ?
That can only start with a democratic state.
What does that mean?

You have to organize somewhere, how are you going to decide what portions get developed into villages and what not ?

Why does a state have to do this? Why is the state any more capable than decentralised federalism? Which ultimately destroys the structures of power which mean the state distorts.

That can only start with a democratic state.

A state by its very nature is not democratic. It cannot survive if decisions are run by a majority of people. The Leninist paradigm suggests that the mass of workers are not capable enough to make such complex decisions, and that is why it is necessary for a vanguard to do it for them. How is that democratic?

Yes and because the upper-class wasn't surpressed,they decided to come back and take it over.

What are you referring to?

Solidarnosc

27th July 2005, 21:33

A state by its very nature is not democratic. It cannot survive if decisions are run by a majority of people. The Leninist paradigm suggests that the mass of workers are not capable enough to make such complex decisions, and that is why it is necessary for a vanguard to do it for them. How is that democratic?

You misunderstand the nature of the state and the vanguard, though.

The only thing states are by their very nature, are the tool of one class oppressing the other. A capitalist state exists to oppress the working class, to rule in the interests of the capitalist class, as you know. A working class state is there to oppress the old capitalist class. The capitalist class will not give up it's power without a hard fight, and a working class state is a tool in the arsenal of the revolution.

The capitalist state is "democratic" in so far as those who are truly enfranchised by it are the capitalists, who control it through the power of currency. The majority of people are effectily disenfranchised apart from once every four years when they decide between two different sections of the bourgeoise. But a working class state, which serves for the working class, has to, by it's very nature, run by the majority. This is why communists would call for the rights of instant recall of, maximum length of terms of, and no privilidges for, elected delegates, and for the arming of the mass of the population. The first three are to prevent the development of a new group of privilidged people.

This is why Lenin called for the soviets to take power. In their first instance they were just united fronts, but they had the potential to run society. Before their degeneration, they were mass democratic organs, with thousands of members in just cities, rather than just the current 650 odd pompus gits in Westminster who are supposed to represent the 60 million people in the UK.

John Reed in "Ten Days That Shook The World" explains the soviets better than I could.

As for the vanguard - well, first off you have to look at where the term comes from. Dictionary.com describes it as thus:

1. The foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle.
2.
1. The foremost or leading position in a trend or movement.
2. Those occupying a foremost position.

The task of the vanguard is not to replace the historical role of the working class in taking power - that is "substiutionalism", something Lenin and Trotsky both polemecised against at great length. The role of the vanguard is to win workers to the communist programme, and to agigtate for communist policies in the unions, and in united fronts. In this way, anarchist organisations act the same. Their role, as they see it, is to win people to anarchist ideas. If simply coming together to fight for your politics is vanguardism, then every political organisation, including anarchist ones, are guilty of it.

Entrails Konfetti

27th July 2005, 22:04

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2005, 08:14 PM

What does that mean?

This means you have to recognize some degree of the state before it dissolves,withers away, dies out ect. The bourgeosie has to be suppressed by some sort of central-power which would have to be the working peoples state.
You have a state when you try to surpress a class.

Why does a state have to do this? Why is the state any more capable than decentralised federalism? Which ultimately destroys the structures of power which mean the state distorts.

You will have a state no matter what,even if it consists of direct-civics of the working-class because,you are trying to surpress the upper-class.

A state by its very nature is not democratic. It cannot survive if decisions are run by a majority of people. The Leninist paradigm suggests that the mass of workers are not capable enough to make such complex decisions, and that is why it is necessary for a vanguard to do it for them. How is that democratic?

Well, a workers state headed by federations is democratic for the majority.But, nothing can truly be democratic untill the antagonisms are gone.Once the antagonisms are gone,then you have a stateless society.Do you think a revolution will get rid of antagonisms in one straight blow ?

Heres what happemed with Lenin,the workers realized the parties envolvement during the revolution,so they looked toward them when the civil-war broke out ,thus, the reforming of soviets. The workers chose the party.

Lenin wanted the workers to have participatory economics but,then it showed that they were so poorly educated and were corrupted by the sdystem of capitalism,the party had to decide it themselves.For Lenin thats a shitty situation to be in,plus he never wanted to be head of state,he even asked Trotsky to take the position.

What are you referring to?

The Paris Commune.The Spanish Civil-War.

Solidarnosc

27th July 2005, 22:25

What you also have to remember is the situation the Bolsheviks were in. The working class wasn't as developed, as a class, as capitalism was only just beginning in Russia at the time. It was in a very infant stage. These days, workers, especially in the western world, are educated to a sufficent standard as the technological base of capitalism has developed at breakneck speed.

Entrails Konfetti

28th July 2005, 00:04

Question : So why was it that the Bolsheviks found it necessary to elect a head of state ?

Solidarnosc

28th July 2005, 00:18

A General Secretary? The role was very different when it was first iniated. It was exactly that; someone who oversaw the administrative aspects of party and state, Not what it became when Stalin took power.

The Feral Underclass

28th July 2005, 12:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:33 PM
The only thing states are by their very nature, are the tool of one class oppressing the other.
That's not the nature of state, that's one purpose of a state.

You can argue with me about theoretics, but the facts are far more important when attempting to analyse the validity of an idea. The nature of a state, which has been so throughout history, is undemocratic. There is no evidence to suggest that a State will or indeed can be democratic in the future.

A working class state is there to oppress the old capitalist class.

But it is a working class state in name only.

The actual practical organisation of a state cannot realistically encompass the entire working class, and that is why Lenin and Leninists believe in the delegation of responsibility to bureaucrats.

As history proves, this bureaucratic class, through the necessities of its governance must take a tight grip over society, far more so than the bourgeoisie and thus far, invariably, these bureaucrats become the new ruling class. Controlling a state, ultimately to protect themselves from counter-revolution under a banner of: "On behalf of the Workers."

The capitalist class will not give up its power without a hard fight, and a working class state is a tool in the arsenal of the revolution.

On the contrary, it's the tool of the bureaucrats.

But a working class state, which serves for the working class, has to, by it's very nature, run by the majority.

On paper, but not in practice.

The reality is that the workers may have different ideas to the Central Committee. They may, as we saw time and time again in Russia, want change. The bureaucrats simply cannot allow such complex and important structures of power be handed over to people whom potentially may disagree with them.

What happens if the workers decide to abolish the central committee and remove state structures? How does the central committee react? It's folly to assume that they will hand over their power so easily. The reality is, again as history proves, they will crush them as counter-revolutionaries and stifle any dissent, on the right or the left.

This is why Lenin called for the soviets to take power. In their first instance they were just united fronts, but they had the potential to run society. Before their degeneration, they were mass democratic organs

And that's the point isn’t it? They degenerate.

You can have all the good intentions in the world, you can hold your banners high as much as you want, but the material realities of what you are creating have only one conclusion; and that is their degeneration.

The role of the vanguard is to win workers to the communist programme, and to agigtate for communist policies in the unions, and in united fronts. In this way, anarchist organisations act the same.

Yes yes! The vanguard want to "guide" the workers. But who takes control of the state apparatus during and after a revolution? Rank and file workers or the Central Committee of whatever party has assumed control?

The Feral Underclass

28th July 2005, 12:15

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 27 2005, 10:04 PM
The Paris Commune.The Spanish Civil-War.
The bourgeoisie didn't come back; they were there all the time.

These conflicts involved poorly armed and in the case of the Paris Commune immensely disproportionate amounts of people to the reactionary forces which they had to defend themselves against.

The Spanish civil war wasn't a vindication of theory, but the realities of numbers. They were bigger. You also have to take into account the betrayals of the Stalinist government, which ultimately destroyed the anti-fascist resistance.

bombeverything

28th July 2005, 12:50

But a working class state, which serves for the working class, has to, by it's very nature, run by the majority.

Not at all. By oppressing the old capitalist class you are in turn creating another ruling elite because representative democracy is not [and by it's very nature could never be] democratic.

This is why communists would call for the rights of instant recall of, maximum length of terms of, and no privileges for, elected delegates, and for the arming of the mass of the population.

Being a politician is in itself a position of privilege.

The first three are to prevent the development of a new group of privileged people.

But those with the authority to sanction such activities are the ruling class.

Dante

28th July 2005, 13:52

There is no evidence to suggest that a State will or indeed can be democratic in the future.

But under socialism this is a qualitativly different kind of state because it is the first state in human history based on the majority not the minority.

but those with the authority to sanction such activities are the ruling class.

We have to be clear what class is, otherwise we just end up thinking that anyone with authority is a 'ruling class' (is a head teacher in a school a member of the ruling class?). Class as Marx defined it was a social category that had a specific relation to the means of production, the workers, the owners and so on. What existed in Russia was not a new class but a bureacratic caste that parasitically existed off the workers property. It had no independent relation to it however, like the capitalist bosses do.

Lenin wanted the workers to have participatory economics but,then it showed that they were so poorly educated and were corrupted by the sdystem of capitalism,the party had to decide it themselves

Participatory economics? Nothing so post modern! The Bolsheviks aim was working class control over production and distribution, not some participatory scheme. The reason why it collapsed is because the Russian working class was effectivly destroyed in the civil war, it ceased to function as a class. That is why the party took over more and more control, why lenin said the state had 'severe bureacratic deformations'. We would not have that problem in a modern revolution because the working class is so much more developed and so much larger.

Ultimatly the revolution faield in Russia because it did not spread. Anarchists will hold Russia up as an example of how a workers state is doomed to fail. Those of us with an objective udnerstanding of the situation will understand that any state defending non capitalist property relations will become authoritarian and bureacratic if it is surrounded by a sea of Imperialist enemies.

Martin Blank

28th July 2005, 13:52

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2005, 09:15 AM
The withering away of the state is a myth. It was an idea that failed and will always fail. The state cannot be maintained in order to create communism. You cannot use a state to create a stateless society. You cannot give power to a minority in order to create a society without power. The only real transition to communism that we have ever seen is when the state is smashed in the first instance.
TAT, perhaps you could define what you mean by "the State". I ask because you really don't make clear what you mean when you say that. The League, for example, subscribes to the understanding of the character and role of the state as outlined by Marx and Engels. I know that anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists have a differing definition.

I would also be interested in knowing your answers to the following questions:

1. What is to replace the overthrown capitalist state?

2. How do you deal with armed counterrevolution?

3. How do you deal with outside intervention by other countries?

4. How are the abolition of classes and of class antagonisms accomplished?

5. How is the economy to be organized, if is it to be organized?

6. How is the development of productive forces to be handled, if they are to be developed?

If I think of any other questions, I'll post them here.

Miles

bombeverything

28th July 2005, 14:21

We have to be clear what class is, otherwise we just end up thinking that anyone with authority is a 'ruling class' (is a head teacher in a school a member of the ruling class?).

I was not claiming this at all. In this case I was referring to centralized state authority rather than all authority. I apologise if I failed to make that clear.

Dante

28th July 2005, 14:45

I was not claiming this at all. In this case I was referring to centralized state authority rather than all authority. I apologise if I failed to make that clear.

It is the only way to protect the gains of a revolution from imperialist invaders however. Federalism can never defeat a modern imperialist army. Also it is the most efficient way of organising society and planning the economy.

Entrails Konfetti

28th July 2005, 22:31

It seems that any movement that spear-heads a revolution will become one of the biggests actors in it,thus becoming maybe a central commitie.

Is a central commitie in a Revolution inevitable ?

For you Anarchists, a question for you :

Considering the material conditions of Russia and the politicial conditions of the western sphere in the early 1900's,if your movement was the prime actor in the revolution,what would you have done differently from the CCCP ?

I'm aware of the flaw of this question,considering its quite easy to say what you would do from whats known from what already occured and lead to the collapse of the U.S.S.R .

Seeker

28th July 2005, 22:58

The bourgeosie has to be suppressed by some sort of central-power

Why does the power need to be centralized? For a revolution to take place, a majority of the population must know what needs to happen. You don't need someone in an institutionalized position of power to tell you who needs to be reeducated. Their own actions will mark them as an enemy to the general population, which has been freed from the trap of thinking that "others" will do what is needed and take responsibility for their own future.

When the time is right, the people alone will be enough.

If the people alone are not enough, the time is not right.

Entrails Konfetti

28th July 2005, 23:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:58 PM
Why does the power need to be centralized? For a revolution to take place, a majority of the population must know what needs to happen.
Which ever movement or party that spear-heads the revolution will likely be the prime actor. The other movements that will follow will most likely want to link up , get ideas and funding. What could end up are movements working around the first one thus,centralization.Though, it doesn't necessarily mean the prime movement would have the authority to dictate other movements or the movement in whole.

You don't need someone in an institutionalized position of power to tell you who needs to be reeducated.

Well,no you don't. Their job is to do whats in your best interests. You tell them what you want,they offer advice or assistance.

Their own actions will mark them as an enemy to the general population, which has been freed from the trap of thinking that "others" will do what is needed and take responsibility for their own future.

Considering what we've learned from past movements and how advanced education is now, it wouldn't be necessary for a dictation of a commitie.

bombeverything

30th July 2005, 10:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:45 PM
It is the only way to protect the gains of a revolution from imperialist invaders however. Federalism can never defeat a modern imperialist army. Also it is the most efficient way of organising society and planning the economy.

It is the most efficient way to create a new ruling class.

Djehuti

30th July 2005, 13:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:03 AM
I was reading State and Revolution today which I bought earlier this morning. And to my surprise, I noticed something very interesting.

Lenin says that once the proletariat seizes power of the state, it automatically withers away, as the state's purpose (oppression of a class by another) no longer exists.

Except, he goes on to contradict himself, and says that the dictatorship of the proletarian will be there to oppress the bourgeois.

So what exactly is he meaning here?

Does he mean that the state will almost automatically wither away, or that it will stay for a while? And for that matter, when does the oppression of the bourgeois stop so that the "withering away" occurs?
In the Civil War in France Marx states that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes", like the current ruling class did after their victory. Marx also states that the state must be abolished as a tool for class rule. The proletarians cannot just overthrow the bourgeoisie and take control of society, they must overthrow the whole social totality and remodel it in a communist direction.

The proletarians do however, need to raise themselves to the possition of ruling class and create their tool of class oppression. This is called the dictatorship of the proletarians and this is the same thing as the proletarian state. The proletarians must organize an armed defense or the bourgeoisie will once again seize the moment and reinstitute themselves as the ruling class.

The anarchist Bakunin once asked Marx:
"What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?"
This is the answer Marx gave him:

"It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared."

And this is very important. What can the proletarians do with state power? What will they do? They will use the power to abolish themselves as proletarians, as wage labourers. The bourgeoise are defined in their relation to the proletarians and cannot exist alone. If the proletarians seize to exist, all classes will seize to exist. The proletarians are the last class in history, and their fall will mean the fall of class society.

Note: The revolution is not really about abolishing the capitalists, it is about abolishing the proletarians. WE are the core of capitalism, not the capitalists. We are the key to everything. If we would destroy every single capitalist in the world, we would still live under capitalism. We must destroy capital as such, and that will mean destroying ourselves as salariat.

Djehuti

30th July 2005, 13:51

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jul 28 2005, 12:15 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jul 28 2005, 12:15 PM)
EL [email protected] 27 2005, 10:04 PM
The Paris Commune.The Spanish Civil-War.
The bourgeoisie didn't come back; they were there all the time.

These conflicts involved poorly armed and in the case of the Paris Commune immensely disproportionate amounts of people to the reactionary forces which they had to defend themselves against.

The Spanish civil war wasn't a vindication of theory, but the realities of numbers. They were bigger. You also have to take into account the betrayals of the Stalinist government, which ultimately destroyed the anti-fascist resistance. [/b]
The revolution did not fail because the fascists won over the antifascists, it failed because the revolution transformed into an antifascist civil war in the first place.
The class struggle between the forces for capitalism and the forces for communism was degenerated into capitalist civil war between fascism and democracy, and as soon as that happened, all were lost.

Power does not come any more from the barrel of a gun than it comes from a ballot box. No revolution is peaceful, but its "military" dimension is never central. The question is not whether the proles finally decide to break into the armouries, but whether they unleash what they are: commodified beings who no longer can and no longer want to exist as commodities, and whose revolt explodes capitalist logic.

"If the workers really want to build up a defence front against the Whites, they can only do so by taking over political power themselves, instead of leaving it in the hands of a Popular Front government. In other words, defending the revolution is only possible through the dictatorship of the proletariat, and not through the collaboration of all anti-fascist parties (...) Proletarian revolution revolves around the destruction of the old state machine, and the exercise of the central functions of power by the workers themselves.[/]" (P.I.C., published by the GIC, Amsterdam, October 1936)

"[i](...) the CNT was among those chiefly responsible for the crushing of the insurrection. It demoralized the proletariat at a time when the latter was moving against democratic reactionaries." (Räte-Korrespondenz, June 1937)

I would agree with Durutti here, "democracy defeated the spanish people, not fascism".

I would recomend everyone here to read Gilles Dauvé's excellent text
"When insurrections die", especially the chapters on the spanish revolution, later civil war. http://www.prole.info/pamphlets/insurrectionsdie.pdf

The Feral Underclass

1st August 2005, 14:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:52 PM

There is no evidence to suggest that a State will or indeed can be democratic in the future.

But under socialism this is a qualitativly different kind of state because it is the first state in human history based on the majority not the minority.
But it isn't a majority.

A state has to be controlled in order for it to work effectively and ultimately maintain itself in order to defend a ruling class.

Marxists would say that the ruling class is now the working class but that is practically impossible. You cannot incorporate the entire working class as the controllers of the state because it would render its capabilities useless.

What we have witnessed over the last 100 years of Marxism and the theoretical arguments from Lenin is the emergence of a bureaucratic class who, as "representatives" of the working class control the state on "their behalf" blanketed in rhetorical slogans.

There is no evidence to suggest that history will not repeat itself. In fact, history screams quite loudly that it will be exactly the same again.

No thank you.

Class as Marx defined it was a social category that had a specific relation to the means of production, the workers, the owners and so on. What existed in Russia was not a new class but a bureacratic caste that parasitically existed off the workers property. It had no independent relation to it however, like the capitalist bosses do.

The bureaucrats controlled the means of production. Their "specific relation" was that they owned it.

Simply dousing reality in rhetoric does not create a truth. Just because the Party slogans were that the workers controlled the means of production does not mean that this was the case.

Anarchists will hold Russia up as an example of how a workers state is doomed to fail.

And China, and Vietnam and now Cuba.

Those of us with an objective understanding of the situation will understand that any state defending non capitalist property relations will become authoritarian and bureacratic if it is surrounded by a sea of Imperialist enemies.

Which will always be the case. Any revolution of this nature will always be "surrounded by a sea of Imperialist enemies."

I understand perfectly well that a state will become authoritarian and bureaucratic in a revolutionary situation and that's my point.

The Feral Underclass

1st August 2005, 14:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:52 PM
TAT, perhaps you could define what you mean by "the State".
A state is a collection of tools and systematic political, judicial and social mechanisms designed to protect a ruling elite.

1. What is to replace the overthrown capitalist state?

Autonomous federalism and collectivism.

Take Spain as an example and read 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action' By Eddie Conlon. It's on google somewhere.

2. How do you deal with armed counterrevolution?

You defend yourself from it.

3. How do you deal with outside intervention by other countries?

I can't give you a specific answer on a non-specific hypothetical situation.

4. How are the abolition of classes and of class antagonisms accomplished?

By working towards the creation of a communist society.

5. How is the economy to be organized, if is it to be organized?

Again, I refer you to Eddie Conlon's pamphlet.

6. How is the development of productive forces to be handled, if they are to be developed?

Can you be more specific please?

Martin Blank

1st August 2005, 15:20

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Aug 1 2005, 09:50 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Aug 1 2005, 09:50 AM)A state is a collection of tools and systematic political, judicial and social mechanisms designed to protect a ruling elite.[/b]

This is somewhat similar to Marx and Engels' definition: a collection of groups of armed agents, and their coordinating bodies, designed as a tool to maintain the rule of a specific class. The difference I see, however, is that, in your view, the state is a tool only for a "ruling elite" instead of a class.

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2005, 09:50 AM

1. What is to replace the overthrown capitalist state?

Autonomous federalism and collectivism.

Take Spain as an example and read 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action' By Eddie Conlon. It's on google somewhere.

Thanks for the reference. I have downloaded the pamphlet and will read it. In the meantime, though,...

You say that what will replace is "autonomous federalism and collectivism". By this do you mean grassroots assemblies of working people -- i.e., working people's representatives elected out of workplaces and neighborhoods -- that coordinate with similar assemblies across the territory in question on a free and equal basis? If so, how do you see them coordinating on a regional or country-wide scale? An international scale?

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2005, 09:50 AM

2. How do you deal with armed counterrevolution?

You defend yourself from it.

And how is that accomplished? Do you favor organized detachments of armed working people's militia, under the control of local assemblies? What would you favor for dealing with a country-wide counterrevolutionary movement?

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2005, 09:50 AM

3. How do you deal with outside intervention by other countries?

I can't give you a specific answer on a non-specific hypothetical situation.

I don't see this as a "hypothetical" issue. Every proletarian revolution has sparked a violent response from the bourgeoisie of other countries. Both the early Soviet republic and the Spanish republic faced both counterrevolutionaries and imperialist interventionists. The question has to be addressed.

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2005, 09:50 AM

4. How are the abolition of classes and of class antagonisms accomplished?

By working towards the creation of a communist society.

That's all well and good to say, comrade. No disagreements there. The question, however, is more about specifics. How do you deal with belligerent elements of the expropriated classes that refuse to integrate into the proletariat? How do you handle individual producers and other petty-bourgeois elements?

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2005, 09:50 AM

5. How is the economy to be organized, if is it to be organized?

Again, I refer you to Eddie Conlon's pamphlet.

Autonomous collectives and workplace committees? Am I correct in this? If so, how is the economy to be coordinated on a regional and country-wide level? On an international level?

The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2005, 09:50 AM

6. How is the development of productive forces to be handled, if they are to be developed?

Can you be more specific please?

This goes to the question above. Do you favor the continued development of economic technology with the goal of developing an economy that is able to provide for all of the needs of society while eliminating as much as humanly possible the intensive and extensive labor we currently see?

I am asking these questions honestly, so please do not think there is any kind of ulterior motive here.

Miles

The Feral Underclass

1st August 2005, 15:33

I'm often confronted by people who want to have specific answers to problems which they obviously feel are specific enough to warrant such a response.

I'm sorry, but I cannot foretell what the reactions of people will be in a revolutionary situation. I can only promote certain ideas of how people should interact and fight.

There are of course obvious things that will most likely come about in a revolutionary situation, such as being attacked by outside countries; I cannot, however, give you a specific answer to what will happen in that case. Who is the country? How and with what are they attacking us? Where are they attacking us? How many people do we have to defend ourselves with? What supplies do we have? Etc etc etc

Even Marxists can't give answers with such confidence and if they try, I wouldn't believe or trust them.

Martin Blank

1st August 2005, 16:41

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 1 2005, 10:33 AM
I'm often confronted by people who want to have specific answers to problems which they obviously feel are specific enough to warrant such a response.

I'm sorry, but I cannot foretell what the reactions of people will be in a revolutionary situation. I can only promote certain ideas of how people should interact and fight.

There are of course obvious things that will most likely come about in a revolutionary situation, such as being attacked by outside countries; I cannot, however, give you a specific answer to what will happen in that case. Who is the country? How and with what are they attacking us? Where are they attacking us? How many people do we have to defend ourselves with? What supplies do we have? Etc etc etc

Even Marxists can't give answers with such confidence and if they try, I wouldn't believe or trust them.
Comrade, I was hoping to get your opinion on these issues. I understand that, in a revolutionary situation, not much of anything is going to go according to Hoyle. But I was interested in what you might advocate, as a revolutionary, in such situations.

And, yes, I can understand fully what you mean about having to take all factors into account before coming up with a specific plan. I was hoping, however, to understand what principles and strategies would guide your specific proposals.

It's not a matter of giving answers; it's a matter of seeking your advice.

Miles

The Feral Underclass

1st August 2005, 18:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:20 PM
The difference I see, however, is that, in your view, the state is a tool only for a "ruling elite" instead of a class.
Anarchists would generally argue that a state simply cannot function without a minority controlling it.

You say that what will replace is "autonomous federalism and collectivism". By this do you mean grassroots assemblies of working people -- i.e., working people's representatives elected out of workplaces and neighborhoods -- that coordinate with similar assemblies across the territory in question on a free and equal basis?

Yes.

Each industry and service would have a working group whose task it was to co-ordinate and organise work. Each community would have a community assembly and the working groups would feed into these assemblies to co-ordinate what needed to be done on a citywide level.

If so, how do you see them coordinating on a regional or country-wide scale? An international scale?

It maybe necessary to form national working groups to co-ordinate and organise certain things. In this instance regional assemblies would be called, but would not be a permanent thing. The national working groups would feed information into the regional assemblies made up of community delegates who would then feed back into their communities.

National working groups would be accountable to regional assemblies and important decisions would be made at a national level with community spokes persons being represented at a national assembly where information could be fed back to communities or to regions.

I favour consensus decision making or demarchy on certain less important issues.

The same would happen internationally if necessary.

2. How do you deal with armed counterrevolution?

Do you favor organized detachments of armed working people's militia, under the control of local assemblies? What would you favor for dealing with a country-wide counterrevolutionary movement?

Autonomous workers militias would defend communities and collectives and would be accountable to the communities they were defending.

In the case of dealing with specific counter-revolutionary activity, it could be that national or regional working groups were formed which were accountable to and only acted on the consensus of regional assemblies.

How do you deal with belligerent elements of the expropriated classes that refuse to integrate into the proletariat? How do you handle individual producers and other petty-bourgeois elements?

Communities would decide these things.

5. How is the economy to be organized, if is it to be organized?

Autonomous collectives and workplace committees? Am I correct in this? If so, how is the economy to be coordinated on a regional and country-wide level? On an international level?

The same way as described in the first few answers.

Do you favor the continued development of economic technology with the goal of developing an economy that is able to provide for all of the needs of society while eliminating as much as humanly possible the intensive and extensive labor we currently see?

The vast majority of the "intensive and extensive labor we currently see" will not exist anymore from the outset of the revolution. This work is mainly for profit making individuals and will become unnecessary.

I am in favour of developing technology in order to make our lives as easy as possible and so that our needs as living beings are met. For example, housing, water, electricity, clothing and of course food.

Although as communists we should be looking to create green and sustainable ways of living. While we try and destroy exploitative labour we must also strive, and in some instances make paramount the replacements of technology and industry which pollute the environment.

Holocaustpulp

2nd August 2005, 04:21

Perhaps your main problem is failing to understand Lenin's message, which is actually a conveyance of the teachings of Engels. Nevertheless, when Lenin refers to the "withering away" of the state in the process of achieving communism, he is describing the following: the state "withers away" in socialism precisely because there is no government and the need for one quickly vanishes; as vindicated by Marx's definition of the state - an external, imposing, and rich minority who rules from above - the "dictatorship of the proletariat" replaces the government and begins to wither because it no longer indicates an actual state or regime, and the processes that it coordinates gradually are adopted by the fellow people. At this point, when the function of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is no longer needed or present, we have reached self-sufficient communism.

The fact that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - in reality a worker's democracy that is defending itself from counterrevolutionaries - exists in the first place is essentially to ensure the susccess of the revolution, whether that be displayed through coordinated defense, five year programs, what have you.

- HP

bombeverything

3rd August 2005, 07:19

Perhaps your main problem is failing to understand Lenin's message, which is actually a conveyance of the teachings of Engels. Nevertheless, when Lenin refers to the "withering away" of the state in the process of achieving communism, he is describing the following: the state "withers away" in socialism precisely because there is no government and the need for one quickly vanishes; as vindicated by Marx's definition of the state - an external, imposing, and rich minority who rules from above - the "dictatorship of the proletariat" replaces the government and begins to wither because it no longer indicates an actual state or regime, and the processes that it coordinates gradually are adopted by the fellow people. At this point, when the function of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is no longer needed or present, we have reached self-sufficient communism.

But what we are saying is that this theory is flawed in itself. What do you mean when you say the state "withers away" because there is no government?

The fact that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - in reality a worker's democracy that is defending itself from counterrevolutionaries - exists in the first place is essentially to ensure the susccess of the revolution, whether that be displayed through coordinated defense, five year programs, what have you.

Representative democracy is not democracy. These programs that you are referring to are anything but democratic as they would be controlled by an elite minority, from the top down.

Holocaustpulp

4th August 2005, 18:45

bombeverything: "But what we are saying is that this theory is flawed in itself. What do you mean when you say the state 'withers away' because there is no government?"

While the state is withering away, there is worker's democracy - technically a government. However, this "government" is distinguished from bougeois capitalist government because the worker's hold the power: they run the elections, the can recall representatives, they make the decisions and maintain society and may the parties and officials be damned in the face of the majority's rule. Because worker's democracy is in so much contrast to bougeois order, and because the former is indeed founded on a socialist platform, the state is allowed to wither away because the power and control would be evenly distributed among the entire populace. The "government" (for lack of a more appropriate word) would no longer be external and imposing - in the teachings of Marx, worker's democracy would hence no longer be a state or a government because the concept itself of socialism defies the boundries of repressive bourgeois regimes. Essentially, worker's democracy inherently begins to cause the state to wither away because the state is utterly defied: the need for the state is no longer present (or imposed), and the state's rulers are no longer powerful oppressors.

"Representative democracy is not democracy. These programs that you are referring to are anything but democratic as they would be controlled by an elite minority, from the top down."

Let us take the model of the Soviet Union, where worker's democracy was hailed and adored and where it was indeed eventually corrupted from the "top down." While the worker's democracy lasted, there were widespread elections and representatives for any certain amount of people (I cannot say the specifics). The soviets (the representative bodies, elected by all people) convened in congresses and set decisive laws as conveyed by the people. Terms were not an issue if the masses wanted to replace a representative for he was promptly removed and the people would choose a better commissar. You can see a similar system today in Chipias, Mexico, which must be more to your liking.

Now the Central Executive Committee (the organize repsonsible for the policies of the soviets) did play an important role, chiefly militarily. I take a quote from www.marxists.org concerning the decline of the soviets:

"The Soviet government claimed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, but by no definition of the word was it. The Soviet government was ruled by a single party, by those who adhered to a single ideology regardless of the working class. While initially, the Soviets controlled the government, and therefore a dictatorship the proletariat did exist, due to the Civil War the Soviets lost their power to the Central Committee of the Communist Party (instead of the Central Committee of Soviets) and its Politburo , both of which were necessary to make critical and absolute decisions in the heat of battle. The government, however, never recovered from its Civil War practice, and became a dictatorship of a single party over the nation. While the party laid claims to representation of the working class, it was not an organ of working class power: according to Lenin only Soviets, i.e. local councils elected by local workers, are truly organs of workers power, and they had become subservient to the Communist Party."

What you must realize is that it was only because of war that the Soviet Union fell off track, and that it even had chance to rejuvinate with proper leadership. The CEC was never supposed to become non-democratic, and only when it was corrupted (and it was gradually corrupted by the necessary evil of wartime centralization, in all practicality) did the worker's democracy become an ant to crush.

Perhaps I dragged this on a bit too long, but I am trying to convey to you that the example of the Soviet Union and other countries don't represent the Leninist ideals that they feign, and, more importantly, such centralization and the ruling of the minority is not inherent of Leninism, but rather an issue of circumstance.

- Holocaustpulp

Martin Blank

5th August 2005, 05:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:45 PM
Now the Central Executive Committee (the organize repsonsible for the policies of the soviets) did play an important role, chiefly militarily. I take a quote from www.marxists.org concerning the decline of the soviets:

"The Soviet government claimed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, but by no definition of the word was it. The Soviet government was ruled by a single party, by those who adhered to a single ideology regardless of the working class. While initially, the Soviets controlled the government, and therefore a dictatorship the proletariat did exist, due to the Civil War the Soviets lost their power to the Central Committee of the Communist Party (instead of the Central Committee of Soviets) and its Politburo , both of which were necessary to make critical and absolute decisions in the heat of battle. The government, however, never recovered from its Civil War practice, and became a dictatorship of a single party over the nation. While the party laid claims to representation of the working class, it was not an organ of working class power: according to Lenin only Soviets, i.e. local councils elected by local workers, are truly organs of workers power, and they had become subservient to the Communist Party."
Where on the MIA did you find this? Can you provide a link?

Miles

Holocaustpulp

5th August 2005, 06:27

CommunistLeague: I'm pretty sure the link doesn't come out when I send it, but to find the quote you can go the MIA and look up "Soviet Government."

- HP

bombeverything

5th August 2005, 07:24

While the state is withering away, there is worker's democracy - technically a government. However, this "government" is distinguished from bougeois capitalist government because the worker's hold the power: they run the elections, the can recall representatives, they make the decisions and maintain society and may the parties and officials be damned in the face of the majority's rule.

No, these representatives make the decisions on behalf of the people. This authority as dangerous, offensive and the contrary to revolution. What do you mean when you say "while the state is withering away"? At what exact stage does the state cease to exist? How would the state weaken? As the state is by it's very nature hierarchical, a spontaneous decentralisation would be impossible.

The Soviet government claimed to be a dictatorship of the proletariat, but by no definition of the word was it. The Soviet government was ruled by a single party, by those who adhered to a single ideology regardless of the working class. While initially, the Soviets controlled the government, and therefore a dictatorship the proletariat did exist, due to the Civil War the Soviets lost their power to the Central Committee of the Communist Party (instead of the Central Committee of Soviets) and its Politburo , both of which were necessary to make critical and absolute decisions in the heat of battle. The government, however, never recovered from its Civil War practice, and became a dictatorship of a single party over the nation. While the party laid claims to representation of the working class, it was not an organ of working class power: according to Lenin only Soviets, i.e. local councils elected by local workers, are truly organs of workers power, and they had become subservient to the Communist Party."

Yes they did. However there is a big distinction between local councils and centralised government.

Perhaps I dragged this on a bit too long, but I am trying to convey to you that the example of the Soviet Union and other countries don't represent the Leninist ideals that they feign, and, more importantly, such centralization and the ruling of the minority is not inherent of Leninism, but rather an issue of circumstance.

Oh ok. But the state is the ruling of a majority by a minority. You cannot deny that Leninism places a strong focus on strengthening the state apparatus. You seem to be suggesting that not only was the centralisation of power within the CCCP was a result of circumstances, but also that is was justified and necessary.

Holocaustpulp

8th August 2005, 06:28

bombeverything: "No, these representatives make the decisions on behalf of the people. This authority as dangerous, offensive and the contrary to revolution."

You fail to see the liberality of such respresentatives; you fail to see the fact they are a conduit of the people, not someone who makes decisions single-mindedly on their behalf. The representative himself is bound to be a former lower-class member himself. Any representative can be recalled at any time, and he or she thoroughly convenes with the people in order to voice opinions.

"What do you mean when you say 'while the state is withering away'?"

Did I not adequately explain it before? To be succinct, I provide this explanation: the worker's democracy does not indicate a state for a state concentrates power in the hands of the few whole rule above (not part of) the masses - hence, as "state" operations proceed over the course of many years, they are gradually integrated with the masses themselves. Hence, the state "withers away" because it has no more place or need to exist.

"At what exact stage does the state cease to exist?"

The withering of the state cannot be set in stages - as Lenin admitted, the period of socialism is marked by an unknown length of time.

"How would the state weaken?"

Power to the people man!

"As the state is by it's very nature hierarchical, a spontaneous decentralisation would be impossible."

That's why Leninists don't rely on spontaneity; you must understand that the state is no longer a hierarchy at the stage of socialism because socialism allows the common people to run the state. The former lowest class of society running a hierarchical state? I don't think so. Concerning centralization, there would never be any in the first place, albeit that of which is subservient to the worker's democracy.

- HP

Martin Blank

8th August 2005, 09:46

Originally posted by bombeverything+Aug 5 2005, 02:24 AM--> (bombeverything @ Aug 5 2005, 02:24 AM)No, these representatives make the decisions on behalf of the people. This authority as dangerous, offensive and the contrary to revolution.[/b]

This is a ridiculous ad absurdum argument. First of all, this argument confuses administration with rule, which completely ignores all questions of class and society, and reduces the question of the state to that of degrees. That is, if "direct democracy" could be implemented in a capitalist system, bombeverything would be compelled to argue, if s/he were consistent, that the "state" had ceased to exist.

Second, this argument removes society itself -- specifically the relations of class society -- from the equation. Everything is boiled down to a series of individual power relationships, with societal questions marginalized, dismissed or simply ignored. The practical result is that the exploiting and oppressing classes are acquitted of their social role.

We can see some of the results in the questions asked below:

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:24 AM
At what exact stage does the state cease to exist?

The state ceases to be necessary upon completion of the abolition of classes and class antagonisms -- i.e., when the exploiting and oppressing classes, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, no longer exist, and all of humanity is part of the universal community of producers. At that point, the state can be abolished with a stroke of the pen.

[email protected] 5 2005, 02:24 AM
How would the state weaken?

In two ways: First, the state in the transition from capitalism to communism would weaken in proportion to the abolition of the exploiting classes. As increasing sections of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie are integrated into the proletariat, the coercive bodies that make up the core of the state lose their reasong for being, and can be dispensed with by the local assemblies and such.

Second, the state would weaken according to the progress of the world revolution itself. To use an historical example, if the 1918 German Revolution had succeeded, it would have greatly weakened the Russian Soviet Republic. This would have been because the access to German technicians, organizers and specialists from the proletariat would have made the Russian reliance on the petty bourgeoisie obsolete, which would have allowed for an accelerated pace of integration of these elements into the working class.

[QUOTE=bombeverything,Aug 5 2005, 02:24 AM]As the state is by it's very nature hierarchical, a spontaneous decentralisation would be impossible.

That's why the elimination of the state itself, like all other aspects of the proletarian revolution, is a conscious act. The dismantling of the workers' republic, the last great act of the proletariat, is the signal that its own existence as a class has come to an end. Every step toward that day, just like every previous step forward from capitalism, is consciously taken, measured and understood.

[QUOTE=bombeverything,Aug 5 2005, 02:24 AM]Oh ok. But the state is the ruling of a majority by a minority.

This is exactly what I meant when I talked about the problems with bombeverything's method of viewing the world. Here we see how impressionistic his/her method is. "The state is the ruling of a majority by a minority". Class does not figure into the issue, and neither does society. It's all about Foucaultian power relationships between individuals.

Miles

bombeverything

8th August 2005, 12:24

What a presumptuous post!

This is a ridiculous ad absurdum argument. First of all, this argument confuses administration with rule, which completely ignores all questions of class and society, and reduces the question of the state to that of degrees. That is, if "direct democracy" could be implemented in a capitalist system, bombeverything would be compelled to argue, if s/he were consistent, that the "state" had ceased to exist.

I have never argued this. It is quite clear that direct democracy could never be realized within a capitalist system. The assumption that I would believe something so ludicrous is rather insulting. I was simply pointing out that representative democracy is not actually democracy, and as a result could never truly represent the interests of the people - as you seem to be suggesting.

Second, this argument removes society itself -- specifically the relations of class society -- from the equation. Everything is boiled down to a series of individual power relationships, with societal questions marginalized, dismissed or simply ignored.

Not at all. Unlike you I am able to distinguish society from the state. Society is the sum of voluntary associations, while the state is a unnatural, and compulsory legal order. I have simply rejected the validity of the latter as it was founded on social conflict.

The practical result is that the exploiting and oppressing classes are acquitted of their social role.

Once again this is a misunderstanding. I am merely recognising that because people are largely the result of their environment they cannot strictly be held "responsible" for what they do. Because they have no free will, there is technically no "moral" justification for punishment.

The state ceases to be necessary upon completion of the abolition of classes and class antagonisms -- i.e., when the exploiting and oppressing classes, the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, no longer exist, and all of humanity is part of the universal community of producers. At that point, the state can be abolished with a stroke of the pen.

Your worship of state power is seems to blind you to the suggestion that due to the nature of their role, those in power might actually end up with significant material benefits. This process could only result in another ruling class, as the idea that these leaders would just "give up" such privileges at "the stroke of a pen" is almost laughable.

Anarchists see state power as underpinning the division of society into classes and a class hierarchy. We believe that the view that a political revolution should somehow precede a social revolution is irrational, because any revolution that took place without a social revolution would end up being a bourgeois revolution.

That's why the elimination of the state itself, like all other aspects of the proletarian revolution, is a conscious act. The dismantling of the workers' republic, the last great act of the proletariat, is the signal that its own existence as a class has come to an end. Every step toward that day, just like every previous step forward from capitalism, is consciously taken, measured and understood.

Not when the "education" is controlled by a vanguard "communist" party. The people will have little choice but to accept this rule. This is hardly a conscious decision, but only a consciousness shared by a small number of elites.

This is exactly what I meant when I talked about the problems with bombeverything's method of viewing the world. Here we see how impressionistic his/her method is. "The state is the ruling of a majority by a minority". Class does not figure into the issue, and neither does society. It's all about Foucaultian power relationships between individuals.

I have always noted that class and society are a big part of the picture, however as an anarchist I simply emphasise the determining role that the state has in the economy. The state emerged alongside economic inequality.

Instead, my focus is on achieving freedom, while could only truly exist in a society without a state. But I do not [as you again seem to be suggesting] see freedom only in personal terms because this would justify the oppression and exploitation of others. This should be the only limit on freedom and is a major part of most anarchist theory. My views are not based on power relations, but a desire for freedom.

Although judging by the arrogance of this post it would seem that you have me figured out anyway so there was probably no point even replying?

On top of this the post seemed to be overly personal.

By the way Holocaustpulp I just saw that you had replied as well. I will try to reply as soon as I can, but right now I am tired.

:)

Martin Blank

8th August 2005, 15:07

Originally posted by bombeverything+Aug 8 2005, 07:24 AM--> (bombeverything @ Aug 8 2005, 07:24 AM)What a presumptuous post![/b]

I only presume to follow your own logic to its conclusion. If you don't like where it leads,...

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
I have never argued this. It is quite clear that direct democracy could never be realized within a capitalist system. The assumption that I would believe something so ludicrous is rather insulting. I was simply pointing out that representative democracy is not actually democracy, and as a result could never truly represent the interests of the people - as you seem to be suggesting.

You are right. You never argued along this line. However, this is the logic of your position on the state, if you follow it out to its conclusion. And, yes, I am glad you see it as ridiculous. Perhaps that can be taken as an impetus to re-think the logic of what you're saying here.

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
Not at all. Unlike you I am able to distinguish society from the state. Society is the sum of voluntary associations, while the state is a unnatural, and compulsory legal order. I have simply rejected the validity of the latter as it was founded on social conflict.

Too bad reality doesn't run according to your methodological dictates. In reality, the state is a product of society itself -- class society, that is. The fact that you see a division between these two is why such ridiculous conclusions can be drawn from your political method.

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
Once again this is a misunderstanding. I am merely recognising that because people are largely the result of their environment they cannot strictly be held "responsible" for what they do. Because they have no free will, there is technically no "moral" justification for punishment.

So, you're arguing that capitalists should not be held responsible for the fact that they exploit because they "are largely the result of their environment" and "have no free will". What's next? Appealing to the capitalists' sense of "morality" to abolish the state?!

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
Your worship of state power is seems to blind you to the suggestion that due to the nature of their role, those in power might actually end up with significant material benefits. This process could only result in another ruling class, as the idea that these leaders would just "give up" such privileges at "the stroke of a pen" is almost laughable.

What worship?! I am simply pointing out how communists see the process of the "withering away" of the state (which is, after all, the subject of this thread).

On another topic, I'd like to know if you think that "human nature" makes people desire power and privilege.

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
Anarchists see state power as underpinning the division of society into classes and a class hierarchy. We believe that the view that a political revolution should somehow precede a social revolution is irrational, because any revolution that took place without a social revolution would end up being a bourgeois revolution.

...

I have always noted that class and society are a big part of the picture, however as an anarchist I simply emphasise the determining role that the state has in the economy. The state emerged alongside economic inequality.

OK, that's fine to say. And, to a certain extent, I agree. The state is the linchpin of class society, because it is the state that is charged with maintaining the "order" of the class in power. But the state is a class instrument, and each class develops and "perfects" its state according to its own needs.

It is not enough to simply say that the state needs to be abolished. How do you intend to abolish it? With the stroke of a pen? With force of arms? By mutual agreement? Look at the questions I asked TAT earlier in the thread. How would you answer them?

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
Not when the "education" is controlled by a vanguard "communist" party. The people will have little choice but to accept this rule. This is hardly a conscious decision, but only a consciousness shared by a small number of elites.

Who said anything about anyone controlling education? I favor full decentralization of information and education, so that anyone and everyone can actively participate in the administration of society. This is one of the best ways to build a safeguard against the rise of a reconstituted ruling class and the reversal of the revolution. Mandatory rotation of personnel engaged in administration, elimination of all privileges for these administrators, equalization of pay, etc., also help strengthen this bulwark.

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
Instead, my focus is on achieving freedom, while could only truly exist in a society without a state. But I do not [as you again seem to be suggesting] see freedom only in personal terms because this would justify the oppression and exploitation of others. This should be the only limit on freedom and is a major part of most anarchist theory. My views are not based on power relations, but a desire for freedom.

Who is going to enforce that singular "limit on freedom" when the capitalists and petty bourgeois show up with automatic weapons to tell you where you can stick your freedom?

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
Although judging by the arrogance of this post it would seem that you have me figured out anyway so there was probably no point even replying?

The method is nothing new. That's all.

[email protected] 8 2005, 07:24 AM
On top of this the post seemed to be overly personal.

My comments could only be taken as personal if you cannot separate political criticism from personal criticism. And then, that's your problem. I cannot be held responsible for that.

Miles

The Feral Underclass

8th August 2005, 16:05

All you are doing here CommunistLeague, Is repeat what is now rhetorical jargon. The theory failed; it's time to move on.

JC1

8th August 2005, 19:29

All you are doing here CommunistLeague, Is repeat what is now rhetorical jargon. The theory failed; it's time to move on.

This is no argument. Youre responce only shows the bankruptcy of youre Idealogy

Martin Blank

9th August 2005, 05:57

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 8 2005, 11:05 AM
All you are doing here CommunistLeague, Is repeat what is now rhetorical jargon. The theory failed; it's time to move on.
Gee, where (http://www.freerepublic.com/) have I heard this line of argument before?

Miles

The Feral Underclass

9th August 2005, 11:30

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 9 2005, 05:57 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 9 2005, 05:57 AM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 8 2005, 11:05 AM
All you are doing here CommunistLeague, Is repeat what is now rhetorical jargon. The theory failed; it's time to move on.
Gee, where (http://www.freerepublic.com/) have I heard this line of argument before?

Miles [/b]
But the theory did fail. You can compare me with fascists if you think that's going to somehow make you right, but the facts remain the same. Leninism doesn't work!

The Feral Underclass

9th August 2005, 11:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:29 PM

All you are doing here CommunistLeague, Is repeat what is now rhetorical jargon. The theory failed; it's time to move on.

This is no argument. Youre responce only shows the bankruptcy of youre Idealogy
I have already responded in depth to these arguments, in this thread.

bombeverything

9th August 2005, 12:06

CommunistLeague

I only presume to follow your own logic to its conclusion. If you don't like where it leads,...

Your post was arrogant because it was based on false assumptions and a limited understanding of anarchism. I am not wrong solely because I disagree with your "logic".

You are right. You never argued along this line. However, this is the logic of your position on the state, if you follow it out to its conclusion. And, yes, I am glad you see it as ridiculous. Perhaps that can be taken as an impetus to
re-think the logic of what you're saying here.

Your belief in the rightness of your own beliefs will not allow you to see the validity of any alternative arguments. If you could you would see that there is no inconsistency between my previous opinions and that one. For instance, you say I see everything in terms of power relations yet claim that I could somehow ignore economic power? This is the contradiction.

Too bad reality doesn't run according to your methodological dictates. In reality, the state is a product of society itself -- class society, that is. The fact that you see a division between these two is why such ridiculous conclusions
can be drawn from your political method.

I was referring to the importance of making a distinction for analysis purposes, not division to the extent where I see them as unrelated realities.

So, you're arguing that capitalists should not be held responsible for the fact that they exploit because they "are largely the result of their environment" and "have no free will". What's next? Appealing to the capitalists' sense of "morality" to abolish the state?!

No. What do you mean by "being held responsible"? I was simply questioning the legitimacy of your "morality".

What worship?! I am simply pointing out how communists see the process of the "withering away" of the state (which is, after all, the subject of this thread).

Ok. That is fair enough. Can I not disagree with that view?

On another topic, I'd like to know if you think that "human nature" makes people desire power and privilege.

No. Power and privilege results in corruption. You should know that I would not believe this, seeing that you obviously understand my logic.

It is not enough to simply say that the state needs to be abolished. How do you intend to abolish it? With the stroke of a pen? With force of arms? By mutual agreement? Look at the questions I asked TAT earlier in the thread. How would you answer them?

As The Anarchist Tension mentioned, those questions were ones that many anarchists and socialists have been trying to answer for years and years. I have not claimed to have all the answers. Despite this, I have tried, but the questions are vague and this is why I have provided you with equally simple answers.

How do you intend to abolish it?

Through revolution.

1. What is to replace the overthrown capitalist state?

Communism.

2. How do you deal with armed counterrevolution?

By resistance.

3. How do you deal with outside intervention by other countries?

Organise and fight back.

4. How are the abolition of classes and of class antagonisms accomplished

By achieving anarchism.

5. How is the economy to be organized, if is it to be organized?

There are many possible ways, and it is not up to me what all the people would do within an anarchist society. That is for them to decide. Even within anarchism this is often debated. However, mutualism, collectivism, communism and syndicalism might well exist side by side within the same society, as different societies experiment with the different methods. Once again, I have never felt comfortable outlining a blueprint for a future society.

6. How is the development of productive forces to be handled, if they are to be developed?

What do you mean by this?

My comments could only be taken as personal if you cannot separate political criticism from personal criticism. And then, that's your problem. I cannot be held responsible for that.

It came across that way but if you say that was not the intention, then I will believe you.

This is no argument. Youre responce only shows the bankruptcy of youre Idealogy

The Anarchist Tension is right. Whatever the ideal is behind the ideology the focus on maintaining a state led to failure. Not only in the Soviet Union, but also in China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. In each of these cases, the result has been highly authoritarian states dominated by an elite minority.

Holocaustpulp

You fail to see the liberality of such respresentatives; you fail to see the fact they are a conduit of the people, not someone who makes decisions single-mindedly on their behalf. The representative himself is bound to be a former lower-class member himself. Any representative can be recalled at any time, and he or she thoroughly convenes with the people in order to voice opinions.

But this would mean the representative is no longer a member of the working class. Doesn't this contradict the idea of "workers control"?

Did I not adequately explain it before? To be succinct, I provide this explanation: the worker's democracy does not indicate a state for a state concentrates power in the hands of the few whole rule above (not part of) the masses - hence, as "state" operations proceed over the course of many years, they are gradually integrated with the masses themselves. Hence, the state "withers away" because it has no more place or need to exist.

Yes you did already say this but it still appears too generalised of a statement. Especially the bit about being gradually integrated with the masses themselves. How would this happen?

That's why Leninists don't rely on spontaneity; you must understand that the state is no longer a hierarchy at the stage of socialism because socialism allows the common people to run the state. The former lowest class of society running a hierarchical state? I don't think so. Concerning centralization, there would never be any in the first place, albeit that of which is subservient to the worker's democracy.

Well in that case, this process would go against human freedom, which is necessary for development and growth. By the way a state always relies on centralised power.

Martin Blank

9th August 2005, 13:38

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2005, 06:30 AM
But the theory did fail. You can compare me with fascists if you think that's going to somehow make you right, but the facts remain the same. Leninism doesn't work!
First of all, I am not arguing from a Leninist standpoint. Rather, I am arguing from Marx and Engels' standpoint on this issue. If you want to equate the two, you're welcome to do so.

Secondly, I am not comparing you with fascists. I am comparing your position on communism to that of the bourgeoisie. In my view, your cries of "the theory did fail" are taken directly from the propagandists of the ruling class.

Miles

bombeverything

9th August 2005, 13:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:38 PM
I am comparing your position on communism to that of the bourgeoisie. In my view, your cries of "the theory did fail" are taken directly from the propagandists of the ruling class.

I knew you would say that.

Martin Blank

9th August 2005, 14:09

Originally posted by bombeverything+Aug 9 2005, 07:06 AM--> (bombeverything @ Aug 9 2005, 07:06 AM)Your post was arrogant because it was based on false assumptions and a limited understanding of anarchism. I am not wrong solely because I disagree with your "logic".[/b]

My understanding of anarchism is not as limited as you may think. But, we were not arguing over who has the biggest ... library; we were arguing over the political method you have displayed so far in your posts. And, yes, I do think your positions are wrong and poorly thought through. That's only because I believe my views to be correct, and I believe history is on my side. You call that arrogance; I call that confidence.

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:06 AM
Your belief in the rightness of your own beliefs will not allow you to see the validity of any alternative arguments. If you could you would see that there is no inconsistency between my previous opinions and that one. For instance, you say I see everything in terms of power relations yet claim that I could somehow ignore economic power? This is the contradiction.

To coin a phrase: I have seen your future and it doesn't work. (And, yeah, I use the same line against "official" Communists too.) That is why I give no truck to your "alternative arguments". And, no, there's no contradiction in what I said, since, in fact, I said you see things in terms of individual power relationships, which is why you marginalize the social class issues.

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:06 AM
No. What do you mean by "being held responsible"? I was simply questioning the legitimacy of your "morality".

"Being held responsible" -- i.e., if the capitalists order the police (or private goons, or scabs, etc.) to "bust heads" on a picket line, the capitalists should be held accountable for their incitement.

And, no, you weren't "questioning the legitimacy" of my "morality". You wrote:

I am merely recognising that because people are largely the result of their environment they cannot strictly be held "responsible" for what they do. Because they have no free will, there is technically no "moral" justification for punishment.

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:06 AM
Ok. That is fair enough. Can I not disagree with that view?

Well, yes. And no one is telling you that you cannot. We're just telling you that you're wrong. ;)

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:06 AM
No. Power and privilege results in corruption. You should know that I would not believe this, seeing that you obviously understand my logic.

This is, in fact, another contradiction in your logic. In your last reply, you wrote:

Your worship of state power ... seems to blind you to the suggestion that due to the nature of their role, those in power might actually end up with significant material benefits. This process could only result in another ruling class...

Now, unless you believe human beings are driven by their "nature" to accumulate power and privilege, then it is quite possible to conceive of a "state power" where those involved consciously reject, and establish safeguards against, the accumulation of "material benefits", significant or otherwise. But then, perhaps I have a greater confidence in humanity and its ability to build an egalitarian society than you.

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:06 AM
As The Anarchist Tension mentioned, those questions were ones that many anarchists and socialists have been trying to answer for years and years. I have not claimed to have all the answers. Despite this, I have tried, but the questions are vague and this is why I have provided you with equally simple answers.

Both you and TAT have more or less avoided giving any kind of answers on these points. And that, apparently, is a difference between communists and anarchists: communists are willing to put forward concrete solutions to these problems, while the anarchists navel-gaze and demand people move on to the next subject.

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 07:06 AM
Once again, I have never felt comfortable outlining a blueprint for a future society.

Like I told TAT, I'm not asking for a blueprint, but your considered opinion. Apparently, though, you have no clue what you intend to do after the revolution. I fear for the future of humanity (and the planet!) if your revolution succeeds. You have no idea what you're going to do, where you're going to go, and how you're going to get there. You don't even have an idea of the idea.

[email protected] 9 2005, 07:06 AM
It came across that way but if you say that was not the intention, then I will believe you.

I fight hard, but it's all political. I don't know you well enough to be personal.

Miles

Martin Blank

9th August 2005, 14:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 08:41 AM
I knew you would say that.
Just as I knew you anarchists would parrot the line of the bourgeoisie that equates communism and "official" Communism.

Miles

black

10th August 2005, 00:36

I knew you anarchists would parrot the line of the bourgeoisie that equates communism and "official" Communism.

:blink: that's exactly what we're not doing. We know fine well that real communism has nothing to do with partyists, statists and leaders-in-waiting.

Are you going to be a member of the Vanguard, btw?

Entrails Konfetti

10th August 2005, 01:33

In todays day and age with education and technology being so widespread and advanced,do we really NEED a vanguard ?

I've concluded that there will inevitably be a state right after the revolution,one class will be suppressing another,therefore a state. There needs to be necessary steps implemented to reach communism,you can't just jump there,why do you anarchists feel you can just jump there ? I though you all realized its not an overnight change.

Martin Blank

10th August 2005, 05:51

Originally posted by black+Aug 9 2005, 07:36 PM--> (black @ Aug 9 2005, 07:36 PM) :blink: that's exactly what we're not doing. We know fine well that real communism has nothing to do with partyists, statists and leaders-in-waiting.[/b]

If I have learned anything over the course of this discussion, it is that so many so-called "anarchists" have no clue what they're talking about, and are little more than utopian socialists with bad fashion sense.

You talk a lot about how you want "communism", but you have no concept of how to get there. It is as if you are hoping that, if you close your eyes and wish hard enough, communism will magically appear. Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Any successful revolution will face internal counterrevolution and external intervention by other capitalist powers. And you have no concept of how to deal with that.

You simply hope against hope that it won't ... but it will, and deep down you know that.

[email protected] 9 2005, 07:36 PM
Are you going to be a member of the Vanguard, btw?

If by "vanguard" you mean the most politically advanced section of the proletariat, both inside and outside of any particular organization, then I am already a part of it. On the other hand, if you mean a member of some petty-bourgeois sect, then the answer is, was and always will be no.

Miles

Entrails Konfetti

10th August 2005, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:51 AM

If I have learned anything over the course of this discussion, it is that so many so-called "anarchists" have no clue what they're talking about, and are little more than utopian socialists with bad fashion sense.

I hate how on this board how there is this solid division line, maybe I'm a bit of an idealist in this sense. But, I love the Anarchists,though I'm not one of them...they have every right to be heard and they fight with morals and pure bravery.They keep us in check. I'm sorry that I have to disagree with the Anarchists in some areas. We need some sort of unity to keep us together.

If by "vanguard" you mean the most politically advanced section of the proletariat, both inside and outside of any particular organization, then I am already a part of it. On the other hand, if you mean a member of some petty-bourgeois sect, then the answer is, was and always will be no.

The petty-boureois will infilrate any form of vanguard. There needs to be some sort of decentralized organ that unifies the federations.

Martin Blank

10th August 2005, 20:33

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Aug 10 2005, 02:11 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Aug 10 2005, 02:11 PM)I hate how on this board how there is this solid division line, maybe I'm a bit of an idealist in this sense. But, I love the Anarchists,though I'm not one of them...they have every right to be heard and they fight with morals and pure bravery.They keep us in check. I'm sorry that I have to disagree with the Anarchists in some areas. We need some sort of unity to keep us together.[/b]

EK, please don't misunderstand me. First, I do not say that all anarchists are like this. I make a point to say "some anarchists" or even "some so-called 'anarchists'" in order to discern between the thoughtless utopians practicing radical chic, and real anarchists who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Also, while I do think that anarchist doctrine is little more than bourgeois individualism with a twist, I also think there are many people who consider themselves anarchists that have a genuinely revolutionary impulse and can be worked with, talked with and so on. These anarchists I consider comrades in struggle, and I have nothing but respect for them. They've earned it.

EL [email protected] 10 2005, 02:11 PM
The petty-boureois will infilrate any form of vanguard. There needs to be some sort of decentralized organ that unifies the federations.

It is a common misconception, perpetrated by so-called "Leninists" (have these people ever read Lenin?), about what is and is not the "vanguard". The vanguard of the proletariat is that section of the class that is conscious of its role and actively engaged in struggle. They exist both inside and outside of organizations (mostly outside, because of the actions of the petty-bourgeois so-called "vanguard" sects). But, nevertheless, they are the vanguard -- and often times they are far ahead, politically and organizationally, of the "vanguard" sects.

They learned the class struggle too well, and have correctly bypassed the petty bourgeoisie.

Miles

bombeverything

10th August 2005, 21:23

My understanding of anarchism is not as limited as you may think. But, we were not arguing over who has the biggest ... library; we were arguing over the political method you have displayed so far in your posts. And, yes, I do think your positions are wrong and poorly thought through. That's only because I believe my views to be correct, and I believe history is on my side. You call that arrogance; I call that confidence.

Stating it does not make it so. You are still arrogant. How is history “on your side”? Because you have read some rather outdated Marxist literature that says this is the case? Your views are not your own. They are rigid and unoriginal.

To coin a phrase: I have seen your future and it doesn't work. (And, yeah, I use the same line against "official" Communists too.) That is why I give no truck to your "alternative arguments". And, no, there's no contradiction in what I said, since, in fact, I said you see things in terms of individual power relationships, which is why you marginalize the social class issues.

How could I possibly oppose the state by looking only at individual power relationships? You seem to be peculiarly fascinated with this idea. As an anarchist you should know that I am against all forms of external power, whether political or economic. You say that you understand anarchism, yet I have seen no evidence of this in your posts.

Well, yes. And no one is telling you that you cannot. We're just telling you that you're wrong.

Oh … ok then. :D.

This is, in fact, another contradiction in your logic.

How? Each time I was referring to the corrupting nature of power.

Now, unless you believe human beings are driven by their "nature" to accumulate power and privilege, then it is quite possible to conceive of a "state power" where those involved consciously reject, and establish safeguards against, the accumulation of "material benefits", significant or otherwise. But then, perhaps I have a greater confidence in humanity and its ability to build an egalitarian society than you.

There is no evidence that human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive, and aggressive behaviour, and thus we do not believe that they are. On the contrary, such behaviour is learned, and can therefore be unlearned. Clearly a person who believes that human beings have the ability to live collectively without any external rules or regulations [i.e. an anarchist] would have a much deeper confidence in humanity than an authoritarian would.

Now, unless you believe human beings are driven by their "nature" to accumulate power and privilege, then it is quite possible to conceive of a "state power" where those involved consciously reject, and establish safeguards against, the accumulation of "material benefits", significant or otherwise.

It is impossible to establish safeguards against this. Are you claiming that a government official would have exactly the same living standards and political power than the rest of the population? If so, that is absurd and you know it.

Both you and TAT have more or less avoided giving any kind of answers on these points. And that, apparently, is a difference between communists and anarchists: communists are willing to put forward concrete solutions to these problems, while the anarchists navel-gaze and demand people move on to the next subject..

We actually like to think about our methods rather than simply relying on a few old books to answer the questions for us. The “answers” to these questions are hardly as black and white as you would like to believe. You cannot criticise us for using our minds. In an free society extensive discussion, debate and co-operative conflict between equals is necessary.

Just as I knew you anarchists would parrot the line of the bourgeoisie that equates communism and "official" Communism

Well you seem to be trying to implement “official communism”.

bombeverything

10th August 2005, 21:52

Martin Blank

11th August 2005, 05:55

Originally posted by bombeverything+Aug 10 2005, 04:23 PM--> (bombeverything @ Aug 10 2005, 04:23 PM)Stating it does not make it so. You are still arrogant. How is history “on your side”? Because you have read some rather outdated Marxist literature that says this is the case? Your views are not your own. They are rigid and unoriginal.[/b]

I believe history is on my side because I study history. Yes, I've read what Marx and Engels wrote, and I apply the method they used to analyze the world. But that's more or less the extent to which you can say that "Marxist literature ... says this is the case".

You can call me arrogant if you want. I'd rather be "arrogant" than deficient (incompetent) on these questions.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:23 PM
How could I possibly oppose the state by looking only at individual power relationships?

That's the question I have been asking.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:23 PM
You seem to be peculiarly fascinated with this idea. As an anarchist you should know that I am against all forms of external power, whether political or economic. You say that you understand anarchism, yet I have seen no evidence of this in your posts.

I've never really understood the motivations of utopians who think they're ultra-radical.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:23 PM
There is no evidence that human beings are genetically "programmed" for authoritarian, competitive, and aggressive behaviour, and thus we do not believe that they are. On the contrary, such behaviour is learned, and can therefore be unlearned. Clearly a person who believes that human beings have the ability to live collectively without any external rules or regulations [i.e. an anarchist] would have a much deeper confidence in humanity than an authoritarian would.

So, in fact, we agree that humans can live without a state. Now then, the question I have for you is this: How do you facilitate the "unlearning" of the retrograde tendencies found in some people, which are obstacles to eradicating classes, class antagonisms, the state, etc.? Or, more to the point, how do you alter the material conditions that are the basis for classes, class antagonisms, the state, etc.?

For communists, this is what the transition from capitalism to communism is about -- this is the chief mission of the workers' republic (dictatorship [rule] of the proletariat).

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:23 PM
It is impossible to establish safeguards against this. Are you claiming that a government official would have exactly the same living standards and political power than the rest of the population? If so, that is absurd and you know it.

Two words for you: Paris Commune.

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 04:23 PM
We actually like to think about our methods rather than simply relying on a few old books to answer the questions for us. The “answers” to these questions are hardly as black and white as you would like to believe. You cannot criticise us for using our minds. In an free society extensive discussion, debate and co-operative conflict between equals is necessary.

A non-answer answer. Oh well. For someone who seems to pride themselves on "using our minds", you don't seem to practice what you preach. I asked you questions; you refused to answer. You didn't offer any thoughts or comments -- your own or someone else's.

[email protected] 10 2005, 04:23 PM
Well you seem to be trying to implement “official communism”.

If that's what you think, then you know nothing.

Miles

bombeverything

11th August 2005, 12:37

I believe history is on my side because I study history. Yes, I've read what Marx and Engels wrote, and I apply the method they used to analyze the world. But that's more or less the extent to which you can say that "Marxist literature ... says this is the case".

You can call me arrogant if you want. I'd rather be "arrogant" than deficient (incompetent) on these questions.

Having an incomplete argument is one thing, cutting and pasting all of your arguments from Marx and Engels is another.

That's the question I have been asking.

I thought I had already answered this question. However it seems that what you are really trying to imply is that anarchists see the state as the main “enemy” whilst sidelining capitalism [interesting as I am sure that this argument came from Engels and not an anarchist]. This is ridiculous. While we do believe in the abolition of the state, this is because it protects the current system. This does not mean that we do not view capitalism with the same disdain. What I mean is that we agree that the state is used to maintain class rule. Anarchists have always been active in struggles against capital.

However, this does not mean that the state is not a threat within itself. The state is simply power left in the hands of the few. This alone is enough to create a new elite. Put simply, we oppose both the state and capital, and as a result have always been equally critical of both. Though I do apologise if my focus appeared too focused on the state.

I've never really understood the motivations of utopians who think they're ultra-radical.

As I said before, I am not a utopian. The society of the future is not an anarchist creation. Instead, throughout every stage of history we believe that we must focus on destroying all forms of authority that currently exist. I do not believe there is such thing as a “perfect” society, nor would I desire it.

How do you facilitate the "unlearning" of the retrograde tendencies found in some people, which are obstacles to eradicating classes, class antagonisms, the state, etc.? Or, more to the point, how do you alter the material conditions that are the basis for classes, class antagonisms, the state, etc.?

For communists, this is what the transition from capitalism to communism is about -- this is the chief mission of the workers' republic (dictatorship [rule] of the proletariat).

For anarchists, a true revolution must be a social revolution. This means that it must transform every aspects of a society, such as political, economic, social, sexual and interpersonal relationships, as well as individuals themselves. However this change must be carried out by the people themselves, rather than an authoritarian government.

Two words for you: Paris Commune.

The Commune did not go far enough. As Kropotkin pointed out, it did not "break with the tradition of the State, of representative government …”. Also, there was no real attempt to expropriate capital by turning all the workplaces into co-ops and forming associations between these.

If that's what you think, then you know nothing.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Bakunin was right and that the anarchist critique of Marxism has been proved time and time again?

Martin Blank

11th August 2005, 15:39

Originally posted by bombeverything+Aug 11 2005, 07:37 AM--> (bombeverything @ Aug 11 2005, 07:37 AM)Having an incomplete argument is one thing, cutting and pasting all of your arguments from Marx and Engels is another.[/b]

Would you mind showing me where I am "cutting and pasting ... from Marx and Engels"? Show and prove.

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:37 AM
I thought I had already answered this question. However it seems that what you are really trying to imply is that anarchists see the state as the main “enemy” whilst sidelining capitalism [interesting as I am sure that this argument came from Engels and not an anarchist].

Again, show and prove.

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:37 AM
While we do believe in the abolition of the state, this is because it protects the current system. This does not mean that we do not view capitalism with the same disdain. What I mean is that we agree that the state is used to maintain class rule. Anarchists have always been active in struggles against capital.

Fine. Fair enough.

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:37 AM
However, this does not mean that the state is not a threat within itself. The state is simply power left in the hands of the few. This alone is enough to create a new elite. Put simply, we oppose both the state and capital, and as a result have always been equally critical of both. Though I do apologise if my focus appeared too focused on the state.

"The state is simply power left in the hands of the few." This is where your problems begin. The state is much more than this, and its abolition requires more than mere proclamations. It requires practical solutions and a practical guide to action. You, and many of your "anarchist" comrades here have presented nothing in this regard.

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:37 AM
As I said before, I am not a utopian. The society of the future is not an anarchist creation. Instead, throughout every stage of history we believe that we must focus on destroying all forms of authority that currently exist. I do not believe there is such thing as a “perfect” society, nor would I desire it.

It's not a question of "perfect" or less than "perfect". It's a question of a practical guide to action. That is what you lack. That is what makes you a utopian -- the lack of any practical proposals to achieve a stateless society.

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:37 AM
For anarchists, a true revolution must be a social revolution. This means that it must transform every aspects of a society, such as political, economic, social, sexual and interpersonal relationships, as well as individuals themselves. However this change must be carried out by the people themselves, rather than an authoritarian government.

Communists agree with everything you've said here. The difference is that we also think about how this is accomplished -- again, the practical aspects of this social revolution.

Now, if you'd like me to sit down and explain in detail what this means (i.e., what we mean by a workers' republic), I can do that.

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:37 AM
The Commune did not go far enough. As Kropotkin pointed out, it did not "break with the tradition of the State, of representative government …”. Also, there was no real attempt to expropriate capital by turning all the workplaces into co-ops and forming associations between these.

The Commune only lasted two months, when it was crushed by the combined German and French militaries. Again, we can talk about practical answers and a practical guide to action -- such as the questions of how do you deal with imperialist intervention and internal counterrevolution (questions both you and TAT have so far refused to answer).

Kropotkin may be technically correct that the Commune did not "break with the tradition of the State, of representative government", but that was because they were too busy trying to stay alive! Kropotkin's argument is little more than cheap rhetoric uttered at the expense of the Parisian proletariat -- abstract babblings made at a safe distance, while the workers of Paris were fighting for their lives.

And you want to talk about arrogance?!

[email protected] 11 2005, 07:37 AM
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Bakunin was right and that the anarchist critique of Marxism has been proved time and time again?

Like in Spain?

If communism leads to Stalinism, as some of you anarchists argue, then it can also be said that anarchism leads to Francoite fascism.

Miles

The Garbage Disposal Unit

11th August 2005, 18:31

So, as far as I can tell, there seems to be a general consensus on the necessity of directly-democratic working class control of society, and beyond that, y'all is just arguing words . . .

I mean, the differences between an authentic proletarian dictatorship and most meaningful methods of anarchist organization seems to be primarily in whether or not y'all like the word "state".

Whateva, yo.

The Feral Underclass

12th August 2005, 10:31

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 11 2005, 03:39 PM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 11 2005, 03:39 PM) Again, we can talk about practical answers and a practical guide to action -- such as the questions of how do you deal with imperialist intervention and internal counterrevolution (questions both you and TAT have so far refused to answer) [/b]
I answered your questions as best I could without having to be a fortune teller.

[email protected] 1 2005, 03:20 PM
The difference I see, however, is that, in your view, the state is a tool only for a "ruling elite" instead of a class.
Anarchists would generally argue that a state simply cannot function without a minority controlling it.

You say that what will replace is "autonomous federalism and collectivism". By this do you mean grassroots assemblies of working people -- i.e., working people's representatives elected out of workplaces and neighborhoods -- that coordinate with similar assemblies across the territory in question on a free and equal basis?

Yes.

Each industry and service would have a working group whose task it was to co-ordinate and organise work. Each community would have a community assembly and the working groups would feed into these assemblies to co-ordinate what needed to be done on a citywide level.

If so, how do you see them coordinating on a regional or country-wide scale? An international scale?

It maybe necessary to form national working groups to co-ordinate and organise certain things. In this instance regional assemblies would be called, but would not be a permanent thing. The national working groups would feed information into the regional assemblies made up of community delegates who would then feed back into their communities.

National working groups would be accountable to regional assemblies and important decisions would be made at a national level with community spokes persons being represented at a national assembly where information could be fed back to communities or to regions.

I favour consensus decision making or demarchy on certain less important issues.

The same would happen internationally if necessary.

2. How do you deal with armed counterrevolution?

Do you favor organized detachments of armed working people's militia, under the control of local assemblies? What would you favor for dealing with a country-wide counterrevolutionary movement?

Autonomous workers militias would defend communities and collectives and would be accountable to the communities they were defending.

In the case of dealing with specific counter-revolutionary activity, it could be that national or regional working groups were formed which were accountable to and only acted on the consensus of regional assemblies.

How do you deal with belligerent elements of the expropriated classes that refuse to integrate into the proletariat? How do you handle individual producers and other petty-bourgeois elements?

Communities would decide these things.

5. How is the economy to be organized, if is it to be organized?

Autonomous collectives and workplace committees? Am I correct in this? If so, how is the economy to be coordinated on a regional and country-wide level? On an international level?

The same way as described in the first few answers.

Do you favor the continued development of economic technology with the goal of developing an economy that is able to provide for all of the needs of society while eliminating as much as humanly possible the intensive and extensive labor we currently see?

The vast majority of the "intensive and extensive labor we currently see" will not exist anymore from the outset of the revolution. This work is mainly for profit making individuals and will become unnecessary.

I am in favour of developing technology in order to make our lives as easy as possible and so that our needs as living beings are met. For example, housing, water, electricity, clothing and of course food.

Although as communists we should be looking to create green and sustainable ways of living. While we try and destroy exploitative labour we must also strive, and in some instances make paramount the replacements of technology and industry which pollute the environment.

Scroll down (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38398&st=20)

Martin Blank

12th August 2005, 10:59

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 05:31 AM
I answered your questions as best I could without having to be a fortune teller.
Fair enough. I retract the statement about you not answering the questions.

The problem, however, is that, from my perspective and that of the League, you are describing a workers' republic. So, are we just arguing over terminology here?

Miles

The Feral Underclass

12th August 2005, 11:20

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 12 2005, 10:59 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 12 2005, 10:59 AM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 05:31 AM
I answered your questions as best I could without having to be a fortune teller.
Fair enough. I retract the statement about you not answering the questions.

The problem, however, is that, from my perspective and that of the League, you are describing a workers' republic. So, are we just arguing over terminology here?

Miles [/b]
If your workers Republic is decentralised and non-hierarchical then yes, I suppose it is just terminology.

bombeverything

12th August 2005, 13:05

Ok, you do have a point. Sorry about that. I will try to answer atleast some of the main questions that you asked.

such as the questions of how do you deal with imperialist intervention and internal counterrevolution (questions both you and TAT have so far refused to answer).

Most anarchists agree that there would be a need for some kind of organised communal self-defence within a world with continuing states and other oppressive institutions. However, this must be carried out by the workers themselves. Most likely, this would take the form of an armed voluntary militia not seperate from the community that is organised on a collective basis [e.g Spain].

As for internal counterrevolution, anarchists generally perceive the need for social systems of mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes in a voluntary manner, replacing the judicial functions of courts. This is a practical and viable alternative to the creation of a new state. For instance, there are many examples where autonomous and anarchist societies in which the self-management of society has led to a reduction in crime [e.g. Zapatista communities, the Spanish Revolution, and various IWW-led uprisings and strikes].

*By the way, if any anarchists reading disagree with, or wish to add something too these “answers” please go ahead.

It's not a question of "perfect" or less than "perfect". It's a question of a practical guide to action. That is what you lack. That is what makes you a utopian -- the lack of any practical proposals to achieve a stateless society.

Ok. As already mentioned, anarchist believe in class struggle. This means that ordinary workers themselves must thus organise and run society themselves. What is more “practical” than direct action?

The problem, however, is that, from my perspective and that of the League, you are describing a workers' republic. So, are we just arguing over terminology here?

It seems that the only main argument is the issue of whether the state is a threat in itself, that is, whether it would lead to the formation of a class society. This issue of the state is why there is a distinction between anarchists and marxists. You are right though, there really is little theoretical difference between the two. Do you think this means that there is a possibility of reconciliation between marxists and anarchists?

Martin Blank

13th August 2005, 03:14

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 06:20 AM
If your workers Republic is decentralised and non-hierarchical then yes, I suppose it is just terminology.
De-centralized, as in the local assemblies and councils have the final say on all matters, including actions taken by any ad hoc national or regional working groups formed to deal with certain matters, through convocation of a convention or congress, and ratification either by that body or through referendum.

Non-hierarchical, as in no privileges for those working on behalf of the assemblies and councils, rotation of personnel working on behalf of the assemblies and councils, and full accountability of anyone in such positions, including the right of the people to immediately recall them.

Miles

Martin Blank

13th August 2005, 04:16

Originally posted by bombeverything+Aug 12 2005, 08:05 AM--> (bombeverything @ Aug 12 2005, 08:05 AM)Most anarchists agree that there would be a need for some kind of organised communal self-defence within a world with continuing states and other oppressive institutions. However, this must be carried out by the workers themselves. Most likely, this would take the form of an armed voluntary militia not seperate from the community that is organised on a collective basis [e.g Spain].[/b]

Most communists worthy of the label would agree with this too.

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:05 AM
As for internal counterrevolution, anarchists generally perceive the need for social systems of mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes in a voluntary manner, replacing the judicial functions of courts. This is a practical and viable alternative to the creation of a new state. For instance, there are many examples where autonomous and anarchist societies in which the self-management of society has led to a reduction in crime [e.g. Zapatista communities, the Spanish Revolution, and various IWW-led uprisings and strikes].

I understand and agree with that. But I was talking about armed gangs of counterrevolutionaries, which you deal with in the first paragraph.

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:05 AM
Ok. As already mentioned, anarchist believe in class struggle. This means that ordinary workers themselves must thus organise and run society themselves. What is more “practical” than direct action?

In a situation like this, it is learning the lessons of past successes and failures -- avoiding the mistakes of the past, learning from excursions into uncharted territory, etc., and developing ideas and proposed solutions to deal with them.

[email protected] 12 2005, 08:05 AM
It seems that the only main argument is the issue of whether the state is a threat in itself, that is, whether it would lead to the formation of a class society. This issue of the state is why there is a distinction between anarchists and marxists. You are right though, there really is little theoretical difference between the two. Do you think this means that there is a possibility of reconciliation between marxists and anarchists?

I don't have an answer to that. Honestly, I think that only the course of the class struggle can provide an answer.

Miles

Red Powers

19th August 2005, 02:56

I wrote the following for a thread on AWIP on democracy. But in reading over this thread I think it might fit in. You tell me.

How about we talk about dictatorship as a way of approaching democracy? Because it's a given that democracy doesn't exist apart from its class content.

But it's not proletarian dictatorship that interests me it is bourgeois dictatorship. Now I think it's agreed that the capitalists can exercise dictatorship through a variety of forms; parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, democratic republic, clerical facist, military junta, one-party "workers'" state, etc. How is it that the bourgeoisie can do this? Why is it that it doesn't seem to matter what the political form is. The capitalists can always exercise dictatorship.

The solution is that politics is only one leg of the bourgeoisie's dictatorship. Their real dictatorship, their real source of power and control in society comes from the system of wage slavery. As owners of the means of production they are in a position to purchase labor-power and then exercise dictatorship over this labor-power. This is a dictatorship that existed before the capitalists even thought about political power, and it will exist after they loose their political power.

Workers know this. I don't care what illusions they might have about the "democratic process" or reformism or any thing else they know that at work the boss is the boss. For those hours (like all their life) they are under a dictatorship--no bill of rights no declaration of independence. This is one reason unions are so important, they attenuate this dictatorship somewhat but workers know that a union job is just a softer dictatorship.

It's at work under a system of wage slavery that the working class can really see its enemy. Get to work! Here wear this! Do that! No do it this way! It really is a system of slavery, you are a slave at work.

The capitalists also know this. That's why after WWII they were willing to try and buy off the unions so they could retain this dictatorship. The social relationship of wage labor is fundamental to the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The petty bourgeoisie on the other hand doesn't get this. They see the worker as just someone who didn't go to college or whatever and doesn't have the skills for a "better profession." So when they see a worker who is not interested in calls for revolution or whatever he or she becomes "conservative" or "bourgeoisieified." They don't realize they are looking at someone whose survival depends on adopting a certain attitude towards life -- a wage slave's attitude Cuidado Hombre! Play it close to the vest!

The point to all this is that overthrowing the political power of the bourgeoisie is only part of the battle and not the most important part. In fact, the main reason to overthrow the capitalist class politically is so the system of wage slavery can be done away with. As long as THAT dictatorship exists, as long as one class is the bosses and the other is the bossed the bosses will think and act like bosses and the wage slaves will have that attitude.

Some of the difference between anarchists and communists comes down to how and when to deal with the legs of Capitalist dictatorship not whether to deal with them.

TheReadMenace

21st August 2005, 03:44

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 12 2005, 10:17 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 12 2005, 10:17 AM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2005, 05:31 AM
I answered your questions as best I could without having to be a fortune teller.
Fair enough. I retract the statement about you not answering the questions.

The problem, however, is that, from my perspective and that of the League, you are describing a workers' republic. So, are we just arguing over terminology here?

Miles [/b]
That's what it all boils down to: semantics.

See, when defining the state, communists and anarchists both agree that the current state is corrupt; communists say that it shouldn't be abolished yet, but overtaken and overthrown, replaced by a workers' state. Anarchists say no, because it's still a state, but we're looking at terminology. The 'state' or 'workers republic' is nothing more than an organised society, if you want to put it like that.

Shit guys, we're fighting for the same thing: do we need to be so hostile? We both agree that only direct action can heal the current disease of apathy and miseducation, and that only direct action can educated, agitate, and organise the mass of people into a common cause.

TAT and bombeverything spoke of workers' councils: isn't that a big thing in communism? The idea that the workers control what they produce, and decide for themselves what's going to happen in regards to the factory/industry/business?

We have to fight together for the same cause (which we do) without all the petty divisions that capitalism thrives upon.

I know anarchists have given Marx a lot of flak, but he said that only the workers can liberate themselves. And that's what we're both going for! Almost every socialist/communist revolution so far has been organised from the top down; they deviated from the Marxist tradition. There needs to be a grassroots organisation starting with the workers themselves to overthrow the capitalists and keep them from obtaining power over us again.

March together, comrades!

Andrew

Martin Blank

21st August 2005, 05:12

Originally posted by TheReadMenace+Aug 20 2005, 11:02 PM--> (TheReadMenace @ Aug 20 2005, 11:02 PM)See, when defining the state, communists and anarchists both agree that the current state is corrupt; communists say that it shouldn't be abolished yet, but overtaken and overthrown, replaced by a workers' state. Anarchists say no, because it's still a state, but we're looking at terminology. The 'state' or 'workers republic' is nothing more than an organised society, if you want to put it like that. [/b]

Actually, communists do say that the capitalist state should be abolished. For that matter, we also think it should be ruthlessly torn limb from limb, beginning with those "limbs" that carry weapons: the police forces and standing military. Where we traditionally differ from the anarchists is over the question of the need for a semi-state to finish the job -- an entity that can facilitate the deconstruction of the disposessed classes, aid in the reorganization of the economy, defend the revolution from external intervention, etc.

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:02 PM
Shit guys, we're fighting for the same thing: do we need to be so hostile? We both agree that only direct action can heal the current disease of apathy and miseducation, and that only direct action can educated, agitate, and organise the mass of people into a common cause.

I suppose this depends on how each side defines "direct action". Communists see no value in thoughtless, apolitical "direct action"; such efforts are little more than moral grandstanding that cannot and do not raise class consciousness one iota. In order for "direct action" to be worthwhile, it has to be the logical means to a revolutionary end. (Unfortunately, "direct action" is, more often than not, nothing more than a way for self-described anarchists to feel like they are real "rebels", while not even smudging the armor of the capitalist state.)

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:02 PM
TAT and bombeverything spoke of workers' councils: isn't that a big thing in communism? The idea that the workers control what they produce, and decide for themselves what's going to happen in regards to the factory/industry/business?

Yes, that is exactly what we want to see: the establishment of working people's councils in every workplace and neighborhood, and their unity as a working people's republic.

[email protected] 20 2005, 11:02 PM
I know anarchists have given Marx a lot of flak, but he said that only the workers can liberate themselves. And that's what we're both going for! Almost every socialist/communist revolution so far has been organised from the top down; they deviated from the Marxist tradition. There needs to be a grassroots organisation starting with the workers themselves to overthrow the capitalists and keep them from obtaining power over us again.

Not just the bourgeoisie, but also the petty bourgeoisie. The central failing of most of the workers' uprisings and revolutions of the 20th century was the inability and/or unwillingness to also confront this other class of exploiters and oppressors, ultimately leading to them being able to seize power from the proletariat (e.g., the USSR).

As for your call for "a grassroots organisation starting with the workers themselves", that was the point of departure for the League, and our comrades affiliated to the International Working People's Association.

Miles

TheReadMenace

22nd August 2005, 02:13

Actually, communists do say that the capitalist state should be abolished. For that matter, we also think it should be ruthlessly torn limb from limb, beginning with those "limbs" that carry weapons: the police forces and standing military. Where we traditionally differ from the anarchists is over the question of the need for a semi-state to finish the job -- an entity that can facilitate the deconstruction of the disposessed classes, aid in the reorganization of the economy, defend the revolution from external intervention, etc.

When the current state is overthrown and overtaken, isn't it, in a sense, abolished, since the current state ceases to exist and new one is established?

I completely agree with you, I guess, again, it was just semantics; though I didn't do such a good job explaining my part, heh.

And for direct action, I agree with you on that, as well, but here's my reservation (if you want to call it that).

I'm all for tagging and vandalisation, as long as there's a message attached to it. Just recently, my friend had to leave town because of some stuff we did - I'm about to follow him, as the heat is pretty intense down here - but it wasn't mindless stuff. Tagging/vandalisation isn't random; it's planned. And it isn't just throwing bricks through windows or spraypainting 'fuck you' on the windows of Starbucks: we put messages, usually pretty lengthy ones, heh. For instance, across the front of a school (named after a WWII veteran) we put 'Success can't be measured by productivity. Teach justice, not greed;' and across the statue of the war veteran, we put something about the futility of current wars.

Yeah, it's a bit rash, but hey, you gotta start somewhere, yes? Skateboarders with no life will be skating somewhere, see our work, and start thinking (they're quite rebellious to begin with, for the most part, so we have the upperhand).

On one Coca-Cola company truck, we spraypainted 'Fuck the AUC.' Some girl who lived across the street updated her livejournal, and asked about the AUC, and a guy commented about all the atrocitied committed by Coca-Cola; now, everyone who reads that girl's journal will see it and hopefully become a little more aware of the shit that goes on.

But yeah...I try as hard as possible not to make it mindless; there always must be a message. And with the militant arm, there must be the informant arm; we are starting a co-op newpaper (hopefully two).

*shrug*

Andrew

Martin Blank

22nd August 2005, 19:45

Originally posted by TheReadMenace+Aug 21 2005, 09:31 PM--> (TheReadMenace @ Aug 21 2005, 09:31 PM)When the current state is overthrown and overtaken, isn't it, in a sense, abolished, since the current state ceases to exist and new one is established?

I completely agree with you, I guess, again, it was just semantics; though I didn't do such a good job explaining my part, heh.[/b]

No matter. We understand each other now.

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 09:31 PM
And for direct action, I agree with you on that, as well, but here's my reservation (if you want to call it that).

I'm all for tagging and vandalisation, as long as there's a message attached to it. Just recently, my friend had to leave town because of some stuff we did - I'm about to follow him, as the heat is pretty intense down here - but it wasn't mindless stuff. Tagging/vandalisation isn't random; it's planned. And it isn't just throwing bricks through windows or spraypainting 'fuck you' on the windows of Starbucks: we put messages, usually pretty lengthy ones, heh. For instance, across the front of a school (named after a WWII veteran) we put 'Success can't be measured by productivity. Teach justice, not greed;' and across the statue of the war veteran, we put something about the futility of current wars.

Yeah, it's a bit rash, but hey, you gotta start somewhere, yes? Skateboarders with no life will be skating somewhere, see our work, and start thinking (they're quite rebellious to begin with, for the most part, so we have the upperhand).

On one Coca-Cola company truck, we spraypainted 'Fuck the AUC.' Some girl who lived across the street updated her livejournal, and asked about the AUC, and a guy commented about all the atrocitied committed by Coca-Cola; now, everyone who reads that girl's journal will see it and hopefully become a little more aware of the shit that goes on.

Graffiti has its place in the revolutionary arsenal. I understand that there is the issue of time and having to be quick about it, but it seems to me that this tactic would be much more effective if it was something that was half graffiti and half mural.

[email protected] 21 2005, 09:31 PM
But yeah...I try as hard as possible not to make it mindless; there always must be a message. And with the militant arm, there must be the informant arm; we are starting a co-op newpaper (hopefully two).

Another good propaganda/education method is doing lit that looks like stuff people see and/or read on a regular basis. For example, I know some comrades who make up political literature that looks like those Bible Tracts produced by Chick Publications.

Miles