Question for Anarchists

[Amusing Scrotum]

Other than the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, has there ever been an Anarchist inspired revolution.

Note: The inspired part is important, as there were obviously Anarchists who fought in other revolutions, but these were not, to my knowledge anyway, Anarchist inspired revolutions.

Also another side question would be why Anarchism has never commanded a revolution? Anarchist theory is just as valid as Marxism, Leninism or Maoism yet has never really commanded a revolution. Indeed its debatable whether the Spanish Civil War was Anarchist inspired due to the sheer volume of Socialists involved.

Also please refrain from any Anarchism bashing in this thread, this is a serious question directed at Anarchists and I don't want it to result in a petty squabble about whether Anarchism is a valid theory or not.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 01:31 AM
Also another side question would be why Anarchism has never commanded a revolution? Anarchist theory is just as valid as Marxism, Leninism or Maoism yet has never really commanded a revolution. Indeed its debatable whether the Spanish Civil War was Anarchist inspired due to the sheer volume of Socialists involved.

Since when does "Marxism", "Leninism", "Maoism" or "Anarchism" command or inspire revolution?!

The masses theirselves command it, regardless to what ideology it is, then it will be a revolution. Theory will have no part in leading revolutions.


We must extinguish this type of thinking; it breeds platformism and false thinking.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Since when does "Marxism", "Leninism", "Maoism" or "Anarchism" command or inspire revolution?!

The masses theirselves command it, regardless to what ideology it is, then it will be a revolution. Theory will have no part in leading revolutions.


Alright if you wish to be petty. The masses commanded the revolution and Marxism, Leninism or Maoism were the political doctrines followed after the revolution. Therefore, why is it that Anarchism has never been the doctrine that has emerged after the revolution?


We must extinguish this type of thinking; it breeds platformism and false thinking.

Is "platformism" even a word.

[violencia.Proletariat]

mahkno in the ukraine, and zapata during the mexican revolution was inspired by an anarchist, as were his policies from then on. erm, you could call the kwangju commune, "anarchist" because they went straight to a communal system, no money, etc. granted that didnt last too long.

[wet blanket]

I think a big part of the reason would be that the primary goal of the anarchists has been to not control the revolution.

[Hiero]

I think the important question is when have Anarchist had the major base in the revolution?

[Amusing Scrotum]

mahkno in the ukraine, and zapata during the mexican revolution was inspired by an anarchist, as were his policies from then on. erm, you could call the kwangju commune, "anarchist" because they went straight to a communal system, no money, etc. granted that didnt last too long.

I thought Ukraine and Mexico ended up as Socialist states after their revolutions?


I think a big part of the reason would be that the primary goal of the anarchists has been to not control the revolution.

Explain how without promoting Anarchist thought during the revolution, you end up with Anarchism afterwards?


I think the important question is when have Anarchist had the major base in the revolution?

Thats a good question. Communists have often worked with Unions, set up political parties etc. in order to get their message across. Anarchists as far as I know haven't conducted this kind of activity, therefore they have never created a large base ready for revolution.

Therefore I struggle to understand how there will ever be an Anarchist revolution. I would really like for some Anarchists to explain just how they think Anarchism will come about.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anarchist theory is just as valid as Marxism, Leninism or Maoism yet has never really commanded a revolution.

You just answered your own question without knowing it.

"Anarchist theory" is not "as valid" as Marxism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You just answered your own question without knowing it.

"Anarchist theory" is not "as valid" as Marxism.

Thats a whole other debate which inevitably leads to a dead end because no one can really point to a completely Marxist or a completely Anarchist society. For the minute however I'm just interested in an Anarchist's answer to my queries.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I can point to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 09:21 AM
I thought Ukraine and Mexico ended up as Socialist states after their revolutions?
More or less, but that's primarily because the anarchist strains were crushed by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine and the Official Party of the Revolution in Mexico.

edit: I shouldn't say crushed. I know in Mexico, at least, anarchist thought survived on and continued to agitate, organize and launch armed struggles against the state.


Explain how without promoting Anarchist thought during the revolution, you end up with Anarchism afterwards?

I think one of you is confused. Anarchists have attempted to promote anarchist thought during revolutions and led anarchist organizations in all sorts of revolutions.


Thats a good question. Communists have often worked with Unions, set up political parties etc. in order to get their message across. Anarchists as far as I know haven't conducted this kind of activity, therefore they have never created a large base ready for revolution.

What? Anarchists have formed all kinds of unions. The IWW, the CNT in Spain, I forget what its called but there was an anarchist union in Mexico as well. They've also formed parties, such as the PLM in Mexico, or worked within other parties and organizations. The problem is that many "anarchist" organizations do not openly call themselves anarchist while expressing those sentiments. The Jaramillistas, for instance.


Therefore I struggle to understand how there will ever be an Anarchist revolution. I would really like for some Anarchists to explain just how they think Anarchism will come about.

The problem, I think, is that anarchists today seem more content on organizing around this idea of "mass" for the revolution, which I don't think is very important. Not that socialists and communists don't suffer from the same problem. Ultimately, we can't wait until "the masses" are educated about our programs and actually give a shit because in all likelihood, that won't happen. We simply need to play off existing discontent to force a revolutionary situation and then began our programs and educate as we go. Not to say education and what not are not important now, they just shouldn't be the main condition we're waiting on.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I'm not sure what you mean, but I can point to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Are you referring to my comment about not having a Marxist or Anarchist society to compare?

If so then I would argue that Russia, China etc. do not provide a good basis for comparison, as they were dictatorships of the party not the proletariat. Cuba is the closest thing to a true dictatorship of the proletariat, but certain factors have stopped Cuba from progressing to a completely workers' controlled country.

[ComradeOm]

dictatorship of the proletariat
I'm still waiting for a thread regarding the differences between anarchism and Marxism that doesn't contain that phrase :cool:

I'm interested in hearing what an anarchist has to say on this subject though. Personally I suspect it has to do with the lack of a revolutionary vanguard capable of leading a revolt in a society where the material conditions are not yet perfect.

[Amusing Scrotum]

More or less, but that's primarily because the anarchist strains were crushed by the Bolsheviks in the Ukraine and the Official Party of the Revolution in Mexico.

edit: I shouldn't say crushed. I know in Mexico, at least, anarchist thought survived on and continued to agitate, organize and launch armed struggles against the state.


Thanks, that did clarify that. However if Anarchism was "crushed" after the revolutions, this suggests that Anarchism was never anything more than a side note in the revolutionary process.


I think one of you is confused. Anarchists have attempted to promote anarchist thought during revolutions and led anarchist organizations in all sorts of revolutions.


But why has Anarchism never "caught on" after the revolution?


What? Anarchists have formed all kinds of unions. The IWW, the CNT in Spain, I forget what its called but there was an anarchist union in Mexico as well. They've also formed parties, such as the PLM in Mexico, or worked within other parties and organizations. The problem is that many "anarchist" organizations do not openly call themselves anarchist while expressing those sentiments. The Jaramillistas, for instance.


These Anarchist organisations have never really had the same "clout" as other Socialist or Communist organisations nor have there been as many Anarchist organisations as there have been Communist or Socialist organisations. For instance I have never heard of an Anarchist standing for election in Britain but plenty of Socialist parties have put up candidates. Theres been Communist councillors and the left of the Labour Party has for long time been Marxist inspired.

I suppose my point was that Anarchists seem less willing to involve themselves in the "system" and this seems to hurt them in terms of getting their message across.


The problem, I think, is that anarchists today seem more content on organizing around this idea of "mass" for the revolution, which I don't think is very important. Not that socialists and communists don't suffer from the same problem. Ultimately, we can't wait until "the masses" are educated about our programs and actually give a shit because in all likelihood, that won't happen. We simply need to play off existing discontent to force a revolutionary situation and then began our programs and educate as we go. Not to say education and what not are not important now, they just shouldn't be the main condition we're waiting on.


What you just said goes directly against Anarchist and Marxist thought. It shows a certain amount of contempt for the masses and is quite amusing to hear from someone who claims to fight for the masses.

[bcbm]

Thanks, that did clarify that. However if Anarchism was "crushed" after the revolutions, this suggests that Anarchism was never anything more than a side note in the revolutionary process.

Crushed was the wrong word. The official organizations of anarchists were crushed, but the anarchists themselves continued on and anarchism continued to influence the actions of succesive generations of radicals. Or at least in Mexico, I'm not particularly familiar with the history of anarchism in the USSR following the revolution. In any case, anarchism was a major influence before the revolution and after, but the stronger currents (which attracted many anarchists, incidentally) won out and turned on their former supporters.


But why has Anarchism never "caught on" after the revolution?

I think its debatable whether or not it has. Certainly the land reclamations and strikes carried out in Mexico, not to mention the armed struggles and the nature of PCM, show that anarchism was far from dead. As I mentioned before, anarchists in overtly authoritarian socities rarely call themselves such, especially after the brutal repression their predecessors faced a decade or two previous.


These Anarchist organisations have never really had the same "clout" as other Socialist or Communist organisations nor have there been as many Anarchist organisations as there have been Communist or Socialist organisations.

Having numerous organizations isn't really indicative of anything. Many organizations are formed over factional differences, which anarchists don't seem to harbor as much (beyond red v. green and all), or at least don't split ways over. I'll agree there may not have been as much clout and I couldn't speculate why that is, but I don't think it makes the theory or its adherents any less valid, since despite the lack of "clout" they've been principle in many revolutions.


For instance I have never heard of an Anarchist standing for election in Britain but plenty of Socialist parties have put up candidates. Theres been Communist councillors and the left of the Labour Party has for long time been Marxist inspired.

I suppose my point was that Anarchists seem less willing to involve themselves in the "system" and this seems to hurt them in terms of getting their message across.

Perhaps, but I think running for elections would be a fundamental problem to any anarchist, since anarchism really can't be done from the top down.


I'm interested in hearing what an anarchist has to say on this subject though. Personally I suspect it has to do with the lack of a revolutionary vanguard capable of leading a revolt in a society where the material conditions are not yet perfect.

Not all anarchist are against revolutionary vanguards, though I think the term has different connotations to anarchists than to Marxists.



edit: You guys need to stop distracting me from my book review and final. :P

[Amusing Scrotum]

Crushed was the wrong word. The official organizations of anarchists were crushed, but the anarchists themselves continued on and anarchism continued to influence the actions of succesive generations of radicals. Or at least in Mexico, I'm not particularly familiar with the history of anarchism in the USSR following the revolution. In any case, anarchism was a major influence before the revolution and after, but the stronger currents (which attracted many anarchists, incidentally) won out and turned on their former supporters.


After the Russian Revolution many Anarchist were "removed" to put it kindly as seems to have been the case with many recent revolutions. A lot of it I think is that Anarchists and Marxists are no match to the Leninist vanguard in their ability to garner support and hold any kind of power.


I think its debatable whether or not it has. Certainly the land reclamations and strikes carried out in Mexico, not to mention the armed struggles and the nature of PCM, show that anarchism was far from dead. As I mentioned before, anarchists in overtly authoritarian socities rarely call themselves such, especially after the brutal repression their predecessors faced a decade or two previous.


Thats a fair point, however do you think Anarchists not saying they are Anarchists has hurt the image of Anarchism among the masses. I mean there are plenty of Socialist martyrs and people know these people died trying to help them. Maybe thats what Anarchism needs, a few famous martyrs.


Having numerous organizations isn't really indicative of anything. Many organizations are formed over factional differences, which anarchists don't seem to harbor as much (beyond red v. green and all), or at least don't split ways over. I'll agree there may not have been as much clout and I couldn't speculate why that is, but I don't think it makes the theory or its adherents any less valid, since despite the lack of "clout" they've been principle in many revolutions.


Quick question, whats the red v. green thing?

I don't think for one minute Anarchism isn't a valid theory and this is why it puzzles me that with all the revolutionary unrest in the last century we didn't see an Anarchist country. We saw plenty of Leninist states, but no Anarchist ones.


Perhaps, but I think running for elections would be a fundamental problem to any anarchist, since anarchism really can't be done from the top down.


I accept that, but does this hurt the promotion of Anarchism in the long run. Every ideology needs a mainstream figure of some sort to attract interest, Anarchism lacks this. Even when the masses mobilise if they no nothing about Anarchism it will be unlikely they will conduct a revolution in favour of Anarchism.


Not all anarchist are against revolutionary vanguards, though I think the term has different connotations to anarchists than to Marxists.


A Leninist vanguard controls the revolution in the supposed interest of the masses. How does an Anarchist vanguard differ?

[bcbm]

After the Russian Revolution many Anarchist were "removed" to put it kindly as seems to have been the case with many recent revolutions. A lot of it I think is that Anarchists and Marxists are no match to the Leninist vanguard in their ability to garner support and hold any kind of power.

Probably true and anarchist criticism leveled against new revolutionary governments probably makes it easy for them to be "removed" in order to maintain "unity." Their lack of desire for power also probably plays a part, as those in power no doubt look like they're accomplishing more simply because people generally look towards the state more than non-governmental organizations. Of course, even when they do have significant organizations and popular support, they still end up getting suppressed and shot by those better armed, so who knows.


Thats a fair point, however do you think Anarchists not saying they are Anarchists has hurt the image of Anarchism among the masses. I mean there are plenty of Socialist martyrs and people know these people died trying to help them. Maybe thats what Anarchism needs, a few famous martyrs.

I think not calling it anarchism might actually be more beneficial, at least in places like the US. Same with communist. Calling for those things openly under those names brings up certain negative connotations and pushes people away.

Perhaps we should start selling t-shirts with Carlo Giuliani or the Haymarket Martyrs the same way Che shirts are sold? :D


Quick question, whats the red v. green thing?

Red anarchism vs. Green anarchism. Red is a more socialist/workerist appraoch towards theory, whereas green is generally the primitivist, anti-civ, anti-work current. Anarchists snipe each other quite a bit over this.


I don't think for one minute Anarchism isn't a valid theory and this is why it puzzles me that with all the revolutionary unrest in the last century we didn't see an Anarchist country. We saw plenty of Leninist states, but no Anarchist ones.

During the Russian revolution, I suspect it was just the ability of Leninists to garner power and public support and co-opt anarchist movements into their own (remember "All power to the soviets").

Following the rise of the USSR, I think its pretty obvious why this occured. The anarchist currents in every revolution have a much harder time getting arms and other material support, whereas more official communist groups could always hit up the USSR (or China, or Cuba) for money.

Though, to be fair to Cuba, I believe they did help to arm some of the more anarchist leaning groups in Mexico.


I accept that, but does this hurt the promotion of Anarchism in the long run. Every ideology needs a mainstream figure of some sort to attract interest, Anarchism lacks this. Even when the masses mobilise if they no nothing about Anarchism it will be unlikely they will conduct a revolution in favour of Anarchism.

I think this is more of a modern problem than a historical one. In the past people like Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Magón and others were fairly important figures and well known to the general public. Today, I'm hard pressed to think of anyone who is actively out there promoting anarchism in the same way some of these people did. Anarchists really only get attention when we're busting windows, which isn't neccesarily bad, but it doesn't lend itself to "spreading the word" very well.


A Leninist vanguard controls the revolution in the supposed interest of the masses. How does an Anarchist vanguard differ?

An anarchist vanguard would probably be more interested in sparking a full-scale revolution through armed struggle and, once that revolution occured, acting in a more localized and de-centralized way to push through worker and peasant interests right away.

[enigma2517]

An anarchist vanguard?

:blink:

Uhh


mainstream figure of some sort to attract interest

Why? The mainstream is the place where the greatest amount of distortion occurs and the seeds for reformism are sown.



A Leninist vanguard controls the revolution in the supposed interest of the masses. How does an Anarchist vanguard differ?

I'm not doubting that some Leninists have nothing but the best intentions of leading the masses in the interests of the masses. After all, many of their vanguard revolutionaries start out working class just like you and I.

But a funny thing happens when you start to involve permanent hierarchy and the state.

Their material conditions change drastically and ultimately (surprise!) changing them.

Lets say we have a revolution. Not just a coup of parliament, but a real revolution. Worker's seizing means of production from the bourgeosie. We've asserted our power as the working class and now we can a.) give that power to people entrenched in bureacracy and hope they represent our interests or b.) since we're the working class...then..hey...who knows our interests better than us? And who can represent our interests...better than us?

In reference to your history question you can answer that yourself by doing a little research but first consider this. Most anarchist uprisings were outgunned. They were revolutionary until the point the very last one of them died or got thrown in prison. Leninist states rotted from the inside out and collapsed on themselves.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Probably true and anarchist criticism leveled against new revolutionary governments probably makes it easy for them to be "removed" in order to maintain "unity." Their lack of desire for power also probably plays a part, as those in power no doubt look like they're accomplishing more simply because people generally look towards the state more than non-governmental organizations. Of course, even when they do have significant organizations and popular support, they still end up getting suppressed and shot by those better armed, so who knows.

Indeed who knows, maybe Anarchists are cursed. <_<


I think not calling it anarchism might actually be more beneficial, at least in places like the US. Same with communist. Calling for those things openly under those names brings up certain negative connotations and pushes people away.

Perhaps we should start selling t-shirts with Carlo Giuliani or the Haymarket Martyrs the same way Che shirts are sold?

The name is a problem, probably more of a problem than the name "Communism." Everything which is associated with the word anarchism is bad. You say Anarchism to people and they automatically think of anarchy. This could in my opinion make people less likely to look into Anarchism in the first place as they associate it with Primitivism or some other loopy theory.

The idea of t-shirts isn&#39;t all bad though. It would certainly raise the profile of Anarchism and maybe help to change public perceptions.

Also I think Anarchism and Marxism to a lesser extent, have real problems capturing audiences precisely because they don&#39;t have the cultish personality fetish present in most Leninist or Maoist Parties with their great and enlightened leader. Who very often happens to be middle class. These parties really suit the American political system because they use the same tactics as both the Democrats and the Republicans, not something I find very revolutionary.


Red anarchism vs. Green anarchism. Red is a more socialist/workerist appraoch towards theory, whereas green is generally the primitivist, anti-civ, anti-work current. Anarchists snipe each other quite a bit over this.


Couldn&#39;t the green approach be somewhat of a hindrance when trying to build ties with the working class. Lets face it a worker wants to be told he can create a better society not that hes a murdering brute because he likes a lamb dinner. Also correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but the green movement consists almost completely of middle class wannabe rebels who have more in common with the animal liberation people than the revolutionary leftists. This isn&#39;t really helpful to your average worker.


During the Russian revolution, I suspect it was just the ability of Leninists to garner power and public support and co-opt anarchist movements into their own (remember "All power to the soviets").

Following the rise of the USSR, I think its pretty obvious why this occured. The anarchist currents in every revolution have a much harder time getting arms and other material support, whereas more official communist groups could always hit up the USSR (or China, or Cuba) for money.

Though, to be fair to Cuba, I believe they did help to arm some of the more anarchist leaning groups in Mexico.


Yeah I suppose the lack of financial support from Moscow must have been a huge factor in stalling revolutionary Anarchists. Also I think Cuba would give money to anyone as long as they were going to piss off America.


I think this is more of a modern problem than a historical one. In the past people like Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Magón and others were fairly important figures and well known to the general public. Today, I&#39;m hard pressed to think of anyone who is actively out there promoting anarchism in the same way some of these people did. Anarchists really only get attention when we&#39;re busting windows, which isn&#39;t neccesarily bad, but it doesn&#39;t lend itself to "spreading the word" very well.


Chomsky is probably the closest thing to a high profile Anarchist. Marxism has the same problem in not having a figurehead were as Leninism always has elitists like Avakian to fall back on.

Also the tactics of busting windows etc. does in my opinion alienate a lot of people. It may be fun to do but as you said id doesn&#39;t really help to get the Anarchist message out there, especially with the way the media portrays it.


An anarchist vanguard would probably be more interested in sparking a full-scale revolution through armed struggle and, once that revolution occured, acting in a more localized and de-centralized way to push through worker and peasant interests right away

I still don&#39;t much like the idea. Its like Leninists and their "withering" away of the state. Fifty years down the line you find that the state is still there and has grown bigger not smaller.


Why? The mainstream is the place where the greatest amount of distortion occurs and the seeds for reformism are sown.


You need to try and capture an audience somehow. The mainstream is not my preferred option here, but lets be practical not idealistic.


I&#39;m not doubting that some Leninists have nothing but the best intentions of leading the masses in the interests of the masses. After all, many of their vanguard revolutionaries start out working class just like you and I.

But a funny thing happens when you start to involve permanent hierarchy and the state.

Their material conditions change drastically and ultimately (surprise&#33;) changing them.

Lets say we have a revolution. Not just a coup of parliament, but a real revolution. Worker&#39;s seizing means of production from the bourgeosie. We&#39;ve asserted our power as the working class and now we can a.) give that power to people entrenched in bureacracy and hope they represent our interests or b.) since we&#39;re the working class...then..hey...who knows our interests better than us? And who can represent our interests...better than us?


I couldn&#39;t agree more. My ideological influences start and end with Marxism and I really do not like any other Communist theory. However it is obvious to me that Leninism is the more practical and successful revolutionary method, however after the revolution it usually goes to pot. Also there is only one Leninist state that has given any worthwile amount of power to the workers&#39; and that is Cuba. The rest have all failed.

I suppose its an important question we have to ask ourselves, do we want a greater chance of winning the revolution and the risk of a failed state afterwards or do we want to risk losing many revolutions and therefore revolutionary chances so that we can create an efficient and democratic workers&#39; state?

I prefer the second option myself.


In reference to your history question you can answer that yourself by doing a little research but first consider this. Most anarchist uprisings were outgunned. They were revolutionary until the point the very last one of them died or got thrown in prison. Leninist states rotted from the inside out and collapsed on themselves.


Thats a very good point and I would go as far as to say the only reason Cuba is a successful Leninist state is because it ditched Leninism.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Perhaps we should start selling t-shirts with Carlo Giuliani or the Haymarket Martyrs the same way Che shirts are sold?

Do you really think anyone would buy them?


Thats a very good point and I would go as far as to say the only reason Cuba is a successful Leninist state is because it ditched Leninism.

What are you talking about?

[The Feral Underclass]

Spain 1850&#39;s
Paris Commune 1871
Ukraine 1921
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936
Hungary 1956
Paris 1968
Kwangju 1980
Argentina 2002

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How did all those work out?

[bcbm]

Do you really think anyone would buy them?

It was said in jest. Though those circle-A shirts seem to sell fairly well at the mall. <_<


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


Indeed who knows, maybe Anarchists are cursed.

Its karma for all of that propaganda of the deed, no doubt.


The name is a problem, probably more of a problem than the name "Communism." Everything which is associated with the word anarchism is bad. You say Anarchism to people and they automatically think of anarchy. This could in my opinion make people less likely to look into Anarchism in the first place as they associate it with Primitivism or some other loopy theory.

I think Communism and Anarchism get about the same reaction in the US. Socialism, too, really. Perhaps we should adopt the strategy of Magon and hide ourselves under the guise of liberalism.


Also I think Anarchism and Marxism to a lesser extent, have real problems capturing audiences precisely because they don&#39;t have the cultish personality fetish present in most Leninist or Maoist Parties with their great and enlightened leader. Who very often happens to be middle class. These parties really suit the American political system because they use the same tactics as both the Democrats and the Republicans, not something I find very revolutionary.


That&#39;s quite probable, actually. I suppose having some figurehead to rally around, and to provide proper "party line" makes it easier to gain mass support.


Couldn&#39;t the green approach be somewhat of a hindrance when trying to build ties with the working class. Lets face it a worker wants to be told he can create a better society not that hes a murdering brute because he likes a lamb dinner.

I think its definitely a hindrance when trying to build ties with the working class, especially since the majority of green anarchists I&#39;ve encountered seem to hold a very black/white dogmatic view of the world and have nothing but shit to talk about workers, peasants and their movements. Not all green anarchists are like this, but it seems to be a common view.


Also correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but the green movement consists almost completely of middle class wannabe rebels who have more in common with the animal liberation people than the revolutionary leftists. This isn&#39;t really helpful to your average worker.

Hey now, not all animal liberationists are bad. You&#39;re talking to one. As to them being fellow travellers, yes and no. Green anarchists are generally split on the issue of animal rights, mainly eating them, though they probably want to forge a more respectful and non-industrial relationship with them. In any case, wanting to completely destroy civilization right now probably isn&#39;t of any use to someone trying to feed their family, no.



Also the tactics of busting windows etc. does in my opinion alienate a lot of people. It may be fun to do but as you said id doesn&#39;t really help to get the Anarchist message out there, especially with the way the media portrays it.

Its not a very clear situation. On the one hand, it may have an alienating effect. On the other hand, it has lead to increased coverage of anarchist ideas. I doubt I would&#39;ve seen a full page article on anarchism from the AP if not for anarchists breaking windows.


I still don&#39;t much like the idea. Its like Leninists and their "withering" away of the state. Fifty years down the line you find that the state is still there and has grown bigger not smaller.

It is a shady concept and perhaps I didn&#39;t explain it the best. The idea is fairly new to me as well, I&#39;ll probably be doing more reading on it in the coming months.

[novemba]

the great jedi council

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:39 PM
How did all those work out?
Surely that&#39;s clear.

Or do you have some other point to make...?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Nope that was it.

[novemba]

boy have those leninist revolutions worked out well.

you know, the ones where they established a bueracracy and all...

[The Feral Underclass]

Please stop the bullshit. Stop this tennis session of "well your theory didn&#39;t work either." It&#39;s boring, repeatative and fucking pointless.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Pointing out anarchism&#39;s failure in theory and practice is not pointless.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:46 PM
Pointing out anarchism&#39;s failure in theory and practice is not pointless.
You haven&#39;t pointed out any failure in theory or practice in anarchism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

What are you talking about?

Cuba at first adopted the traditional Marxist-Leninist model as was the case with most post revolutionary countries. However it is my opinion that over the years Cuba has abandoned that model and now follows a Marxist inspired model without the Leninist inspired bureaucracy. I could be wrong but from what I have read I would say Cuban Socialism has a completely different system than that of Russian Socialism.


Spain 1850&#39;s
Paris Commune 1871
Ukraine 1921
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936
Hungary 1956
Paris 1968
Kwangju 1980
Argentina 2002

Thanks TAT, I&#39;ll be doing some reading on these revolutions in the near future and will probably have some questions for all the Anarchists here.


Its karma for all of that propaganda of the deed, no doubt.


:lol:


I think Communism and Anarchism get about the same reaction in the US. Socialism, too, really. Perhaps we should adopt the strategy of Magon and hide ourselves under the guise of liberalism.


Yeah I suppose Communism, Socialism and Anarchism get the same kind of reaction in the US however I was thinking more of European countries where people have a decent idea of what Socialism and Communism are however they don&#39;t seem to know much about Anarchism other than thinking of anarchy.

Though the Cold War undoubtedly raised the profile of Communism in Europe. Anarchism as of yet hasn&#39;t had an Anarchist society so I suppose Anarchism profile will change once there is an Anarchist society.


That&#39;s quite probable, actually. I suppose having some figurehead to rally around, and to provide proper "party line" makes it easier to gain mass support.

Though it does defeat the objective of having a non hierarchical society. Its a catch 22 of sorts.


I think its definitely a hindrance when trying to build ties with the working class, especially since the majority of green anarchists I&#39;ve encountered seem to hold a very black/white dogmatic view of the world and have nothing but shit to talk about workers, peasants and their movements. Not all green anarchists are like this, but it seems to be a common view.


Do you think this could lead to some kind of huge split within the Anarchist movement?


Hey now, not all animal liberationists are bad. You&#39;re talking to one. As to them being fellow travellers, yes and no. Green anarchists are generally split on the issue of animal rights, mainly eating them, though they probably want to forge a more respectful and non-industrial relationship with them. In any case, wanting to completely destroy civilization right now probably isn&#39;t of any use to someone trying to feed their family, no.


When I say animal liberationists I am talking about people who want to dissolve all civilisation and go back to living like animals. Unless you are fit this description then I don&#39;t class you as an animal liberationist when I talk about animal liberationists.

Also I think most leftists believe in reducing the links between animals and industry as well as wanting to stop industries destroying the environment. I certainly believe in these things but wouldn&#39;t consider myself an animal liberationist or an environmentalist.

So sorry if I caused any offence.


Its not a very clear situation. On the one hand, it may have an alienating effect. On the other hand, it has lead to increased coverage of anarchist ideas. I doubt I would&#39;ve seen a full page article on anarchism from the AP if not for anarchists breaking windows.


I suppose all publicity is good publicity.


It is a shady concept and perhaps I didn&#39;t explain it the best. The idea is fairly new to me as well, I&#39;ll probably be doing more reading on it in the coming months.

I would be interesting to know how the Anarchist vanguard differs from the Leninist one.

Also I did say at the beginning of this thread for everyone to refrain from petty squabbling regarding Anarchism as a theory. I doesn&#39;t achieve anything and if you really want to discuss Anarchist theory start a thread in theory. Don&#39;t block up something which is meant to be an informative thread.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Didn&#39;t have to, it was done for me.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cuba at first adopted the traditional Marxist-Leninist model as was the case with most post revolutionary countries. However it is my opinion that over the years Cuba has abandoned that model and now follows a Marxist inspired model without the Leninist inspired bureaucracy. I could be wrong but from what I have read I would say Cuban Socialism has a completely different system than that of Russian Socialism.

You are. It&#39;s not completely different. To be sure there are many differences between the system in place in Cuba and those which were in place in the USSR; but I don&#39;t see how that would lead you to proclaim that they abandoned Leninism (all though I do have my own thoughts on this). Saying such would mean that you have a rigid, dogmatic view of what Leninism is, in both theory and practice.

Che was tirless in his criticisms of bureaucracy, and this was one of his major contributions. This has always been an important issue in Cuba. They have been fighting against the growth of a bureaucracy all along. Mass participation through Poder Popular, the mass organizations, and the unions, and party membership has grown steadily over the decades of the revolution.


so I suppose Anarchism profile will change once there is an Anarchist society.

Don&#39;t hold your breathe.


Do you think this could lead to some kind of huge split within the Anarchist movement?

There would have to be unity and organization originally for there to be a split.


Also I did say at the beginning of this thread for everyone to refrain from petty squabbling regarding Anarchism as a theory. I doesn&#39;t achieve anything and if you really want to discuss Anarchist theory start a thread in theory. Don&#39;t block up something which is meant to be an informative thread.

I assume you&#39;re talking about me. I don&#39;t see much discussion of anarchism outside of its historical role and significance in this thread. TAT mentioned some anarchist movements in history and I simply wanted to point out how they all played out.

[bcbm]

Yeah I suppose Communism, Socialism and Anarchism get the same kind of reaction in the US however I was thinking more of European countries where people have a decent idea of what Socialism and Communism are however they don&#39;t seem to know much about Anarchism other than thinking of anarchy.

I thought anarchism was fairly well known and at least somewhat respected in Europe?


Do you think this could lead to some kind of huge split within the Anarchist movement?

The rift is already pretty big, but I don&#39;t think it will tear apart completely.


I would be interesting to know how the Anarchist vanguard differs from the Leninist one.

It wouldn&#39;t control the course of the revolution, merely spark it and begin an anarchist program within it.

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


Didn&#39;t have to, it was done for me.

Noting that anarchist attempts at establishing their society have been shot down (literally) by authoritaians of all stripes doesn&#39;t seem to be pointing out any failure in theory and only a minor failure in practice that needs to be altered. And, of course, all leftist ideologies have faced similar problems, we wouldn&#39;t be here talking if we&#39;d figured it all out, now would we?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And, of course, all leftist ideologies have faced similar problems, we wouldn&#39;t be here talking if we&#39;d figured it all out, now would we?

Of course not. I&#39;ve always been more than willing to point out the failures of all theories. The main difference I think, is that despite failures and mistakes, communism on the whole is not a failed theory. I can&#39;t say the say the same about anarchism. That is surely up for debate, and has been done several times, so I applogize if I&#39;ve invoked something along those lines.

[bcbm]

There would have to be unity and organization originally for there to be a split.

There&#39;s quite a bit of global anarchist unity and organization, actually, and its continually expanding.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Do you have any concrete examples of that?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:25 PM
Do you have any concrete examples of that?
The IWW, while not as large as it once was, is a global anarchist union and is currently expanding into Latin American and European countries more and building ties with major syndacalist unions.

Beyond that, anarchists have done a lot of major organizing work for the various meetings of leaders that have been global in scope, and brought together anarchists from many countries.

A lot of the organizing is done outside traditional organizations, which makes it hard to measure. Those anarchists are shady creatures.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You are. It&#39;s not completely different. To be sure there are many differences between the system in place in Cuba and those which were in place in the USSR; but I don&#39;t see how that would lead you to proclaim that they abandoned Leninism (all though I do have my own thoughts on this). Saying such would mean that you have a rigid, dogmatic view of what Leninism is, in both theory and practice.

Che was tirless in his criticisms of bureaucracy, and this was one of his major contributions. This has always been an important issue in Cuba. They have been fighting against the growth of a bureaucracy all along. Mass participation through Poder Popular, the mass organizations, and the unions, and party membership has grown steadily over the decades of the revolution.

I do have a somewhat clear idea of what I consider Leninism, I would explain it in length but I&#39;m tired so I&#39;ll just say that my view of Leninism is complete centralisation of everything bringing it under control of the Party which over a period of time creates bureaucracy which inevitably means the workers&#39; are left out of the running of the workers&#39; state.

I think Cuba has avoided this by gradually giving more power to the workers&#39; and developing other workers&#39; institutions which are to some extent independent of the party. Hopefully enough power has been devolved to stop the bureaucracy coming in the next generation which will lead to Cuba failing as a workers&#39; state.

Whether it is fair to say Cuba has abandoned Leninism, I don&#39;t know. Perhaps it would be better to say Cuba has abandoned Leninist inspired bureaucratic Soviet systems.


I assume you&#39;re talking about me. I don&#39;t see much discussion of anarchism outside of its historical role and significance in this thread. TAT mentioned some anarchist movements in history and I simply wanted to point out how they all played out.


I was referring to everyone who was bickering. You are included in this but you are not the only guilty party involved.


I thought anarchism was fairly well known and at least somewhat respected in Europe?


Maybe I&#39;m just speaking to the wrong people but most of the time when I bring up Anarchism in a conversation people either think of anarchy or people who want to kill the monarchy. Maybe it has a higher profile in Central European countries than in Britain.


The rift is already pretty big, but I don&#39;t think it will tear apart completely.


I suppose both positives and negatives could be drawn from this.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The IWW has no more than 1,000 members worldwide, and also isn&#39;t specifically anarchist. I know because I was a member for sometime.

Read this:


Myth #9 - The IWW is dominated by anarchists who routinely alienate and/or bar membership to non-anarchists and purge non anarchists from its ranks:

Other doctrinaire political factions besides the SLP routinely claim that the IWW is an anarchist organization hostile to non-anarchists. This is no doubt due to the fact that the IWW steadfastly refuses to align itself with any political party.

The IWW has always maintained that by aligning itself with a political party with a narrow ideological perspective would divide workers rather than unite them, even if one political party is closer in its vision to goals and practice of the IWW than another. The IWW also believes that no political party can be close enough to the IWW in its visions and goals, thus an alliance with such a party would represent a compromise the IWW is not willing to make. Finally, it is believed by the IWW that while it is theoretically possible to achieve a few reforms for the working class through electoral politics, no election will bring about the complete emancipation of the working class from wage slavery, which is what the IWW stands for and always has.

To some, this makes the IWW seem "anarchist", and indeed many anarchists (famous and not) have been IWW members, but being an "anarchist" is not a requirement of IWW membership.
http://www.iww.org/culture/myths/myths3.shtml#9

or especially this


Myth #10 - The IWW is dominated by authoritarians who routinely bar membership to anarchists and purge anarchists from its ranks:

Some contemporary anarchist thinkers and historians wrongfully believe that the IWW is strictly an anarchist organization (or at least it has been in the past). This is inaccurate. The IWW welcomes all members of the working class regardless of their political perspective as long as they agree to abide by the IWW Constitution and work towards the emancipation of workers from wage slavery and the abolition of capitalism. The followers of many ideologies as well as non-ideological workers agree that this is a desirable goal.

Historically, self-described anarchists have been a minority of the IWW&#39;s membership, but they have never been unwelcome. Some of the most lasting contributions to the IWW&#39;s program of industrial unionism have been made by both anarchists and non-anarchists.

Recently anarchism has become associated by many with the use of consensus process to run meetings, the rejection of large scale organization (including large scale organization of smaller democratic units), internal constitutional practice, membership fees, historical context as set of guidelines for not making the mistakes of those that came before us, and elected positions of responsibility. The IWW has always had these structures and practices and most IWW members believe they should endure, even if they may need occasional reform. Anarchists, however, are as capable of dogmatism and sectarianism as any other political tendency and for some, this is not good enough, and so they equate the IWW&#39;s organizational structure and constitutional process with "authoritarianism" (even though it is the most democratic centralized structure in practice, far more than any other labor union, including even the anarcho-syndicalist AIT-IWA).
http://www.iww.org/culture/myths/myths4.shtml

And, if there was any doubt, see this nice collection of "Marxist images" on their site: http://www.iww.org/graphics/marxism/

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I do have a somewhat clear idea of what I consider Leninism, I would explain it in length but I&#39;m tired so I&#39;ll just say that my view of Leninism is complete centralisation of everything bringing it under control of the Party which over a period of time creates bureaucracy which inevitably means the workers&#39; are left out of the running of the workers&#39; state.

I think Cuba has avoided this by gradually giving more power to the workers&#39; and developing other workers&#39; institutions which are to some extent independent of the party. Hopefully enough power has been devolved to stop the bureaucracy coming in the next generation which will lead to Cuba failing as a workers&#39; state.

Whether it is fair to say Cuba has abandoned Leninism, I don&#39;t know. Perhaps it would be better to say Cuba has abandoned Leninist inspired bureaucratic Soviet systems.

In other words, you think bureaucracy is inheirent to Leninism, and so if a state is able to adopt it without this problem, they must have given up Leninism?

This is a strange view. It&#39;s almost as if you&#39;re putting ideas above reality. It&#39;s sort of like saying "I know Leninism doesn&#39;t work, so if it does [work] it must not be Leninism."

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 08:15 PM
The IWW has no more than 1,000 members worldwide, and also isn&#39;t specifically anarchist. I know because I was a member for sometime.

Read this:
So basically the IWW is open to members of all ideologies, but its primary functions could best be described as anarchist. I mean, come on, one of its primary tenets is direct action.


And, if there was any doubt, see this nice collection of "Marxist images" on their site: http://www.iww.org/graphics/marxism/

Um...

Your link doesn&#39;t prove much (http://http://www.iww.org/graphics/anarchism/), since Marxism and anarchism are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Um...

Your link doesn&#39;t prove much,

Actually, the links prove that the IWW isn&#39;t a specifically anarchist union, which is all I ever argued.


since Marxism and anarchism are not neccesarily mutually exclusive.
Is Leninism? Because there is a picture oh him in there too.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 09:09 PM
Actually, the links prove that the IWW isn&#39;t a specifically anarchist union, which is all I ever argued.
But its organized around anarchist principles and I suspect many members are anarchists: the one&#39;s I&#39;ve encountered certainly were. Not to say all are, but its a strong current in the union.



Is Leninism? Because there is a picture oh him in there too.

Hmm. Its hard to say. There have been those who claimed to be anarcho-bolsheviks and found quite a bit of anarchism in some of Lenin&#39;s work.

[Zingu]

When will we realize that theory only interprets, but what is done, will be by the working class, not by theory? <_<

Or have we all become a bunch of sectarian monsters?

[Amusing Scrotum]

In other words, you think bureaucracy is inheirent to Leninism, and so if a state is able to adopt it without this problem, they must have given up Leninism?

This is a strange view. It&#39;s almost as if you&#39;re putting ideas above reality. It&#39;s sort of like saying "I know Leninism doesn&#39;t work, so if it does [work] it must not be Leninism."

Yes I do think Leninism breeds bureaucracy, as Leninist inspired countries have in the most part centralised everything until they deem the workers&#39; intelligent enough to control them. Of course after a few decades of centralisation the workers&#39; are still not considered able enough to control anything and the bureaucracy grows even bigger.

Cuba has followed a more Marxist path by trusting the workers&#39; more and understanding that while the workers&#39; may make some mistakes, this is part of the learning process.

Maybe its slightly unfair of me to equate Leninism to bureaucracy, but if you look at the history of Leninist states you find bureaucracy was their major downfall.

Also you said you have had similar thoughts about Cuba ditching Leninism, what do you base your views on?

[Led Zeppelin]

Paris Commune 1871

I thought the Paris Commune was led by a vanguard under the (absent) leadership of Blanqui (who was most certainly not an anarchist)?

[Amusing Scrotum]

I thought the Paris Commune was led by a vanguard under the (absent) leadership of Blanqui (who was most certainly not an anarchist)?


The 92 members of the Commune (or, more correctly, of the "Communal Council") included skilled workers, several "professionals" (such as doctors and journalists), and a large number of political activists, ranging from reformist republicans, through various types of socialists, to the Jacobins who tended to look back nostalgically to the Revolution of 1789. The charismatic socialist, Louis Auguste Blanqui, was elected President of the Council, but this was in his absence, for he had been arrested on March 17 and was held in a secret prison throughout the life of the Commune. The Paris Commune was proclaimed on March 28, although local districts often retained the organizations from the siege.



The load of work was eased by several factors, although the Council members (who were not "representatives" but delegates, subject to immediate recall by their electors) were expected to carry out many executive functions as well as their legislative ones. The numerous ad hoc organisations set up during the siege in the localities ("quartiers") to meet social needs (canteens, first aid stations) continued to thrive and cooperated with the Commune.


Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune).

Not really a vanguard in the Leninist sense, its more like a local council in its structure.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"This [The Paris Commune] gentleman, is the dictatorship of the proletariat." - Frederich Engels

[Led Zeppelin]

Not really a vanguard in the Leninist sense, its more like a local council in its structure.


Yes it was a vanguard "in the Leninist sense" (the only "sense" there is):


Originally posted by Lenin
All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen&#39;s wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Yes it was a vanguard "in the Leninist sense" (the only "sense" there is):


All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen&#39;s wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.


When I say Leninist vanguard I mean what actually happened in Russia, not what Lenin thought should happen.

Also been as Paris 1871 happened before Lenin, its silly to say it had a Leninist vanguard.

[Led Zeppelin]

Also been as Paris 1871 happened before Lenin, its silly to say it had a Leninist vanguard.

Actually it&#39;s not silly at all, since Lenin&#39;s concept of the vanguard is based on Blanqui&#39;s.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Actually it&#39;s not silly at all, since Lenin&#39;s concept of the vanguard is based on Blanqui&#39;s.

Therefore there are at least two different forms of vanguard, Blanqui&#39;s and Lenin&#39;s. If they were exactly the same then no one would ever say a Leninist vanguard, the same way that if Marxism and Leninism were exactly the same no one would say Marxist-Leninist, they would just say Marxist.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Actually it&#39;s not silly at all, since Lenin&#39;s concept of the vanguard is based on Blanqui&#39;s.

Oh yeah? In that case:

"The Blanquists fared no better. Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favourable moment, not only to seize the helm of state, but also by a display of great, ruthless energy, to maintain power until they suceeded in sweepin the mass of people into the revolution and ranging them around the small band of leaders. This involved, above all, the strictest, dictatorial centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government." - Frederich Engels "The Civil War In France"

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh yeah? In that case:

What is your point?


Therefore there are at least two different forms of vanguard, Blanqui&#39;s and Lenin&#39;s.

I could have said "Lenin&#39;s concept of the vanguard is exactly the same as Blanqui&#39;s", and that would have been true, but it&#39;s a-historical, so I said "based on" instead.


If they were exactly the same then no one would ever say a Leninist vanguard

"Leninist vanguard" is the only vanguard known to Communist theory, there is no such thing as a "Blanqui-ist vanguard", probably because Lenin elaborated more on the theory.


the same way that if Marxism and Leninism were exactly the same no one would say Marxist-Leninist, they would just say Marxist.

True, excessive information.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What is your point?

Read the post. If, as you assert, the Leninist vanguard theory was formed of the Blanquist theory, you would have to admit that by Engels&#39; own description, it was conterposed to Marxism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Paris Commune was not a centralised state which Marx and Lenin both advocated. It was a proto-council communist organisation of political authority, which some define as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It had nothing to do with Leninism and any attempt to suggest otherwise is a hijacking of history.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah, it was nothing like what Marx invisioned .. that&#39;s why he wrote a book about it in which he and Engels said it was exactly what they had invisioned, they just made a few errors.

Have you read &#39;The Civil War In France&#39; TAT?

[rebelworker]

The IWW is defenitly not an exclusivly anarchist union, it is a revolutionary syndiaclist union that happens toi be overwhelmingly ideologically dominated by anarchist at this point in time. As to membership it has over a thousand members in the US alone, that is acording to the goverment labour department that keeps track of union membership.

By Far the largest anarchist organization in existance today is the CGT in Spain.
It has nearly 100,000 members and is now the third largest union in Spain. It is part of a loose alliance of global anarchist organizations( , some of the larger include unions in france and sweeden with thousands of members, the CIPO-RFM, an indigenous organization based in southern mexico, the Zabalza ACF in South Africa, NEFAC in North America and dozens of smaller groups all over the place.

One early Failing of anarchism was its inability to compete with the trickery and ruthless drive of lenenist groupings. This was adressed by nestor Mahkno and some comrades after the failure of Russian anarchism in the "Organizational Platform of libertarian communists". This Paper sparked a huge debate within anarchism that continues to this day.

The next time this debate, calling for more organized and coordinated anarchist organizations, had the chance to serriously play out came quickly with the spanish revolution, unfortunatly it took to long for the ideas to take hold and the revolutionary majority, lead by the CNT, made critical mistakes in direction midway throught the revolution and Authoritarian marxists were able to take footholds in the still intact state and use the new centralised army to attack the revolution from behind the lines. The "Friends of Durruti Group" was form by leading anarchists at the time to try and put into practice Mahkno&#39;s conclusions from the failure in russia but it was too late.

After WW2 Stalinism had take hold to an absolute level alowing no deviation for serrious revolutionaries, they controlled the popular organizations and had the arms, money and prestige(people even today are oin denial about the horrors of the soviet and maoist systems) squash any new initiatives outside of their ideological influence.

Before the Russian Reolution anarchsim was globally much more wide spread than marxism, a fact ofetn written out of history by "the victors". it has takeb a hundred years for history to open a space for anarchist communism to again take its place on the world stage.

[rebelworker]

not to mention- plus i am wondering..like, anarchist fashion..it&#39;s the freshest? what do you guys think? over the years? let me know....

[rebelworker]

:ph34r:

[Led Zeppelin]

Read the post. If, as you assert, the Leninist vanguard theory was formed of the Blanquist theory, you would have to admit that by Engels&#39; own description, it was conterposed to Marxism.

I already knew that Marx and Engels didn&#39;t "like" the vanguard theory, that&#39;s why I&#39;m a Marxist-Leninist.


Paris Commune was not a centralised state which Marx and Lenin both advocated. It was a proto-council communist organisation of political authority, which some define as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It had nothing to do with Leninism and any attempt to suggest otherwise is a hijacking of history.

It also had nothing to do with anarchism, any attempt to suggest otherwise is a hijacking of history.

My point was that Blanqui --the (absent) leader of the Commune-- was not an anarchist, TAT used (well, he tried) the Paris Commune as an example of an anarchist revolution; which is obviously false.

[rebelworker]

I think noone is claiming the paris commune as anarchsit, there were anarchists involved(Louise Michel), as were there marxists.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think noone is claiming the paris commune as anarchsit

TAT was, he responded to the question:


Other than the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, has there ever been an Anarchist inspired revolution.

Note: The inspired part is important, as there were obviously Anarchists who fought in other revolutions, but these were not, to my knowledge anyway, Anarchist inspired revolutions.

With:


Spain 1850&#39;s
Paris Commune 1871
Ukraine 1921
Shanghai 1927
Spain 1936
Hungary 1956
Paris 1968
Kwangju 1980
Argentina 2002
Emphasis added.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Other than the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, has there ever been an Anarchist inspired revolution.

The inspired part is what is important and the Paris Commune in 1871 certainly had some Anarchist inspiration. After reading a bit on it it is unfair really to say the Paris Commune had any specific ideological direction as it contained many different Socialists who had many different Socialist theories from Utopian to Anarchist.

[The Feral Underclass]

It wasn&#39;t strictly anarchist but it wasn&#39;t strictly Marxist either. It certainly was more libertarian than the Leninist defintion of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

If Karl Marx&#39;s defintion of the dictatorship of the proletariat was indeed "the organisation of political authority of one class above another" then I agree, that is what the Paris Commune was. But Marx talked about centralised political authority which is inherently hierarchical and state like, in which case it wasn&#39;t.

[bombeverything]

Other than the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, has there ever been an Anarchist inspired revolution.

Note: The inspired part is important, as there were obviously Anarchists who fought in other revolutions, but these were not, to my knowledge anyway, Anarchist inspired revolutions.

By anarchist "inspired" are you referring to an anarchist majority? I do not quite understand the point of the question.


Also another side question would be why Anarchism has never commanded a revolution? Anarchist theory is just as valid as Marxism, Leninism or Maoism yet has never really commanded a revolution. Indeed its debatable whether the Spanish Civil War was Anarchist inspired due to the sheer volume of Socialists involved.

Because the theory itself opposes this. Also, anarchism was the largest ideological force within the Spanish working class.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2005, 03:39 PM
It wasn&#39;t strictly anarchist but it wasn&#39;t strictly Marxist either. It certainly was more libertarian than the Leninist defintion of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

If Karl Marx&#39;s defintion of the dictatorship of the proletariat was indeed "the organisation of political authority of one class above another" then I agree, that is what the Paris Commune was. But Marx talked about centralised political authority which is inherently hierarchical and state like, in which case it wasn&#39;t.
Marx changed his views on authority after the Parisian Commune.

Also, I don&#39;t still understand your enthusiasm to prove what ideology commanded whom. All of you selishly try to prove what dogma were the revolutionaries carrying in Paris. Anarchism is not about an ideology. Sure, there is some theory developed through the years that tries to make anarchism work efficiently. At the end though, anarchism is the managing of the people by themselves. The only requisite of anarchism is that the proletariat exerts direct democracy in order to manage themselves.

That is all.

As Debord said:

Revolutionary ideology is the enemy of revolutionary theory.

[Morpheus]

The Paris Commune was neither anarchist nor Marxist nor even socialist. It was left-Republican.

Paris Commune: Myth vs. Reality
by Morpheus
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Hist...risCommune.html (http://question-everything.mahost.org/History/ParisCommune.html)

In 1871 the government of Paris made peace with Prussia on harsh terms, having just lost the Franco-Prussian war. During the war the Prussians laid seige to Paris and the French government fled the city. The new French Republic, headed by Louis Theirs, sent troops into the city to take the military arms inside the city to insure they could not be used by the Parisian workers to resist the Germans. This provoked a rebellion by Paris against the national government. They refused to allow the troops to take the weapons and on March 26th elected a municipal council, thus inagurating the Paris Commune. The Commune called for a national rebellion to overthrow the government and reshape France into a Federation of Communes modelled on the Paris Commune. The national government laid seige to Paris and on May 30th suceeded in crushing it. Thousands of inhabitants were massacred, the city remained under martial law for years, anarchism was outlawed and a major crackdown of radicalism ensued. Among revolutionaries around the world a mythology about the Paris Commune was created. It was seen as a source of inspiration, a great socialist rebellion which started to implement a radically egalitarian society. Although it had a radical fringe, overall the Paris Commune was merely a left-Republican rebellion and was no where near as radical as it is portrayed.

Marxists are among the chief purveyors of this myth. Most Marxists claim that the Paris Commune was an example of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," the first time a "workers&#39; state" was implemented. Marx supported the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian war. On July 20th, 1870, Marx said in a letter to Engels:

"The French need a thrashing. If the Prussians are victorious the centralization of state power will be helpful for the centralization of the German working class; furthermore, German predominance will shift the center of gravity of West European labor movements from France to Germany. And one has but to compare the movement from 1866 to today to see that the German working class is in theory and organization superior to the French. Its domination over the French on the world stage would mean likewise the dominance of our theory over that of Proudhon, etc."

Marx originally opposed the rising of the Commune, but once it was underway he changed his position and supported it. In 1881 the Dutch socialist Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis wrote to Marx asking him what measures a workers&#39; state should take if it came to power unexpectedly. Part of Marx&#39;s response said:

"Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be. With a small amount of sound common sense, however, they could have reached a compromise with Versailles useful to the whole mass of the people -- the only thing that could be reached at the time. The appropriation of the Bank of France alone would have been enough to dissolve all the pretensions of the Versailles people in terror, etc., etc. ... The doctrinaire and necessarily fantastic anticipations of the programme of action for a revolution of the future only divert us from the struggle of the present."

This view sharply contrasts from his earlier views expressed in The Civil War in France, published shortly after the defeat of the Commune, where he greatly praised the Commune and emphasized it&#39;s radical and revolutionary character. In that work Marx said of the Paris Commune:

"It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor. Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion. The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute."

It also differs from Engels&#39; and Lenin&#39;s claim that the commune was a "dictatorship of the proletariat." Marx&#39;s second position of 1881, that the Commune &#39;was in no sense socialist,&#39; is not entirely correct, but its&#39; closer to the truth than the standard radical left myths about the Paris Commune. The Paris Commune was no where near as radical as most leftists, including many anarchists, make it out to be. Engels later admitted this, telling Bernstein in 1884 that, "The fact that in the Civil War the unconscious tendencies of the Commune are represented as being more or less deliberate plans, was quite justified in the circumstances, perhaps even inevitable." [quoted on Blumenburg, p. 140] These "unconscious tendencies" were just what Marx and Engels wanted to see in the Commune, it was no where near as radical as they portrayed it as.

The idea that the Paris Commune constituted a "dictatorship of the proletariat" can be easily refuted by examining its&#39; class content. Most of the French working class in 1871 were not proletarians in the traditional Marxist sense (factory workers) but were artisans or semi-artisans - what Marx called petit bourgeoise and most of his followers call petty bourgeoise. Only five of the people on the Commune&#39;s council were proletarian in the orthodox Marxist sense; 35 were artisans. Thus, if the Paris Commune was the dictatorship of anyone it was the dictatorship of the petit bourgeoisie.

The Paris Commune was really a radical Republican rebellion, not a socialist one. "Commune" in France at the time just meant an administrative area, like "county" in the United States. Most of the people elected to the council were Jacobins. The socialists, mostly anarcho-mutualists and Blanquists, were a minority. The government implemented many reforms but did not seek to completely overthrow capitalism. It remitted all payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April but did not abolish rent. It allowed workers to take over factories which had been closed down by their employers, to get the economy restarted, but only ones closed down by their employers. It made many other reforms but was ultimately just a reformist Republican government. They did not abolish capitalism, nor did the majority have any intention of doing so.

Althoug Marx&#39;s 1881 position is much closer to the truth than most far left interpretations he wasn&#39;t entirely correct. Even though it was mainly a reformist government, there were a few radical tendencies in the Paris Commune. These tendencies were of a mostly anarchist nature. Marxists were a tiny minority in Paris at the time and did not play a significant role in the Commune. The taking over of factories by workers was something that anarchists had been advocating for a long time and contradicted the idea of centralizing the economy in state hands which Marx had been advocating for a long time. The national program called for the formation of a national confederation using mandated & recallable delegates, something anarchists had been advocating for decades. This would effectively have abolished the national government and created a confederation of republican city-states. Obviously anarchists would take this a step further and abolish the state within the commune as well, but anarchist influences were clearly present. Unfortunetly these radical tendencies were ultimately secondary compared to the reformist nature of the commune.

Many of the things Marx praised in the Commune differed greatly with the centralized policies he advocated both before and after the Commune. It&#39;s destruction of bureaucracy, worker takeover of factories, advocacy of decentralization and mandated delegates in a national confederation had many things in common with anarchist theory, but little in common with the program in the Communist Manifesto or his other writings. Some have put forth the theory that Marx was intentionally being deceptive, latching onto the Commune in order to promote his own ideology. Another possibility is that he was simply caught up in the excitement of the moment. Engels was most likely being deceptive, since in 1884 he admitted that Marx represented the "unconscious tendencies" of the Commune as being deliberate plans, yet in his 1891 preface to Marx&#39;s Civil War in France he perpetuates the mythology of the Commune by again representing these "unconscious tendencies" as if they were what the Commune was actually planning to do. Bakunin appeared to lean towards the theory that Marx and company were being deceptive, claiming that:

"The picture of a Commune in armed insurrection was so imposing that even the marxists, whose ideas the Paris revolution had utterly upset, had to bow before the actions of the Commune. They went further than that; in defiance of all logic and their known convictions they had to associate themselves with the Commune and identify with its principles and aspirations. It was a comic carnival game, but a necessary one. For such was the enthusiasm awakened by the Revolution that they would have been rejected and repudiated everywhere had they tried to retreat into the ivory tower of their dogma."

The Paris Commune provides evidence in favor of the anarchist theory of the state. "The council of the Commune become more and more isolated from the people who elected it, and thus more and more irrelevant. And as its irrelevance grew, so did its authoritarian tendencies" [anarcho]. Members of the first international began to complain that the commune was turning into a dictatorship and minority rule. In the later part of its existence the Commune voted to create a "committee of public safety" to "defend" (by terror) the "revolution." If you recall the original French Revolution it was the committee of public safety that went around chopping off the heads of its&#39; opponets - both on the left and on the right. The Commune was crushed before the committee could chop any heads off and these authoritarian tendencies allowed to fully unfold as they did in later "socialist" revolutions.

Looking at the main anarchist analyses of the Paris Commune one finds a better analysis, but one that still tends to overexaggerate the radical aspects of the Commune. Bakunin called the Commune a "blow for Revolutionary Socialism" but acknowledged that the Commune "organized in a Jacobin [Republican] manner," that most of those elected were not socialists and that they did not fully implement a socialist program. But he made up excuses for this and overexaggerated the similarities between his own philosophy and what was implemented in the Paris Commune. There were a few similarities but it was hardly "a bold, clearly formulated negation of the State." Turning to Kropotkin we find a better analysis than Bakunin, although still a flawed one. Kropotkin correctly criticized the Commune&#39;s impelementation of representative government, but still tended to overestimate how radical the Paris Commune was. The Paris Commune was just a petty bourgeoie left-Republican uprising. It was no where near as radical as it is made out the be. The ideologies which were furthered by the myth of the radical socialist Paris Commune were themselves far more radical and revolutionary then the Commune itself ever was.