Disillusionment with a mistake?

[Lamanov]

I started to read through Emma Goldman's book “My Disillusionment in Russia” and -- since she's an important anarchist -- I was wondering what are the views of my comrade anarchists today on these matters quoted below, and do they agree with it and why.


Originally posted by Emma Goldman
“I had always known that the Bolsheviki are Marxists. For thirty years I fought the Marxian theory as a cold, mechanistic, enslaving formula. In pamphlets, lectures and debates I argued against it.”


“Anarchism to me was and is the child, not of destruction, but of construction [...] I do not therefore expect Anarchism to follow in the immediate footsteps of centuries of despotism and submission. And I certainly did not expect to see it ushered in by the Marxian theory. “


“ [...] Bolsheviki. I defended them as embodying in practice the spirit of the revolution, in spite of their theoretic Marxism.”


“My critic further charged me with believing that “had the Russians made the Revolution à la Bakunin instead of à la Marx” the result would have been different and more satisfactory. I plead guilty to the charge. In truth, I not only believe so; I am certain of it. “


“The supremacy of the state was the cornerstone of Marxism.”



But did we really have a Russian revolution à la Marx? Is marxism really equal to authoritarianism? Was Bolshevik practice the “embodiment of the revolution” which Goldman defended, “in spite of their theoretical Marxism”? Was their theory really that marxist? Was it marxist at all? Would “anarchist led” (à la Bakunin) revolution be better than “communist led” revolution when we all can argue that Russian revolution – isolated – was really destined to bureaucratic counter-revolution, regardless of the high idealism, hopes and dreams?


I don't think so. I think Goldman and old anarchists were simply wrong, especially regarding marxism, real marxism. I hope today anarchists agree with me.



“NON-BOLSHEVIK Socialist critics of the Russian failure contend that the Revolution could not have succeeded in Russia because industrial conditions had not reached the necessary climax in that country. They point to Marx, who taught that a social revolution is possible only in countries with a highly developed industrial system and its attendant social antagonisms. [...]
This orthodox Marxian view leaves an important factor out of consideration - a factor perhaps more vital to the possibility and success of a social revolution than even the industrial element. That is the psychology of the masses at a given period. Why is there, for instance, no social revolution in the United States, France, or even in Germany? Surely these countries have reached the industrial development set by Marx as the culminating stage.”

Do you really believe marxism leaves this element “out of consideration”?

[idealisticcommie]

Marxism is VALID because it is a demonstrably verifiable analysis of how humans objectively ACT from their materialistic worldview. This doesn't mean that materialism is the ultimate TRUTH.

I could get into spiritual fragmentation of the self, and other such verbalizations about truth which can only come through self-actualization, but suffice it to say that: Marxist isn't a description of the truth, it is a description of the disease.

[Donnie]

“The supremacy of the state was the cornerstone of Marxism.”
I do agree with her on this one, I mean this is what put me off Marxism. I find state Socialism to be too authoritarian.


“My critic further charged me with believing that “had the Russians made the Revolution à la Bakunin instead of à la Marx” the result would have been different and more satisfactory. I plead guilty to the charge. In truth, I not only believe so; I am certain of it. “
Hmm I do find alot of Marx's work to be valid however I disagree with him on the role of the state. I believe the revolution has to be carried out under the libertarian communist banner for it to succeed. The revolution has to be carried out by the workers and in a libertarian or in this case 'anarchic' way. It's the only way the revolution can succeed. That’s why Leninism is a failed idea.

[wet blanket]

“I had always known that the Bolsheviki are Marxists. For thirty years I fought the Marxian theory as a cold, mechanistic, enslaving formula. In pamphlets, lectures and debates I argued against it.”
I agree with this. The Bolsheviks were marxists and the state they created was consistent with much of what Marx wrote(although one could argue that the 'material conditions' were not quite ready) and it was a cold(oppressive), mechanistic, and enslaving state.


“Anarchism to me was and is the child, not of destruction, but of construction [...] I do not therefore expect Anarchism to follow in the immediate footsteps of centuries of despotism and submission. And I certainly did not expect to see it ushered in by the Marxian theory. “ Well, I think Bakunin said it best: "The destructive urge is a creative one".


“ [...] Bolsheviki. I defended them as embodying in practice the spirit of the revolution, in spite of their theoretic Marxism.”
She made a mistake.


“My critic further charged me with believing that “had the Russians made the Revolution à la Bakunin instead of à la Marx” the result would have been different and more satisfactory. I plead guilty to the charge. In truth, I not only believe so; I am certain of it. “
I disagree with her here. The russians DID make the revolution in the bakuninist fashion. It was a very conspiratorial affair and tightly controlled by Lenin and co. It was not a Marxist revolution despite the fact that the state erected after the revolution was consistent with marxism.


“The supremacy of the state was the cornerstone of Marxism.”
If you read a lot of the later works by Marx and Engels, you'll notice how true this is.


I don't think so. I think Goldman and old anarchists were simply wrong, especially regarding marxism, real marxism. I hope today anarchists agree with me.
I can agree with you in that Emma was wrong, however she's hardly an important anarchist as far as theoretical development goes. Read the likes of Peter Kropotkin and Rudolf Rocker, you'll find a much better critiques of marxism and the bolshevik revolution

[Lamanov]

Donnie


Originally posted by Donnie+--> (Donnie)>>I do agree with her on this one, I mean this is what put me off Marxism. I find state Socialism to be too authoritarian.
[...]
Hmm I do find alot of Marx&#39;s work to be valid however I disagree with him on the role of the state. I believe the revolution has to be carried out under the libertarian communist banner for it to succeed. The revolution has to be carried out by the workers and in a libertarian or in this case &#39;anarchic&#39; way. It&#39;s the only way the revolution can succeed. That’s why Leninism is a failed idea.<<[/b]

“State Socialism” is not a marxist nor Marx&#39;s formulation. It&#39;s conception and essence as we see it historicaly has it&#39;s roots in the counter-revolutionary turnover during the establishment of authoritarian “war communism” and NEP. It&#39;s a leninist practical solution - that&#39;s true - but unfortunately for your story - leninism is not marxism. The only thing which could have put you off marxism is the obvious: you think that marixsm = state socialism. Somehow I doubt that you cared to think over it seriously.


wet blanket
>>I agree with this. The Bolsheviks were marxists and the state they created was consistent with much of what Marx wrote(although one could argue that the &#39;material conditions&#39; were not quite ready) and it was a cold(oppressive), mechanistic, and enslaving state.<<

If the bolsheviks (as a whole) were marxists, then I&#39;m a conservative Shiaa radical muslim.

But the truth is different. In reality, I&#39;m not even circumcised.

Russian &#39;Soviets&#39; are a close replica to the Parisian Commune which Marx praised so much as the embodiment of revolutionary class action. Soviets - just like the Commune - were a product of the mass action of the Russian proletariat.

Is that the “state” you say bolsheviks created?? “State” consisted “with of much what Marx wrote”?? If those workers&#39; created soviets are a “state” you are referring to - then you are right.

It&#39;s surprising to me how “anarchists” in trying so hard to be ultra-ultra-ultra-leftists they often get to make a full circle and get on the other side. (on the right). This is definitely my disillusionment in &#39;anarchists&#39;.


>>The russians DID make the revolution in the bakuninist fashion. It was a very conspiratorial affair and tightly controlled by Lenin and co. It was not a Marxist revolution despite the fact that the state erected after the revolution was consistent with marxism.<<

This line proves the obvious: you really don&#39;t know what marxism is, and you fail to realize - just like Goldman - that - in practice - marxist and anarchist “made” revolution is one and the same thing. Both rest upon mass action and direct, democratic participation of the proletariat. Both are anti-authoritarian and progressive-leftist. Equalizing practical, pragmatic bolshevism with marxism is only a reflection of one&#39;s carelessness, and utter historical and theoretical ignorance.


>>If you read a lot of the later works by Marx and Engels, you&#39;ll notice how true this is.<<

Marxism is a synthesis of scientific and social-humanist view on the world and phenomena, kid. It&#39;s practical expression aims towards the elimination of the state.

If you really read a lot of later works by Marx and Engels, and not their twisting interpretations, you&#39;ll notice how true this is.

[wet blanket]

First, I want to point out how much of an asshole you are. First you invite anarchists to respond to you, and I take the time to do so, then you start talking down to me and acting like an all around dick. This isn&#39;t constructive.


Is that the “state” you say bolsheviks created?? “State” consisted “with of much what Marx wrote”?? If those workers&#39; created soviets are a “state” you are referring to - then you are right. I never even mentioned the worker&#39;s soviets, I was talking about the bolshevist state.
Lets take a look at what Marx and Engels called for in the Communist Mannifesto:

1.Abolition of public property in land and application of all rents of lands to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the land of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and a exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and means of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children&#39;s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

The Bolsheviks did all of this.


It&#39;s surprising to me how “anarchists” in trying so hard to be ultra-ultra-ultra-leftists they often get to make a full circle and get on the other side. (on the right). This is definitely my disillusionment in &#39;anarchists&#39;.
I&#39;m neither right nor left. I&#39;m an anticapitalist and I don&#39;t buy into the concentrated spectacle which is offered by the leninist paradigm. I prefer to avoid ideologies.


This line proves the obvious: you really don&#39;t know what marxism is, and you fail to realize - just like Goldman - that - in practice - marxist and anarchist “made” revolution is one and the same thing.
I know exactly what marxism is, which is why I am able to say that the Russian revolution did not resembling anything marx had envisioned. A marxist revolution requires an advanced stage of capitalism. This was not the case in Russia. However the subsequent Bolshevik state which followed the revolution was consistent with the marxist idea of the socialist transition period.

As far as marxist and bakuninist revolutions being the same, that&#39;s nonsense. The history of the first international might be something you want to look into to clarify the difference between the two. There is a stark difference between a Marxist and Bakuninist revolution.


Both rest upon mass action and direct, democratic participation of the proletariat. Both are anti-authoritarian and progressive-leftist.
I believe it was Engels who wrote: "revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is ; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all ; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms inspire in the reactionaries." [Marx-Engels Reader, p. 733]

Bakunin&#39;s authoritarianism was more informal and hidden. He hoped for a small group of professional revolutionary conspirators to have absolute control over the revolution. This was almost exactly what had happened in Russia. So I agree with you, Emma was wrong when she said that the russian revolution would have been better if it was bakuninist instead of Marxist. Namely because it was a bakuninist revolution.


Marxism is a synthesis of scientific and social-humanist view on the world and phenomena, kid. It&#39;s practical expression aims towards the elimination of the state.

If you really read a lot of later works by Marx and Engels, and not their twisting interpretations, you&#39;ll notice how true this is.
Firstly, fuck you and your condescending attitude.
Secondly, I see marxism as two components: the critical marx and the prescriptive marx. The first, critical, I find correct for the most part. The prescriptive work is where I think he was wrong, most of which was done later in his life(see: Communist Manifesto). As for Engels, he was a staunch authoritarian(see: on authority) and obsessed with pseudo-mystical garbage(see: the dialectics of nature).

State-socialism is consistent with marxism. He made it very clear that there will be a socialist &#39;transition period&#39; which will entail the nationalization of the industrial and financial sectors of the economy and would eventually lead to the elimination of class and the state would disappear. In this respect I think Marx and Engels were full of shit.


As an aside note: why the hell would someone, such as yourself, who is so hostile to anarchist ideas have a link to the IWW in their signature? :lol: Did we forget that the wobblies are an anarchist organization(anarchosyndicalist to be more specific) who oppose marxist ideology?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by wet blanket+--> (wet blanket)Lets take a look at what Marx and Engels called for in the Communist Manifesto:[/b]

Communist Manifesto is outdated and old. It wasn&#39;t written in the late days of his life as you say, but in 1848. Today it has no significance for the scientific socialism/communism. In my opinion that was the same case 100 years ago. Manifesto became outdated soon as Marx made an analysis of the Paris Commune which played out in 1871.:

“Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time. ... the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. ...

“The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.

“The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.”


I&#39;m an anticapitalist and I don&#39;t buy into the concentrated spectacle which is offered by the leninist paradigm.

Me too. But you could have taken some time at least to realize that leninism is not equal to marxism, and that bolshevist practice has nothing to do with it - regardless of the Manifesto. Not to mention the analysis of the whole process which we call the Russian revolution. That’s why I tent to get a little bit agitated and start to insult people.


Originally posted by [email protected]
revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is ; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all ; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms inspire in the reactionaries.

Here we can only see the obvious truth: revolutions, in their external form and dynamics, are bloody. That&#39;s no secret. But here, Engels is not talking about the internal organization of the revolutionary movement. As for the internal organization purposed by the marxists - look at [above] Marx&#39;s praise for the ’71. Commune.

>> Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.<< [Engles]


wet blanket
However the subsequent Bolshevik state which followed the revolution was consistent with the marxist idea of the socialist transition period.

That can’t be further from the truth. Here we can see one of rare Marx’s formulas of what socialism really is in which we cannot se anything but the economic analysis of the necessary differences between communist and transitional period:

>>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it.....But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time....Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society.<<

Here we see Rosa Luxemburg criticizing bolsheviks for their authoritarian conduct:

>>The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky, oppose dictatorship to democracy. "Dictatorship or democracy" is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of "democracy," that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.... [The Proletarian Revolution] should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique — dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.<<

>>But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat. <<

>>Yes, dictatorship&#33; But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.<<

If you want, check the ‘Spartacist’ link in my signature to see the programme of the Luxemburg’s CPG.


State-socialism is consistent with marxism.

Ehhhh… no it’s not… Vast majority of leading Marxist would disagree. Luxemburg, Mattick, Pannekoek, Bordiga… Probably Marx and Engels themselves.


Did we forget that the wobblies are an anarchist organization(anarchosyndicalist to be more specific) who oppose marxist ideology?

Actually, they’re a-political organization.

[black magick hustla]

I want to point out something.

Emma Goldman was an important anarchist because she was a woman of action She wasn&#39;t a big contributor to anarchist theory. As wet blanket said, if you really want to fight against anarchist theory, read Kroptokin or Rocker.

Trying to point out the fallacies in Goldman&#39;s essays as fallacies against anarchist theory isn&#39;t a good move.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 09:08 PM
Trying to point out the fallacies in Goldman&#39;s essays as fallacies against anarchist theory isn&#39;t a good move.
Yea, I see. But I wasn&#39;t doing that. I just wanted to see if anarchists agree with her on her attitude towards marxism.

At least I&#39;m the one who&#39;s reading the works of the "other" side... at all&#33; ;)

When I don&#39;t accept the opinion by which marxism is &#39;authoritarian&#39; I&#39;m not automatically turning against anarchism.

[enigma2517]

I wish I could find the website for the Red and Anarchist Network. :&#092;

What the hell happened to it?

Anyway, these guys really have the right idea. On their mission statement they talk about how anarchists and marxists, whose goals are incredibly similar, have been divided for far too long.

The organization is strictly anti-leninist/maoist. This leaves the real marxists, the autonomists, the libertarians, etc.

So while I can&#39;t find their site, heres something else to think about.

The Convergence of Marxism and Anarchism?

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1094664165&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+Nov 1 2005, 08:55 PM--> (DJ-TC @ Nov 1 2005, 08:55 PM)
[email protected] 1 2005, 09:08 PM
Trying to point out the fallacies in Goldman&#39;s essays as fallacies against anarchist theory isn&#39;t a good move.
Yea, I see. But I wasn&#39;t doing that. I just wanted to see if anarchists agree with her on her attitude towards marxism.

At least I&#39;m the one who&#39;s reading the works of the "other" side... at all&#33; ;)

When I don&#39;t accept the opinion by which marxism is &#39;authoritarian&#39; I&#39;m not automatically turning against anarchism. [/b]
Most anarchists are familiar with marxism.

It is pretty common the transformation from marxism to anarchism.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+Nov 1 2005, 11:25 AM--> (DJ&#045;TC &#064; Nov 1 2005, 11:25 AM)
Originally posted by wet blanket+--> (wet blanket)Lets take a look at what Marx and Engels called for in the Communist Manifesto:[/b]

Communist Manifesto is outdated and old. It wasn&#39;t written in the late days of his life as you say, but in 1848. Today it has no significance for the scientific socialism/communism. In my opinion that was the same case 100 years ago. Manifesto became outdated soon as Marx made an analysis of the Paris Commune which played out in 1871.:

“Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time. ... the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. ...

“The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.

“The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.”


I&#39;m an anticapitalist and I don&#39;t buy into the concentrated spectacle which is offered by the leninist paradigm.

Me too. But you could have taken some time at least to realize that leninism is not equal to marxism, and that bolshevist practice has nothing to do with it - regardless of the Manifesto. Not to mention the analysis of the whole process which we call the Russian revolution. That’s why I tent to get a little bit agitated and start to insult people.


[email protected]
revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is ; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all ; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror its arms inspire in the reactionaries.

Here we can only see the obvious truth: revolutions, in their external form and dynamics, are bloody. That&#39;s no secret. But here, Engels is not talking about the internal organization of the revolutionary movement. As for the internal organization purposed by the marxists - look at [above] Marx&#39;s praise for the ’71. Commune.

>> Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.<< [Engles]


wet blanket
However the subsequent Bolshevik state which followed the revolution was consistent with the marxist idea of the socialist transition period.

That can’t be further from the truth. Here we can see one of rare Marx’s formulas of what socialism really is in which we cannot se anything but the economic analysis of the necessary differences between communist and transitional period:

>>What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it.....But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time....Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society.<<

Here we see Rosa Luxemburg criticizing bolsheviks for their authoritarian conduct:

>>The basic error of the Lenin-Trotsky theory is that they too, just like Kautsky, oppose dictatorship to democracy. "Dictatorship or democracy" is the way the question is put by Bolsheviks and Kautsky alike. The latter naturally decides in favor of "democracy," that is, of bourgeois democracy, precisely because he opposes it to the alternative of the socialist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky, on the other hand, decide in favor of dictatorship in contradistinction to democracy, and thereby, in favor of the dictatorship of a handful of persons, that is, in favor of dictatorship on the bourgeois model.... [The Proletarian Revolution] should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique — dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.<<

>>But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat. <<

>>Yes, dictatorship&#33; But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class -- that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.<<

If you want, check the ‘Spartacist’ link in my signature to see the programme of the Luxemburg’s CPG.


State-socialism is consistent with marxism.

Ehhhh… no it’s not… Vast majority of leading Marxist would disagree. Luxemburg, Mattick, Pannekoek, Bordiga… Probably Marx and Engels themselves.


Did we forget that the wobblies are an anarchist organization(anarchosyndicalist to be more specific) who oppose marxist ideology?

Actually, they’re a-political organization. [/b]
Marx on the nationalization of land (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/04/nationalisation-land.htm)
Marx, still arguing for national banks and political action in 1870 (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1870/program.htm)
Engels on the the necessity of proletarian political action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/21.htm)

Resolution of the London Conference on Political Action 1871 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm) This one is especially good... If marx and engels were not state socialists, how the hell do you explain this:
Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes(gee, sounds a lot like bolshevism to me);

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes;

That the combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists —

The Conference recalls to the members of the International:

That in the militant state of the working class, its economical movement and its political action are indissolubly united.

I just wish there were a way for me to put more emphasis on the words MILITANT STATE, because they deserve it.

There you have it.

note: yes the wobblies are an a-political organization, that&#39;s kind of what anarchosyndicalism is... which makes them opposed to marxism in practice(marxism puts heavy emphasis on political involvement of proletarian organizations). I also have a bunch of old(and not-so-old) IWW propaganda bookmarked which is blatantly anarchist if you&#39;re interested. :)

[Donnie]

“State Socialism” is not a marxist nor Marx&#39;s formulation. It&#39;s conception and essence as we see it historicaly has it&#39;s roots in the counter-revolutionary turnover during the establishment of authoritarian “war communism” and NEP. It&#39;s a leninist practical solution - that&#39;s true - but unfortunately for your story - leninism is not marxism. The only thing which could have put you off marxism is the obvious: you think that marixsm = state socialism. Somehow I doubt that you cared to think over it seriously.
The whole Marxist idea is based on socialism then communism. In socialism you use the state as a transformation to communism. I find Socialism or in this case using the state as means to attain communism as too authoritarian.
You do not need the state to crush the counter-revolutionary organisation, literally what use does the judicial system and parliament have for when revolution has begun, because revolution is constantly going until we have a full change within society, revolution is not just fighting is a serious change in the function of society. Why not use the revolutionary potential of our selves as the working class to work together rather than use the state?
Can we not organise ourselves in revolution without the state? I think it&#39;s possible seen as we can organise ourselves in our day to day lives without using the state as a tool.
I know Leninism is not Marxism but it’s a deviant of it. Lenin just thought he was adapting it to more real conditions.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by enigma2517+--> (enigma2517)I wish I could find the website for the Red and Anarchist Network. :&#092;

What the hell happened to it?

Anyway, these guys really have the right idea. On their mission statement they talk about how anarchists and Marxists, whose goals are incredibly similar, have been divided for far too long.

The organization is strictly anti-Leninist/Maoist. This leaves the real Marxists, the autonomists, the libertarians, etc.[/b]

Thanks for mentioning that. I&#39;ve seen that site. They state how they&#39;re strictly a union of anarchists and real Marxists, not the &#39;authoritarian Marxists&#39; (aka Leninists).

I completely agree with redstar2000. He&#39;s one of the few people in this community who can truly see both ahead and back, rather then just back, like most people here.


wetblanket
Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes(gee, sounds a lot like bolshevism to me);

“Distinct from and opposed to all old parties”. This simply states that proletariat must organize itself in the external militant front opposed to the appropriated classes and their parties and political institutions. This is - kind of - what the Commune, soviets and councils were. I can tell you right now that nowhere you will find Marx or Engels to insist upon “militancy” (as authority of one man over the other) in the internal form of organization. I repeat the Marx’s praising statement of the Paris Commune and its democratic structure. Bolshevism – on the other hand – was not formed in this manner. Bolshevik party, like any other party (of the appropriated classes) was bourgeois, and in the bolshevik case, specifically, they were a middle class intelligentsia party, consisted of middle class leadership, and their practice was a synthesis of goals which are needed for the execution of – on the one hand – bourgeois revolution – and on the other – seizure of state power by the Bolsheviks themselves – with or without the Soviets.

If you want to criticize Marx., Engels and the XIX ct. IWMA, I suggest you don’t do it from a perspective of the XXI ct. anarchist, with the projections of Leninism and Stalinism upon it, but from a clear and objective view of the time and place and real possible meaning and essence of those lines you quoted.


That in the militant state of the working class, its economical movement and its political action are indissolubly united.

There are many "ideas" and "notions" of Marx and Engels themselves that - in time - got obsolete. But that&#39;s not because of their "authoritarian" standpoint, but simply because reality of their time projected such ideas on them as "logical". Centralization might have been seen as "logical" then, especially when Paris turned red in 71, and all the workers of France turned to the Parisian as their saviours. Times and nature of capitalsim have changed, thus the "logical" changes - but by applying the same methods of understanding reality we improve our revolutionary theory and practice. But not even this changes the fact that they were allways putting an emphasis on one main thing: I’m going to put an emphasis now on 4 words which – hopefully – will show you how this has nothing to do with bolshevism: "That in the militant state <span style='color:darkred'>of the working class, its economical movement and its political action are indissolubly united.</span>"

My comment on the difference between internal and external forms goes for this too. And on top of that, I’ll give you a thread link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40056) where these crucial elements were discussed.

Besides (just a thought), "militant state" might not mean "state" in the constructional form [i.e. bourgeois state, feudal state, United States, etc], but "state" in the form of description [i.e. state of war, state of the union, state of readiness, etc]. It seems more logical. I might be wrong but I would check it out if I were you.

____

Sorry Donnie, I&#39;ll get back to you later.

[wet blanket]

“Distinct from and opposed to all old parties”. This simply states that proletariat must organize itself in the external militant front opposed to the appropriated classes and their parties and political institutions.
Bolshevism did just that. It truly was nothing like any of the old parties in russia(or europe for that matter) and it did away with the parties and institutions of the appropriated classes in Russia.


This is - kind of - what the Commune, soviets and councils were. I can tell you right now that nowhere you will find Marx or Engels to insist upon “militancy” (as authority of one man over the other) in the internal form of organization.
Of course not, they predicted that the militant state would &#39;whither away&#39; after it has served its function in eliminating the bourgeoisie. This is bullshit.


I repeat the Marx’s praising statement of the Paris Commune and its democratic structure.
Marxist and Anarchists alike all interpreted the events of the Paris revolt to &#39;fit in&#39; with their ideological "system". So yeah, Marx praised the commune along with every other socialist of that day... but he(and Engels) also wrote a lot of other garbage regarding the necessity of &#39;militant proletarian states&#39; to stomp out the bourgeoisie and supervise/administer the future socialist economy.


Bolshevism – on the other hand – was not formed in this manner. Bolshevik party, like any other party (of the appropriated classes) was bourgeois, and in the bolshevik case, specifically, they were a middle class intelligentsia party, consisted of middle class leadership, and their practice was a synthesis of goals which are needed for the execution of – on the one hand – bourgeois revolution – and on the other – seizure of state power by the Bolsheviks themselves – with or without the Soviets.
Firstly, the middle class intelligentsia that made up the bolshevik party is not the same as the bourgeois. They did not own and control the means of production prior to the revolution. That is like calling Marx and those involved with the first International bourgeois.
Secondly, the revolution was not bourgeois. It was a militant worker&#39;s revolution with a bureaucracy acting on behalf of the working class which resembled neither the proletariat or the bourgeoisie. This technicality is precisely why the leninist paradigm is compatible with Marxism. Marx didn&#39;t write much on the possibility of such a bureaucracy acting on behalf of the proletariat as a part of the &#39;militant state&#39;. However, Lenin did go on to write extensively on the necessity of such bureaucracy in order for such a militant state to exist... and I&#39;d be inclined to agree with him, while at the same time disagreeing with both him and Marx that a militant state consisting of and/or acting on behalf of the proletariat is a good idea.


If you want to criticize Marx., Engels and the XIX ct. IWMA, I suggest you don’t do it from a perspective of the XXI ct. anarchist, with the projections of Leninism and Stalinism upon it, but from a clear and objective view of the time and place and real possible meaning and essence of those lines you quoted.
Paying attention to the consequences of Leninism and Stalinism are probably the most important part of having a critical view of what Marx wrote. I&#39;m not going to ignore history to find some supposed "possible meaning and essence" of what was written.


There are many "ideas" and "notions" of Marx and Engels themselves that - in time - got obsolete. But that&#39;s not because of their "authoritarian" standpoint, but simply because reality of their time projected such ideas on them as "logical".
So what you&#39;re saying is that in the reality of their time, it was logical for them to have authoritarian ideas.... but that doesn&#39;t make them or their ideas authoritarian?


"militant state" might not mean "state" in the constructional form [i.e. bourgeois state, feudal state, United States, etc], but "state" in the form of description [i.e. state of war, state of the union, state of readiness, etc]. It seems more logical. I might be wrong but I would check it out if I were you.
Looking at the context it was mentioned, and the fact that Marx and Engels themselves made no effort to clarify this point when challenged(and they were challenged). I can conclude that this is definitely not the case.

[novemba]

why is this an &#39;other side&#39; issue? were gonna end up fighting each other before the revolution if shit like this goes on

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:44 AM
why is this an &#39;other side&#39; issue? were gonna end up fighting each other before the revolution if shit like this goes on
:rolleyes: He asked for an anarchist opinion. I&#39;m giving it to him.

Nobody is fighting anyone.

[Lamanov]

You still did not and cannot explain the fact that nowhere - besides their notions on external forms of struggle and organization aimed at the elimination of appropriated classes, element not even foreign to most anarchists - Marx and Engels don&#39;t event give out a single sentence on behalf of the internal organization of the proletariat which can be described or portrayed as &#39;authoritarian&#39;.


Originally posted by wetblanket
Marx didn&#39;t write much on the possibility of such a bureaucracy acting on behalf of the proletariat as a part of the &#39;militant state&#39;.

1) Didn&#39;t write "much"? He didn&#39;t write at all in that context nor even close&#33;
2) It&#39;s not my fault that you don&#39;t understand the essence of the Russian revolution, and that in that sense you stand very close to stalinist interpretation of history and their pathetic attempts to show leninism as the "logical" continuation of marxism, and partiy organization as the only form of struggle. I&#39;m not going to bother with this question here.


So what you&#39;re saying is that in the reality of their time, it was logical for them to have authoritarian ideas.... but that doesn&#39;t make them or their ideas authoritarian?

No, because they weren&#39;t authoritarian. There were only NOTIONS which you are trying so hard to push through as irrefutable evidence. Reality is quite different.


Looking at the context it was mentioned, and the fact that Marx and Engels themselves made no effort to clarify this point when challenged(and they were challenged). I can conclude that this is definitely not the case.

Just like that, huh..

___

All this said, even with a possibility to portray some notions of the "marxist classics" as authoritarian, people that are so desperately trying to prove it still end up in dead end when they confront the fact that non-leninist marxists, starting from the current in the 2nd International that split as anti-bolshevik all the way to this day are completely anti-authoritarian, pro-democratic, and mass action orientated.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Donnie **with emphasis
The whole Marxist idea is based on socialism then communism.

I wouldn&#39;t be so sure. BASIS for marxist ideas are materialist conceptions of the world and phenomena in it. Idea of "socialism" (whatever it means) is far from the BASIS of it, and it&#39;s not even an axiomatic element.


In socialism you use the state as a transformation to communism. I find Socialism or in this case using the state as means to attain communism as too authoritarian.
You do not need the state to crush the counter-revolutionary organisation, literally what use does the judicial system and parliament have for when revolution has begun, because revolution is constantly going until we have a full change within society, revolution is not just fighting is a serious change in the function of society.

I completely agree.


Why not use the revolutionary potential of our selves as the working class to work together rather than use the state?
Can we not organise ourselves in revolution without the state?

I agree. That&#39;s exactly what I insist upon.

But we must not be so quick to say that Marx and Engels themselves were insisting that such "state" ITSELF has a character of the class organized state. Their "whittering" state are not "state-socialist" formations, ran by dictators, parties, state offcials, experts - but workers themselves. This might be exactly the thing you are talking about. The insist on a word "state" might only carry a external form, when in internal, such "state" consisted of one class alone, democratically and collectively organized, is no state at all. I might be wrong - you might insist - but I myself can peacefully say that I&#39;m not.


I know Leninism is not Marxism but it’s a deviant of it. Lenin just thought he was adapting it to more real conditions.

Marxisms itself without Leninism is adapted more than enough to real conditions.
Leninism is something quite different, regardless of what Lenin himself may think.

[wet blanket]

You still did not and cannot explain the fact that nowhere - besides their notions on external forms of struggle and organization aimed at the elimination of appropriated classes, element not even foreign to most anarchists
This organization is where anarchists and marxists differ. Marxism advocates a politically active proletarian form of organization(AKA Party, vanguard, whatever you want to call it). Anarchists are more concerned with radical unionism and direct action of the workers themselves. Marx was actually not a big fan of unions, calling them reformist.... which is rather ironic because he laid out an openly reformist platform in the IWMA.


Marx and Engels don&#39;t event give out a single sentence on behalf of the internal organization of the proletariat which can be described or portrayed as &#39;authoritarian&#39;.
In his essay, &#39;On Authority&#39;, Engels mentions that the role of the future militant proletarian state will have a supervisory role over production in the socialist transitional period. This is authoritarian.


Didn&#39;t write "much"? He didn&#39;t write at all in that context nor even close&#33;
The very fact that he didn&#39;t express concern about the fact that the leadership of the &#39;militant proletarian state&#39; could develop into a bureaucratic ruling class(something Bakunin brought to his attention several times) shows that this is either A) Exactly what Marx had in mind. or B) Something he thought would never happen.
Either way, he was wrong.


It&#39;s not my fault that you don&#39;t understand the essence of the Russian revolution, and that in that sense you stand very close to stalinist interpretation of history and their pathetic attempts to show leninism as the "logical" continuation of marxism, and partiy organization as the only form of struggle. I&#39;m not going to bother with this question here.
No that is not the case.
I understand very well the events of russian revolution and the theory behind Bolshevism. Lenin was not a dumb guy, he had a very firm grasp on Marxism and developed his own theory of revolution on what Marx and Engels had written. It wasn&#39;t the case the he "didn&#39;t understand" Marx. In fact, it was through his understanding that he saw that in Marxism there was a &#39;theoretical foundation&#39; for social revolution which allowed for the creation of a &#39;militant proletarian state&#39; which would take, and then manage, the means of production. Because Marx was never clear on how this state would function or what shape it would take(other than consisting of the proletariat) Lenin was able to justify the Bolshevik party because it did consist of the proletariat along with intelligentsia acting on behalf of the proletariat with the goals of creating a classes society. Obviously this didn&#39;t work out too well.
That being said, I don&#39;t agree with such a form organization. I think that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all wrong.


No, because they weren&#39;t authoritarian. There were only NOTIONS which you are trying so hard to push through as irrefutable evidence. Reality is quite different.
So they published authoritarian ideas... yet they weren&#39;t authoritarian. um ok.


Just like that, huh..
Yeah pretty much. Unless you could point me in the direction where they suggest otherwise.


All this said, even with a possibility to portray some notions of the "marxist classics" as authoritarian, people that are so desperately trying to prove it still end up in dead end when they confront the fact that non-leninist marxists, starting from the current in the 2nd International that split as anti-bolshevik all the way to this day are completely anti-authoritarian, pro-democratic, and mass action orientated.
Anti-authoritarian marxist.... sounds more like an anarchist in denial.

Honestly, where does it get you to keep putting these two men on such a pedestal? They were only human and the had flaws, believe it or not. This tendency on the left to cling to ideology in the face of all reason and historical fact is what&#39;s stifling creativity as far as revolutionary theory is concerned. Little wonder why all of the important revolutionary ideas in the past half century have all been those of anarchists. Hell, marxism has pretty much reached a dead-end and is bordering on irrelevancy as time goes on and capitalism changes. While his initial analysis and criticism in Capital will always remain invaluable as criticism of the early capitalist system, there is little to nothing in marxism which offers any practical ideas of revolutionary organization and clinging to it will continue to be counterproductive.

[black magick hustla]

Libertarian marxists and council communists are anarchists who are ashamed of being called anarchists. :(

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by wetblanket+--> (wetblanket)This organization is where anarchists and marxists differ. Marxism advocates a politically active proletarian form of organization(AKA Party, vanguard, whatever you want to call it). Anarchists are more concerned with radical unionism and direct action of the workers themselves.[/b]

I hate to use the word "ignorance" ...but sometimes it&#39;s just unavoidable.


The very fact that he didn&#39;t express concern about the fact that the leadership of the &#39;militant proletarian state&#39; could develop into a bureaucratic ruling class(something Bakunin brought to his attention several times) shows that this is either A) Exactly what Marx had in mind. or B) Something he thought would never happen.
Either way, he was wrong.

I could be sure that he didn&#39;t want a bureaucratic structure. It&#39;s possible - but just no way to prove it. He probably though that a "proletarian state" cannot turn bureaucratic. But here we have 2 questions: 1) we really have to ask ourselves is that really a "state" in such manner; 2) we can never know since we&#39;ve never seen this "proletarian state" (just don&#39;t say it was a Soviet Union. If you do - you won&#39;t be taken seriously anymore).

But, it&#39;s also C) he is talking about a proletarian "state". Not a bueraucratic or party controlled state. The fact that you don&#39;t want to take this in consideration is your problem, not mine, so I won&#39;t deal with it here.


was not a dumb guy, he had a very firm grasp on Marxism and developed his own theory of revolution on what Marx and Engels had written. It wasn&#39;t the case the he "didn&#39;t understand" Marx.

Yes, you are right. But he didn&#39;t develop a proletarian revolutionary theory. He developed something else.


Originally posted by *emphasis*@
Because Marx was never clear on how this state would function or what shape it would take(other than consisting of the proletariat) Lenin was able to justify the Bolshevik party because it did consist of the proletariat along with intelligentsia acting on behalf of the proletariat with the goals of creating a classes society.

Yes, exactly. And you&#39;re blaming Marx for all of this by calling him authoritarian.


That being said, I don&#39;t agree with such a form organization. I think that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were all wrong.

And that&#39;s a weird combo of people, I might add. Where did you get it? In a 1960-s Vietnamese textbook? Dude, I think Ho Chi Minn is missing. :))

Seriously: you still can&#39;t show us what "that form of organization" exactly is to Marx and Engels alone, besides that it was an "militant proletarian state" which we can&#39;t tell what it exactly means - besides the most important element of it -- that it was proletarian.


They were only human and the had flaws, believe it or not.

I&#39;m pretty much aware of that. Probably even more than you.


Anti-authoritarian marxist.... sounds more like an anarchist in denial.

Actually - it&#39;s anarchist with a brain.


Marmot
Libertarian marxists and council communists are anarchists who are ashamed of being called anarchists.

Yes, that&#39;s true&#33; We&#39;re ashamed of anarchist theoretical and historical ignorance.

Call it whatever you want - council-communism, left communism, "libertarian", "ashamed" anarchists -- call it brown sugar if you like - it will be exactly what it is - 20th ct. evolution of REAL marxism, and a future of the movement. From "authoritarian" Marx to anti-authoritarian marxism.

[Morpheus]

Libertarian marxists & council communists are anarchists who don&#39;t like that term because they harbor all sorts of unjustified prejudices about anarchists, like wer&#39;e "ignorant" and other claptrap.

[Black Dagger]

DJ-TC, tone down your argument style please

"I hate to use the word "ignorance" ...but sometimes it&#39;s just unavoidable."

"Actually - it&#39;s anarchist with a brain."

"Yes, that&#39;s true&#33; We&#39;re ashamed of anarchist theoretical and historical ignorance."

Insults are unnecessary, this has been a good discussion.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:08 AM
Libertarian marxists & council communists are anarchists who don&#39;t like that term because they harbor all sorts of unjustified prejudices about anarchists, like wer&#39;e "ignorant" and other claptrap.
I don’t like using the term anarchist to describe myself because historically it developed as an ‘individualist’ or ‘crude communism’. Social anarchists are the only ones of any interest and they developed latter, after Marx from my understanding. But to assert that Marx was an authoritarian is absurd, he conceptualised the state differently to anarchist and there’s the conflict. Anarchists during the Spanish civil war didn’t use consensus to defeat the fascist uprising in the majority of the country, they shot them. And the monopoly of legitimate violence within a territory is one definition of a state, they monopolised the legitimate violence like anyone else would under threat.

[Black Dagger]

And the monopoly of legitimate violence within a territory is one definition of a state, they monopolised the legitimate violence like anyone else would under threat.

That&#39;s not &#39;one definition of a state&#39; that&#39;s a definition of one of the characteristics of a state. Having a monopoly on legitimate violence within a territory does not make any individual or group &#39;a state&#39;, it may mean they are operating in the way states do, i.e. they have the monopoly on legitimate violence in a given territory, but that does not make them, or their group a &#39;state&#39;.

[Monty Cantsin]

Yes we could tack other things like a state is the monopoly of “legitimate” violence within a territory used by one class as an apparatus of their domination over other classes.

[wet blanket]

Alright well I&#39;m done responding to DJ-TC if he&#39;s going to continue acting like a fucking child.


Anyway, Monty, you&#39;re correct in the definition of a state. However there are things in Marx&#39;s writings that infer he wanted to extend the role of the state to encompass industry, agriculture, and finance through nationalization(which he supported on several occasions).

Also, you&#39;re wrong in implying that the spanish revolutionaries monopolized violence, that&#39;s a huge mischaracterization of what was actually happening in the region. It was a popular struggle against fascism which consisted of several militia groups(a lot of which were marxists and other non-anarchists) and assorted armed individuals collectively acting in their own interests from various social classes ranging from peasants to proletariat, and petit-bourgeoisie... not anything resembling a state.
... now one could argue that the FAI had started to become somewhat of a state or administrative branch of the CNT though I don&#39;t think it would be accurate to say that they characterized the Spanish revolution.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 7 2005, 03:21 AM
DJ-TC, tone down your argument style please
[...]
Insults are unnecessary, this has been a good discussion.
You&#39;re right, even though I wasn&#39;t trying to insult anyone, nor that was my intention.

But the fact that alot of people can&#39;t seem to get over this anarchist/communist dualism, and that in such manner they force their bakuninist/leninist dogmas (Marx is authoritarian / Lenin is a democrat) is ridiculous. From such perspective the world seems black and white. But in reality it&#39;s pretty colourish ;) .