Proudhon anyone?

[Creature]

to dissolve, submerge, and cause to disappear the political or governmental system in the economic system, by reducing, simplifying, decentralizing and suppressing, one after another, all the wheels of this giant machine... the State.[12]

We should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, or arbitrariness, in brief a contradiction. I myself put the problem this way; to bring about the return to society by an economic combination, of the wealth drawn from society...[13]

We desire a peaceful revolution... you should make use of the very institutions which we charge you to abolish... in such a way that the new society may appear as the spontaneous, natural and necessary development of the old and that the revolution, while abrogating the old order, should nevertheless be derived from it...[14]

I'm interested to hear the other members take on this.

[RevolverNo9]

'Economic categories are only the theoretical expressions, and the abstractions of the social relations of production... [Proudhon,] holding things upside down like a true philosopher sees in actual relations nothing but the incarnation of these principles... What Hegel has done for religion, law, etc., Monsieur Proudhon seeks to do for political economy... [he reduces] the substance of everything into logical categories'

'If we abstract thus from every subject all the alleged accidents, animate or inainmate, men or things, we are right in saying that in the final abstraction, the only substance left is the logical categories. Thus the metaphysicians who, in making these abstractions, think they are making analyses, and to who, the more they detach themselves from theings, imagine themselves to be getting all the nearer to the point of penetrating to their core - these metaphysicians in turn are right in saying that things here below are embroideries of which the logical categories constitute the canvas. This is what distinguishes the philosopher from hte Christian. The Christian, in spite of logic, has only one incarnation of the Logos; the philosopher has never finished with incarnations.'

-Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy

[Craig]

Proudhon has had more of an influence on my political development than perhaps any other political philosopher and I have nothing but tremendous respect for him. With that said, it is a valid criticism to say that he was a bit too reformist at times. But that's the great thing about being an anarchist. We're not Marxists; we don't have to engage in dogmatic hero worship and the cult of personality that practically defines them. We are free to acknowledge the contribution of great thinkers, but we are not forced to take an all-or-nothing approach.

Bakunin was known to launch into the occasional anti-semetic rant, but that doesn't negate his contribution to the fight against capitalism. It merely makes him a man of his times who was wrong about some things and right about many others. The same principle applies to Proudhon.

[STI]

Proudhon has had more of an influence on my political development than perhaps any other political philosopher and I have nothing but tremendous respect for him. With that said, it is a valid criticism to say that he was a bit too reformist at times. But that's the great thing about being an anarchist. We're not Marxists; we don't have to engage in dogmatic hero worship and the cult of personality that practically defines them. We are free to acknowledge the contribution of great thinkers, but we are not forced to take an all-or-nothing approach.

Bakunin was known to launch into the occasional anti-semetic rant, but that doesn't negate his contribution to the fight against capitalism. It merely makes him a man of his times who was wrong about some things and right about many others. The same principle applies to Proudhon.

It's shit like this that makes me not want to call myself an anarchist.

Marxists have to be "all or nothing"? Where the hell did you read that? How many people on this board "dogmatically worship" Marx? Almost none, I'd guess. Even most of the Leninists here are capable of thinking outside the words of Lenin.

We're not all Avakianites, much as you idealist-anarchists would like to paint us that way. Complete libel.


to dissolve, submerge, and cause to disappear the political or governmental system in the economic system, by reducing, simplifying, decentralizing and suppressing, one after another, all the wheels of this giant machine... the State.[12]

We should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, or arbitrariness, in brief a contradiction. I myself put the problem this way; to bring about the return to society by an economic combination, of the wealth drawn from society...[13]

We desire a peaceful revolution... you should make use of the very institutions which we charge you to abolish... in such a way that the new society may appear as the spontaneous, natural and necessary development of the old and that the revolution, while abrogating the old order, should nevertheless be derived from it...[14]

This completely ignores the nature of participation in the bourgeois institutions of "democracy". For one, sustained participation in one or another bourgeois parliamentary system fundamentally changes the way a person thinks (and therefore the way they act). Socialists become social democrats, who become liberals. For a quick example of this, look at the CCF/NDP in Canada.

Sure, they started off as a party dedicated to establishing socialism through electioneering and parliamentary reforms. Then, as time went on (and they got more seats, even being elected in some provinces), they became less and less "hardcore", eventually merging (quite thoroughly) with the union bureaucracy in Canada.

More time went on, more crap seeped its way into the party. Bob Rae's term as Premier of Ontario, and his "sticking it" to OPSEU and the Teachers' unions with "Rae Days" (manditory days off without pay, a decision made by the Rae government in spite of the unions' opposition) are typical of NDP provincial governments nowadays.

That brings us to today. The federal NDP is really nothing more than a bunch of "very" liberals. Their changed position on NAFTA is demonstrative of this. Up until the previous election, the NDP had a solid stance for the elimination of NAFTA. During the leaders' debate last election, Jack Layton made it very clear that he didn't want to get rid of NAFTA, he just wanted to "tinker with it".

From socialist, to social democrat, to liberal - and it took about 80 years. Imagine if they'd enjoyed more time in power! The party would be more of a cesspool than it already is!

Mr. Proudhon's advocacy of "peaceful" revolution is flawed in another way: the bourgeoisie would never, ever give up their wealth and power without a life-or-death struggle to keep it.

Whether we're fighting them or not, they'll fight us. And if we're not fighting, they'll win.

Proudhon's analysis may be the problem. Nowhere does he mention class. He probably thought the ruling class could be convinced by emotive "appeals to humanity", and they'd just step aside and let us carry out our agenda.

Good fucking luck!

[Craig]

It's shit like this that makes me not want to call myself an anarchist.

Marxists have to be "all or nothing"? Where the hell did you read that? How many people on this board "dogmatically worship" Marx? Almost none, I'd guess. Even most of the Leninists here are capable of thinking outside the words of Lenin.

Ok, ok, fair enough! It was something of a cheap shot and a gut reaction to the quoting of Marx in response to Proudhon. I respectfully retract my characterization of Marxists as hero-worshippers.

Your comments about participation in the "bourgeois institutions of democracy" are dead-on.

[STI]

Thanks mate ;)

I was a bit gung-ho in the wording of my response to your post. No hard feelings?

[RevolverNo9]

Ok, ok, fair enough! It was something of a cheap shot and a gut reaction to the quoting of Marx in response to Proudhon.

I didn't quote Marx because he's my hero and if you know of another criticism of Proudhon's idealism better phrased you're welcome to post it. I don't however.

Rather than make some assumption about 'hero-worship' why don't you actually criticise the text, you know - take down the idols, you crazy iconaclastic anarchist you. In fact it's rather ironic that in response to a critique exponing Proudhon's use of idealism - the inversion of the universal intellectual-conceptial / concrete, emperical object reletionship - you employ the a priori! Proudhon has taught you well! :lol:

The fact remains: the strength of leftism lies in its resounding rejection of all idealism and the employment of a rational, materialist, objective undertsanding of the world. Nothing less will do.

[red_che]

We should not put forward revolutionary action as a means of social reform because that pretended means would simply be an appeal to force, or arbitrariness, in brief a contradiction.


Hsitory shows the wothlessness of these words by Proudhon. Historically, there had been no significant/fundamental social changes without revolutionary actions. Such idealism and pacifist thoughts never had advanced the proletarian struggle against capitalism.


We desire a peaceful revolution... you should make use of the very institutions which we charge you to abolish... in such a way that the new society may appear as the spontaneous, natural and necessary development of the old and that the revolution, while abrogating the old order, should nevertheless be derived from it

There had been no such thing as a "peaceful revolution", nor will ever there be. Bourgeis insitutions can be used, but it should not be considered as the only means to achieve socialism. Reformism can bring reforms but not revolutionary changes. Karl Marx already exposed the purposelessness of Proudhon's thoughts. Proudhon is much like as John Paul II of today. Their only difference is that John Paul II had far more followers than proudhon. :D

[Creature]

I wish I could comment at the moment. But I shall refrain. I started this thread to see what the board members thought about these quotes, yet unfortunately I ahvn't read too much of either Proudhon or Marx. I would very much hate to say something that insults or makes myself look ignorant so I will refrain from stating my opinion.

[RevolverNo9]

I would very much hate to say something that insults or makes myself look ignorant so I will refrain from stating my opinion.

Come on man, don't be daft. As long as the reader is clear on the limitations of a writer's knowledge on the subject you can only win respect for stating your opinion.

[Creature]

Come on man, don't be daft. As long as the reader is clear on the limitations of a writer's knowledge on the subject you can only win respect for stating your opinion.

Okay then, just don't label me ignorant/stupid.

The state needs to be abolished. I agree that a revolution needs to come about to achieve such a goal.

It is my belief that a revolution of ideas is needed. To change the way people think. How they act. Violence and Guerilla warfare may have worked in Cuba but it wont work in countries like America. Once people know that there is an alternative, that they don't have to listen to the state, they can organise themselves without the help of a all powerful administration. No matter how big and powerful a government is, they cannot stop an idea from spreading. There will always be someone who agrees. Thus Nazism will always exhist - unfortunately. The only problem is ideas are not being spread effectively, because people arn't willing to listen, people have a tendancy not to think for themselves.

If an Anarchist territory is established, and is duely attacked, the Anarchists have every right to defend themselves in any way neccesary. But a Guerilla campaign to violently gain any Anarchist teritory, (because I am an Anarchist and can't speak for communist) is fundamentaly against the Anarchist beliefs

A state of Anarchy can only exhist if those that participate are anarchists, and those who do not wish to live there can freely move. It is harder, yet more effective to change the way people think, then it is to pick up a rifle and give your enemy reason to bomb you out of the sky.

Humbly awaiting your reply, and no Im not a pacifist.

[STI]

It is my belief that a revolution of ideas is needed. To change the way people think.

It's true that we have to ideologically defeat bourgeois ideas among the working class before revolution is possible, but that "revolution of ideas" isn't enough. In order for it to amount to anything, we need to take control of production and society as a whole away from the bourgeoisie. This can't be done peacefully.


Violence and Guerilla warfare may have worked in Cuba but it wont work in countries like America. Once people know that there is an alternative, that they don't have to listen to the state, they can organise themselves without the help of a all powerful administration.

Do you not expect the ruling class, seeing this dual power as heralding the end of their days at the top, to actively and violently act to crush us? They'd never give up their wealth unless they had it taken away, and they'd never let it be taken away unless they first fought and lost in trying to defend it.

In order for our society to work, we need to do more than just "not listen to the state". Without control over the means of production, we'd all starve and freeze (and not have any neat luxuries). Production is the most important part of any society, and we're screwed if we don't take control of it.


The only problem is ideas are not being spread effectively, because people arn't willing to listen, people have a tendancy not to think for themselves.

That's true. The working class isn't currently acting in its own collective self-interest. So now's the $64,000 question: how do we convince them that communism would be better?


If an Anarchist territory is established, and is duely attacked, the Anarchists have every right to defend themselves in any way neccesary.

How can an anarchist society even be established without violence? Anarchism and communism aren't in everybody's interests. The ruling class will be mighty ticked off if we try to do it, so they'll attack us.


But a Guerilla campaign to violently gain any Anarchist teritory, (because I am an Anarchist and can't speak for communist) is fundamentaly against the Anarchist beliefs

No it isn't. Anarchists have been in favour of violence for well over a century.

And I don't think many people advocate Guerrilla revolution in the first world. America is much different than China or Cuba - almost all the people live in the cities now. Consider also the different productive natures of the societies. In the first world, agricultural production isn't the biggest part of the economy. In places where there have been successful socialist revolutions, it was.


A state of Anarchy can only exhist if those that participate are anarchists, and those who do not wish to live there can freely move. It is harder, yet more effective to change the way people think, then it is to pick up a rifle and give your enemy reason to bomb you out of the sky.

They're going to try to "bomb us out of the sky" anyway, so doesn't it make sense to violently confront them rather than go down without a fight?

We need to do more than just defend ourselves. Unless we actively attack their institutions of control, we're just fighting a war where all we can hope to do is put off defeat for a while.

I want to win.

[red_che]

I would very much hate to say something that insults or makes myself look ignorant so I will refrain from stating my opinion.

Ow, sorry if you're offended. It wasn't meant for you. It is merely my opinion on Proudhon that's why I don't believe him.


It is my belief that a revolution of ideas is needed. To change the way people think. How they act.

Yeah, it is my belief too. But, I also believe that a revolution of ideas will come next only after a revolution in the mode of production of a society and the grabbing of political power from the bourgeoisie and establishment of a proletarian state is made.


Guerilla warfare may have worked in Cuba but it wont work in countries like America.

Definitely. Cuba, or maybe even China and Vietnam, is a lot more different than America. Cuba, China, Vietnam then were agrarian countries and most of its people were farmers who lived in the countryside. So, it is understandable that a guerilla warfare is more appropriate for them in order to defeat their ruling classes. In America today, most people were industrial workers and live in the cities, so a different strategy is needed. I believe that a parliamentary struggle (i.e., workers' strikes, mass protests, and even working within the bourgeois state) for a long period of time and will culminate into a general insurectionary offensive in the center of power is the strategy that is more appropriate for winning the revolution in the US.


The only problem is ideas are not being spread effectively, because people arn't willing to listen, people have a tendancy not to think for themselves.

That is maybe because the ruling bourgeois class of today still holds the power (economic, poltical and cultural) and controls most of the avenues for spreading ideas like the media, the schools,etc. Once the proletariat got control of those, the proletarian consciousness (revolutionary, communist) can now be spread more effectively. Of course, what we can do now is painstaking masswork in order to win the revolution.

[chilcru]

red che:

"Yeah, it is my belief too. But, I also believe that a revolution of ideas will come next only after a revolution in the mode of production of a society and the grabbing of political power from the bourgeoisie and establishment of a proletarian state is made."

My comment:

I know you have the MLM principle in mind when you said that, comrade. But the principle that being determines consciousness does not operate in a static, one-sided fashion. It operates dialectically such that consciousness also determines being. The seizure of political power from the bourgeoisie and the revolution in the economic base will hasten the revolution of ideas but the revolution of ideas can and must start even when the bourgeoisie still sits on its undeserved throne. We can not seize power without first breaking out from the fossilized ideas of the bourgeoisie and force out from the womb of bourgeois society those ideas that we must implant in the minds of the exploited masses. And that is exactly the role of the vanguard party - to start that revolution of ideas through painstaking mass work even when the bourgeoisie fascistically glares at us in tight watch.

[STI]

I believe that a parliamentary struggle (i.e., workers' strikes, mass protests, and even working within the bourgeois state) for a long period of time and will culminate into a general insurectionary offensive in the center of power is the strategy that is more appropriate for winning the revolution in the US.


How do you expect the completely embarassing track record of reformist attempts not to "come back and haunt you"?


Of course, what we can do now is painstaking masswork in order to win the revolution.

How about we spend our time trying to make conditions right for revolution to occur at all! The revolution can't be won right now because it doesn't exist yet.

[red_che]

The seizure of political power from the bourgeoisie and the revolution in the economic base will hasten the revolution of ideas but the revolution of ideas can and must start even when the bourgeoisie still sits on its undeserved throne.

Okay, sorry my mistake. I should have read my comment before I posted it.


And that is exactly the role of the vanguard party - to start that revolution of ideas through painstaking mass work even when the bourgeoisie fascistically glares at us in tight watch.

I agree with this. But I think, the role of the vanguard party is not only to start the revolution of ideas, but the entire revolution itself.


How do you expect the completely embarassing track record of reformist attempts not to "come back and haunt you"?

Reformism is not my suggestion. I am suggesting here a revolutionary strategy. Revolution is not just outright taking up of arms and attacking the White House. The conditions in America does not permit an open armed revolutionary movement yet, but it can be done in a secret, clandestine movement that would erupt at the time when the long period of parliamentary struggle has aroused the American proletariat in its millions and are ready to take up arms against the ruling system.


How about we spend our time trying to make conditions right for revolution to occur at all! The revolution can't be won right now because it doesn't exist yet

Then, wait for your "conditions" to exist. Wait till your eyes are all white. :lol:

[chilcru]

red che:

"But I think, the role of the vanguard party is not only to start the revolution of ideas, but the entire revolution itself."

My reply:

Yes. My statement should not have ended there. It should have ended in the way you finished it.

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:13 PM
Rather than make some assumption about 'hero-worship' why don't you actually criticise the text, you know - take down the idols, you crazy iconaclastic anarchist you. In fact it's rather ironic that in response to a critique exponing Proudhon's use of idealism - the inversion of the universal intellectual-conceptial / concrete, emperical object reletionship - you employ the a priori! Proudhon has taught you well! :lol:
Sorry, I dropped out of college. Could you dumb it down for this low class retard?

I think you're calling me a hypocrite, so why not just say it? Why a paragraph full of obtuse language when simple language would be so much more, umm, simple?

And didn't I retract my statement? I guess you couldn't resist taking a final potshot at me. Are you normally this gracious in victory?

-Craig

[STI]

Reformism is not my suggestion. I am suggesting here a revolutionary strategy. Revolution is not just outright taking up of arms and attacking the White House. The conditions in America does not permit an open armed revolutionary movement yet, but it can be done in a secret, clandestine movement that would erupt at the time when the long period of parliamentary struggle has aroused the American proletariat in its millions and are ready to take up arms against the ruling system.

Sorry, instead of "reformism", I should have said "electioneering".

Whatever the name, participation in the bourgeois electoral system inevitably causes a weakening and eventual abandonment of revolutionary intentions.

The electoral system exists to make people think that change can be made without revolution. Participation in that system sends the same message. Elections (and getting elected) become an end to themselves, eventually causing well-intended electioneers to 'soften up' in order to get elected. The sorry fate of the CCF/NDP which I outlined earlier in this thread is demonstrative of this.




Then, wait for your "conditions" to exist. Wait till your eyes are all white. laugh.gif

Unfortunately, that's what has to be done. We should do what we can to make conditions right as soon as possible, but we can't have, much less win a revolution unless conditions are right.

What's your alternative? Running for mayor? :lol:

[red_che]

Sorry, instead of "reformism", I should have said "electioneering".

Whatever the name, participation in the bourgeois electoral system inevitably causes a weakening and eventual abandonment of revolutionary intentions.

That will be true if all efforts will be given in the particiaption to bourgeois elections. But, what I was suggesting is that all avenues to gain strength for the revolutionary movement.

A revolution is that overthrow of one class by another. In all ways and means, the proletariat should make its efforts in overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Revolutions are done through an armed uprising/insurection and can be coupled with a parliamentary struggle in order to gain more and fast advances.

Participation into bourgeois reactionary elections is just one way, and not the only way or primary way, to gain strength without giving up the armed struggle as the primary weapon in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Likewise, it is more efficient to expose the rottenness of the bourgeois bureaucracy from within it.

Of course, without the party, a disciplined, well-organized party with firm grasp of Marxism-Leninism, participation into the bourgeois reactionary elections will fall into reformism and degeneration of the revolutionary movement into a mere petty-bourgeois party. But for as long as the party (proletarian party) will take strong grip of Marxism-Leninism and unwaivering stand for the radical transformation of society, gaining seats in the bourgeois reactionary bureaucracy will give an added strength for the entire revolution.

Again, I emphasize that participation into reactionary elections is just one aspect of the parliamentary struggle. There are other, more militant steps in pressing for democratic gains for the people and the proletariat such as organized mass actions and protests.


Unfortunately, that's what has to be done. We should do what we can to make conditions right as soon as possible, but we can't have, much less win a revolution unless conditions are right.

Unfortunately, that is all you can see. That is all you want to see. It seems that you are afraid to fight the already rotten, decadent capitalist system that is about to die. I did not say that the revolution must be won now, right at this moment. What I am saying is that the conditions now are already ripe to wage the revolution.

[STI]

That will be true if all efforts will be given in the particiaption to bourgeois elections. But, what I was suggesting is that all avenues to gain strength for the revolutionary movement.

I think that any, not exclusive, participation in electoral flim-flam will be detrimental to whatever efforts you're trying to make.



A revolution is that overthrow of one class by another. In all ways and means, the proletariat should make its efforts in overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Revolutions are done through an armed uprising/insurection and can be coupled with a parliamentary struggle in order to gain more and fast advances.

When has this strategy ever worked?

The CPUSA was very supportive of the New Deal. "More and fast advances", after all. Where are they now? Actively encouraging people to vote for the Democrats.


Participation into bourgeois reactionary elections is just one way, and not the only way or primary way, to gain strength without giving up the armed struggle as the primary weapon in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Likewise, it is more efficient to expose the rottenness of the bourgeois bureaucracy from within it.

Pretty much everybody already knows that the electoral system is rotten. Voter turnout is lower than it's ever been, and even most of those who do vote will not hesitate to admit that all politicians are bastards. Participating in that whole mess will only serve to legitimize it.

Plus, if people know that politicians are a pack of lying old shits, and you're out there trying to become one of them, what message is that going to send about you and your politics?



Of course, without the party, a disciplined, well-organized party with firm grasp of Marxism-Leninism, participation into the bourgeois reactionary elections will fall into reformism and degeneration of the revolutionary movement into a mere petty-bourgeois party. But for as long as the party (proletarian party) will take strong grip of Marxism-Leninism and unwaivering stand for the radical transformation of society, gaining seats in the bourgeois reactionary bureaucracy will give an added strength for the entire revolution.

Well, every time a Marxist-Leninist party has taken to participation in elections, they've not followed the route that you expect, but rather turned into outright reformist politicians.


Again, I emphasize that participation into reactionary elections is just one aspect of the parliamentary struggle. There are other, more militant steps in pressing for democratic gains for the people and the proletariat such as organized mass actions and protests.


I wonder, how do you expect to get elected unless you spend a ton of time, energy, and resources on running in elections? How much does that leave for revolutionary mass action?

Plus, when people see you actively participating in elections, they'll take from that a clear message: "This whole business of elections is a good way to make change", causing them to focus not on militant workplace and community struggle but on, well, elections. I've seen this too many times throughout my political development.

By the way, it wasn't "seeing the rottenness of the electoral system exposed from within" that convinced me to abandon reformism (and to "become" a revolutionary), it was people mercilessly attacking reformism as worse than a complete waste of time. Had the people saying that stuff been active participants in elections, they wouldn't have been convincing at all.


Unfortunately, that is all you can see. That is all you want to see. It seems that you are afraid to fight the already rotten, decadent capitalist system that is about to die. I did not say that the revolution must be won now, right at this moment. What I am saying is that the conditions now are already ripe to wage the revolution.

No they aren't. What fraction of the working class is revolutionary? Not a big one! Without mass support from the working class, revolution is impossible.

It blows, but it's the truth.