Why Anarchism

[ComTom]

Anarchists are social revolutionaries who seek a stateless, classless, voluntary, cooperative federation of decentralized communities based upon social ownership, individual liberty and autonomous self-management of social and economic life. Sure this all sounds perfect, but is it not a utopian belief? We, marxist-leninists want to abolish the state, but it can’t happen on the day after the revolution. The system we want - a worker's government and worker's power - means the people deciding themselves at local level how to run their cities, their transport systems, their communities, and of course their workplaces. This will require workplaces and community councils, modern forms of soviets. However, the slogan ‘think local, act local’ is not enough for workers power. In addition, the local institutions of democracy need to co-ordinate themselves at a regional and national level, to take the big decisions about how to build socialism nationally and internationally. The anarchists can’t answer one crucial question. On day one of the revolution, the workers in power will face many enemies, at home and abroad. Frederick Engels, who together with Karl Marx founded modern socialism, called the state fundamentally "a body of armed men" (police, the army etc). Revolution in the U.S. would require our own bodies of armed people - workers' militias, nationally coordinated, to fight off imperialism and defeat attempts at armed counter-revolution. If radicals say they are anarchists we should ask them this – ‘are you revolutionary or reformist?’ If they say they are ‘revolutionary’ we should ask them this – ‘are you serious’? If the answer to both is ‘yes’, there is a logical conclusion. You need an organization, national and if possible international, democratically organized, uniting workers, students, home makers, unemployed, retired people, black people and white people, gay and straight, young and old around a common goal, able to work together on a consistent long-term basis for an alternative society - for revolution: a Marxist, revolutionary, working class party.

[Publius]

What a crock of shit.



We, marxist-leninists want to abolish the state,

Sure you do, but the stooge you elect won't.

Bet you a dollar.



The system we want - a worker's government and worker's power - means the people deciding themselves at local level how to run their cities, their transport systems, their communities, and of course their workplaces.

Which is really a fantastic sentiment, until you realize democracy is a shit way to run things.



This will require workplaces and community councils, modern forms of soviets. However, the slogan ‘think local, act local’ is not enough for workers power.

Obviously. We don't live in the 1800s anymore. We live in a global economy. Community based communes (Redundant redudency innit?) were archaic when they were first dreamed up; they're asinine now.



In addition, the local institutions of democracy need to co-ordinate themselves at a regional and national level, to take the big decisions about how to build socialism nationally and internationally.

Imperialism by any other name would smell so sweet.

I can't see this process working at all.

YOu're going to vote somone in charge of the military, and this person is then going to usurp your state.

Another Stalin will doubtlessly arise, because leaders have a penchant for being self-servent.

That the workers would only vote in 'good guys' or would kick out 'bad guys' is not only incognizant of the real-world facts, but is evident contradiction with history and logic. Assume away, for your masturbatory theorycraft, that 'workers' will really vote for their own interests and won't be hoodwinked by another sly populist demagogue.



The anarchists can’t answer one crucial question. On day one of the revolution, the workers in power will face many enemies, at home and abroad. Frederick Engels, who together with Karl Marx founded modern socialism,

Proudhon?



called the state fundamentally "a body of armed men" (police, the army etc).

A very interesting definition. I think the scope of it eludes you.



Revolution in the U.S. would require our own bodies of armed people - workers' militias, nationally coordinated, to fight off imperialism and defeat attempts at armed counter-revolution.

Actually, your bodies of armed people would behave as bodies, not of worker power, but bodies akin to the human one, susceptible from attacks on the inside by insidious virusus.

Why 'counter-revolt' when you can steal the actual revolt?



If radicals say they are anarchists we should ask them this – ‘are you revolutionary or reformist?’ If they say they are ‘revolutionary’ we should ask them this – ‘are you serious’?

As if any anarchist is going to say he's 'reformist' and 'not serious'.



If the answer to both is ‘yes’, there is a logical conclusion.

Bordering on tautology.



You need an organization, national and if possible international, democratically organized, uniting workers, students, home makers, unemployed, retired people, black people and white people, gay and straight, young and old around a common goal, able to work together on a consistent long-term basis for an alternative society - for revolution: a Marxist, revolutionary, working class party.

Can clowns join too?


I'm a capitalist, by the way.

[violencia.Proletariat]

but is it not a utopian belief?

No its not utopian, what do you think communism is going to look like?


We, marxist-leninists want to abolish the state, but it can’t happen on the day after the revolution.

No shit! It's gonna take some time to destroy the bourgeois state apparatus.


means the people deciding themselves at local level how to run their cities, their transport systems, their communities, and of course their workplaces. This will require workplaces and community councils, modern forms of soviets.

Anarchists want this too. It's Leninists who can never set this up when they have power :lol: On the other hand, we did. But lets not get into a debate about who did what, we will let the future speak.


Frederick Engels, who together with Karl Marx founded modern socialism, called the state fundamentally "a body of armed men" (police, the army etc). Revolution in the U.S. would require our own bodies of armed people - workers' militias, nationally coordinated, to fight off imperialism and defeat attempts at armed counter-revolution.

Again, it is the anarchists who had the militias. It's the leninists with the brutal and repressive red armies. Professional armies, are always a bad thing :(


If radicals say they are anarchists we should ask them this – ‘are you revolutionary or reformist?’ If they say they are ‘revolutionary’ we should ask them this – ‘are you serious’? If the answer to both is ‘yes’, there is a logical conclusion. You need an organization, national and if possible international, democratically organized, uniting workers, students, home makers, unemployed, retired people, black people and white people, gay and straight, young and old around a common goal, able to work together on a consistent long-term basis for an alternative society

DO YOU KNOW WHAT ANARCHISM IS? Read some basic Kropotkin for your own sake.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...nquest/toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/toc.html)

If this is what Lenin "really wanted" why didnt he do this?


a Marxist, revolutionary, working class party.

Is this party going to be running in the next election too :lol:

[Atlas Swallowed]

If were were both serfs in medevil Europe you would probably be telling me I am dreaming because I believe one day my descendants will not be ruled by the lord and the lady.

The larger the government the more corrupt it will become. Communism will become what it always has in the past. A small band of so called intellectual control freaks pretendending to represent the working class that they do not belong to or a full blown dictatorship. You are dreaming also but your dream to me is a nightmare.

I did not know Anarchism was an opposing ideololgy. Alot of Communusts feel the need to critisize Anarchism. They also feel the need to preach Atheism, when they just replaced Christ with Marx. Inferiority complex? Marxist Leninists do not want to abolish the state, they want to be the state.

[Orthodox Marxist]

Read some basic Kropotkin for your own sake

Kropotkin The hypocrite who supported his own ruling class thats the anarchist hero?


I did not know Anarchism was an opposing ideololgy. Alot of Communusts feel the need to critisize Anarchism. They also feel the need to preach Atheism, when they just replaced Christ with Marx. Inferiority complex? Marxist Leninists do not want to abolish the state, they want to be the state

Anarchists and Communists want the same thing we just have different ways of reaching that goal. Anarchism is to a degree an opposing Ideology since most of then dont acknowledge the workers state as a necessary step to reaching our shared final goal.

Atheism is a fundamental aspect of any true Communist. The Idea that we wish to replace Christ with Marx is nonsense. We consider Marx a genius who was way ahead of his time we acknowledge his greatness as a man not as a fictional deity.

We have no wish to be the state we only advocate the transitional period of the workers state. The means of production are socialised by the working class.

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 25 2006, 05:42 PM

Read some basic Kropotkin for your own sake

Kropotkin The hypocrite who supported his own ruling class thats the anarchist hero?


I did not know Anarchism was an opposing ideololgy. Alot of Communusts feel the need to critisize Anarchism. They also feel the need to preach Atheism, when they just replaced Christ with Marx. Inferiority complex? Marxist Leninists do not want to abolish the state, they want to be the state

Anarchists and Communists want the same thing we just have different ways of reaching that goal. Anarchism is to a degree an opposing Ideology since most of then dont acknowledge the workers state as a necessary step to reaching our shared final goal.

Atheism is a fundamental aspect of any true Communist. The Idea that we wish to replace Christ with Marx is nonsense. We consider Marx a genius who was way ahead of his time we acknowledge his greatness as a man not as a fictional deity.

We have no wish to be the state we only advocate the transitional period of the workers state. The means of production are socialised by the working class.
My thoughts exactly. I personally believe that their should not be a vangaurd party but vangaurd parties that represent the worker, I also believe in worker councils overseeing their production. I believe that the formation of the Red Army was terrible, but yet neccesary for the survival of the Russian Revolution. For it had many enemies, such as the anarchists, the Cossacks, The Foreign Intervention forces, the Mensheviks, the Polish, the Germans, and other various opposition forces. I believe that without a nationally controlled millitia force that the revolution will likely fall, thats how the Spanish civil war failed. There was too many rivaling millitias, and the state controlled millitia ( the Stalinists ) were weak, small in numbers, and tyrannical. State could be formed without strong state control over its citizen's lives. The state that I advocate is a workers controlled state, not tyrannical one party state.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Kropotkin The hypocrite who supported his own ruling class thats the anarchist hero?

And Bakunin who secretly wanted to control everything himself. And Engel's the communist who owned a factory. These people werent perfect, even shitty, but the ideas in that book are spot on.


Anarchists and Communists want the same thing we just have different ways of reaching that goal. Atheism is a fundamental aspect of any true Communist.

And I agree with you comrade.


We have no wish to be the state we only advocate the transitional period of the workers state. The means of production are socialised by the working class.

And we say that this never happens. I would however, support this tranistion if it actually works. We have no way of knowing it will, but history has shown us it's failures.

[violencia.Proletariat]

personally believe that their should not be a vangaurd party but vangaurd parties that represent the worker, I also believe in worker councils overseeing their production.

Then why are you a leninist?


I believe that without a nationally controlled millitia force that the revolution will likely fall, thats how the Spanish civil war failed.

Not necessarly. There were many historical reasons why it failed. Having the biggest fascist that ever existed supporting the opposing side didnt help much either.


State could be formed without strong state control over its citizen's lives. The state that I advocate is a workers controlled state, not tyrannical one party state.

And the anarchists in Spain showed this was not necessary. The closest thing to a workers state in history has been the Paris Commune, and that too failed.

[Orthodox Marxist]

the Paris Commune, and that too failed.

The Paris Commune never failed it was a success of a socialist system which proves that socialism can indeed work. The Paris Commune was besieged by a superior force and lost.

[Orthodox Marxist]

Then why are you a leninist?

I acknowledge that lenin to a degree advanced Marxist theory.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 26 2006, 12:29 PM

the Paris Commune, and that too failed.

The Paris Commune never failed it was a success of a socialist system which proves that socialism can indeed work. The Paris Commune was besieged by a superior force and lost.
As were the communes in Spain. However it is to my understanding that the Paris Commune never took stock of its supplies, nor did it ration them out based on need. Is this not true? I've also heard accounts that they were running out of food, not because Paris was under siege but because they didnt adequitely take stock of their resources and distribution. That sounds like mismanagement and the beggining of failure.

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 26 2006, 04:36 PM

Then why are you a leninist?

I acknowledge that lenin to a degree advanced Marxist theory.
I am saying that a worker's democracy needs to contain more than one party in the governing process. Parties that support any worker's movement should be placed into a governing process.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 26 2006, 12:36 PM

Then why are you a leninist?

I acknowledge that lenin to a degree advanced Marxist theory.
That question wasnt geared toward you. But noteing your name I'm rather suprised you would say such a thing.

[Orthodox Marxist]

That question wasnt geared toward you. But noteing your name I'm rather suprised you would say such a thing.

I dont have any respect for Lenin he did after all betray the revolution and paved the way for Stalin. However to not acknowledge his Importance is foolhardy.

[apathy maybe]

Dear ComTom,
Your posts might actually get read by more people if you use a thing called a paragraph.

Basically you just press the button on your keyboard that is labelled either "enter" or "return". If you have one button of each, you can press either.

I press that button twice to get paragraphs, but it is not compulsory.

Signed,
apathy maybe (anarchist).

And to get to your actual points,

... is it not a utopian belief
I swear that most Marxists want this too.


The anarchists can’t answer one crucial question.
I assume that question is

If radicals say they are anarchists we should ask them this – ‘are you revolutionary or reformist?’ If they say they are ‘revolutionary’ we should ask them this – ‘are you serious’?
Anarchists are against social hierarchies. Not all of them are revolutionary in the sense of violent revolt.

You need an organization, national and if possible international, democratically organized, uniting workers, students, home makers, unemployed, retired people, black people and white people, gay and straight, young and old around a common goal, able to work together on a consistent long-term basis for an alternative society - for revolution
What? That includes lumpen-proletariat. I thought that they were useless. Anarchists want to involve everyone. Not just the workers. So what's the problem?


a Marxist, revolutionary, working class party
Bugger off, I am not joining your Marxist party. I will work with it until we part ways, but then beware the barrel of my gun. If you try to set up new bosses, I will fight you.


Basically I do not know what point you are trying to make. Anarchism is no more utopian then Marxism, but does not advocate a new set of masters once the old ones have been removed. I do not see that as being utopian.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 06:57 AM
I will work with it until we part ways, but then beware the barrel of my gun. If you try to set up new bosses, I will fight you.
Damn straight and you will not be fighting alone.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421

Good post by Blackberry for those who have little or no understanding of Anarchism.

[red team]

Originally posted by Atlas Swallowed+Feb 28 2006, 01:06 PM--> (Atlas Swallowed @ Feb 28 2006, 01:06 PM)
apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 06:57 AM
I will work with it until we part ways, but then beware the barrel of my gun. If you try to set up new bosses, I will fight you.
Damn straight and you will not be fighting alone.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421

Good post by Blackberry for those who have little or no understanding of Anarchism. [/b]
That depends. Are "authority figures" bosses or are those who control resources and labour bosses?

[Atlas Swallowed]

If a hierarchy is replaced by another hierarchy then I am against it. For example if a small percentage of the population is making laws and holding power over everyone else, because they belong to some party or group. If I were living in a Communist society I would not belong to the Communist party. If the Communist party told me where to work, what to do, what to read, what to think etc... I would oppose it as I oppose any other form of hierarchy. I agree with most of the goals of Communism but power corrupts and I do not believe anyone or any group of people that aquire power will relinquish it willingly.

[Enragé]

Leninism (trotskism) in its essence is not that far away from anarchism, they just differ on needing a state. Anarchists always tend to think a leninist (trotskist) state is an oppressive authoritarian one; however it should not be. It will be democratic, with representatives being recalled at any time should the people want so, that is the true face of leninist (trotskist) statehood. (Now this didnt happen in the USSR..but we all know that it wasnt exactly an ideal situation...now im not saying this is a good excuse, its a shitty one, but it might explain the extreme difference between theory and practice.)

And any fuck who tries to install new bosses, whether he/she calls himself anarchist, leninist, trotskist, or whatever-ist will be opposed, violently if necessary, by me..and im sure alot of other people.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:08 AM




Leninism (trotskism) in its essence is not that far away from anarchism, they just differ on needing a state.

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Class struggle anarchists dont think its possible to just "skip" capitalism and go straight to communism from fedualism :lol:


Anarchists always tend to think a leninist (trotskist) state is an oppressive authoritarian one; however it should not be.

Anarchists think all states are opressive, so they feel no matter how much you say the state will be "nice", they never are.


It will be democratic, with representatives being recalled at any time should the people want so, that is the true face of leninist (trotskist) statehood.

Yes, and thats exactly why Russia was this way after Lenin took power :lol:


(Now this didnt happen in the USSR..but we all know that it wasnt exactly an ideal situation...now im not saying this is a good excuse, its a shitty one, but it might explain the extreme difference between theory and practice.)

It just shows that leninism works for the third world to bring really backwards countries into modern capitalism. This isnt a bad thing, but it doesnt help to claim something went wrong and thats why it didnt work, instead of saying this is all thats possible with this idealogy.


And any fuck who tries to install new bosses, whether he/she calls himself anarchist, leninist, trotskist, or whatever-ist will be opposed, violently if necessary, by me..and im sure alot of other people.

Yeah, as long as we dont do this to boss Lenin :lol:

I'm a bit worried the commie club has decided that you have a "basic understanding" of revolutionary theory. You try and mix idealogies that are in direct contradiction of eachother.

[Enragé]

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Class struggle anarchists dont think its possible to just "skip" capitalism and go straight to communism from fedualism

It depends on the anarchist in question, some do, some dont.



Anarchists think all states are opressive, so they feel no matter how much you say the state will be "nice", they never are.

Thats the whole problem, states dont have to be opressive. I think its just that when an anarchist says "state" they mean something different than when a trotskist does.


Yes, and thats exactly why Russia was this way after Lenin took power

As i said, there was an extreme gap between theory and practice. I support (parts of) the theory, not the practice.


Yeah, as long as we dont do this to boss Lenin

I dont know. I wasnt alive in the time of lenin, were you? I might've tried to kill him if he really was like anarchists believe, i would have defended him untill death if he was like trotskists believe.

Get it?


I'm a bit worried the commie club has decided that you have a "basic understanding" of revolutionary theory. You try and mix idealogies that are in direct contradiction of eachother.

If you are talking about the leninist anarchist thing;

1) i was semi-joking

2) Look, if anarchism is possible I am all for it; fuck the state. However; if it'll save the revolution, if it'll stop me and you and all the comrades from getting ripped to pieces by machine guns and cluster bombs, i am not going to ***** if someone comes along with some plan which some might consider creating a "state" cuz at some time in pre-revolutionary times we were all like "ooooohhhh....the state is lyke omg...lyke so scary and bad and stuff"
get it <_<

[red team]

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 1 2006, 02:00 PM
If a hierarchy is replaced by another hierarchy then I am against it. For example if a small percentage of the population is making laws and holding power over everyone else, because they belong to some party or group. If I were living in a Communist society I would not belong to the Communist party. If the Communist party told me where to work, what to do, what to read, what to think etc... I would oppose it as I oppose any other form of hierarchy. I agree with most of the goals of Communism but power corrupts and I do not believe anyone or any group of people that aquire power will relinquish it willingly.
There will always be a need for authority, because there&#39;s always going to be fools doing or planning to do whatever they may think is good for them, but in fact is harmful to themselves and everyone else. As could be seen even from this forum alone there will be religious and racist fools willing to follow any charismatic loud mouth preaching the Bible or Mein Kampf to them. Don&#39;t expect this to immediately change in a new society. Furthermore, people can only be as corrupt as the economic and political system allows them to be.

[JudeObscure84]

A really great book to read up on is Burnett Bolloten&#39;s the Spanish Revolution. It details the rise, fall and system of the Anarchist movements in Spain circa 1930&#39;s. Apparently, the CNT and the Anarcho-Syndicalists created little mini-proto-fascist states. Thier system was a total collapse because of the anarchaic elements of thier doctrine.
Its even further interesting to note that there was a split within the syndicalist camp because of agency and how to promote syndicalism. The split divided nationalist and anarchist. The nationalist eventually became the Fascists, who held on to George Sorells theory. The fascists said that the anarchist system would never work because syndicalism required nationalism to rally the workers for a precise cause and that it needed to be directed be a centralized government.
I guess you could say that they were right and the CNT Anarchists were overrun by the other stronger groups like the Stalinists, the Fascists and the Republicans.

[violencia.Proletariat]

It depends on the anarchist in question, some do, some dont.

No platformist (the only anarchists that have and will ever make any real change) I&#39;ve known has ever thought this. It&#39;s entirely a leninist concept.


Thats the whole problem, states dont have to be opressive

And thats why leninism is not related to anarchism&#33; They disagree&#33;


I think its just that when an anarchist says "state" they mean something different than when a trotskist does.

No. We dont want any state. Trotsky supported lenin, what lenin did anarchists oppose.


As i said, there was an extreme gap between theory and practice. I support (parts of) the theory, not the practice.

Thats what many leninists say when they try to compare lenin to marxism. Leinism is not marxism, it goes against historical materialism.


I might&#39;ve tried to kill him if he really was like anarchists believe, i would have defended him untill death if he was like trotskists believe.

Remember Kronstadt? Anarchism is not trotskyism without a state.


However; if it&#39;ll save the revolution, if it&#39;ll stop me and you and all the comrades from getting ripped to pieces by machine guns and cluster bombs, i am not going to ***** if someone comes along with some plan which some might consider creating a "state" cuz at some time in pre-revolutionary times we were all like "ooooohhhh....the state is lyke omg...lyke so scary and bad and stuff"
get it <_<

This just shows your mis-understanding. Revolution in the first world will not be a war. The state&#39;s are powerful in leninism because centralization is necessary for quick industrialization and protection from imperialism. First world countries these days have nuclear weapons, we dont need states to repel foreign invaders.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Apparently, the CNT and the Anarcho-Syndicalists created little mini-proto-fascist states.

Utter nonsense.


Its even further interesting to note that there was a split within the syndicalist camp because of agency and how to promote syndicalism. The split divided nationalist and anarchist. The nationalist eventually became the Fascists

The fascists never were syndicalists. The anarchists were the syndicalists. The fascists arised from the election of the leftist government before the anarchists even took control of Catalonia, Aragon, etc.

But yes there were splits within the CNT, the reformist leadership was being challenged by the revolutionary workers in the union, note the creation of the FAI and later the Friends of Durruti.


The fascists said that the anarchist system would never work because syndicalism required nationalism to rally the workers for a precise cause and that it needed to be directed be a centralized government.

Of course they would say that, they are fascists. But fascists dont want syndicalism. They want the state and buisnesses working hand and hand, they shit on workers and never want them to have power.


I guess you could say that they were right

No they werent.


and the CNT Anarchists were overrun by the other stronger groups like the Stalinists, the Fascists and the Republicans.

This has nothing to do with syndicalism not working (although I would say syndicalism is not enough for succesful revolution, as I am an anarcho-communist). It has to do with the fact that no one would supply the anarchists with arms because they were REVOLUTIONARY and would not be stooges for Stalin. The capitalist countries such as Britain and France, had no interest in supplying revolutionaries. If they had and the fascists had been defeated, the revolution might have spread to those capitalist countries. The fascists were supplied by NAZI GERMANY, a country building itself up for war.

[YSR]

As a note to nate, I think that the fascists in Italy were related to the syndicalists. I know Mussolini was a socialist before he became fascist.

Then again, people change.

Also, agreed with all the anarchists in this topic. Marxism has some good elements, but the socialist state is unneeded. It just hasn&#39;t worked. It keeps failing. Find a new idea, guys.

[JudeObscure84]

The fascists never were syndicalists. The anarchists were the syndicalists. The fascists arised from the election of the leftist government before the anarchists even took control of Catalonia, Aragon, etc.

Are you kidding me? Have you not heard of José Antonio Primo de Rivera? He began the National Syndicalist de Las JONS. He was the original fascist and sided with the Carlists in the Spanish Civil War. They were known as the Blueshirts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juntas_de_Ofe...al-Sindicalista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juntas_de_Ofensiva_Nacional-Sindicalista)

In 1933 J.O.N.S. experienced a period of expansion. It started publishing a theoretical journal, JONS. Amongst other things, it engaged in trade union work in Castile. In January 1933 Gutiérrez Palma set up a transport workers union in Valladolid. Later the same year it founded the Agrarian Trade Union Federation. In six month it had set up 175 trade unions, whom together claimed around 3 000 members. During the year Ledesma returned from exile in Portugal, and restarted the publication Libertad.

It was centered in the trade unions. It was the complete parallel to the CNT and FAI only nationalist and not anarchist.

No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer. To address this issue let us erect the synicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the State, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production. The national syndicalist solution is the one which promises to bear the most fruit. It will do away once and for all with political go-betweens and parasites.
- Falangist propaganda, Arriba, number 20, November 1935
http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/falangist.html

Oswald Mosley:
http://www.oswaldmosley.com/um/syndicalism.html


Of course they would say that, they are fascists. But fascists dont want syndicalism. They want the state and buisnesses working hand and hand, they shit on workers and never want them to have power.
What do you mean thats not what they want? The National Syndicalist ideology stands for:
National syndicalists imagined that the liberal democratic political system would be destroyed in a massive general strike, at which point the nation’s economy would be transformed into a corporatist model based on class collaboration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism


This has nothing to do with syndicalism not working (although I would say syndicalism is not enough for succesful revolution, as I am an anarcho-communist). It has to do with the fact that no one would supply the anarchists with arms because they were REVOLUTIONARY and would not be stooges for Stalin. The capitalist countries such as Britain and France, had no interest in supplying revolutionaries. If they had and the fascists had been defeated, the revolution might have spread to those capitalist countries. The fascists were supplied by NAZI GERMANY, a country building itself up for war.

The Anarchists were crushed because of thier poor lack of codination. Read Burnett Bolloten before you go about speaking out like that. If you didnt even know that the fascists in spain were national syndicalists than I dont know how to debate with you.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:40 AM


This just shows your mis-understanding. Revolution in the first world will not be a war. The state&#39;s are powerful in leninism because centralization is necessary for quick industrialization and protection from imperialism. First world countries these days have nuclear weapons, we dont need states to repel foreign invaders.
dude
the netherlands aint got no nuclear weapons, most 1st world countries dont

on top of that; who says we&#39;ll be in control of them and not the remnants of the bourgeois state

[Enragé]

and do you honestly want to use them and kill workers in other countries?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Are you kidding me? Have you not heard of José Antonio Primo de Rivera? He began the National Syndicalist de Las JONS. He was the original fascist and sided with the Carlists in the Spanish Civil War. They were known as the Blueshirts.

As you were referring to Spain during the civil war, I figured you were referring to the anarchist-syndicalists, as they are the most "famous" syndicalists of the time period.


What do you mean thats not what they want? The National Syndicalist ideology stands for:
National syndicalists imagined that the liberal democratic political system would be destroyed in a massive general strike, at which point the nation’s economy would be transformed into a corporatist model based on class collaboration

Syndicalism:


syn·di·cal·ism (sĭn&#39;dĭ-kə-lĭz&#39;əm)
n.
A radical political movement that advocates bringing industry and government under the control of federations of labor unions by the use of direct action, such as general strikes and sabotage.

http://www.answers.com/syndicalism

Fascists destroy labor unions, because that breaks up their alignment of all industry. They in turn replace them with their guilds. An we obviously know the ammount of free ideas allowed to flow in these :lol:


For syndicalists, labor unions are the potential means both of overcoming capitalism and of running society in the interests of the majority.

It states, on an ethical basis, that all participants in an organized trade internally share equal ownership of its production and therefore deserve equal earnings and benefits within that trade, regardless of position or duty. By contrast, socialism emphasises distributing output among trades as required by each trade, not necessarily considering how trades organize internally.

This is never the case in corpratism or fascism. Fascists do not let workesr possess what they create. The fascists feels the industries work together and produce, then the leader decides what to do with it. If you start letting workers possess what they create, they will quit giving it to the dictator.



The Anarchists were crushed because of thier poor lack of codination.

Not true, the coordination of production was not the cause of them loosing the war. They did not have adequate arms in order to defeat fascism. They also had 3 of the most powerful dictators fighting them, at the same time&#33;


If you didnt even know that the fascists in spain were national syndicalists than I dont know how to debate with you.

Syndicalism is not national syndicalism. It&#39;s much like the capitalists who call themselves "anarcho capitalists"


Burnett Bolloten

Ill check him out

[JudeObscure84]

As you were referring to Spain during the civil war, I figured you were referring to the anarchist-syndicalists, as they are the most "famous" syndicalists of the time period.

That still doesnt take away from the fact that the fascists promoted syndicalist values.


Fascists destroy labor unions, because that breaks up their alignment of all industry. They in turn replace them with their guilds. An we obviously know the ammount of free ideas allowed to flow in these

The fascists regarded thier party as one giant union. All forms of production are incorporated into guilds, corporations or syndicates. Ever heard of the German DAF or the Fasces of Italy. Its the same concept of the CNT or FAI only nationalist. And no one is disputing the issue whether or not they allowed freedom for workers. That is not the case. The matter is whether they came from syndicalist backgrounds; and they did.


This is never the case in corpratism or fascism. Fascists do not let workesr possess what they create. The fascists feels the industries work together and produce, then the leader decides what to do with it. If you start letting workers possess what they create, they will quit giving it to the dictator.

Kind of. The workers and the industrialists work together under a co-op, yet both would serve the interests of the state or union. The class struggle is removed by the guild serving the interests of both the worker and the capitalist. See people make the mistake of assuming that the Fascist parties were abstract entities on thier own and just persecuted unions for the hell of it or because they&#39;re "right wing". This was not the case. The fascist parties considered themselves the ultimate workers union. The party was the system of unity, corporatism was their economics and the guilds would settle all class warfare.
Read the Trade Union Question in Hitler&#39;s Mein Kampf, Read Giovanni Gentile&#39;s work or anything by Oswald Mosley where he explains the corporatist system.


Not true, the coordination of production was not the cause of them loosing the war. They did not have adequate arms in order to defeat fascism. They also had 3 of the most powerful dictators fighting them, at the same time

There are alot of factors that played into thier downfall.


Syndicalism is not national syndicalism. It&#39;s much like the capitalists who call themselves "anarcho capitalists

you cannot just say that just because you disagree wholy with an opposing system that its not what it says it is. the IWW or the CNT did not hold the rights to syndicalism. alot of the fascists came straigh from syndicalist backgrounds. It was a natural reaction to events that came about to change the perspective of the syndicalists. the only thing that was attatched to it was nationalism. they simply thought that anarchy was not going to win the appeall of the workers and the nation-myth would serve to unify the workers.


Ill check him out

Please do because saying that fascism had no relation to syndicalism is ahistorical. not even anarachists believe that:
The Road To Fascism: The Rise Of Italian Fascism And Its Relation To Anarchism, Syndicalism And Socialism by Larry Gambone
http://www.akpress.org/2001/items/roadtofascism

[YSR]

There&#39;s a definite connection, that&#39;s true.

I think the point nate was making, and I&#39;ll make, is that the anarcho-syndicalists are the more historically important syndicalists in Spain. Their resistance as well as their transformation of Spanish society is what makes them so important to anarchist history and practice.

True, syndicalism has connections with fascism in some senses. But fascism seeks to co-opt unions to serve a balance of power and strengthen state power. Syndicalist (particularly anarcho-syndicalist) aims seek to create more power to unions and less to businesses. This is NOT in line with fascist aims.


they simply thought that anarchy was not going to win the appeall of the workers and the nation-myth would serve to unify the workers.

You&#39;re right. That makes them class traitors. But I hope you are not trying to tar all syndicalists or anarchists with the blood on fascist hands. That&#39;s like saying to all you Marxists that you&#39;re evil because of Stalin. Both you and I are aware that Stalin was a terrible person and did horrible things. But just because you share some concepts in your philosophy does not mean you are the same.

Unless you&#39;re not trying to do this, in which case I apologize misinterpreting you.

[JudeObscure84]

There&#39;s a definite connection, that&#39;s true.

I think the point nate was making, and I&#39;ll make, is that the anarcho-syndicalists are the more historically important syndicalists in Spain. Their resistance as well as their transformation of Spanish society is what makes them so important to anarchist history and practice.

True, syndicalism has connections with fascism in some senses. But fascism seeks to co-opt unions to serve a balance of power and strengthen state power. Syndicalist (particularly anarcho-syndicalist) aims seek to create more power to unions and less to businesses. This is NOT in line with fascist aims.

The reason why the anarchists are more popular in any shape or form is because they were written about in several books that flourished under free western societies. There is a ton of fascist literature out there yet its is nearly banned and can demonstrate that national syndicalism was more popular than you give it credit for.

On your second point, the fascist or national syndicalist parties never once wanted their citizens to become cogs of the state but of the union or party. The fascists would never submit to a state that wasnt fascist. And the only way to create a fascist one was through a massive union party that would crush opposition and take the state to make it submissive to the peoples will. By people I mean the fascists ofcourse. You have to remember that while its hard for many of you to believe thier rhetoric, plenty of others did back then and believed it was the peoples will.


The Labour Charter (Promulgated by the Grand Council ofr Fascism on April 21, 1927)—(published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, April 3, 1927) [sic] (p. 133)

The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)


This quote serves as an example that businesses were allowed to kept private but only submissive to the union party that controls it. Every essential piece of fascist doctrine revolved around giving the masses what they wanted by force while eliminating the notion of class struggle and unifying the nation under one banner and killing opposition to keep that union.



You&#39;re right. That makes them class traitors. But I hope you are not trying to tar all syndicalists or anarchists with the blood on fascist hands. That&#39;s like saying to all you Marxists that you&#39;re evil because of Stalin. Both you and I are aware that Stalin was a terrible person and did horrible things. But just because you share some concepts in your philosophy does not mean you are the same.

Unless you&#39;re not trying to do this, in which case I apologize misinterpreting you.

I am not trying to tar syndicalists at all (even though I dont believe in it). But what I am trying to do is to eliminate the notion that every single opposing ideology that many disagree with is fascist. as if thats an empty word to throw around to win arguments. I just wanted to add to the matter that while its so easy for many comrades to toss this word around so carelessly when there is a direct history between fascists and leftism. they may have totally disowned thier leftist roots but they were still much closer to strigent authoritarian leftist regimes than to capitalist democracies or even crony captialists like Bush Jr.
I mean I am just trying to help because the left is looking foolish calling Bush, America or even anything liberal as fascist, fascist, fascist while real authoritarian governments are out there that need to be pushed. Whatever happened to just claiming that America was just corrupt?

[Sky]

....

[RGacky3]

Leninism (trotskism) in its essence is not that far away from anarchism, they just differ on needing a state. Anarchists always tend to think a leninist (trotskist) state is an oppressive authoritarian one; however it should not be. It will be democratic, with representatives being recalled at any time should the people want so, that is the true face of leninist (trotskist) statehood. (Now this didnt happen in the USSR..but we all know that it wasnt exactly an ideal situation...now im not saying this is a good excuse, its a shitty one, but it might explain the extreme difference between theory and practice.)


Well Lenin and Trotsky had their chance, and they showed their true colors, so why continue calling your self a Leninist, if what you want isn't what he did?

[Dejavu]

Anarchists are social revolutionaries who seek a stateless, classless, voluntary, cooperative federation of decentralized communities based upon social ownership, individual liberty and autonomous self-management of social and economic life.

A federation is a type of government so thats the first contradiction I see. Second contradiction I see is that social ownership ( abolition of private property) doesn't jive well with individual liberty or self-ownership. If a group of people are dictating what can be owned by individuals ( i.e. yourself) vis-a-vis what can't be owned by individuals you already establish a ruling class.


Sure this all sounds perfect, but is it not a utopian belief?

The socialist version is certainly utopian.


We, marxist-leninists want to abolish the state, but it can’t happen on the day after the revolution.

As Publius said , how do the Communist ruler just give up their monopoly on power? What makes the communists different from the democrats or monarchs in this sense? That experiment failed with the USSR.


The system we want - a worker's government and worker's power - means the people deciding themselves at local level how to run their cities, their transport systems, their communities, and of course their workplaces.

Dictatorship of the proletariat basically and you call this freedom?


This will require workplaces and community councils, modern forms of soviets. However, the slogan ‘think local, act local’ is not enough for workers power. In addition, the local institutions of democracy need to co-ordinate themselves at a regional and national level, to take the big decisions about how to build socialism nationally and internationally. The anarchists can’t answer one crucial question. On day one of the revolution, the workers in power will face many enemies, at home and abroad. Frederick Engels, who together with Karl Marx founded modern socialism, called the state fundamentally "a body of armed men" (police, the army etc). Revolution in the U.S. would require our own bodies of armed people - workers' militias, nationally coordinated, to fight off imperialism and defeat attempts at armed counter-revolution. If radicals say they are anarchists we should ask them this – ‘are you revolutionary or reformist?’ If they say they are ‘revolutionary’ we should ask them this – ‘are you serious’? If the answer to both is ‘yes’, there is a logical conclusion. You need an organization, national and if possible international, democratically organized, uniting workers, students, home makers, unemployed, retired people, black people and white people, gay and straight, young and old around a common goal, able to work together on a consistent long-term basis for an alternative society - for revolution: a Marxist, revolutionary, working class party.

Check your history. This idea is romantic at best and has failed empirically with the Soviet Union.
There is nothing I see here that makes the system better than total freedom in Anarchy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A federation is a type of government so thats the first contradiction I see. Second contradiction I see is that social ownership ( abolition of private property) doesn't jive well with individual liberty or self-ownership. If a group of people are dictating what can be owned by individuals ( i.e. yourself) vis-a-vis what can't be owned by individuals you already establish a ruling class.


The capitalist notion of self-ownership is riddled with fecal matter. Your abuse of the term individual liberty pardons indentured servitude on account of economic and social pressures.


The socialist version is certainly utopian.

:laugh: Still waiting to see why I'm an authoritarian for not wanting my neighbor's music to wake me up at 3 o-clock in the morning.


As Publius said , how do the Communist ruler just give up their monopoly on power? What makes the communists different from the democrats or monarchs in this sense? That experiment failed with the USSR.

Recall rights, referendums, instant run-off, workman's salary, conversion to energy accounting, e-democracy.


Check your history. This idea is romantic at best and has failed empirically with the Soviet Union.

Says the pardon-man for Somalia's "experiment." :rolleyes:

[Dejavu]

The capitalist notion of self-ownership is riddled with fecal matter. Your abuse of the term individual liberty pardons indentured servitude on account of economic and social pressures.

I don't see what your talking about. The only miserable servile countries I've seen were those that undergone the socialist revolution(s).

Still waiting to see why I'm an authoritarian for not wanting my neighbor's music to wake me up at 3 o-clock in the morning.

Every now and then you switch back into a statist and make some stupid argument for the state. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.


Recall rights, referendums, instant run-off, workman's salary, conversion to energy accounting, e-democracy.

Uh yeah, these ideas just don't work. Why would the communist party give up power when they control the monopoly on violence for compliance? Empirically your theory is wrong.


Says the pardon-man for Somalia's "experiment.

Is Somalia the best you got? Do you even bother to read the improvements Somalia was making when the U.N./U.S. left it alone and quit trying to establish a central government by throwing money at it? The highest point of violence was always when the International community attempted to hook and bait wealth for a centralized government. This is something you ( on the days you're a statist) have to answer for, not an Anarchist.