Anarchism and Transition

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Can anarchism undergo a state of socialism that involves collectives rather than the use of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or is that contrary to anarchist doctrine?

[TC]

You seem to incorrectly assume that anarchists have some sort of plan for what they're going to do after a revolution (which they also have no specific idea of how to accomplish).

[anomaly]

state of socialism
Well, if we have a 'state of socialism', we certainly do not have anarchism, do we!

Rather, the 'plan' of anarchists, contrary to TragicClown's odd belief, is to push for communism as soon as the revolution ends. However, we do not see any need for 'the state', and so any post-revolutionary anarchist society will, of course, be extremely decentralized. Most every Marxist I encounter says that they want an 'extremely decentralized' post-revolutionary society (whereas Leninists inevitably want a rigid hierarchical one...with their 'party' and all), and so I have long had a, perhaps odd, belief that there is little separating Marxists from anarchists these days, nothing separating us other than simple semantics. Indeed, my conversations with a very 'non-Marxist' anarchist have reassured this belief.

[TC]

All real marxists believe in socialist state. Marx clearly suggests implementing a centralized workers state with a monopoly on the use of force in the Communist Manifesto, if you don't agree, you're not a communist or a marxist. The degree of centralization is always the minimum nessessary to get the job done efficently so to speak; fighting an inter-state war requires a high degree of centralization, resolving inter-personal civil legal disputes requires very little centralization, administering a school system, health system or the economy as a whole requires something in the middle depending on how the economy is set up.

You need a state post-revolution for a simple reason: non-state organizations are unable to hold and defend territory against state level organizations with hierarchical armies fighting under military dicipline. This is why every revolution that anarchists have approved of (whether its real participants were anarchists or not) has ended as soon as it was confronted with a state, even a state commanding far fewer numbers.

[Winter]

First let me say you can be a communist and not a marxist, just read Kropotkin. Personally, I don't see how a new state would "wither" away over time. I know it's the dictatorship of the whole prolitariat class, but you're still gonna need somekind of government, like a council. It seems people making the decisions will take advantage of there position and want to keep that position. How would it be possible for this new state to simply wither away? After revolution, the concept of the state must forever be in the past. The revolutionary stage must stay in affect for years to filter out those who wish to take advantage of others. Then, we can move onto a communist society.
~ Winter

[TC]

a state is just a tool for one class to enforce its will on another class, to protect its property from other classes. The entire purpose of the capitalist state is to keep capital and the means of production in the capitalists hands, to prevent the workers from taking them, and the purpose of the workers state is the opposite, to protect the worker's capital and control of the means of production from the capitalists.

tools are thrown away when they aren't used anymore. states are only used to keep a non-ruling class away from a ruling classes property. when there is only one class, theres no one to use a state against so, it would theoretically be a needless expense.

Workers in a world without capitalists need a state about as much as a land locked country needs a navy.

[Winter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:40 PM
tools are thrown away when they aren't used anymore. states are only used to keep a non-ruling class away from a ruling classes property. when there is only one class, theres no one to use a state against so, it would theoretically be a needless expense.
I understand, but the people in charge will make there own ruling class and set themselves apart from the people. I find it hard to believe that those who are involved with any state can be all benevelont to the common man. It will be there own self-interest they will be looking after. States lead us on endless cycles of oppression.
~ Winter

[TC]

Of course they look after their self interests, but their self interests are best served by serving the people who own the means of production, i.e. the ruling class. Political figures in the United States survive in office at the whim of the capitalists, political figures in Cuba survive in office at the whim of the workers, both act accordingly to try to please their bosses.

[Winter]

But the state posseses the power to strip away the means of production from the people through manipulation, and of course, military force. Why would those in power want to rely on the common person? It would take us back down the path of capitalism once again. By the way, I'm really enjoying this conversation :)
~ Winter

[TC]

Who pays the military's salaries: the ruling class. When has the military ever favored the official civilian government over the ruling class? Pretty much never. Allende in Chile wanted to use the states power to strip the means of production away from the ruling class, the capitalists; didn't work too well as the military is always loyal to the people who own the means of production not the people in office, they'll only take orders fro the people in office when they don't contradict the ruling classes interests. Same thing almost happened in Venezuela except the workers had enough firepower to protect the civilian government from the military, but the military was still loyal to the ruling class which at the time was still the capitalists.

Do you think if George Bush ordered the military to blow up the New York Stock Exchange they'd do it? I think they'd be more likely to consider targeting the White House.

[Storming Heaven]

All real marxists believe in socialist state. Marx clearly suggests implementing a centralized workers state with a monopoly on the use of force in the Communist Manifesto, if you don't agree, you're not a communist or a marxist.

Forget the sectarian bullshit. Simply because I disagree with your interpretation of Marx does not make me the enemy of the working class.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is truly that (and not a dictatorship over the proletariat) than the proletariat must be the rulers - and If they are the rulers, how can a Proletarian 'State' be any more centralized than the proletariat themselves?


You need a state post-revolution for a simple reason: non-state organizations are unable to hold and defend territory against state level organizations with hierarchical armies fighting under military dicipline. This is why every revolution that anarchists have approved of (whether its real participants were anarchists or not) has ended as soon as it was confronted with a state, even a state commanding far fewer numbers.

I think that what you claim here is completely false. Why should any non-state organization be unable to hold off state-organizations? Indeed, what is the difference between the two? A non-state organization is quite capable of holding off a state, if it is sufficiently organized.

I think the primary reason for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, i.e. some form of post-revolutionary organization of the proletariat, is to build the material conditions (most especially the realtionships and connections between groups of producers) that are necessary for a functioning communist society.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Storming Heaven
Simply because I disagree with your interpretation of Marx does not make me the enemy of the working class.
Wrong! according to TragicClown. You see, TragicClown says we should read Marx as we'd read a 'holy document': take every word as literally as possible. And if you disagree with any word Marx scribbled, well, you might as well just side with the capitalists now. :lol:

In all seriousness, however, good post. I agree.

[LoneRed]

in fact this whole thread was talking about anarchism and transition. the simple answer is that there is no transition. they dont have plans to upkeep an anarchist society, or what have you. Marx and the transition was brought up because someone brought marx up. Just because he agrees with marx doesnt mean hes up on some holy pedastool. Marx had more worthwhile things to say in the communist manifesto, than all the "anarchist" authors have in their writings..

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LoneRed
the simple answer is that there is no transition
Somewhat correct. We recognize that things will not happen 'overnight' once the revolution is won, but we also recognize that any centralized hierarchical body (i.e. a state) is only going to hurt the revolution. Rather, we want to start building anarchism (same thing as communism) from day one after the revolution. After the revolution, we can have a functionally classless society, since the means of production will be held in common (so the 'bourgeoisie' won't exist). Because of this, we can also have a stateless society after the revolution (immediately after). Of course, things probably won't 'run very smoothely' immediately afterwards, but the people themselves, and not some state, can correct this. Essentially, the Leninist model is functionally obsolete here.


Just because he agrees with marx doesnt mean hes up on some holy pedastool
No, but TragicClown seems to think that everything Marx wrote down is true. Well, I'm sorry, it's not.


Marx had more worthwhile things to say in the communist manifesto, than all the "anarchist" authors have in their writings..
Arguable. Marx's real genius is his theory of historical materialism, I think. But, anarchist authors have also had some valuable input. For example, Bakunin accurately predicted what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would become, did he not? He said that a small ruling minority would gain power, so it would become a dictatorship over the proletariat. Well, guess what? That's exactly what happened wherever 'Marxism' was attempted in the twentieth century! So if Bakunin predicted this, he must have had at least a few good ideas.

[Storming Heaven]

For example, Bakunin accurately predicted what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would become, did he not? He said that a small ruling minority would gain power, so it would become a dictatorship over the proletariat. Well, guess what? That's exactly what happened wherever 'Marxism' was attempted in the twentieth century! So if Bakunin predicted this, he must have had at least a few good ideas.

Not necessarily. He could have simply been lucky. To my knowledge Bakunin gave no explaination of why the revloutions such as the Russian ones of 1917 degenerated into personal dictatorships. On top of this, there are a number of Marxist analyses that do explain this. Simply making a correct prediction isn't much use if you have no theory from which to draw the inference!

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Storming [email protected] 26 2006, 02:00 AM
Not necessarily. He could have simply been lucky. To my knowledge Bakunin gave no explaination of why the revloutions such as the Russian ones of 1917 degenerated into personal dictatorships. On top of this, there are a number of Marxist analyses that do explain this. Simply making a correct prediction isn't much use if you have no theory from which to draw the inference!
Well, Bakunin always thought that the proletarian state would actually be ruled by a small group acting in the name of the proletariat. I don't think he had a theory, other than power corrupts.

Also, note that I purposefully simplified 'what Bakunin did'. He obviously did more than just predict that the 'proletarian state' would become controlled by a small ruling minority.

Historical materialism only explains that Russia could not have become socialist or communist in 1917. However, Marxism does not predict that a small ruling minority would gain power. Besides, we already know that Lenin thought we could 'skip' capitalism. I'm sorry, Vladimir, but you're wrong. Again.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by anomaly+Mar 25 2006, 05:23 AM--> (anomaly @ Mar 25 2006, 05:23 AM)
LoneRed
the simple answer is that there is no transition
Somewhat correct. We recognize that things will not happen 'overnight' once the revolution is won, but we also recognize that any centralized hierarchical body (i.e. a state) is only going to hurt the revolution. Rather, we want to start building anarchism (same thing as communism) from day one after the revolution. After the revolution, we can have a functionally classless society, since the means of production will be held in common (so the 'bourgeoisie' won't exist). Because of this, we can also have a stateless society after the revolution (immediately after). Of course, things probably won't 'run very smoothely' immediately afterwards, but the people themselves, and not some state, can correct this. Essentially, the Leninist model is functionally obsolete here.


Just because he agrees with marx doesnt mean hes up on some holy pedastool
No, but TragicClown seems to think that everything Marx wrote down is true. Well, I'm sorry, it's not.


Marx had more worthwhile things to say in the communist manifesto, than all the "anarchist" authors have in their writings..
Arguable. Marx's real genius is his theory of historical materialism, I think. But, anarchist authors have also had some valuable input. For example, Bakunin accurately predicted what the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' would become, did he not? He said that a small ruling minority would gain power, so it would become a dictatorship over the proletariat. Well, guess what? That's exactly what happened wherever 'Marxism' was attempted in the twentieth century! So if Bakunin predicted this, he must have had at least a few good ideas. [/b]
I know my last point was arguable, and know about the communism anarchism thing, I just fundamentally disagree with anarchists. I believe that if their weapons arent used against them, they will take the power back. more tomorrow, im quite drained.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by LoneRed
I just fundamentally disagree with anarchists
Why?