Marxism and Anarchism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I see the main conflict between Marxism and Anarchism as the use of the state. Did Marx really claim the state, as in government, was neccessary? Personally, I have only seen Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat quote, which is quite vague and open to multiple interpretations. Even so, why does Marx advocate a stage of temporary centralization to repel capitalism? To me, this seems incongruous with communist philosophy. If communism is a more advanced society, should it not produce and defend itself in a manner superior to socialism or capitalism? Or is it simply making the point that power in the hands of fewer people speeds up production? But is that really true within modern economic theory? Perhaps Marx simply meant that, in between socialism and communism, aspects of capitalist society would need to be adopted while the proleteriat adjusts to changes? That way the proleteriat does not slow production in an effort to learn the new workings of society?

If an approach like that mentioned above is what Marx means, or even if it isn't, why can anarchism not adopt an anti-statist approach while advocating a decentralized transition between capitalism and communism. After all, isn't centralization only dangerous when applied to individual power - not production and industry, assuming it's collectively owned?

Also, I anticipate that a Marxist may argue that the government is collectively managed, but tyranny of the majority can lead to oppression while corrupt institutions exist to influence the proleteriat. Therefore, government centralization (and government itself) has no place, in my opinion, within any revolution.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Did Marx really claim the state, as in government, was neccessary?
Yes. This is one of my major disagreements with Marx. Socialists (Marxists) generally support the generally-called 'dictatorship of the proletariat', that is, a 'workers state'. However, the 'form' this 'state' will take is disputed between Marxists. I think the anarchist message (smash the state) is much clearer and, more importantly, a plain better message.


Even so, why does Marx advocate a stage of temporary centralization to repel capitalism?
Does he support 'centralization' during the DoP? Personally, I don't think so. But some Marxists do. In any case, again, the anarchist message is better.


Perhaps Marx simply meant that, in between socialism and communism, aspects of capitalist society would need to be adopted while the proleteriat adjusts to changes?
If you read his Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx essentially says that some features of capitalism will inevitably 'carry-over' into 'socialism'. Well, this is probably accurate. But does it warrant the creation of a new state? I don't think so.


why can anarchism not adopt an anti-statist approach while advocating a decentralized transition between capitalism and communism.
Well, it has. This is why anarchism exists: because we do advocate decentralization, smashing the state, and working toward anarchism (AKA communism) from day one after the revolution.

A funny thing, however, before you take my stance as utterly anti-Marxist. I have noticed that there tend to be two 'wings' to Marxism here on revleft (and I suspect these are representative of Marxist feelings generally). We have the libertarian Marxists, such as ArmchairSocialism and redstar2000, and then we have the 'vanguardist' Marxists (otherwise known as Leninists, Trotskyists, and the like), such as Severian and Marxism-Leninism.

It seems that roughly half of the so-called Marxists (the libertarian ones) are quite similar to anarchists in their thinking (usually the main difference is semantics). Hence, I do not think a Marxist-anarchist 'alliance' of sorts is too far from reality anymore.

So is there any major conflict between anarchism and Marxism? Well, that depends on which 'Marxism' we're talking about.

[redstar2000]

It seems likely to me that when the next "great wave" of proletarian revolutions take place (in the "old" capitalist countries, of course), they will borrow heavily from both the Marxist and the anarchist traditions.

But anything with the stink of despotic authority will be savagely rejected! :angry:

One of the most humorous but not necessarily altogether inaccurate things I have been called is an "anarcho-Stalinist"...because I suggested once that anybody that tries to give people orders should be taken out and summarily shot! :lol:

Much of the content of this site is really an on-going effort to drive out the whole concept of "revolutionary despotism" from the movement to come...to discredit it beyond all hope of salvation.

We're making some progress. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Cult of Reason]

While I think redstar2000's work in getting the crap out of Marxism (something I regretably know little about), I think that much of Marxist jargon must be ditched. "Smash the state" rather than "dictatorship of the proletariat", for example. The former is simply much easier to understand, and less open to misunderstanding.

[Black Dagger]

I see the main conflict between Marxism and Anarchism as the use of the state. Did Marx really claim the state, as in government, was neccessary? Personally, I have only seen Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat quote, which is quite vague and open to multiple interpretations.

I think the real problem is actually sectarianism. I think that if people actually took the 'revolutionary project' seriously enough many of the 'problems' (particularly the issue of the DoP) between anarchists and marxists could be overcome. The fact is however, at the moment at least, many anarchists/marxists are too caught up in perpetuating a century-old feud, they read horribly biased and usually fallacious critiques of each others point's of view, make snide remarks about same, and just generally approach each others revolutionary philosphy with immaturity and close-mindedness.

That said, as an anarchist communist there are certainly marxists that i can't conceive myself ever coming to agreement with on issues like the DoP - but most marxists would probably struggle with the same people, 'stalinists' for example.

Basically, some marxist do conceive of the DoP in highly authoritarian and concrete terms, a 'real' state, like what a 20th century socialist state looked like. That is problematic. However, many marxists perceive the DoP along a lot more fluid, and not so rigid lines, class-rule rather than party or vanguard rule, and to me that is acceptable.

The problem really is getting over (or perhaps getting around) the terminology that people use. Terms like the DoP tend to turn anarchists off marxist ideas, and the dogmatism that is rife on both sides means that people more often than not refuse to back down from their positions or terminology in order to accomodate each others point of view. Particularly in regards to the use of the word 'state'.

The problem with using this word to describe the DoP (and the use of the term 'dictatorship' as well), a 'proletarian state' is that because it is often poorly defined and even poorly understood by anarchists and marxists alike.

When marxists use the word state this sets off alarm bells for anarchists, who hold firmly anti-statist views, state-organisation, hierarchy and so forth, being key points of anarchist criticism of present society.

The reality is however that a 'proletarian state' is not the same as a bourgeois state, but in the interests of building communist solidarity, usage of the term is messy and can be misleading. It doesn't help that some people get so dogmatic about the terms that they use, like for some reason 'we have to use the term state' when talking about the DoP, which just drives the wedge between anarchists and marxists even deeper.

If anarchists and marxists were more open to discussion, and less dogmatic about their positions and terminology, i think the issue of the DoP and the so-called 'proletarian state' could be overcome for the majority of people on both sides. That said, there will probably always be anarchists and marxists who make this process difficult, or even refuse to participate, but i think that they will be the minority - in the end, people need to put the interests of society, of working class people, ahead of their own intellectual dogmatism.

The first step that we must take is tackling the issue of terminology. People need to be more willing to junk or re-define terms of contention, rather than shutting down debate and retreating into the trenches of dogmatism that have crippled solidarity efforts between anarchists and marxists. To me this means junking the term state from the discourse, 'government' would be a suitable substitute, as it implies social organisation but not necessarily a state - there are many different types of 'government'. Regardless, people need to be more willing to work towards unity, rather than focusing so single-mindedly on maintaing the 'purity' of one's ideology.

Secondly, anarchists and marxists need to shut up and listen to each others opinions, but these opinions need to be expressed without petty name-calling and without resorting to sectarian stereotypes about each other. This is something that needs to be worked on in a general context, we have to stop with petty name calling and sectarian stereotypes, they're immature, unproductive and hurt revolutionary organisation, and in the end, the interests of the working class.

Thirdly, anarchists need to recognise that not all marxists are 'authoritarians' who support the idea of a vanguard party revolution, and vanguard party rule as the equivalent of the DoP. There are certainly marxists who do subscribe to these ideas, but many do not. It's with the marxists who don't, that anarchists have the most in common with. Many marxists do conceive the DoP on libertarian lines, a directly-democratic government that is run by and in the interests of the working class, not a vanguard, or party that 'leads' society. It is this conception of the DoP that needs to be built on, and supported by anarchists.

The sooner that anarchists and marxists focus on the myriad of similarities that they share, rather than on their minority of differences, the sooner more constructive and productive revolutionary organs can be built.

[apathy maybe]

I love you Black Dagger :wub: (edited for stupid smilies!)

Anyway, even apart from the state there are areas where Marxists and (at least some) anarchists disagree. Most Marxists that I know seem to have this obsession with work and workers. They believe that the workers are wonderful and are the only route out of capitalism. They fail to recognise that other forces in society have power (look at the students in France, yay for the lumpenproletariat). They also think that we should be fighting for full employment, I'ld rather be fighting for no employment, let machines do the work, so that people have time to think.

And not only that, most anarchists (I think) (and even some Marxists) think that the Hegalistic idea that human society goes through stages and will inevitably come to communism, is just plain silly. Human history is not deterministic, yes we can look at what has past and group it into stages (primitivist communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism/imperialism), but we cannot then say that the next stage is technological communism.

That is like saying that because the coin was flipped 100 times and it come out heads each time, that the next time it will come out heads. The chance is 50%.

Anarchists and Marxists agree on things (such as problems with the current society), but disagree on work, and determinism. Or at least some of them do.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:46 AM
While I think redstar2000's work in getting the crap out of Marxism (something I regretably know little about), I think that much of Marxist jargon must be ditched. "Smash the state" rather than "dictatorship of the proletariat", for example. The former is simply much easier to understand, and less open to misunderstanding.
the latter was far easier to understand in the context of 19th century europe.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 9 2006, 07:05 PM
Did Marx really claim the state, as in government, was neccessary?
The state is not so much necessary as it is an inevitable feature of class society. The state arises out of class conflict, ergo as long as class conflict exists so will the state.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
Human history is not deterministic, yes we can look at what has past and group it into stages (primitivist communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism/imperialism), but we cannot then say that the next stage is technological communism.

Yes, I think this is a real difference...though a few anarchists don't have that much of a problem with it.

First of all, the idea that communism "must be" the "next stage" is a hypothesis...that history itself has yet to confirm. There is fragmentary evidence that "points in that direction", but, strictly speaking, we don't yet know whether Marx "got this one right" or not.

It seems to me that the evidence that human history has been "deterministic" up to this point is quite overwhelming...that all the ways hither-to suggested to "get around that" are rather hopelessly inadequate.

In one fashion or another, they summon up "subjective factors" that simply don't stand up under critical examination.

What is curious to me -- and I've raised this before -- is why people find "determinism" so...well, is repugnant too strong a word?

Surely no one would object if I asserted that the level of available technology during the renaissance made it impossible to achieve powered flight in that period.

Why then balk at the obvious links between technological development and the kinds of societies that are possible under those constraints.

I simply don't understand it...but it's there and sometimes in a very hostile mode. As if Marx was personally "taking away someone's freedom".

I can be a subsistence farmer and still be a communist! And no dogmatic Marxist tyrant is going to tell me otherwise!

Very strange. :blink:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)If you read his Critique of the Gotha Program, Marx essentially says that some features of capitalism will inevitably 'carry-over' into 'socialism'. Well, this is probably accurate. But does it warrant the creation of a new state? I don't think so.[/b]

Nice of you to mention that. It seems to me that Marx Critique of the Gotha programme] differs socialism from communism in terms of production role accounting and differences (conditions) in sharing of products, but considerng the potential of abundance in production by today's standard and development of productivity forces, it seems less and less "that big of a deal".

But no - he does not mention a "new state" -- infact, Marx never spoke of any post revolutionary state: not "proletarian state" nor "workers' state". Here is a thread that proves it: Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46364)

Theoretical foundation for this formula was made within the 2nd International, and it was used mostly by Trotsky, so today's 'Marxists' you speak of are in fact 'Trotskyists'.


Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor)Even so, why does Marx advocate a stage of temporary centralization to repel capitalism?[/b]


Originally posted by anomaly
Does he support 'centralization' during the DoP? Personally, I don't think so. But some Marxists do.

Well, he does support centralized action against counter revolution. But don't anarchists?

As far as everything else is conserned: one who speaks of mandat impératif does not mean separate centralization of power, but on the contrary. Look at this: post link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48519&view=findpost&p=1292049429)


Originally posted by anomaly
We have the libertarian Marxists, such as ArmchairSocialism and redstar2000...

...and DJ-TC :P


Originally posted by redstar2000
It seems likely to me that when the next "great wave" of proletarian revolutions take place (in the "old" capitalist countries, of course), they will borrow heavily from both the Marxist and the anarchist traditions.

Of course; and those which do not "fit in" to the flexibility of the next "wave" will probably be "flushed out".

I consider this a good theoretical and historical perspective which basicly says "the proles will unite us": Proletariat as Subject and Representation (http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/4.htm)


apathy [email protected]
(look at the students in France, yay for the lumpenproletariat).

Students of France are not lumpen. The ones which were the most active and which started the riots go to mostly tech schools and are the backbone of the next working class generation.


apathy maybe
And not only that, most anarchists (I think) (and even some Marxists) think that the Hegalistic idea that human society goes through stages and will inevitably come to communism, is just plain silly.

Hegelians usualy - from time to time - come up with "end of history" scenario: Hegel did it, Fukuyama did it, but the motive was always the same: glorification of the existing.

Of course, those that do not want to glorify the existing usualy fall into the same trap and think that "next society" will be the "goal" of humanity and it's history.

However, thinkers which grew out of the critical confrontation with Hegelian thought - all the way from Feuerbach and Marx to Sartre and Debord (last three in particular) - recognize that "history has no end" and that communism will be the product of conditioned human practice -- but far from "inevitable".


I agree with BlackDagger: most of us end up as slaves of our own project, of our own sect.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Mrm. I think it's arguable that the anarchist federations of Spain, while not perfect, certainly, provide an interesting model of proletarian dictatorship. The specific terminology (socialism/communism) that might describe a society in the process of transition is, I feel, less relevent than the reality of a functioning model that empowers workers and murders shitloads of clergy.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Most Marxists that I know seem to have this obsession with work and workers. They believe that the workers are wonderful and are the only route out of capitalism. They fail to recognise that other forces in society have power (look at the students in France, yay for the lumpenproletariat).

When do Marxists forget about the lumpen? Lumpens don't have jobs, but if they did they would be proletarians. This statement just seems plain ignorant.


yes we can look at what has past and group it into stages (primitivist communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism/imperialism), but we cannot then say that the next stage is technological communism.

I have yet to see a society skip a stage, have you? I guess we will have to wait for the advanced countries to go communist (if they are going to) to find out.


Anyway, even apart from the state there are areas where Marxists and (at least some) anarchists disagree. They also think that we should be fighting for full employment

The IWW fights for more hours for workers. While they aren't anarchist, they have a large anarchist base. But I have never read a word of Marx which said workers should demand 10 hour workdays in order to have revolution :rolleyes: But as we have already determined workers are not really important to you because communists "talk about them too much" :lol:

[anomaly]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)But no - he does not mention a "new state" -- infact, Marx never spoke of any post revolutionary state: not "proletarian state" nor "workers' state". Here is a thread that proves it:[/b]
Actually, that thread proves that Marx used the term "workers' state" twice.

But, yea, I see what you're saying. I didn't realize this before.

In any case, I stand by what I said before. More important than what Marx said is what so-called Marxists do with what he said. And, it would appear that people 'do' different things with his work. Some go the libertarian route, others the vanguard route. Myself, I think the libertarian Marxist 'way' and anarchist 'way' (which are pretty much the same) are the best way to do things.

Also, I think it is in both the libertarian Marxists' and anarchists' best interests to, as redstar says, dicredit the vanguardists beyond all hope of salvation (this is a paraphrase, in case anyone gets nitpicky). In this sense, an 'alliance' between anarchists and lib Marxists has already been formed.


Well, he does support centralized action against counter revolution.
By this, do you simply mean we work collectively against capitalism?


...and DJ-TC
I actually didn't realize you were a libertarian Marxist...sorry. :blush:


apathy maybe
And not only that, most anarchists (I think) (and even some Marxists) think that the Hegalistic idea that human society goes through stages and will inevitably come to communism, is just plain silly.
Well, I completely agree with historical materialism, but not because of dialectics. From what I have read of dialectics (admittedly not very much), I think it's bullshit and not worth reading anymore. But, I do enjoy studying history, and historical materialism explains history very well, and it even allows us to make predicitions. For example, we know that Venezuela is not headed toward 'socialism', but toward modern capitalism.


but we cannot then say that the next stage is technological communism.
Well, duh. Myself, I haven't visited the future. However, I think some things point in such a direction, and I certainly think communism is a possibility. Will it actually happen? I hope so. But I'll tell you one thing: it definitely won't happen if we don't fight for it. And I think it's worth fighting for.


Most Marxists that I know seem to have this obsession with work and workers.
Some. Myself, I think the lumpenproletariat as well as the petty-bourgeois (if it exists when the revolution comes) might be an important part of the movement. However, we can agree that, in any case, the workers are a very important part of all this, probably the most important part (as they'll have the greatest numbers).

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by anomaly+--> (anomaly)By this, do you simply mean we work collectively against capitalism?[/b]

Collectivley, of course, but that's not enough. Working class must also enforse decisive and coordinated struggle by its own means, and this is what Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" stands for.

The whole working class represented by its own people through mandat impératif communaly coordinates and makes decisions about its revolutionary course.


anomaly
I actually didn't realize you were a libertarian Marxist...sorry.

So what did you think I was? :unsure:

[anomaly]

Originally posted by DJ-TC
So what did you think I was?
I wasn't sure. I think I actually got you confused with some other people, who also have letters as their name. JKP and JC1 I think are also members. Or something along those lines. My bad.

Never fear. I'll never forget you again, comrade! :lol:

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)In one fashion or another, they summon up "subjective factors" that simply don't stand up under critical examination.

What is curious to me -- and I've raised this before -- is why people find "determinism" so...well, is repugnant too strong a word?

Surely no one would object if I asserted that the level of available technology during the renaissance made it impossible to achieve powered flight in that period.

Why then balk at the obvious links between technological development and the kinds of societies that are possible under those constraints.

I simply don't understand it...but it's there and sometimes in a very hostile mode. As if Marx was personally "taking away someone's freedom".

I can be a subsistence farmer and still be a communist! And no dogmatic Marxist tyrant is going to tell me otherwise!

Very strange. blink.gif[/b]

Just because something can be shown that it has followed something else, does not mean that a third thing will inevitably follow, at least not when talking of human history.

Yes under a society where there is 90% leisure time because machines are doing the work is more likely to be "communistic" or at least have equality as a large part of the society, it doesn't follow that it will be communist.

As to talking about the past, it is very easy to talk about the past. I can say that Babbage's engines could not have been built because machinery was not advanced enough, but I can't say that quantum computers cannot be built because things might happen that I can't predict.

I can be a subsistence farmer and still be a communist! And no dogmatic Marxist tyrant is going to tell me otherwise! Because communism is possible under subsistence conditions, it is possible even without 90% leisure time. And tyrant is not perhaps the right word, by dogmatic is.

Originally posted by DJ-TC+--> (DJ-TC)Hegelians usualy - from time to time - come up with "end of history" scenario: Hegel did it, Fukuyama did it, but the motive was always the same: glorification of the existing.

Of course, those that do not want to glorify the existing usualy fall into the same trap and think that "next society" will be the "goal" of humanity and it's history.

However, thinkers which grew out of the critical confrontation with Hegelian thought - all the way from Feuerbach and Marx to Sartre and Debord (last three in particular) - recognize that "history has no end" and that communism will be the product of conditioned human practice -- but far from "inevitable".
[/b]
It was my understanding of a lot of Marxist thought that communism is the "goal" of history, and that once reached the end of history will have been reached. Which I find simply silly. So am I wrong in thinking that Marx thought that? Am I right in thinking that some Marxists think that?

(And students who don't work, aren't working, thus aren't proletariat, even if they will become proletariat.)


Originally posted by nate
When do Marxists forget about the lumpen? Lumpens don't have jobs, but if they did they would be proletarians. This statement just seems plain ignorant. Umm... could be that I ignorant, but I didn't say that Marxists forgot about them, simply that according to Marxist theory as I understand it they will play no role in the revolution.

Originally posted by nate
I have yet to see a society skip a stage, have you? I guess we will have to wait for the advanced countries to go communist (if they are going to) to find out.
Interesting hey. Did Russia skip a stage when it went from feudalism to a "workers state"? I reckon Australia skipped a stage when it was invaded by the English (hadn't even got beyond the primitivist stage).
Frankly I might be wrong, but it seems that many industrialised countries are just staying with capitalism when they should have already moved on. Yes they might move to communism, but it is not inevitable. (Marx could be accused of looking at history and choosing the facts that he liked, like a lot of people who look at history.)


[email protected]
The IWW fights for more hours for workers. While they aren't anarchist, they have a large anarchist base. But I have never read a word of Marx which said workers should demand 10 hour workdays in order to have revolution rolleyes.gif But as we have already determined workers are not really important to you because communists "talk about them too much" laugh.gif
I said Marxists, not Marx. I also said some anarchists. Many Marxists I know want more work for workers. I personally wont less work for workers, I think that if they have more time for thinking and being with their families, then they are more likely to over throw the capitalist scum. Yup, workers aren't important to me. Humans are. So fuck you and your worker bullshit. I care about workers, but I also care about everybody else. I don't want a society of workers, I want a society where people don't have to work, if they don't want to.

anomaly
Well, I completely agree with historical materialism, but not because of dialectics. From what I have read of dialectics (admittedly not very much), I think it's bullshit and not worth reading anymore. But, I do enjoy studying history, and historical materialism explains history very well, and it even allows us to make predicitions. For example, we know that Venezuela is not headed toward 'socialism', but toward modern capitalism.What was Venezuela before then? I think that it might explain history, I don't see it has predicting the future very well.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by apathy maybe
What was Venezuela before then? I think that it might explain history, I don't see it has predicting the future very well.
Well, Venezuela is emerging from a feudal society.

And you're possibly right: maybe Marx was wrong. Nobody knows yet. However, as communists (or anarchists), we should hope he was right, and fight for a communist society. Believing that we're just 'doomed' to live in capitalism just isn't a good frame of mind to have (at least not if one is a revolutionary).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10 2006, 07:23 AM
They believe that the workers are wonderful and are the only route out of capitalism.
I think it demonstrates your own political immature when you accuse Marxists of being "obsessed" with workers whom they deem as "wonderful." Saying things like that simply have no value to a political debate.


They fail to recognise that other forces in society have power (look at the students in France, yay for the lumpenproletariat).

Society is based on a process of production. Society operates on these processes. It functions based on what we as human beings produce for ourselves.

In capitalist society what is produced is done so by the working class, but controlled by the ruling class.

The working class operate these processes of production and if they refused to operate these processes of production society would start to disintegrate. Any power to transform society only exists within those who work within this process.

Students certainly have the ability to make noise and create disruption but the fact is they have no relationship to this process of production and therefore have no "power" to transform it. If they have no power to transform the process of production then you have no power to transform society.

Of course, when the time comes students and workers will unite to fight against the state, but a bunch of students running around the streets fighting with the police, although is useful, is not how you destroy capitalism.

You destroy capitalism by destroying the capitalist process of production and those people who work within it can only do that. Who has the opportunity to disrupt capitalism? Those who work in factories, on the trains, in power stations, in mines and within these different processess, which make capitalism function.

Not people who go to universities.


They also think that we should be fighting for full employment, I’d rather be fighting for no employment, let machines do the work, so that people have time to think.

That's just pure nonsense.


Anarchists and Marxists agree on things (such as problems with the current society), but disagree on work, and determinism.

No, these disagreements only exist within the individualist milieu of middle class "post-modern" anarchism, which generally comes from a lack of understanding.

[KC]

dicredit the vanguardists

We already went through this. You yourself accepted the idea of the vanguard.


For example, we know that Venezuela is not headed toward 'socialism', but toward modern capitalism.

You sure know a lot about the Venezuelan revolution. :rolleyes:


Myself, I think the lumpenproletariat as well as the petty-bourgeois (if it exists when the revolution comes) might be an important part of the movement.

Yes, they will be, but they can't be given any political power. They have their own class based motives, and because of this can really fuck up the proletarian movement.


Just because something can be shown that it has followed something else, does not mean that a third thing will inevitably follow, at least not when talking of human history.


What other direction could society move in? I've seen you criticize Marx's theory of historical materialism but I haven't seen you offer any good argument in your favor.



Yes under a society where there is 90% leisure time because machines are doing the work is more likely to be "communistic" or at least have equality as a large part of the society, it doesn't follow that it will be communist.


What else could it be?


So am I wrong in thinking that Marx thought that?

Yes, you are wrong. Marx saw communism as the end of class society, not society in general.


they will play no role in the revolution.

Every class will have its role.


Did Russia skip a stage when it went from feudalism to a "workers state"?

Almost.


Yes they might move to communism, but it is not inevitable.

Well, capitalism can't last forever, so I ask you again: What other form could society take?


Many Marxists I know want more work for workers.

Huh? :huh: Marxists want to abolish the alienated character of work.



Well, Venezuela is emerging from a feudal society.


Wow! Could you please explain to me how Venezuela is emerging from a feudal society?



And you're possibly right: maybe Marx was wrong.

Marx never took any of his theories strictly; in other words, he recognized that there were always exceptions to rules. We are dealing with human actions here, which are completely unpredictable. For example, he saw Russia as a possible exception to his theory of historical materialism.



Not people who go to universities.

They do if they're wage slaves! :P

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11 2006, 11:39 AM
Of course, when the time comes students and workers will unite to fight against the state, but a bunch of students running around the streets fighting with the police, although is useful, is not how you destroy capitalism.
Not all anarchists agree with the superstructure analysis of marxism, be they "post modern" (post anarchism) or not. one should not necessarily have to proceed from the other and produce the "withering state". plenty of anarchists would argue that outside factors to economic determinants can spark disdain for statism and in turn capitalism generally.

'68 in france wasn't exclusively students, though it was started as such. I recently gave a paper on the Kwangju uprising and my mind has been on it. It certainly constitutes an example of community and individual disempowerment by the state, which in turn gave rise to anti-government attacks from both students and workers (ie. the burning down of news stations and government buildings, the burning of the police station in Mokpo, etc.) Economics was always a secondary factor to the real catalyst of disempowerment by the state. Anti-capitalism (though it was never called such to my knowledge) developed (though never fully by any means) only during the days of liberation following anti-government protests.

[anomaly]

Mighty One, perhaps point out who you are quoting. You quote me, then jump to apathy maybe, and then back to me.


Originally posted by Mighty Lazar
We already went through this. You yourself accepted the idea of the vanguard.
I actually said we should discredit the vanguardists. Your semantics are pretty fucked up, to say the least, in my opinion. Using them, we could say that if I even tell a working class person that Marxism exists, I am part of this 'vanguard' of yours. Of course, everyone besides you knows that by 'vanguardists', I meant Leninists, Trots, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. Basically those who feel that some should have power (of command, we might say) over others in the movement. (that there should be an official and rigid hierarchy)


You sure know a lot about the Venezuelan revolution.
So Chavez will magically ignore material reality and create a socialist society? :lol:


Yes, they will be, but they can't be given any political power.
Lazar, ever the authoritarian. He can't escape it. :lol:


Could you please explain to me how Venezuela is emerging from a feudal society?
If you look at the peasant population there and the surrounding areas, maybe you'd agree with me. But, do you actually believe that 'socialism' is being created in Venezuela?

[Nachie]

Venezuela is definitely not a feudal society. In fact compared to places like Brazil it is a near totally urbanized country. The nonexistence of a strong "campesino question" or movement is one of the main reasons Chavez has been able to so successfully dodge some of the more fundamental questions of land ownership.

[anomaly]

However, I think it is emerging from a feudal society (or 'quasi-feudal' might be more correct). I think it's headed for modern capitalism.

[Nachie]

Venezuela is a strange case because they've been able to coast along the majority of the last century on oil revenues, so at least in some respects they are much more industrialized than you might expect.

Still, what makes Chavez so terrifying is precisely that he is steering the country full-throttle into that first world model of production and consumption ("heading for modern capitalism").

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:27 PM
Not all anarchists agree with the superstructure analysis of marxism, be they "post modern" (post anarchism) or not.
I'm aware of that fact.


plenty of anarchists would argue that outside factors to economic determinants can spark disdain for statism and in turn capitalism generally.

I have argued consistently on this board that confrontation with the state can and has been triggered by anti-statist sentiments and that this in fact is a valid and necessary part of struggle.

However, the idea that these confrontations, such for example, as the G8, anti-fascism, confrontation against police brutality can challenge capitalism and ultimately destroy it, is illogical.

In order to destroy capitalism you need to break down the system of production, and although the state is designed to protect this system you cannot bring it down by simply fighting the state.

Those who work within capitalism have to refuse to work and re-organise the system of production while at the same time fighting the states attempts to stop that. It has to be a co-ordinated effort by those who are exploited by capitalism.


I recently gave a paper on the Kwangju uprising and my mind has been on it. It certainly constitutes an example of community and individual disempowerment by the state, which in turn gave rise to anti-government attacks from both students and workers (ie. the burning down of news stations and government buildings, the burning of the police station in Mokpo, etc.)

Worker involvement in Kwangju was minimal at best and the result of the uprising was massive state repression.

Burning down government buildings and news stations is not going to harm capitalism. Burning down power stations, occupying banks and factories is how you start to bring down capitalism.


Economics was always a secondary factor to the real catalyst of disempowerment by the state.

In the context of fighting the state it was, but the state is only the mechanisms in which capitalism is protected, it is not the system of production in which society exists and it is this that is important.


Anti-capitalism (though it was never called such to my knowledge) developed (though never fully by any means) only during the days of liberation following anti-government protests.

And the "anti-capitalist" movement has failed consistently at achieving anything viable or creating anything lasting.

Being anti-government is fine, but actually fighting the government is not going to end exploitation and alienation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nachie
Still, what makes Chavez so terrifying is precisely that he is steering the country full-throttle into that first world model of production and consumption ("heading for modern capitalism").

What is "terrifying" about that?

Would you actually want to live in a "pre-first world" society? :o

It's hellish...and all the evidence points to the idea that people want to escape that as quickly as they can!

People don't move to Europe or North America because they like the weather. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12 2006, 10:25 AM
Worker involvement in Kwangju was minimal at best and the result of the uprising was massive state repression.
Taxi drivers involved themselves. Men who had previously been part of the ROK army assisted with the creation of militia groups. Countless citizens--not just students--donated blood and provided food to those fighting. Though shops were kept open, there was a general decision to give food and supplies to those who needed it. Even the Student Settlement Committee, though led by students, the majority (if not all) were in their late 20s and early 30s.

I think your average resident of the South Cholla region would be pissed if they heard someone denounce Kwangju as just a student revolt.

[Nachie]

Chavez' plan is based only on deepening energy exploitation in the country and putting it on course for ecological catastrophe. It is SO fucked up to think that matching "first world" consumption in the global south is a good thing. Yes, this is terrifying.

Or maybe the fact that Chavez' methods so conveniently match up to the long-existing integrationist/neoliberal plans of the energy transnationals.

I have lived in "pre-first world" societies. I was born in one :o

But that doesn't mean I'm so happy to see "progress" and cellphones that I don't care where they actually come from.

[anomaly]

I've been getting a chance to read a little Marx lately. I noticed this interesting sentence in Marx's Address to the Communist League:

As in France in 1793 so today in Germany it is the task of the really revolutionary party to carry through the strictest centralisation.
Emphasis mine.

But, Engels, in a footnote, says the above passage was based on a misunderstanding, and

that precisely this provincial and local self-government...became the most powerful lever of the revolution
Emphasis mine again.

This is what I was talking about a while ago. Looking at what Marx said, some could interpret that as if Marx was suggesting "strict centralisation" for the movement.

So one can take Marx's words and support either side, the libertarians or the vanguardists. I think this goes back to what I said before: Marx's words do not matter so much as what one does with his words.

After the 20th century, I think we know the right thing to do.

Just thought that was pretty interesting.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nachie
Chavez' plan is based only on deepening energy exploitation in the country and putting it on course for ecological catastrophe. It is SO fucked up to think that matching "first world" consumption in the global south is a good thing. Yes, this is terrifying.

Well, all I can say is that you are in for a "terrifying century"...as there seems little doubt that the "global south" will approach if not match "first world consumption"...even Africa by 2100 is going to look very different from the way it does now.

I'm disappointed that the rhetoric of "ecological catastrophe" appeals to you...I find it an essentially useless concept myself. Historically, only very advanced capitalist countries have been able to take the environment "into account" and even make repairs to earlier depredations.

Countries that are in the process of developing into modern capitalism have neither the wealth nor the time to be concerned with that sort of thing...they want to "get out of the shit" as quickly as they can.

You have successfully escaped the shit...do you not imagine that billions are eager to follow your example? Those who can, emigrate to the "first world". Those who can't manage that want the "first world" to come to them.

Not necessarily in its imperialist manifestation, of course...but they want the clean water, the education, the air conditioner, the microwave oven, the cellphone, the personal computer, etc., etc., etc.

Given the choice between "first world" standards-of-living and "saving the ecology", guess what they'll choose?

And who could possibly disagree???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nachie]

Well... me.

Venezuela is special because its massive energy reserves mean that it will bear the brunt of this exploitation/consumption. If it makes you worry less, it's not that I'm so concerned about the "ecological catastrophe" as I am the false marketing of Chavismo.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Nachie
false marketing of Chavismo
I think this is inevitable. There are probably even some people on this message board who believe that Venezuela will 'achieve socialism'. Laughable, indeed.

But, yea, I know what your saying.

Weren't you in Venezuela just a few weeks ago? And you met with anarchists? What's the anarchists' situation like?

[Nachie]

really small groups, minimal influence but with points of potential...

the anarchos in venezuela are actually undergoing some reorganizing right now, i think. i'll have a much more detailed analysis in my forthcoming paper.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 03:42 PM
I think your average resident of the South Cholla region would be pissed if they heard someone denounce Kwangju as just a student revolt.
Very well, but that does not negate the fact that anti-state confrontation will never alone bring down capitalism.

[Lamanov]

anomaly: Address to the Communist League was written in 1850 before any actual experience in the revolutionary proletarian insurrection (with an exception of failed June uprising), and contrary to that, Civil War in France was written in 1871, right after the Paris Commune.

Their hypothesis changed and their opinion improved due to actual practical expression.

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Apr 13 2006, 10:10 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Apr 13 2006, 10:10 AM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 03:42 PM
I think your average resident of the South Cholla region would be pissed if they heard someone denounce Kwangju as just a student revolt.
Very well, but that does not negate the fact that anti-state confrontation will never alone bring down capitalism. [/b]
anti-capitalism can grow out of anti-state confrontation

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by chimx+Apr 13 2006, 03:20 PM--> (chimx @ Apr 13 2006, 03:20 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2006, 10:10 AM

[email protected] 12 2006, 03:42 PM
I think your average resident of the South Cholla region would be pissed if they heard someone denounce Kwangju as just a student revolt.
Very well, but that does not negate the fact that anti-state confrontation will never alone bring down capitalism.
anti-capitalism can grow out of anti-state confrontation [/b]
So why hasn't it?

[Guerrilla22]

The state is merely a means of delivering an econmic system, it can be seized and used for the benefit of the workers. Destroying the state immiedetly, will only lead to economic disaster.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+--> (Guerrilla22)Destroying the state immiedetly, will only lead to economic disaster.[/b]
I don't think so. We don't need the state to produce.

I think it is neccesary to destroy both the state and capitalism with revolution. If we do not destroy the state we perpetuate the state.


DJ-TC
anomaly: Address to the Communist League was written in 1850 before any actual experience in the revolutionary proletarian insurrection (with an exception of failed June uprising), and contrary to that, Civil War in France was written in 1871, right after the Paris Commune.
A good point. I'll have to read Civil War in France. (indeed, I believe Engels wrote the footnote in 1885...or thereabouts...in any case, after the Paris Commune)


Their hypothesis changed and their opinion improved due to actual practical expression.
So why doesn't this work with the Leninists? :lol:

[Axel1917]

From anomaly:


Also, I think it is in both the libertarian Marxists' and anarchists' best interests to, as redstar says, dicredit the vanguardists beyond all hope of salvation (this is a paraphrase, in case anyone gets nitpicky). In this sense, an 'alliance' between anarchists and lib Marxists has already been formed.


The problem for you is that it is not possible to discredit us. History has shown that only our methods can win the masses over to overthrow the Bourgeoisie. The Anarchists and ultra-lefts have never in history overthrown the Bourgeoisie. redstar2000 has no credibility, and he is full of reactionary ideas as well. Also, I discredited all of you ultra-lefts and anarchists with that exerpt from Ted Grant, proving that the Bolshevik Revolution was not a coup. You have already been defeated.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Axel1917
The problem for you is that it is not possible to discredit us.
Oh really?


History has shown that only our methods can win the masses over to overthrow the Bourgeoisie.
History has shown that 'your methods' serve as a good bridge from feudalism to capitalism. Nothing more than that. In every 'Leninist revolution', the Party has taken the role of the new ruling class. There is no reason to think this won't happen again.


The Anarchists and ultra-lefts have never in history overthrown the Bourgeoisie.
The anarchists in Spain didn't 'overthrow the bourgeoisie', but they did pretty damn well for the resources they had.

Also, I don't think Leninist revolutions neccesarily overthrow the bourgeoisie. After all, they've all happened in feudal nations, so the class being overthrown is the landed elite (or a 'noblity' class of some sort). Then the Party becomes the ruling class, which paves the way for the bourgeoisie.


redstar2000 has no credibility, and he is full of reactionary ideas as well
I'll let him handle the 'credibility' issue, but I don't think his ideas are reactionary in any sense of the word (other than in the sense that he's not a Leninist...by Leninist standards, that is very reactionary! :lol: ).


Also, I discredited all of you ultra-lefts and anarchists with that exerpt from Ted Grant, proving that the Bolshevik Revolution was not a coup.
No, it was a revolution. But it wasn't a communist revolution. It was, in effect, a bourgeois revolution. The Party paved the way for the bourgeoisie.


You have already been defeated.
Only according to you. :lol:

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 14 2006, 04:26 AM--> (anomaly @ Apr 14 2006, 04:26 AM)
Axel1917
The problem for you is that it is not possible to discredit us.
Oh really?


History has shown that only our methods can win the masses over to overthrow the Bourgeoisie.
History has shown that 'your methods' serve as a good bridge from feudalism to capitalism. Nothing more than that. In every 'Leninist revolution', the Party has taken the role of the new ruling class. There is no reason to think this won't happen again.


The Anarchists and ultra-lefts have never in history overthrown the Bourgeoisie.
The anarchists in Spain didn't 'overthrow the bourgeoisie', but they did pretty damn well for the resources they had.

Also, I don't think Leninist revolutions neccesarily overthrow the bourgeoisie. After all, they've all happened in feudal nations, so the class being overthrown is the landed elite (or a 'noblity' class of some sort). Then the Party becomes the ruling class, which paves the way for the bourgeoisie.


redstar2000 has no credibility, and he is full of reactionary ideas as well
I'll let him handle the 'credibility' issue, but I don't think his ideas are reactionary in any sense of the word (other than in the sense that he's not a Leninist...by Leninist standards, that is very reactionary! :lol: ).


Also, I discredited all of you ultra-lefts and anarchists with that exerpt from Ted Grant, proving that the Bolshevik Revolution was not a coup.
No, it was a revolution. But it wasn't a communist revolution. It was, in effect, a bourgeois revolution. The Party paved the way for the bourgeoisie.


You have already been defeated.
Only according to you. :lol: [/b]
Again, you did not even bother reading that citation, which completely disproves the anti-Marxist nonsense of yours. Why must you continue to insist on dogmatism?

The day an anarchist thinks critically is the day an anarchist ceases to be an anarchist. ;)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Axel1917
Again, you did not even bother reading that citation, which completely disproves the anti-Marxist nonsense of yours. Why must you continue to insist on dogmatism?
Where's the 'citation'?

But I'll tell you right now, it doesn't 'disprove' anarchism.

And am I the one insisting on dogmatism? I'm not the one calling for everyone to love Thy Party and 'iron Bolshevik discipline'!


The day an anarchist thinks critically is the day an anarchist ceases to be an anarchist.
No one said that Leninists don't like to dream...

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by anomaly+Apr 14 2006, 04:44 AM--> (anomaly @ Apr 14 2006, 04:44 AM)
Axel1917
Again, you did not even bother reading that citation, which completely disproves the anti-Marxist nonsense of yours. Why must you continue to insist on dogmatism?
Where's the 'citation'?

But I'll tell you right now, it doesn't 'disprove' anarchism.

And am I the one insisting on dogmatism? I'm not the one calling for everyone to love Thy Party and 'iron Bolshevik discipline'!


The day an anarchist thinks critically is the day an anarchist ceases to be an anarchist.
No one said that Leninists don't like to dream... [/b]
The citation was made in the thread at http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...opic=47909&st=0 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47909&st=0) Scroll down to see a post made by me, involving a long quote.

The full book I quoted from can be read online at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp

[anomaly]

Social Revolutionaries 974,885 54,374 58 14
Mensheviks 76,407 15,887 12 4
Kadets 168,781 101,106 17 26
Bolsheviks 75,409 198,230 12 51

I see. So because 51% voted (and what of those who did not vote?) for Bolsheviks, it wasn't a coup?

I didn't bother reading that. I'm just not that interested in whether the Russian revolution was a 'coup' or a 'revolution'.

It certainly could be described as a bourgeois revolution, of sorts, if you really like the term 'revolution'. The Party really took the place of the landed elite as the ruling class, and they did pave the way for the bourgeoisie.

But I don't see how the question of 'coup' or 'revolution' really has anything to do with why the anarchists and libertarian Marxists have been 'defeated'.

[wet blanket]

What is curious to me -- and I've raised this before -- is why people find "determinism" so...well, is repugnant too strong a word?
Well, the kind of determinism I've encountered in my discussions with a few marxists was that communism was inevitable because "historical materialism says so".
I find that unacceptable. While historical materialism can be a very useful tool in analyzing the past, I don't think the prediction that communism is the inevitable result of capitalism and the end of history is very useful and only encourages passivity.

It is very likey that totalitarian fascism/state-monopoly capitalism(instead of socialism) will be the next 'stage' in history.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:05 AM
I see. So because 51% voted (and what of those who did not vote?) for Bolsheviks, it wasn't a coup?
Don't be fooled by that idiots posts. of course it was a coup. Following the Kornilov affair the collaborative left became discredited, thus throwing a greater number of urban workers into the Bolshevik and anarchist camp. However, the soviets tended to favor soliders and workers over russia's much larger peasant population. This can be seen in the fact that the Constituent Assembly election in november, the Bolsheviks received less than 25% of the vote, with the SRs taking up the largest chunk of the population at 40% or so. It was at that point Lenin started to scramble to ensure the preservation of bolshevik domination and worked to stop the assembly in 1918--and in the process block political participation of other parties that were infact more popular than the bolsheviks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 05:35 PM
The state is merely a means of delivering an econmic system, it can be seized and used for the benefit of the workers.
No it can't. That much is historically obvious.


Destroying the state immiedetly, will only lead to economic disaster.

That's not true either. If it were, the Spanish collectives would have failed miserably. As it happens, they were a massive success.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by wet blanket
It is very likely that totalitarian fascism/state-monopoly capitalism(instead of socialism) will be the next 'stage' in history.

Well, that's a hypothesis that, like communism, can only be tested by future developments.

But what's the practical usefulness of that hypothesis at this time?

If we are "destined" to land in the shit no matter what, then what's the purpose of our activity? Why not just entertain ourselves "until the end"?

In fact, why shouldn't we become fascists ourselves and climb aboard "the winning horse" ahead of time? :o

You see, your hypothesis leads to far worse conclusions than the "inevitability of communism" hypothesis.

Want to reconsider?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:05 AM


Social Revolutionaries 974,885 54,374 58 14
Mensheviks 76,407 15,887 12 4
Kadets 168,781 101,106 17 26
Bolsheviks 75,409 198,230 12 51

I see. So because 51% voted (and what of those who did not vote?) for Bolsheviks, it wasn't a coup?

I didn't bother reading that. I'm just not that interested in whether the Russian revolution was a 'coup' or a 'revolution'.

It certainly could be described as a bourgeois revolution, of sorts, if you really like the term 'revolution'. The Party really took the place of the landed elite as the ruling class, and they did pave the way for the bourgeoisie.

But I don't see how the question of 'coup' or 'revolution' really has anything to do with why the anarchists and libertarian Marxists have been 'defeated'.
Did you even read the exerpt, and not just glance at the numbers? Although the Bolshevik support there is much higher than that of the others.

The party never took the place of the workers in Lenin's lifetime. Again, you ignored the evidence. It was also not a bourgoeis revoltion. It carried out tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, of which is not possible in backward nations, but it was not a bourgeois revolution. Bourgeois revolutions don't overthrow the bourgoeisie, now do they?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
Bourgeois revolutions don't overthrow the bourgeoisie, now do they?

Sometimes, when Axel seeks a rhetorical flourish, he actually asks an interesting question.

Is it possible for one part of a ruling class to overthrow another part of the same ruling class?

It doesn't happen very often, to be sure...but I think it can be shown to have happened.

What was, for example, the American Revolution but the overthrow of one landed aristocracy by another?

The "Tories" who fled to Canada had their estates confiscated...they were big landowners who supported British colonial rule and lost!

In the case of the Bolshevik coup, it is most likely that the Bolshevik leadership came from the same class background as the emerging bourgeoisie in that rather backward country.

Indeed, they got along quite well together during the NEP period.

It was really Stalin and his followers who "nailed the coffin shut" on the old Russian bourgeoisie (such as it was) and cleared the way for a new bourgeoisie.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nicky Scarfo]

The IWW fights for more hours for workers.

Um, no. http://www.iww.org/projects/4-Hours/

[anomaly]

Aside from your apparent fascination with ancient history and meaningless labels to go along with it, Axel, do you seriously believe the 'Leninist way' (that is, extreme Party centralization and the 'conquering' of the state itself) is the way to go about revolution in the advanced capitalist nations?

I think Leninism might prove beneficial for some so-called 3rd world nations, although, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm convinced there must be a better way for these people to move forward, other than Leninism or 'free-market' capitalism.

But, in the first world, Leninism is illogical. If we want stateless communism, it is sensible to destroy the state. We should not inherit the state, let alone create a hyperstate, as some Leninists want to do.

The anarchist slogan, "smash the state; abolish capitalism" just makes sense at this point in history in the situation of the advanced capitalist nations.

Leninism, on the other hand, is, from our perspective, senseless.

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 14 2006, 03:18 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 14 2006, 03:18 PM)
wet blanket
It is very likely that totalitarian fascism/state-monopoly capitalism(instead of socialism) will be the next 'stage' in history.

Well, that's a hypothesis that, like communism, can only be tested by future developments.

But what's the practical usefulness of that hypothesis at this time?

If we are "destined" to land in the shit no matter what, then what's the purpose of our activity? Why not just entertain ourselves "until the end"?

In fact, why shouldn't we become fascists ourselves and climb aboard "the winning horse" ahead of time? :o

You see, your hypothesis leads to far worse conclusions than the "inevitability of communism" hypothesis.

Want to reconsider?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
Well, what I was getting at was that there are many possiblities rather than an 'inevitable' course that history must follow. It's not that I have a very huge issue with historical materialism, I just think that when considering what the future may hold for us, we need to realize what's at stake and not delude ourselves into thinking that proletarian revolution and communism are some sort historical inevitabilities.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 14 2006, 09:43 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 14 2006, 09:43 PM)
Axel1917
Bourgeois revolutions don't overthrow the bourgeoisie, now do they?

Sometimes, when Axel seeks a rhetorical flourish, he actually asks an interesting question.

Is it possible for one part of a ruling class to overthrow another part of the same ruling class?

It doesn't happen very often, to be sure...but I think it can be shown to have happened.

What was, for example, the American Revolution but the overthrow of one landed aristocracy by another?

The "Tories" who fled to Canada had their estates confiscated...they were big landowners who supported British colonial rule and lost!

In the case of the Bolshevik coup, it is most likely that the Bolshevik leadership came from the same class background as the emerging bourgeoisie in that rather backward country.

Indeed, they got along quite well together during the NEP period.

It was really Stalin and his followers who "nailed the coffin shut" on the old Russian bourgeoisie (such as it was) and cleared the way for a new bourgeoisie.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I have already proven that the Bolshevik revolution was not a coup with Ted Grant's work.

I was not very clear about the Bourgeois vs. Bourgeois part. Sorry about that. Both world wars were the result of unbearable contradictions between rival capitalist superpowers. Regardless, though, the Bolshevik Revolution was neither a coup or a Bourgeois revolution.

And anomaly, Bolshevism is the way forward. Democratic centralism is the way to run a party. History has also shown that only Bolshevism has managed to overthrow the Bourgeoisie on a large scale. If it were not for the failure of the revolution in other nations, therefore isolating the USSR, the class forces could not have changed to pave the way for Stalin's political counterrevolution.


No ultra-left or anarchist tendency has ever managed to overthrow the Bourgeoisie or win the oppressed masses over to their side. Bolshevism has, and it can do it again.

You also cannot destroy the state in the process of the revolution. The resistance of the Bourgeois increases after their overthrow, and the forces of international capital come to their aid. This was proven by the Bolshevik experience, when nearly two dozen foreign armies invaded the USSR and assisted local Russian Bourgeois elements against the Bolsheviks. The Bourgoeis state machine must be replaced with a democratic workers' one with an iron Bolshevik discipline. The dictatorship of the proletariat must crush the resistance of the Bourgeoisie. Without organization, the Bourgeoisie will have a much easier time of taking the means of production and political power back.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Axel1917
History has also shown that only Bolshevism has managed to overthrow the Bourgeoisie on a large scale.
No it hasn't. It has shown that Bolshevism succeeded in overthrowing the landed aristocracy in Russia. The bourgeoisie was not the ruling class at the time of the revolution.


No ultra-left or anarchist tendency has ever managed to overthrow the Bourgeoisie or win the oppressed masses over to their side. Bolshevism has, and it can do it again.
No it hasn't.

And besides, just because an anarchist 'tendency' hasn't done it so far doesn't mean it won't do it in the future. That's pretty shitty reasoning on your part.


You also cannot destroy the state in the process of the revolution.
Why not?


The resistance of the Bourgeois increases after their overthrow, and the forces of international capital come to their aid.
We don't need a state to repel this. The people can fight and organize themselves.


The Bourgoeis state machine must be replaced with a democratic workers' one with an iron Bolshevik discipline.
You don't want a democratic workers' one. You want a state led by a vanguard, which can then impose "iron Bolshevik discipline."

If there was democracy, there wouldn't be "iron Bolshevik discipline." People just don't want that kind of bullshit.

[chimx]

I have already proven that the Bolshevik revolution was not a coup with Ted Grant's work.

you...

have...

not ...

proven...

anything.


No ultra-left or anarchist tendency has ever managed to overthrow the Bourgeoisie or win the oppressed masses over to their side. Bolshevism has, and it can do it again.

good job winning kronstadt over to your side. i guess it is tricky winning oppressed masses over to your side when you are caught up in oppressing them.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 04:46 AM



From anomaly:


No it hasn't. It has shown that Bolshevism succeeded in overthrowing the landed aristocracy in Russia. The bourgeoisie was not the ruling class at the time of the revolution.

The Bourgeoisie had been in rule of Russia at the time. Russian capitalism was very weak, and it relied on Western capital and tzarist despotism to stay in power.



And besides, just because an anarchist 'tendency' hasn't done it so far doesn't mean it won't do it in the future. That's pretty shitty reasoning on your part.

It cannot possibly do as such in the future. Anarchist tendencies are bankrupt in ideas, and they are enemies of the workers' movment within the movement. Anarchists have never been able to win the masses over due to poor ideas, principles, etc. The call for the abolition of all authority is also a self-evident piece of nonsense.



Why not?

You need a state to terrorize and suppress the Bourgeoisie. A state is an instrument for one class to rule over another!




We don't need a state to repel this. The people can fight and organize themselves.

Not true. There are factors that can rejuventate capitalism, such as small scale production, of which cannot be abolished right away. Some workers also have bourgeois-democratic prejudices as well. Your way just divides them up, and your ideas are the advocacy of the disarmament of the proletariat in favor of the Bourgeoisie.



You don't want a democratic workers' one. You want a state led by a vanguard, which can then impose "iron Bolshevik discipline."

If there was democracy, there wouldn't be "iron Bolshevik discipline." People just don't want that kind of bullshit.


We do want a democratic workers' state. Again, you never read that citation. You just skimmed to a random part and made nonsensical commentary on it. Had you bothered studying the basics of what happened in the early USSR, you would know that absolute centralization of the proletariat and a rigorous discipline in the democratic Bolshevik party are essential for success.

Again, the day an anachist thinks critically is the day an anarchist ceases to be an anarchist. ;)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Axel1917
The Bourgeoisie had been in rule of Russia at the time. Russian capitalism was very weak, and it relied on Western capital and tzarist despotism to stay in power.
Perhaps. But, in any case, it was the role of these beloved Bolsheviks to pave the way for the emerging bourgeoisie. And that's exactly what happened.


Anarchist tendencies are bankrupt in ideas, and they are enemies of the workers' movment within the movement.
Leninist rubbish.


Anarchists have never been able to win the masses over due to poor ideas, principles, etc.
Spain?!


You need a state to terrorize and suppress the Bourgeoisie. A state is an instrument for one class to rule over another!
A state implies much more. It implies an official and rigid hierarchy. And we won't need a state if the bourgeoisie are repelled during the revolution so that after the revolution, all ex-bourgeoisie (those that have been overthrown) are either assimilated into communist society, exiled from the society, or dead. The 'area' (for lack of a better word) is then functionally classless. No state needed.


There are factors that can rejuventate capitalism, such as small scale production, of which cannot be abolished right away.
Why would small scale production 'rejuvenate' capitalism? Does all production need to be centralized?


Your way just divides them up, and your ideas are the advocacy of the disarmament of the proletariat in favor of the Bourgeoisie.
More Leninist rubbish.


Had you bothered studying the basics of what happened in the early USSR, you would know that absolute centralization of the proletariat and a rigorous discipline in the democratic Bolshevik party are essential for success.
Centralization in the form of a central committee to rule over the proletariat? :lol:

The reader will note the inherent authoritarian flavor of Leninism.

The Bolshevik parties of the past functioned on the premise of democratic centralism. Calling this 'democratic' only confuses the reader.

The only one who says Bolshevism is 'essential for success' is you.

[black magick hustla]

I was skimming through the topic and i noticed this argument used over and over by most leninists:


And anomaly, Bolshevism is the way forward. Democratic centralism is the way to run a party. History has also shown that only Bolshevism has managed to overthrow the Bourgeoisie on a large scale. If it were not for the failure of the revolution in other nations, therefore isolating the USSR, the class forces could not have changed to pave the way for Stalin's political counterrevolution.

Why the fuck do Leninists cling to this shit?

Leninists like to rave about their precious Russia, about how they, and not the anarchists, were able to "win" a war against the established ruling class!

However, the problem is that they don't realize that there has been many succesful bourgeois revolutions. Being able to overthrow an elite and replace it with another elite doesn't means shit if we are speaking about communism.

Leninists have been copying the same methods of older autocratic movements!

Centralization.

So perhaps, leninism is an excellent supression tool as any other efficient form of despotism. However, does this means leninism is able to pave a road toward socialism?

No, and history has proven this crap over, and over again.

Marxist-leninists weren't the first to propose centralization until the country or region would be ready for "democracy". Countless military dictators whole-heartedly believed that they were actually doing good and argued they were just waiting for the perfect time to establish a "democracy"

However, most of them either never accomplish this, or "democratic" groups overthrow them violently.

Good old Porfirio Diaz was a leninist in this sense!

[Axel1917]

I am a bit busy right now, so I will have to reply in depth later.

Anomaly, by Spain, do you mean by the revolution in the 1930's? If so, Trotsky refutes your nonsense:


Role of the Anarchists

The Anarchists had no independent position of any kind in the Spanish revolution. All they did was waver between Bolshevism and Menshevism. More precisely, the Anarchist workers instinctively yearned to enter the Bolshevik road (July 19, 1936, and May days of 1937) while their leaders, on the contrary, with all their might drove the masses into the camp of the Popular Front, i.e., of the bourgeois regime.

The Anarchists revealed a fatal lack of understanding of the laws of the revolution and its tasks by seeking to limit themselves to their own trade unions, that is, to organizations permeated with the routine of peaceful times, and by ignoring what went on outside the framework of the trade unions, among the masses, among the political parties, and in the government apparatus. Had the Anarchists been revolutionists, they would first of all have called for the creation of soviets, which unite the representatives of all the toilers of city and country, including the most oppressed strata, who never joined the trade unions. The revolutionary workers would have naturally occupied the dominant position in these soviets. The Stalinists would have remained an insignificant minority. The proletariat would have convinced itself of its own invincible strength. The apparatus of the bourgeois state would have hung suspended in the air. One strong blow would have sufficed to pulverize this apparatus. The socialist revolution would have received a powerful impetus. The French proletariat would not for long permitted Leon Blum to blockade the proletariat revolution beyond the Pyrenees. Neither could the Moscow bureaucracy have permitted itself such a luxury. The most difficult questions would have been solved as they arose.

Instead of this, the anarcho-syndicalists, seeking to hide from “politics” in the trade unions, turned out to be, to the great surprise of the whole world and themselves, a fifth wheel in the cart of bourgeois democracy. But not for long; a fifth wheel is superfluous. After Garcia Oliver and his cohorts helped Stalin and his henchmen to take power away from the workers, the anarchists themselves were driven out of the government of the Popular Front. Even then they found nothing better to do than jump on the victor’s bandwagon and assure him of their devotion. The fear of the petty bourgeois before the big bourgeois, of the petty bureaucrat before the big bureaucrat, they covered up with lachrymose speeches about the sanctity of the united front (between a victim and the executioners) and about the inadmissibility of every kind of dictatorship, including their own. “After all, we could have taken power in July 1936..." “After all, we could have taken power in May 1937...” The Anarchists begged Stalin-Negrin to recognize and reward their treachery to the revolution. A revolting picture!

In and of itself, this self-justification that “we did not seize power not because we were unable but because we did not wish to, because we were against every kind of dictatorship,” and the like, contains an irrevocable condemnation of anarchism as an utterly anti-revolutionary doctrine. To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters. The essence of every revolution consisted and consists in putting a new class in power, thus enabling it to realize its own program in life. It is impossible to wage war and to reject victory. It is impossible to lead the masses towards insurrection without preparing for the conquest power.

No one could have prevented the Anarchists after the conquest of power from establishing the sort of regime they deem necessary, assuming, of course, that their program is realizable. But the Anarchist leaders themselves lost faith in it. They hid from power not because they are against “every kind of dictatorship"—in actuality, grumbling and whining, they supported and still support the dictatorship of Stalin-Negrin—but because they completely lost their principles and courage, if they ever had any. They were afraid of everything: “isolation,” “involvement,” “fascism." They were afraid of France and England. More than anything these phrasemongers feared the revolutionary masses.

The renunciation of the conquest of power inevitably throws every workers’ organization into the swamp of reformism and turns it into a toy of the bourgeoisie; it cannot be otherwise in view of the class structure of society. In opposing the goal, the conquest of power, the Anarchists could not in the end fail to oppose the means, the revolution. The leaders of the CNT and FAI not only helped the bourgeoisie hold on to the shadow of power in July 1936; they also helped it to reestablish bit by bit what it had lost at one stroke. In May 1937, they sabotaged the uprising of the workers and thereby saved the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Thus anarchism, which wished merely to be anti-political, proved in reality to be anti-revolutionary and in the more critical moments- counterrevolutionary.

The Anarchist theoreticians, who after the great test of 1931-37 continue to repeat the old reactionary nonsense about Kronstadt, and who affirm that “Stalinism is the inevitable result of Marxism and Bolshevism," simply demonstrate by this they are forever dead for the revolution.

You say that Marxism is in itself depraved and Stalinism is its legitimate progeny? But why are we revolutionary Marxists engaged in mortal combat with Stalinism throughout the world? Why does the Stalinist gang see in Trotskyism it chief enemy? Why does every approach to our views or our methods of action (Durruti, Andres, Nin, Landau, and others) compel the Stalinist gangsters to resort to bloody reprisals. Why, on the other hand, did the leaders of Spanish anarchism serve, during the time of the Moscow and Madrid crimes of the GPU, as ministers under Caballero-Negrin, that is as servants of the bourgeoisie and Stalin? Why even now, under the pretext of fighting fascism, do the Anarchists remain voluntary captives of Stalin-Negrin, the executioners of the revolution, who have demonstrated their incapacity to fight fascism?

By hiding behind Kronstadt and Makhno, the attorneys of anarchism will deceive nobody. In the Kronstadt episode and the struggle with Makhno, we defended the proletarian from the peasant counterrevolution. The Spanish Anarchists defended and continue to defend bourgeois counterrevolution from the proletariat revolution. No sophistry will delete from the annals of history the fact that anarchism and Stalinism in the Spanish revolution were on one side of the barricades while the working masses with the revolutionary Marxists were on the other. Such is the truth which will forever remain in the consciousness of the proletariat!

-Leon Trotsky, The Lessons of Spain: The Last Warning. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/wo...938-spain01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938/1938-spain01.htm)

[black magick hustla]

Good old Trotsky.

It doesn't surprise me that the article is a biased piece of crap.


The Anarchists had no independent position of any kind in the Spanish revolution. All they did was waver between Bolshevism and Menshevism. More precisely, the Anarchist workers instinctively yearned to enter the Bolshevik road (July 19, 1936, and May days of 1937) while their leaders, on the contrary, with all their might drove the masses into the camp of the Popular Front, i.e., of the bourgeois regime.

This is bullshit.

If anything, the anarchists were mostly introduced to the Popular Front because of compulsion from the stalinist-bourgeois faction. Stalinists gained power through the weapons sent from Russia. Anarchists needed those weapons, and stalinists didn't want allies, they wanted footsoldiers.

At first, anarchists started to "untighten" themselves a bit in order to get some weapons from the stalinist scum. However, later they did have some very violent clashes.

The greatest example is how stalinists stormed into the anarchist controlled telephone building in Barcelona.

The POUM while not explicitly anarchist, was sympathetic to the anarchist cause.

And guess what?

They were accused of fascism and trotskyism (also the group did advocate some "trot" goals, it wasn't trotskyist at all) and were completely destroyed by NVKD thugs.

Anarchists were also accused of fascism.

-------


I don't have time to address every point of this piece of shit. However, It is not surprising that Trotsky hated anarchists, considering he was a fucking thug who loved killing them (remember maknovchina and Kronstadt).

[anomaly]

I am, unfortunately, not very well read on the specifics of the civil war in Spain. :(

If anyone is, perhaps they can tell us what they think about the 'refutation' by Trotsky.

However, Trotsky does show a gross misunderstanding of anarchism itself. For example:

Originally posted by Trotsky+--> (Trotsky)In and of itself, this self-justification that “we did not seize power not because we were unable but because we did not wish to, because we were against every kind of dictatorship,” and the like, contains an irrevocable condemnation of anarchism as an utterly anti-revolutionary doctrine. To renounce the conquest of power is voluntarily to leave the power with those who wield it, the exploiters.[/b]
Just because we do not wish to create a new hierarchical society, but instead destroy hierarchy itself, we are 'anti-revolutionary'?

And we do not 'renounce the conquest of power'--we renounce then notion that one ruling group should be replaced by another ruling group. It is the aim of communist (or anarchist, if one prefers) revolution to eliminate ruling groups.

The only ones who oppose this idea are those that themselves wish to rule, the Leninists being a prime example. (they must 'lead' the 'backward masses'...and we all know what that amounts to...)

Also:

Originally posted by [email protected]
No one could have prevented the Anarchists after the conquest of power from establishing the sort of regime they deem necessary, assuming, of course, that their program is realizable.
Did it not dawn on St. Leon that perhaps anarchists do not wish to establish any ruling 'regime'?


Marmot
It is not surprising that Trotsky hated anarchists, considering he was a fucking thug who loved killing them
This a good point that I forgot.

Me must not forget that Trotsky was a man who had no problem killing anarchists. So I wouldn't expect his opinion of any anarchist movement to be very 'positive'.

[rebelworker]

I wouldnt take to serriosly the accusations from someone who claims anarchists have never one the masses over to their side, this statement is either prrof of lack of knowledge of revolutionary history(Im guessing that the author is young and has never serriously read anything other that the line produced by his party, a mistake I made when I was a young trotskyist) or the person is a manipulative fool.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, anarchism was much more widspread the world over at the turn of the last century. Not just in the ukrain and spain was it a mass workers movement but also Argentina, france, cuba, Italy ect...

Anarcho-syndicalism, although by far the colsest thing the world has ever seen to a completely workers run revolutionary mass movement, dose have some organisational drawbacks which were seen through lack of direction in spain. makhno alos came to this conclusion around the russian revolution. The debate around the "platformist" anarchist-communist organiation(not vanguard party) started a ittle too late to be proven in the wave of revolutions that occured between 1905 and 1955. After that bolshevik tyrany had a strangle hold on the left.

Thankfully that is no longer the case in st of the world(they tyrants have killed themselves off or become discredited witht the mass of workers). Any critiques and failures of anti authoritarian communism have been taken up by ourselves and worked on.

If given a second run at things(we are somewhat dependant on material conditions for this) I think we will do much better this time around.

PS trotsky was no friend of the working class, anarchist or otherwise.

PPS the old militant died because they failed in practice around the poool tax, ma movement they could not controll and eventually turned against. Another nail in the coffin of Bolshevism. Ted Grant is a wanker.

Bolshevism is dead, Long live communism!!!

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 01:10 PM
Bolshevism is dead, Long live communism!!!
:)

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:01 AM
Good old Trotsky.

It doesn't surprise me that the article is a biased piece of crap.


The Anarchists had no independent position of any kind in the Spanish revolution. All they did was waver between Bolshevism and Menshevism. More precisely, the Anarchist workers instinctively yearned to enter the Bolshevik road (July 19, 1936, and May days of 1937) while their leaders, on the contrary, with all their might drove the masses into the camp of the Popular Front, i.e., of the bourgeois regime.

This is bullshit.

If anything, the anarchists were mostly introduced to the Popular Front because of compulsion from the stalinist-bourgeois faction. Stalinists gained power through the weapons sent from Russia. Anarchists needed those weapons, and stalinists didn't want allies, they wanted footsoldiers.

At first, anarchists started to "untighten" themselves a bit in order to get some weapons from the stalinist scum. However, later they did have some very violent clashes.

The greatest example is how stalinists stormed into the anarchist controlled telephone building in Barcelona.

The POUM while not explicitly anarchist, was sympathetic to the anarchist cause.

And guess what?

They were accused of fascism and trotskyism (also the group did advocate some "trot" goals, it wasn't trotskyist at all) and were completely destroyed by NVKD thugs.

Anarchists were also accused of fascism.

-------


I don't have time to address every point of this piece of shit. However, It is not surprising that Trotsky hated anarchists, considering he was a fucking thug who loved killing them (remember maknovchina and Kronstadt).
Trotsky had numerous experience, and he had successfully predicted how the USSR would collapse. I would trust him over some juvenile anarchist any day of the week.

As for him killing anarchists, the anarchists were committing acts of indiviudal terrorism against the Bolsheviks (they were known for bombing CP headquarters). Sorry, but if someone is trying to destroy the proletarian dictatorship to stengthen the capitalist reactionaries, they are going to be shot.

Anarchists are rigourously counterrevoultionary. Most of the ones I have seen are just disgruntled goth kids. They are unconscoius Bourgeois agents, of whom are not capable of winning the masses over to their side. Never in history have they overthrown the Bourgeoisie, and never will they. When it comes to Bolshevism, they take Bourgeois accounts to be the final truth on the subject at hand. Anarchists are just some of the many enemies of the workers' movement within the workers' movement. The methods of Bolshevism won over the masses in the past. They will do it again in the future.

rebelworker has obviously not studied even the most basic reasons for the split in the militant. Typical juvenile anarchist nonsense.

From anomaly:


Just because we do not wish to create a new hierarchical society, but instead destroy hierarchy itself, we are 'anti-revolutionary'?

And we do not 'renounce the conquest of power'--we renounce then notion that one ruling group should be replaced by another ruling group. It is the aim of communist (or anarchist, if one prefers) revolution to eliminate ruling groups.

The only ones who oppose this idea are those that themselves wish to rule, the Leninists being a prime example. (they must 'lead' the 'backward masses'...and we all know what that amounts to...)

We do not want to create a new hierachy that you speak of. Again, you blindly follow the Bourgeoisie here. You are counterrevolutionary, as you renounce the conquest for power. Your idea of destroying the state in the process of the revolution is pure nonsense. It shows that anarchists don't really know anything about the class struggle. The aim is to eliminate the state altogether, but unlike you, we realize that this cannot be done overnight. You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. You did not read that citation, obviously. If you actually read it and thought about it, you wouldn't be spouting out Bourgoeis lies.


Did it not dawn on St. Leon that perhaps anarchists do not wish to establish any ruling 'regime'?

Supposedly.

[Fistful of Steel]

I can find common ground with marxists in a lot of cases, especially Trotskyists and some forms of Maoism. Personally I don't see the point of being so contentious about technicalities when the goal of a classless, equal, and free society is common to both Anarchism and Marxism.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 08:29 PM
Trotsky had numerous experience, and he had successfully predicted how the USSR would collapse. I would trust him over some juvenile anarchist any day of the week.

As for him killing anarchists, the anarchists were committing acts of indiviudal terrorism against the Bolsheviks (they were known for bombing CP headquarters). Sorry, but if someone is trying to destroy the proletarian dictatorship to stengthen the capitalist reactionaries, they are going to be shot.

Anarchists are rigourously counterrevoultionary. Most of the ones I have seen are just disgruntled goth kids. They are unconscoius Bourgeois agents, of whom are not capable of winning the masses over to their side. Never in history have they overthrown the Bourgeoisie, and never will they. When it comes to Bolshevism, they take Bourgeois accounts to be the final truth on the subject at hand. Anarchists are just some of the many enemies of the workers' movement within the workers' movement. The methods of Bolshevism won over the masses in the past. They will do it again in the future.

rebelworker has obviously not studied even the most basic reasons for the split in the militant. Typical juvenile anarchist nonsense.

From anomaly:


Just because we do not wish to create a new hierarchical society, but instead destroy hierarchy itself, we are 'anti-revolutionary'?

And we do not 'renounce the conquest of power'--we renounce then notion that one ruling group should be replaced by another ruling group. It is the aim of communist (or anarchist, if one prefers) revolution to eliminate ruling groups.

The only ones who oppose this idea are those that themselves wish to rule, the Leninists being a prime example. (they must 'lead' the 'backward masses'...and we all know what that amounts to...)

We do not want to create a new hierachy that you speak of. Again, you blindly follow the Bourgeoisie here. You are counterrevolutionary, as you renounce the conquest for power. Your idea of destroying the state in the process of the revolution is pure nonsense. It shows that anarchists don't really know anything about the class struggle. The aim is to eliminate the state altogether, but unlike you, we realize that this cannot be done overnight. You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. You did not read that citation, obviously. If you actually read it and thought about it, you wouldn't be spouting out Bourgoeis lies.


Did it not dawn on St. Leon that perhaps anarchists do not wish to establish any ruling 'regime'?

Supposedly.
Predicting that the U.S.S.R. was a degenerated workers state and would rot from the inside out was possible by any leftist with eyes and a brain.

And if the anarchists were bombing the CP HQ what of it? Do you expect any less from a branch of politics that disavows any form of authority trying to take over the reins of the people whatsoever? The "proleterian dictatorship" was hardly proleterian. The proleteriat don't need a "revolutionary vanguard" to look after them like a flock of sheep, they need to be their own revolutionaries. And obviously anarchism wasn't interested in strengthening the capitalist society. If there's anything so militantly anti-capitalist as anarchism I've not encountered it.

And counterrevolutionary? Counter to which revolution? One which will establish another vacant authority to replace the old authority? If that's the revolution I can see why the anarchists were opposed to it. If the only anarchists you've seen are disgruntled goth kids, I doubt you've seen anything other than teens latching on to trends as they always do, not any sort of intellectual or philosophical supporter of anarchism. And during the Spanish Revolution, anarchists overthrew the bourgoise in key cities, as well as in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. And unsuccessful/successful revolutions don't make the revolution, it's the goals itself that make it worthy. I think most people have seen the results of trying to implement change from within the existing system, something new is in order instead of a rehash of old values that didn't work in the first place.

[rebelworker]

Whenever I try and talk about what the militant(the largest trotskyst group in an industrialized country) actually did during the pole tax rebellion (the largest modern working class movement in the west) people eiher want to talk about a leadership fight or dont say anything at all.

I dont care about the reasons the leaders of the party were arguing, I do care about what they did before that that lead to the femorilization that lead to the arguing.

Again I think you were too young to be around when it happened and its clear you havent read anything written by anyone involved in the campaign that wasnt in your party.

Bolshevism is anti working class, was during the russian revolution, still is today. The victory you speak of was a victory for a new ruling class of party hacks, not the working class. This is the main difference in our politics.

I base liberation on what me and my families lives would be like after the revolution, new boss same as theold boss except this boss is more likely to shoot me or send me to prison.
You base your politics on what you expect your life will be like after the revolution, working away in some party HQ telling the stupid workers how to be more revolutionary.

Its a simple difference that all the semantics in the world wont change.

So all anarchists are just stupid kids hey?

Where do you live?
What is the class makeup of your party?

I know thepeople i work with and we have very heavy criticism of the lifestyle youth culture anarchists.

But that dosnt for a second mean that im gonna let some middle class student group most of whom have never worked a serrious job in their lives brow beat me into thinking that anarchist communism isnt a liberatory movement for the working class.

You show me a trotskyist revolutionary party and ill show you a group of out of touch intelectuals who have never organised anything that has affected working class peoples lives.

Have a nice day ;)

[Vanguard1917]

The workers' state is key in the Marxist understanding of the historical transition to communism. And, in Marxism, the workers' party plays a vital role in overthrowing capitalism.

This is why there can be no reconciliation between anarchism and Marxism. To try to reconcile 'anarchist ideas' with Marxism means robbing Marxism of its distinctly true understanding of history, class, politics, ideas, consciousness, and revolution.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Fistful of [email protected] 15 2006, 09:00 PM






Predicting that the U.S.S.R. was a degenerated workers state and would rot from the inside out was possible by any leftist with eyes and a brain.

If that is the case, then why did no one even bother raising that prediction before 1936? :rolleyes:


And if the anarchists were bombing the CP HQ what of it? Do you expect any less from a branch of politics that disavows any form of authority trying to take over the reins of the people whatsoever? The "proleterian dictatorship" was hardly proleterian. The proleteriat don't need a "revolutionary vanguard" to look after them like a flock of sheep, they need to be their own revolutionaries. And obviously anarchism wasn't interested in strengthening the capitalist society. If there's anything so militantly anti-capitalist as anarchism I've not encountered it.


And you expect that they should have just gotten off the hook, thereby strengthening the pro-Bourgeois movement? You are extremely naieve. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a ruthtless war waged by the democratic workers' state against its enemies, and if they are going to bomb CP headquarters, tnhey are going to be ruthlessly dealt with. If there were a revolutionary situation, and some Bourgeois lackey bombed an anarchist organization, and you know who did it, would you just let them get by with it?


And counterrevolutionary? Counter to which revolution? One which will establish another vacant authority to replace the old authority? If that's the revolution I can see why the anarchists were opposed to it. If the only anarchists you've seen are disgruntled goth kids, I doubt you've seen anything other than teens latching on to trends as they always do, not any sort of intellectual or philosophical supporter of anarchism. And during the Spanish Revolution, anarchists overthrew the bourgoise in key cities, as well as in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. And unsuccessful/successful revolutions don't make the revolution, it's the goals itself that make it worthy. I think most people have seen the results of trying to implement change from within the existing system, something new is in order instead of a rehash of old values that didn't work in the first place.

Counter to the democratic proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks were democratic and not a minority. See the book the Anarchists don't want you to see at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp ! :lol:

rebelworker again proves that he/she knows nothing about the history of the Militant.

[Vanguard1917]

Counter to the democratic proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks were democratic and not a minority. See the book the Anarchists don't want you to see at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp !

Ted Grant gives a good account of that.

I like this Menshevik Sukhanov quote (cited by Grant):

The Bolsheviks were working stubbornly and without let-up. They were among the masses, at the factory-benches, every day without a pause. Tens of speakers, big and little, were speaking in Petersburg, at the factories and in the barracks, every blessed day. For the masses they had become their own people, because they were always there, taking the lead in details as well as in the most important affairs of the factory or barracks... The mass[es] lived and breathed together with the Bolsheviks.


Theory and practice bound together in dialectical unity. :o

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)Again, you blindly follow the Bourgeoisie here.[/b]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

There is no arguing with a dogmatist.


Your idea of destroying the state in the process of the revolution is pure nonsense.
More Leninist rubbish. :lol:


The aim is to eliminate the state altogether, but unlike you, we realize that this cannot be done overnight.
If you do not destroy the state, you perpetuate the state. I think history has shown this. And I've already shown how a revolution could destroy the state.

And you do want hierarchy. Any Leninist does. The Party is to reign supreme. How else can we achieve the coveted 'iron Bolshevik discipline'? :lol:


Vanguard1917
The workers' state is key in the Marxist understanding of the historical transition to communism.
For all purposes of discussion, Vanguard1917 seems to be a clone of our friend Axel (iron Bolshevik discipline). :lol:

But, I must say, DJ-TC showed previously that Marx only mentions a 'workers state' once.

However, this concept has historically failed, especially when applied to the Leninist situation (or hoped-for situation).

[Vanguard1917]

But, I must say, DJ-TC showed previously that Marx only mentions a 'workers state' once.

Regardless of the number of times Marx used that exact phrase (more than once), Marx was very clear about the role of workers' state power.

In a polemic of Marx against Bakunin:

"...so long as other classes continue to exist, the capitalist class in particular, the proletariat fights it (for with the coming of the proletariat to power, its enemies will not have yet disappeared, the old organisation of society will not yet have disappeared), it must use measures of force, hence governmental measures; if it itself still remains a class and the economic conditions on which the class struggle and the existence of classes have not yet disappeared, they must be forcibly removed or transformed, and the process of their transformation must be forcibly accelerated."

So let's be as clear ourselves. The 'notion' of the workers' state is a central part of the Marxist conception of workers' revolution. All efforts to reconcile Marxism with anarchism (only as theories, for a theory of working class revolution (Marxism) and a theory of petit-bourgeois reaction to large-scale capital (i.e. anarchism) cannot really be reconciled in practice) can only end in confusion about the distinctive class nature of both theories. The working class needs state power, a centralised organisation of violence and force to crush the counter-revolutionaries and to forcibly accelerate (to paraphrase from the above Marx quote) the process of the transformation of the economic conditions that gave way to the existence of classes.

Anarchists, of course, deny the right of the working class to defend itself and its revolution through the only possible political means - i.e. the state. Therefore, the class nature of anarchism itself needs to be questioned and made clear.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Leninist clone
The working class needs state power, a centralised organisation of violence and force to crush the counter-revolutionaries and to forcibly accelerate (to paraphrase from the above Marx quote) the process of the transformation of the economic conditions that gave way to the existence of classes.
Let us be clear then.

I have already shown that the post-revolutionary society should be functionally classless. The ex-bourgeoisie will either assimilate into communist society, be killed, or be exiled. And of those that are exiled, only a small percent will actually stage an armed attack of the communist area. And this can be easily repelled.

Some say that only a 'state' can repel attacks from 'international capital' (that is, other capitalist nations). I think this is also incorrect. If a communist revolution is successful, I think the other old capitalist nations will have enough trouble getting their own proletariat under control.

In either case (or in both), no state is needed. The Leninist fascination with the state is certainly interesting.


Therefore, the class nature of anarchism itself needs to be questioned and made clear.
Only the Leninists claim anarchism is a petty-bourgeois (or middle class) ideology. Any actual anarchist can dispel this myths, propagated by the Leninists.

Indeed, rebelworker himself can dispel this myths. No input from me is required. :)

[Vanguard1917]

However, this concept has historically failed, especially when applied to the Leninist situation (or hoped-for situation).

The working class has hitherto 'historically failed' - in the sense that the working class is not in power today in any stage of transition to communism. To say that the workers' state has played a causal role in this, you would have to prove it. The burden of proof is not on Marxists. Give me one historical example where the working class gained and maintained power without the use of a state apparatus. Marxists, on the other hand, can give you a number of examples where the existence and shape of the workers' state played a pivotal role in determining the success of a revolution.

[Comrade-Z]

Some things need to be clarified first before we can make any progress:

Anarchists (of the real class-struggle variety) do intend to create a dictatorship of the proletariat during/immediately after the revolution until the bourgeoisie is destroyed (which should be accomplished in no more than a matter of weeks). Using the marxist definition of the state (tool used to enforce class rule), the anarchist conception of the dicatorship of the proletariat still qualifies as a state.

But, even though anarchists propose the creation of a temporary workers' state, their ultimate goal is still stateless communism, which can be reached after the bourgeoisie has been destroyed (a few weeks after the outbreak of revolution, I would estimate).

However, the temporary anarchist state looks nothing like the bourgeois state or Leninist state!

Whereas the bourgeois state and Leninist state are characterized by unaccountability, reliance on leaders, centralization, professional military and police forces, hierarchy within the proletariat, coercion against the proletariat, rule over the proletariat, etc., the anarchist "state" is characterized by federations of democratic workers' councils, democratic trade unions controlled by the rank-and-file and completely subject to the recall and transparent scrutiny of the proletariat, democratic and rotating workers' militias, etc.

The anarchist "state" is nothing like the "state" that we know in the current world, and one must realize that anarchists do not intend to set up that kind of state.

However, using the marxist definition of the state, we cannot call the federations of democratic proletarian organizations anything other than a "state." This causes some confusion, but we need to distinguish between the "bourgeois" or "Leninist" state and the temporary anarchist one.

And far from "disarming the proletariat," anarchists call for the total arming of the entirety of the revolutionary proletariat!

Unlike the Leninists, the anarchists propose a viable strategy for establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat (and not the dictatorship over the proletariat), advancing the self-emancipation of the proletariat, and ushering in stateless communism.

[Vanguard1917]

I have already shown that the post-revolutionary society should be functionally classless. The ex-bourgeoisie will either assimilate into communist society, be killed, or be exiled. And of those that are exiled, only a small percent will actually stage an armed attack of the communist area. And this can be easily repelled.

You are far from showing 'that the post-revolutionary society should be functionally classless', to say the very least. You have not grasped the Marxist position on this.

You can kill every single capitalist after the revolution... but this will not, in itself, get rid of the economic conditions that gave rise to the capitalist class, to class-divided society and, of course, to the proletariat (i.e. to the existence of classes). Therefore, the conditions for the state have not yet disappeared. This is precisely why the workers state is needed: as Marx says, to forcibly transform, and accelerate the transformation of, the economic conditions on which class struggle and the existence of classes rest.


The Leninist fascination with the state is certainly interesting.

See above for the reasons behind why we find the state so 'fascinating'.

However, what has always intrigued me is why exactly the anarchists are so frightened of the working class being in power.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by Axel1917+Apr 16 2006, 02:45 AM--> (Axel1917 @ Apr 16 2006, 02:45 AM)

Predicting that the U.S.S.R. was a degenerated workers state and would rot from the inside out was possible by any leftist with eyes and a brain.

If that is the case, then why did no one even bother raising that prediction before 1936? :rolleyes:


And if the anarchists were bombing the CP HQ what of it? Do you expect any less from a branch of politics that disavows any form of authority trying to take over the reins of the people whatsoever? The "proleterian dictatorship" was hardly proleterian. The proleteriat don't need a "revolutionary vanguard" to look after them like a flock of sheep, they need to be their own revolutionaries. And obviously anarchism wasn't interested in strengthening the capitalist society. If there's anything so militantly anti-capitalist as anarchism I've not encountered it.


And you expect that they should have just gotten off the hook, thereby strengthening the pro-Bourgeois movement? You are extremely naieve. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a ruthtless war waged by the democratic workers' state against its enemies, and if they are going to bomb CP headquarters, tnhey are going to be ruthlessly dealt with. If there were a revolutionary situation, and some Bourgeois lackey bombed an anarchist organization, and you know who did it, would you just let them get by with it?


And counterrevolutionary? Counter to which revolution? One which will establish another vacant authority to replace the old authority? If that's the revolution I can see why the anarchists were opposed to it. If the only anarchists you've seen are disgruntled goth kids, I doubt you've seen anything other than teens latching on to trends as they always do, not any sort of intellectual or philosophical supporter of anarchism. And during the Spanish Revolution, anarchists overthrew the bourgoise in key cities, as well as in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. And unsuccessful/successful revolutions don't make the revolution, it's the goals itself that make it worthy. I think most people have seen the results of trying to implement change from within the existing system, something new is in order instead of a rehash of old values that didn't work in the first place.

Counter to the democratic proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks were democratic and not a minority. See the book the Anarchists don't want you to see at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp ! :lol: [/b]
Probably for fear of being purged by Mr. Stalin. And hey, the person who did predict it? Died with an icepick in his skull. How's that for that.

And no, I realize that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. However, I feel that the bombing of the CP Headquarters was entirely justified, I understand why they retaliated the way they did.

The Bolsheviks were democratic? ...


Originally posted by Samuel Farber+ Before Stalinism--> (Samuel Farber @ Before Stalinism)"great Bolshevik losses in the soviet elections" during the spring and summer of 1918 "Bolshevik armed force usually overthrew the results of these provincial elections . . . [In] the city of Izhevsk [for example] . . . in the May election [to the soviet] the Mensheviks and SRs won a majority . . . In June, these two parties also won a majority of the executive committee of the soviet. At this point, the local Bolshevik leadership refused to give up power . . . [and by use of the military] abrogated the results of the May and June elections and arrested the SR and Menshevik members of the soviet and its executive committee." In addition, "the government continually postponed the new general elections to the Petrograd Soviet, the term of which had ended in March 1918. Apparently, the government feared that the opposition parties would show gains."[/b]


Originally posted by Trotsky
"elective basis is politically pointless and technically inexpedient and has already been set aside by decree"


M. [email protected] Op. Cit., p. 83
In May 1921, the All-Russian Congress of the Metalworkers' Union met. The "Central Committee of the [Communist] Party handed down to the Party faction in the union a list of recommended candidates for union (sic!) leadership. The metalworkers' delegates voted down the list, as did the Party faction in the union . . . The Central Committee of the Party disregarded every one of the votes and appointed a Metalworkers' Committee of its own. So much for 'elected and revocable delegates.' Elected by the union rank and file and revocable by the Party leadership!"


Trotsky
"the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy!" He continued by stating the "Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."

Any genuinely popular uprisings such as the Kronstadt Rebellion or the Makhnovist movement were put down for being "bourgeoise" and "reactionary" (A claim which I still hear echoed against anarchists, which denies any fundamental understanding of Anarchism).

[rebelworker]

You hold up an ideology that has been founded and developed almost entirely by a minority of intellectuals and tell me that anarchism is a petty burgeoise ideology.

Where there times when there have been anti worker and petty burgoise tendencies that have called themeslves anarchist?
Yes and their continue to be, I am spreaking about the historically largest tendancies of class struggle anarchism.

Vanguard parties have historically and continue to be the playthings of intelectuals and the children of the rich. Period. I know I was a member and talk to them all the time both in the flesh and online. Not to say that there have not been great numbers of workers involved in different vanguard groups throught history, but by their very structure and therory leadership tends to shift into the hands of people out of touch with th lives and asperations of actual workers.

On the flipside, yes there are problems and shortcomings with revolutionary syndicallism. But on the whole it has been the most progressive workers lead movement in history. The question is not how to subvert it, nut how to aid it in bulding workers controll and communism.

Anarchist communist org or Bolshevik Party, two very differnet roads with two very different outcomes. As a workers I obviously choose to opt for the first.

Axel1917, Again with the militant, If I just said "this just goes to show how much so and so dosnt know about anarchism" everytime someone had a real example of failure or criticism i would look like an idiot.

I dont know why you think its any diffeerent for you?

Again as Ive said a million times before, there are areas of marxist thought and practice worth holding on to, but the idea of a vanguard style dictatorship, and thats what russia became under lenin and trotsky, has proven to be horseshit and harmfull to he eventual goal of communism.

[Comrade-Z]

You can kill every single capitalist after the revolution... but this will not, in itself, get rid of the economic conditions that gave rise to the capitalist class, to class-divided society and, of course, to the proletariat (i.e. to the existence of classes).

This makes sense if you are talking about a backward country such as 1917 Russia, but it makes no sense at all when talking about the advanced capitalist countries of the modern world.

These advanced capitalist countries already have (or will very soon) the economic conditions you speak of.

The capitalist class is already well-established and, indeed, in the process of becoming obsolete and an incurable fetter on the further development of the means of production. Superabundance is already a practical possibility. The economic conditions are already present (or will soon be present) for the complete and permanent destruction of the capitalist class and class society without any hope of ressurection whatsoever due to economic conditions.

The proletariat is, likewise, already well-established. The proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries is the overwhelming majority of the population. This class has already become strong enough, numerous enough, and quite possibly sophisticated enough to rule as a class by itself and destroy all other classes contending for dominance.

This was, of course, not the case in Russia in 1917 or China in 1949, which is why Leninists need to get themselves out of their time-warp and realize that things are different now in the advanced capitalist countries.


Therefore, the conditions for the state have not yet disappeared.

The conditions for the state of the bourgeois or Leninist type in the advanced capitalist countries have disappeared, and the anarchist "state" will have become obsolete in a matter of weeks after the revolution as the bourgeoisie is ruthlessly, rapidly, and completely destroyed by the 95% of the population or so that will be proletarian and revolutionary.

A small vanguard with an apathetic mass of followers would understandably have a tough time destroying the bourgeoisie.

But a 50 million-proletarian-strong revolutionary movement full of (fully-armed) conscious communists who are determined to ruthlessly "kill the capitalist wherever you find him" will be fully capable of destroying the bourgeoisie in a matter of weeks, even with direct foreign intervention from the remaining capitalist powers.


This is precisely why the workers state is needed: as Marx says, to forcibly transform, and accelerate the transformation of, the economic conditions on which class struggle and the existence of classes rest.

But we don't need to "forcibly transform and accelerate" economic development in the advanced capitalist countries in order to bring their material conditions up to a level that is ripe for stateless communism and the abolition of class society. Again, maybe in 1917 Russia that would have made sense, but in the modern world in the advanced capitalist countries, capitalism has taken care of that job for us as far as developing those societies to an economic level suitable for stateless communism.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
You are far from showing 'that the post-revolutionary society should be functionally classless'
How so? I have already given you a scenario in which the resulting post-revolutionary society should be functionally classless. Again, what we will have for the ex-bourgeoisie are three very obvious choices. Some will assimilate into communist society. Some will be killed. Some will leave the society and go to some capitalist area. Out of this third group, a small percentage will probably decide to fight the communist society. And they will be strongly resisted.

However, I have repeated again and again that this conflict originates outside of the post-revolutionary society itself. There are no classes in the resulting society. And so it is functionally classless.


Therefore, the conditions for the state have not yet disappeared.
And how am I to debate you if you have a crystal ball and I do not? :lol:

The economic conditions you speak of will give rise to revolution. We must remember that even though the conditions exist, communist society will not happen without the forceable overthrow of capitalist society.

However, It seems that ComradeOm believes in a bit different sort of chronology: a) revolution, b) this revolution happens no matter the economic conditions prevalent, c) the conditions which give rise to class then still exist, so a Leninist state must take root.

Does that sound pleasing to any comrades' ears? You know what it sounds like to me? Horseshit. Fortunately, comrades everywhere are beginning to see Leninism for what it actually is. :)


However, what has always intrigued me is why exactly the anarchists are so frightened of the working class being in power.
Does not communism empower the working class? But, even though it obviously does, do you believe that we can only empower the working class by giving them a new class to rule over? It is rather frightening, stepping into the authoritarian mind! :lol:

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

Comrade-Z, would you agree with me that post-revolutionary society is functionally classless? Because if you agree, all this talk of 'the state' is ultimately just a disagreement in semantics.

[321zero]

When you people attack 'Leninism' for supposedly wanting to repeat the Russian or Chinese revolutions in the imperialist heartlands, you are attacking a strawman. It's diversionary and a bit boring.

Lenin in his own time did not advocate what you describe as a 'Leninist' state for the advanced capitalist countries, and the 'Leninist' state was a response to the isolation of the Russian revolution.

What comes through in your schema is an ahistorical failure to appreciate the political implications of combined and uneven development both within countries and between them.

It would be nice if the coming revolution is so ripe that we can be guaranteed overwhelming preponderance of people and force for our side, but I think we'll be very lucky if this is so.

We won't get to choose when a revolutionary situation will arise so (Lenin alert!) we will have to be ready for it.

The German Social Democrats were content to gut Marxism of its revolutionary content, sit back and wait for the maturing conditions to drop socialism in their lap - an then World War One came along and blew them into the dustbin of history. Y'all seem ready to repeat the same mistakes.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by 321zero
It would be nice if the coming revolution is so ripe that we can be guaranteed overwhelming preponderance of people and force for our side, but I think we'll be very lucky if this is so.
The coming revolution will be in the proletariat's class interest.

And if it isn't, it will fail.

But, I think it will be. If this is the case, we can expect an overwhelming majority of the population to be on our side. And if this happens, all your dreams about a ruling vanguard go to the dogs.

[321zero]

You can't substantiate your claims about my dreams so piss off with that.

Also revolution was in the class interest of the German proletariat circa 1914, but 'history' dealt a difficult hand. You've just proved my point. If wishes were tanks we'd have stormed heaven by now.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by 321zero
You can't substantiate your claims about my dreams
This would be true...but you certainly didn't deny what I said about your 'dreams'. In fact, the best way for you to 'set the record straight' would be to say "I'm not a Leninist!"


Also revolution was in the class interest of the German proletariat circa 1914, but 'history' dealt a difficult hand.
Germany 1914 was a far different situation than the modern situation. As technology advances, so advances culture and society, no? Well, technology has advanced.

But you're right: even thought material conditions may soon reach a point where communism is possible, that doesn't mean communism will happen. We (that is, the people) must make it happen.

However, the Leninist method is not the method to use.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+Apr 16 2006, 05:21 AM--> (Vanguard1917 @ Apr 16 2006, 05:21 AM)
But, I must say, DJ-TC showed previously that Marx only mentions a 'workers state' once.

Regardless of the number of times Marx used that exact phrase (more than once), Marx was very clear about the role of workers' state power.

In a polemic of Marx against Bakunin: [Marx's text follows][/b]

If that's closest where Marx approaches the so-called "workers' state", then I'd say you have a problem backing up your theory.

[EDIT]:


Vanguard1917
Give me one historical example where the working class gained and maintained power without the use of a state apparatus.

:lol: Fucking unbeleveable.

Give me one historical example where the working class gained and maintained power with the use of a state apparatus!

[321zero]

anomaly Posted on Apr 16 2006, 08:54 PM

In fact, the best way for you to 'set the record straight' would be to say "I'm not a Leninist!"

Again piss off, I don't need to 'confess' my 'sins', and I don't need to 'deny' whatever bullshit you accuse me of.

<takes a moment to dream of anomaly making a substantive argument>

However if it pleases you I am not a Leninist in the same sense that Marx was not a Marxist.

[anomaly]

What &#39;sins&#39; have I asked you to confess?

I had no idea what you are, but you not-so-subtlely revealed yourself.

Hopefully, we can get back to debating ideas here. We already know you support a vanguard party-method of organization. And that is the problem right now.

You know, you can claim Lenin wouldn&#39;t support what Russia or China turned into, and you may well be right. We have no way of knowing either way.

However, we do know what Lenin wrote. And if you read What Is To Be Done, the authoritarianism of Lenin becomes quite apparent (and this authoritarianism obviously seeped into Lenin-ism). And this is exactly the authoritarianism I&#39;ve been fighting against for some time now.

[321zero]

What &#39;sins&#39; have I asked you to confess?

You&#39;ve insisted I deny some bullshit extracted by telepathy from my from &#39;dreams&#39;. Your method of argument sucks.

As for my having &#39;revealed myself&#39; (ew&#33;), what a crock. For the fuckin record I don&#39;t dream of absolute power and a reject your self-serving potted definitions of Leninism.

"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"

-Engels

[Vanguard1917]

Comrade-Z:

These advanced capitalist countries already have (or will very soon) the economic conditions you speak of.

In what sense? Do those countries not have classes? Is production not based on class relations? Are class interests not irreconcilable?

After a working class revolution, much of what exists in capitalist society will continue to exist for a period under the dictatorship of the working class. That is why this dictatorship is historically necessary. There will continue to be class conflict, due to the fact that the existence of classes cannot be destroyed overnight, but this time the working class will have the upper hand, and it will dictate the course of history - it will finally have a means through which to uphold the interests of its class - i.e. state power.


The capitalist class is already well-established and, indeed, in the process of becoming obsolete and an incurable fetter on the further development of the means of production. Superabundance is already a practical possibility. The economic conditions are already present (or will soon be present) for the complete and permanent destruction of the capitalist class and class society without any hope of ressurection whatsoever due to economic conditions.

OK, but why do you think that all this can happen &#39;in a matter of weeks after the revolution&#39;, as you imply elsewhere in your post?


The conditions for the state of the bourgeois or Leninist type in the advanced capitalist countries have disappeared, and the anarchist "state" will have become obsolete in a matter of weeks after the revolution as the bourgeoisie is ruthlessly, rapidly, and completely destroyed by the 95% of the population or so that will be proletarian and revolutionary.

&#39;95% of the population or so that will be proletarian and revolutionary&#39;?&#33; This is fantasy-world rhetoric.

The working class in advanced capitalist countries indeed makes up the majority of society - but not such a big majority. Even if the &#39;working class&#39; made up such a majority, the working class is itself divided and, as a result, the whole working class cannot possess that kind of homogenous revolutionary consciousness.

People who are serious about the revolutionary potential of the working class realise that only certain sections of the working class can possess revolutionary (i.e. communist) consciousness. These workers, organised by a revolutionary communist party, lead the rest of the working class (and the classes of society potentially sympathetic to the revolution - sections of the middle classes, peasantry, etc).

Young people dreaming of revolution forget that a revolution is a very messy process. It involves messy political battles, betrayals, shifts in the balance of forces. As Lenin said, there is no such thing as a &#39;pure&#39; revolution.

Anarchist hopes for a linear transition to &#39;communism&#39; are a product of anarchist idealism.


But we don&#39;t need to "forcibly transform and accelerate" economic development in the advanced capitalist countries in order to bring their material conditions up to a level that is ripe for stateless communism and the abolition of class society. Again, maybe in 1917 Russia that would have made sense, but in the modern world in the advanced capitalist countries, capitalism has taken care of that job for us as far as developing those societies to an economic level suitable for stateless communism.

Capitalism has not, and cannot, develop the means of the production to the extent necessary for a classless, stateless, communist society. This can only be done through the socialisation of the means of production, conscious planning by the revolutionary working class in all spheres of society, the smashing of the market and the conditions that gave rise to the market. In other words, it&#39;s done through revolutionary means.

anomaly:

The economic conditions you speak of will give rise to revolution. We must remember that even though the conditions exist, communist society will not happen without the forceable overthrow of capitalist society.

The revolution is a process. Capitalist conditions give rise to a working class revolution - that is obviously true. But the conditions that gave rise to classes (to capitalists and workers) continue to exist. They are destroyed in the revolutionary process - not overnight. In order for them to be destroyed, the workers state is necessary.

Remember, capitalists are not what they are because of personal &#39;evil&#39; character traits. They are what they are because certain historical economic conditions allowed them to become what they are. Those conditions need to be smashed.


Does not communism empower the working class? But, even though it obviously does, do you believe that we can only empower the working class by giving them a new class to rule over?

If &#39;communism&#39; empowers the working class - empower: &#39;to invest with power, especially legal power or official authority&#39; (dictionary.com) - what does it empower it to do?

In the transition to communism, the working class is empowered (i.e. possessing state power) to smash capitalist conditions and replace them, as forthrightly as possible, with communist ones.

[Vanguard1917]

It is rather frightening, stepping into the authoritarian mind&#33;

A revolution is an authoritarian act. As Engels pointed out, it is one of the most authoritarian of acts: it is one class of society imposing its authority on another class&#33;

*edit* 321zero has the Engels quote in his last post.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
But the conditions that gave rise to classes (to capitalists and workers) continue to exist. They are destroyed in the revolutionary process - not overnight.
Indeed, they are destroyed in the revolutionary process.

But then you contradict yourself. Revolution doesn&#39;t actually destroy these conditions which give rise to classes. Instead, revolution creates a "workers&#39; state". And then only the "workers&#39; state" can destroy these conditions. <_<

And so, even though the bourgeoisie are overthrown, even though classes have no place in post-revolutionary society, our vanguardist friend insists upon building a new state. Odd, isn&#39;t it? :rolleyes:


In the transition to communism, the working class is empowered (i.e. possessing state power) to smash capitalist conditions and replace them, as forthrightly as possible, with communist ones.
The only way to empower the working class, so says the Leninist, is through state power. If this is true, what is liberation? What is the dismantling of the class system? What is the smashing of the state? Do not these &#39;empower&#39; the working class?

And, again, it is the revolution which destroys these &#39;conditions&#39; and replaces them with classlessness and, thus, statelessness. How you get a &#39;workers state&#39; out of that baffles me.

Also, again, the resulting society has no place for class. There is no function for an upper class, and there is no function for a lower class. The ex-bourgeoisie either joins, dies, or leaves. Those in category C could indeed stage an attack against the new communist society. I doubt many will. And any that do attack the society are not functioning from within it. Thus, the society is functionally classless.

What function, then, would a state actually serve, other than being just a new institution which must one day be destroyed?

[rebelworker]

Im going to have to partially agree with the lennies here,
The revolution, if it happens in north america will not be a simple majority sweeping away the rich.

Infact revolutions rarely start as revolutions, they are responses to wars or totalitarian govts. Religeon and racism play huge parts in what conciousness working people have.

In the united States I would be very suprised if any revolutionary effort did not happen as a defensive manouver in some regions agaisnt the takeover in an economic slump by fundamentalist christians in alliance with big buisness or a similar scenario.

There will most likely be a civil war(show me a revolution were ther isnt) and ur only hope of victory is if large amounts of the armed forces desert and join with the progressive popular forces, a mix of revolutionaries and liberals trying to defend the democracy(very much like spain).

This will require a great deal of organisation and some very tight military bodies.

This dose not mean that they couldnt be popular militias with elected officers, this worked fine in spain nd had nothing to do with the military defeat(which was due to lack of arms and international support).

It also dosnt mean that the rediculous bunch of socially isolated students that call themselves the vanguard will be capable of gaining the mass support in the unions and community orgs to turn people on to revoutionary option during struggle.

I also feel the smae way about most of the so called "anarchist movement".

People need to get more serrious and start doing real organising among working people that are in similar socio economic groupings that you come from.
No into the factories bullshit.

The way the left looks now we would be totally wipped out in any political crisis.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by rebelworker
The revolution, if it happens in north america will not be a simple majority sweeping away the rich.
I would agree with you, but only if we are talking about a revolution which would happen right now.

Rather, I think some things (economically and socially) are going to drastically change in North America (for the worse). These material conditions will spur revolutionary activity.

Being determines consciousness. Once our &#39;being&#39; gets shitty, we get angry. And I think this feeling will grow in proportion as material conditions get sour.

In short, look for the revolutionary left to only grow in the near future. :)

Also, I think a North American revolution will happen after a European one. It would be interesting to see what a successful European revolution will do to the North American proletariat. We&#39;ll just have to see how things go. ;)

[redstar2000]

I note with interest the emergence of a "new word" of political abuse: Lennies for Leninists.

I&#39;ll wait to see if it "catches on" or not; but I think it reflects an interesting shift in the way people look at things.

There was a time when Lenin was held "in awe" -- as well as those who successfully advanced their claims to the "papal succession", of course.

A term of such brazen disrespect -- like Lennies -- would have been literally unthinkable.

How times have changed. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Comrade-Z]

Comrade-Z, would you agree with me that post-revolutionary society is functionally classless? Because if you agree, all this talk of &#39;the state&#39; is ultimately just a disagreement in semantics.

Yes, within the revolutionary proletariat (which will be the vast majority of the population), society will be functionally classless from day 1 of the revolution. There will be no hierarchies within the revolutionary proletariat from day 1, no exceptions to that.

However for a few weeks the bourgeoisie will still exist and will need to be destroyed, so obviously society is not "classless" for them--they will be experiencing persecution by a ruthless dictatorship of the entire (internally ultra-democratic) proletariat.

So, from day 1 of the revolution, society will be 95% classless (no hierarchies within the revolutionary proletariat). Then, in a matter of weeks, 100% of society will be classless after the bourgeoisie has been destroyed and all that remains is the internally democratic proletariat.

[Vanguard1917]

Redstar:

I note with interest the emergence of a "new word" of political abuse: Lennies for Leninists.

I&#39;ll wait to see if it "catches on" or not; but I think it reflects an interesting shift in the way people look at things.

There was a time when Lenin was held "in awe" -- as well as those who successfully advanced their claims to the "papal succession", of course.

A term of such brazen disrespect -- like Lennies -- would have been literally unthinkable.

How times have changed.

The defeat of the working class and the consequent defeat of working class politics has allowed bourgeois society to ridicule the great historic leaders of the working class movement.

Comrade-Z:

However for a few weeks the bourgeoisie will still exist and will need to be destroyed, so obviously society is not "classless" for them--they will be experiencing persecution by a ruthless dictatorship of the entire (internally ultra-democratic) proletariat.

So, from day 1 of the revolution, society will be 95% classless (no hierarchies within the revolutionary proletariat). Then, in a matter of weeks, 100% of society will be classless after the bourgeoisie has been destroyed and all that remains is the internally democratic proletariat.

Are you drunk?

[321zero]

There was a time when Lenin was held "in awe"

I reckon this is just projection of Redstars part, maybe he&#39;s trying to atone for past sins.

Just about the first thing any Marxist (should) learn is to reject the &#39;great man&#39; man theory of history - that&#39;s what happened with me anyhow.

Very likely &#39;lennies&#39; will catch on here - as a method of group-think bonding

[321zero]

So, from day 1 of the revolution, society will be 95% classless (no hierarchies within the revolutionary proletariat). Then, in a matter of weeks, 100% of society will be classless after the bourgeoisie has been destroyed and all that remains is the internally democratic proletariat.

lookee here, he&#39;s got a time-machine but he&#39;s not sharing.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by 321zero+--> (321zero)Just about the first thing any Marxist (should) learn is to reject the &#39;great man&#39; man theory of history - that&#39;s what happened with me anyhow.[/b]
Hmmm...


Vanguard1917
The defeat of the working class and the consequent defeat of working class politics has allowed bourgeois society to ridicule the great historic leaders of the working class movement.
Even the &#39;Lennies&#39; can&#39;t agree&#33; :lol:

[Comrade-Z]

lookee here, he&#39;s got a time-machine but he&#39;s not sharing.

Oh, I&#39;m so terribly sorry, I suppose I should preface everything I say with, "As far as I can tell" or "It seems to me that" or "I estimate that"... :rolleyes:


Are you drunk?

What about my scenario strikes you as fanciful?

Imagine the following as being the case when communist revolution rolls around for France:
55 million revolutionary proletarians (who have seized arms from arsenals and the huge number of defecting military units)
vs.
5 million reactionary proletarians, peasants, capitalists, loyal soldiers in the military, etc.

Does that scenario not strike you as realistic? If it seems realistic to you, then consider:

How difficult will it be for 55 million people to suppress 5 million people when those 55 million people are essential for the operation of the means of production and are armed?

Where and how are those counter-revolutionaries going to be able to hide? Just think about how capable the East German secret police were in keeping track of dissidents back in the 1980s&#33; And that was back in an era of less advanced information technology. And the ratio of secret police to citizens was maybe 1 agent for every 10 citizens. What if it had been 10 agents for every 1 citizen? Well, during the next wave of communist revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries, I estimate that it will be at least 10 revolutionary proletarians vs. every 1 counter-revolutionary. What chance will the counter-revolutionaries have?

Also consider: what soldiers in their right mind from Germany, England, or the U.S. will feel okay about exposing themselves to possible death in the process of trying to overcome 55 million armed workers in France--55 million workers who will be determined to fight urban guerrilla war in every single city, on every single block? Especially when capitalism will be, most likely, in the process of falling apart in their respective countries as well. Who wants to almost surely die fighting a hellish war against ordinary workers like one&#39;s self in defense of a decaying social order?

Just think about the unrest that would ensue within and outside of the military in the U.S. in the present era if president Bush declared war in France and ordered an invasion of France&#33; Do you honestly think the citizens of the advanced capitalist countries are still willing to fight real wars that entail sacrifices, large amounts of death, and killing of fellow workers, when many, if not most people recognize such wars as obviously imperialist struggles that will only benefit those at the top?

And then add to that situation the collapse of the capitalist system. The question will not be "How many troops will the other advanced capitalist countries be able to dispatch to France?" but instead, "Will the other advanced capitalist countries even be able to suppress revolution within their own borders?"

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;Z
What about my scenario strikes you as fanciful?
I don&#39;t think the Lennies like the absence of a vanguard party to command the backward masses. :lol:

It was interesting to note Vanguard1917&#39;s distress at your suggestion that this &#39;state&#39; (personally, I wouldn&#39;t call it that, but to each his own, I suppose) will only last a few weeks. I think that revealed a bit more than VG intended. He wants a permanent state structure, led, of course, by that oh-so-benevolent vanguard.

Anything other than that, and he thinks you&#39;re &#39;drunk&#39;. :lol:

[Comrade-Z]

In fact, let&#39;s look at a real world historical example of how easy revolutions can be:
The February 1917 Revolution in Russia which overthrew the monarchy and feudalism and ushered in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

The entirety of Czardom and feudalism was utterly destroyed in only a few days in the urban parts of Russia. News of the revolution took some time to reach the countryside, as they didn&#39;t have wireless internet back then, but even in the most remote parts of the countryside it only took at the most two months to completely obliterate Czardom.

The vast majority of the Russian military defected to the side of the masses within a few days. I believe there were only roughly 3,000 casualties during the February Revolution in Russia.

(Of course, there were hundreds of thousands of casualties later on with the Civil War, but that was not a battle of feudalism vs. capitalism like February was, but instead "bourgeois clique vs. bourgeois clique." Richard Pipes and others argue that there were, in fact, very few people who supported a returned to Czardom after the February Revolution. Instead, counter-revolutionaries were almost wholly supporters of having a constitutional republic, probably with a party such as the Kadets at the helm, and having full-fledged capitalism in Russia. The leaders of the White Armies recognized that feudalism was simply untenable henceforth, and instead they consciously fought for capitalism and against "communism," as they perceived it.)

The point is that Russia progressed from feudalism to capitalism in less than a week and with fewer than 3,000 casualties.

Of course, revolutions don&#39;t always progress so quickly. Russian feudalism was a case of a social system having clung onto power far past its "sell-by" date and being extremely ripe for overthrow. On the other hand, it took the revolutionaries of the French Revolution roughly two years to get around to the job of decapitating the king and the old aristocracy.

But I think we can see a trend in history that as technology advances, things move at a more rapid pace.

Thus, whereas feudalism took 1,000 years to exhaust itself, capitalism may only take 300 years.

Whereas it used to take mail carriers several weeks to carry messages from the east coast of the U.S. to the west coast (before telegraph lines), now it takes 3 seconds.

Whereas it took revolutionaries in France several years to get around to cutting off the king&#39;s head, it took Russian revolutionaries in 1917 only a few days to cast down the czar from power.

With internet communication and modern transportation systems, how long will it take modern revolutionaries to organize concerted efforts against the old ruling class?

[321zero]

Z, your outline of the February revolution is pretty dubious. You are applying Marx ahistorical feudalism->capitalism-> schema to a real-world situation in a way that Marx would not have approved of. Russia was not simply, unambiguously &#39;feudal&#39; before February and it wasn&#39;t simply, unambiguously &#39;capitalist&#39; afterwards. The February revolution did not result in &#39;capitalism&#39;, it resulted in duel-power. It didn&#39;t come from nowhere; it came from the agony of the war, a war which continued despite the revolution, it wasn&#39;t separated from October by some kind of historical &#39;stage&#39;, the two revolutions were part of the same process.

You mix up base and superstructure. &#39;Czardom&#39; may have been defeated within months, but feudal relations in the countryside continued until the 30&#39;s, and that&#39;s with the benefit of, however else you might characterise it, a determined modernising state.

You impose an ahistorical scheme on the Russian revolution, and you do the same for future revolutionary situations. You anticipate an uncomplicated unfolding of classical Marxist revolution, in a world characterised by imperialism and combined and uneven development. I hope you&#39;re right, but frankly it is too reminiscent of second international complacency.