An Autonomist Conception of the DofP

[barista.marxista]

This is a post from another thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=08&f=6&t=49136&p=1292058219&st=25), which I thought warranted creating a new one.

I do, as an Autonomist, support the dictatorship of the proletariat, but in a very different way than Leninism.

I see it like this: for a mass revolution to occur, the consciousness of the masses must radically change. And as the Leninist paradigm has been proven inadequate for first-world necessities by history, the revolution is to come not through a centralized, vertical party, but through autonomous, horizontal organization. This negates the need for a post-revolution "state", as the revolution itself is a horizontal "anti-state." Through autonomous, but networked, organization, each form of the revolution is designated by its local necessity, and the DofP is built not from the bottom-up, but across.

In this "post-revolution" society, I think much organization will occur with local councils. If workplaces are organized democratically, through councils of workers who are elected and open to recall at any time, and rotate over short periods so everyone is elected, than the amount produced by that workplace is controlled by the workers themselves. Simply by virtue of being a worker, one is given control over decision-making proceses. But this also infers the suppression of the bourgeoisie -- they must either be subsumed into the system, or they are bled from resources including basic life necessities. And the ability of networked councils to balance control and supply (plus, you know, the workers have guns) negates any ability for the bourgeoisie to centralize its power.

Now, this is on a simple, A-B scale. Imagine it as a network with all regional factories and workplaces. A council can be organized for local, regional, national, and international scales, on the same fluid democratic principles. That way there is not a hierarchy, as to be in control you must be a worker, and representatives are not permanent, destroying chances of bureaucracy, and as they move so quickly, everyone gets a chance to gain the experience. But, as well, it represses the bourgeoisie, as no one has a say unless they're an active contributor to the production. That is how this "state" is the tool of proletariat to suppress the bourgeoisie, without creating a new proletariat/

This is my definition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and while it is the DofP, it varies greatly from the Leninist conception, as well as the conception that the anarchists oppose. The key is autonomous self-organization by horizontal means. And whether or not Anomaly, or chimx, or Nachie agrees with that exactly is irrelevant -- it's likely going to differ due to material conditions on a regionial basis. But the concept of horizontalism prevails through the anarchist and non-Leninist Marxist paradigms. That's why we're incompatible with Leninism -- vertical organizations threaten the post-revolutionary society from the revolution's onset. And too many Leninists (I'd say all of them, but why generalize?) don't take into consider the issue of authority, which is directly contradictory to self-organization and responsibility.

[LoneRed]

It seems that you thought that we were arguing for the DOP from a leninist standpoint, once again the DOP is not originally leninist, its marxist, many things up above that i read, are just a rearangement of marxs views, granted i didnt read it all, but most.

[barista.marxista]

Perhaps you should read the first sentence of this thread, and then go check out the previously mentioned thread out for the context of the post. ;)

[Nachie]

Uhhh LoneRed?

You are arguing for the DofP from a Leninist perspective. And just like plenty of other Marxist ideas, it gets totally warped in the process.

Anyway, always good to give a dead horse a few more whacks: Defining a Dialogue of Revolution: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (http://www.redanarchist.org/texts/indy/dofp.html)

[redstar2000]

I think it's important not to get hung up on phrases...as if "magical words" would serve to "protect us" from things going badly.

For example, whether something is organized "horizontally" or "vertically" may depend on simply which way works best.

What I've argued is that we should consciously avoid creating a political "center of gravity"...a place towards which those with ambitions to "run everything" are "pulled".

It doesn't matter whether this is called a "state apparatus" or not; it's a place where someone can stand and potentially "decide everything".

Need I add that it's unlikely that anyone will "try for this" all at once?

Some people will argue that "efficiency demands centralization" (sometimes they may be right) and others will scream that "the revolution is in danger" (and sometimes that's true) and power must be placed "in their hands" or "all is lost" (a lie but often a very plausible one).

What really needs watching is any proposal for a professional army or police force...that is really the kiss of death!

In the hands of any organized political party, a professional army/police force means they're going to "run the show"...regardless of the rhetoric they use in public.

Things are going to be complicated after a proletarian revolution.

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

[LoneRed]

Actually im not arguing in a leninist framework, its just that, the whole DOP is what separated the communists and anarchists in their beliefs, when i am not tired, possibly tomorrow i will read it in depth and post a good response.


Till then,im out

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 09:12 PM
This is my definition of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and while it is the DofP, it varies greatly from the Leninist conception, as well as the conception that the anarchists oppose.
Actually, that sounds in some ways like what Lenin wrote in "State and Revolution". Of course, practice was messier than theory - but no theory is going to eliminate that.

The question of the party is the one really distinctive thing about Leninism; and that's a different question than the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Of course both Marx and Lenin described the dictatorship of the proletariat as a state (Marx even more than Lenin; Lenin emphasized more that it's a state that's beginning to wither away and become a non-state.) And it's straight-up ridiculous to be for a dictatorship but against the state; obviously "dictatorship" is the more authoritarian of those two terms.

What's more, a fair bit of RAAN's stuff seems downright Maoist-influenced, for example:


After the destruction of the state, the bourgeoisie will no longer hold any political power. However, it will still exist, along with its influence over sectors of the proletariat. Bourgeois tendencies will be made manifest and must be denied freedom of propaganda and be excluded from the proletarian dictatorship.
From RAAN's "Principles and Directions" (http://raan.yardapes.net/publications/principles.html)

Sounds a lot like the stuff Mao made up to justify the Cultural Revolution; the bourgeoisie continues to exist for a whole period after all their property has been nationalized, in some nebulous phantom way; bourgeois ideology arises from this nonexistent material basis; anybody whose ideas are declared bourgeois must be silenced.

Liu Shao-Chi's ideas, for example, were declared pro-capitalist; perhaps they were. But he was silenced so efficiently that we can't really find out what he said that ticked off Mao so much. Except for fragments allegedly quoted in Maoist works attacking him.

It's a Catch-22; for everyone to democratically decide whether to censor something - everyone has to read it first!

There's really no way to suppress bourgeois ideas without having at least some effect on proletarian democracy; the problem is who decides what's bourgeois?

So the purpose of proletarian dictatorship is not to suppress bad ideas; but to suppress armed counterrevolution. That may well involve censorship as an unfortunate necessity at times; newspapers are also a weapon of civil war as the Bolsheviks pointed out. Experience shows the downside of this suppression, though; it can also intimidate workers democracy and provide weapons that can be abused by bureaucrats.

Censorship certainly shouldn't be proclaimed as an imperative ("must"!) And the theory that the bourgeoisie continues to exist and "Bourgeois tendencies will be made manifest" is nothing but one of Mao's theoretically ridiculous excuses for suppressing his opponents.

So all in all RAAN's concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is certainly too authoritarian for this Leninist; arguably it's more authoritarian than Lenin's.

Some anarchists have pointed out some of this; (http://www.ainfos.ca/03/sep/ainfos00093.html) scroll down for comments by "Morpheus". He has some valid points IMO - about who decides what tendency is bourgeois for example - and for the rest, well, it shows RAAN's concept of the DoP does indeed include what anarchists object to.

Some anarchists have apparently suggested that RAAN holds onto the DoP because they're closet authoritarians; that is understandable because it seems pretty inexplicable why they're so attached to a piece of terminology. But I think it's probably wrong; they hold on to the DoP because they're stubborn and inflexible of thought.

Besides, every new groups needs some ideological shibboleth that distinguishes it from every other. Being pro-dictatorship but anti-state and anti-authority is likely unique enough; nobody else is likely to advocate that particular bizarre, self-contradictory mish-mash!

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:45 AM
Actually, that sounds in some ways like what Lenin wrote in "State and Revolution". Of course, practice was messier than theory - but no theory is going to eliminate that.

The question of the party is the one really distinctive thing about Leninism; and that's a different question than the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

Of course both Marx and Lenin described the dictatorship of the proletariat as a state (Marx even more than Lenin; Lenin emphasized more that it's a state that's beginning to wither away and become a non-state.) And it's straight-up ridiculous to be for a dictatorship but against the state; obviously "dictatorship" is the more authoritarian of those two terms.
Again: who the fuck cares what Lenin wrote? The first thing the Bolsheviks did upon seizing power was to subvert the authority of the Soviets to the Party, because they were "reactionary Mensheviks." And this was before the Civil War. S&R is trite, written in part to appease the anarchists, and containing no substantial value, as it is directly contradictory to Lenin's conception of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat both before and after 1917, not to mention how the Bolsheviks actually implemented it.

Who did really implement an autonomist councilist system? The anarchists in Spain during the Civil War, the insurgents in France in 68, the autonomists in Italy in the 70s, the Zapatistas in the Chiapas, and even the students who occupied the universities during the recent anti-CPE rebellion. Not all of these people called themselves "autonomists," or wrote essays about that kind of organization. But they actually organized autonomously, rather than talking shit. Unlike the Lennies. So can you guess which one I support?

But this isn't a topic trying to reconcile Leninism with actual working-class self-organization, and I refuse to let it get derailed by your Trot shite.

[apathy maybe]

I am opposed to the state in any form (centralised government, permanent armed force and permanent judiciary to enforce what the centralised government says).

However, while I have in the past got "hung up on" the term dictatorship of the proletariat, after talking to a Marxist (one who claims also to be a Leninist) I have had second thoughts.

He explained what seemed to me not to be a state in the traditional sense at all. I recall that why he did want some centralised decision-making body, he didn't advocate a permanent professional armed force. Now while I still oppose this, it is tastier then that which he would hope that it would replace.

However, I still think that we shall be looking at de-centralised by design groups. People shall look at the problems that permanent professional armed forces have done, what centralised governments have done. The injustices and problems caused by the state, and they shall reject them.

While there will be people arguing that power should be concentrated into their hands, they will hopefully be shot so that it doesn't happen again. There are too many examples of power being abused when it is centralised. Both in places where people claim to be "democratic" or "acting for the people" and where the dictators made no such claim.

[Nachie]

Lenin: "The Party must implement the DofP"

Proles: "We *are* the DofP"

The difference really isn't too hard to understand... those who lack the mental capacity to imagine the DofP as a mass of disorganized revolutionary violence that will will happen anyway are the same ones who can't conceive of anything without somebody pulling the strings from on high...

[321zero]

Lenin: "The Party must implement the DofP"

Proles: "We *are* the DofP"

The first sentence is historically contextual, the second should be in the future tense.

[LoneRed]

it seems that you want the bourgeois repressed, and the proletariat doing this without the DOP, what you are advocating is not the DOP, its just an attempt to make things go according to how you believe. Lenin didnt invent the concept of DOP. what concerns me is the Marxist interpretation of DOP, that is a society run by the working class itself, The proletariat laying hold of the state machinery in order to repress the capitalist class from reversing the revolution. If you do not believe in that, you do not believe in the DOP, ... marx didnt talk about how the DOP was to be run, I assume that it would be decentralized, look at how he says that things should be centralized in the hands of the working class. centralization in the hands of an entire class is not a bad thing. its what form that centralization will take that we ponder.

[bayano]

ive never understood the continued use of the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. look, no one has to give me a dop 101 lesson. i fully understand what it means, but most of us on the left, i would like to assume, are fighting for one of many forms of direct and participatory democracy. whats wrong with the term proletariasn democracy? and ideally, the term proletariat as it applies to the relations of productions shouldnt be a long needed word in and of itself, connoting an exploited class as it does.

but more to the point, the dop term in and of itself makes no real sense, and has certainly not existed in the 20th century. not in countries i support (like cuba, some elements of titoist yugoslavia and viet nam, etc etc), and not in the stalinist, state capitalist and/or despotic systems in countries i dont support. in some it was a more of a Dictatorship of the Techno-Bureaucratic class, and in others, there was still not a significant enough degree of worker control of the state to use the term.

but the whole idea of a state run by the producers, by the workers and/or peasent and/or their ally classes, is completely contradictory to the concept of a dictatorship. if the masses of a population are in the producer classes, and they seize state power, they are by their very nature forming a democracy. so, whats wrong with terms like worker democracy, or peoples democracy, or even socialist republic.

[anomaly]

Myself, I disagree with what is most often described as the 'DoP', as well as 'the state'.

But RAAN's 'DoP' is quite a bit different. I support the idea, disagree with the label.

But according to the RAAN site, there are a lot of people in the network who disagree. So it's all good, I suppose.

[red_che]

Again, the issue of DoP is being messed up with the question of the Party.

In my understanding of these two words, DoP is the state, which is nothing but the proletarian state in place of the old bourgeois state, after the proletariat seized political power from the bourgeoisie through a mass revolution. On the other hand, the Party is nothing but the instrument of the proletariat (their "advanced" detachment) in waging the revolution and seizing political power. Consequently, and during this revolutionary transition period from capitalism to communism and the state as being nothing but the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Party remains as the instrument and advanced detachment of the proletariat until the state withers away.

I found this passage from The Class Struggles in France, 1849-50 where Marx says:


And we have seen how the February Republic in reality was not and could not be other than a bourgeois republic; how the Provisional Government, nevertheless, was forced by the immediate pressure of the proletariat to announce it as a republic with social institutions; how the Paris proletariat was still incapable of going beyond the bourgeois republic otherwise than in its fancy, in imagination; how even where the republic acted in the service of the bourgeoisie when it really came to action; how the promises made to it became an unbearable danger for the new republic; how the whole life process of the Provisional Government was comprised in a continuous fight against the demands of the proletariat.(italics is mine)

Although this was 1849, the lesson still applies, that there will always be an advanced detachment needed to "guide" and direct the revolution. It is not what you (guys like Redstar) think that everybody will go into streets, shouting, waiving and all conscious and without any bourgeois influence, can outrightly abolish a bourgeois state and replace with a proletarian state without any need for the Party. Guys, it is not that simple. For the whole proletariat to become actually conscious, there must always be an advanced section that will teach them that consciousness. Those dudes in the 19th century (Marx, Engels) knew this fact. Lenin also reiterated this.

[Nachie]

Where exactly in that quote is Marx calling for an "advanced detachment" to "teach them that consciousness"? I don't see it. I'm pretty sure only Leninists see it.

As for "The Party":

"Although we are not a political party, we deem it impossible to achieve a social change without the future development of a revolutionary party: not any party, but the one expected in the Communist Manifesto. Such an organization cannot be 'established' or 'built', but it will spring from the clash of great forces pushed by the contradictions of capitalism itself. Deep economical and social upheavals, or even a general warfare, will make these enormous potentialities rise.

"The term 'party' does not mean a mere political structure, but the absolute antithesis of any organizing form so far expressed by class societies. According to Marx, the revolutionary concept of organization has to be consistent with the future of mankind, and not take old organizations as a model, even those which were actually revolutionary in the past." - The n+1 group

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Although this was 1849, the lesson still applies...

Of course it does. :lol:

Do you also wear clothing from that era?

And have you learned to use indoor plumbing yet?

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

[barista.marxista]

A substantial amount of Marx's conception of the DofP came from his critique of the Paris Commune. And what he heralded about that was the ultra-democratic methods of very short-term elected people, mass participation in decision-making, and the seeds for the developments of councils. What he said was wrong was essentially keeping the same state construct, the army, etc. Marx did not want centralized parties (despite that irrelevant quote applicable to the First International about centralization): what he held as being the only example thusfar in history of a DofP was built on ultra-democratic methodology. That is what is necessary for working-class self-organization in the industrialized world.

[PRC-UTE]

Would Autonmist Marxists favour a DoP in which their were any paid officials (or if not paid, that is their sole function)? Would this contradict their theory?

What about other non-Leninist Marxists? I'm curious to know more about this.

[KC]

Of course it does. laugh.gif

Do you also wear clothing from that era?

And have you learned to use indoor plumbing yet?

Yes, because nothing is the same as back then; everything's different! :rolleyes:

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:12 AM
Would Autonmist Marxists favour a DoP in which their were any paid officials (or if not paid, that is their sole function)? Would this contradict their theory?
Nope. No paid officials.

[Macchendra]

To the degree that the DofP claims the authority to impose their will with violence, they are an authoritarian hierarchy.

Add a flag and a mailing address, and voila!: State.

But, here is one of two loopholes, albeit one that leads down the path of darkness:
Those who impose their will with violence have implicitly consented to violence. Upon such people violence is not imposed because it is implicitly consensual.



(((However, life under the law can be brutal. Grace might be better. Ghandi put it best with: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind..."!!! I prefer explicitly consensual violence, with lots of sweat and leather.)))

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[KC]

To the degree that the DofP claims the authority to impose their will with violence, they are an authoritarian hierarchy.

Add a flag and a mailing address, and voila!: State.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a state; it is the proletarian state.



But, here is one of two loopholes, albeit one that leads down the path of darkness:
Those who impose their will with violence have implicitly consented to violence. Upon such people violence is not imposed because it is implicitly consensual.

Violence is necessary in transforming society to such an extent.

[Nachie]

Macchendra: What about conceiving of the DofP as the organic process of revolutionary violence itself, whereby no one in particular would be able to "claim" any type of authority, but insurrectionary proles would be advancing and defending the revolutionary projects at their own paces and in different ways. It is a dictatorship in the sense that it is imposing something (abolition of private property) on a group of people (the ruling class) without the benefit of going through formal "legitimizing" institutions (bourgeois Democracy) first. In this light it becomes clear that there is nothing "declared" or "institutionalized" about the DofP - it is in fact the natural antithesis of Democracy's own institutionalized violence.

The major point is, you cannot point me to a single legitimate revolution or even spasm of insurrectionary violence in history that does not in some way represent the DofP and reinforce its inevitability in any radical transformation of society.

"There were only two courses to choose between: either bend the knee before the counterrevolution or prepare to impose one's own power, to wit, proletarian power" - Jaime Balius, Friends of Durruti

[Macchendra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:02 PM
Violence is necessary in transforming society to such an extent.
I had a friend who nailed a foot to a board everytime he wanted to quit smoking.
Doesn't mean it was a necessary part of his quitting.

The hope generated by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in the conditions of one's life by a revolutionary movement that appears as though it will succeed is necessary in transforming society to such an extent.

That hope is enough.

But unfortunately, they know that, and that is why they will always loball the numbers at demonstrations. The media is in power, and they will always disinform and sap the momentum from any revolutionary movement.

What is needed is a trojan horse that the media will latch onto in the hopes of villifying the left. A situationist anti-spectacle, which can be leveraged into a public awareness campaign, is necessary.

I have crafted such a spectacle.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:02 PM
Violence is necessary in transforming society to such an extent.
Marx would disagree with you.

[anomaly]

Are you referring to his speech where he says 'socialism' may be achieved by 'peaceful means' in some nations?

He might take a different stance in light of modern conditions. In any case, Marx was wrong in this instance.

[KC]

Originally posted by chin

Marx would disagree with you.

I am speaking of present conditions. Marx would agree with me.


I had a friend who nailed a foot to a board everytime he wanted to quit smoking.
Doesn't mean it was a necessary part of his quitting.

The hope generated by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in the conditions of one's life by a revolutionary movement that appears as though it will succeed is necessary in transforming society to such an extent.

That hope is enough.

But unfortunately, they know that, and that is why they will always loball the numbers at demonstrations. The media is in power, and they will always disinform and sap the momentum from any revolutionary movement.

What is needed is a trojan horse that the media will latch onto in the hopes of villifying the left. A situationist anti-spectacle, which can be leveraged into a public awareness campaign, is necessary.

I have crafted such a spectacle.

Peace!
David Bright Morning

The ruling class won't peacefully give up their power. This is rather obvious. In the case that they are willing to, yes, violence would be unneccesary. But the chances of this happening basically rule out this option.

[chimx]

the context of what he said is what is important. he was attacking blanquists who were taking a rigid stance on the meaning of the DofP to solely mean revolutionary violence. who knows, if we threw the raan P&D into a delorean and sent it back to 1872 with doc brown, maybe marx would curse us out too. 20th century developments have told us that certain models of transition have failed, and so we're sticking by our words. my point is that it is simply stupid to say that marx exclusively meant one way the dofp could be carried out. its a flexible term and can mean much more than the leninist interpretation.

http://www.bttfmovie.com/modules/images/1955/large/1955_doc_d.jpg

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Macchendra+--> (Macchendra)Gandhi put it best with: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind..."!!![/b]

I don't see how Gandhi's misanthropic quip is relevant here.


I had a friend who nailed a foot to a board everytime he wanted to quit smoking.

Make new friends.


The media is in power...

Not any more...or at least not unless they completely shut down the internet.

Too costly.


chimx
[The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is] a flexible term and can mean much more than the Leninist interpretation.

Indeed! The Leninist "spin" on the term is not really justified anywhere in Marx's writings.

In the last century, Lenin and his followers made the phrase synonymous with vanguard party despotism.

It was a claim that could only withstand critical examination by virtue of the "successes" of the various Leninist states. As soon as they all went down the toilet, so did the "spin" that "justified" them through the mis-use of Marx's words.

Winners get to make "the definitions"...losers don't. :D

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

[KC]

I wasn't talking about the "Leninist interpretation". I was talking about the revolutionary (i.e. right) interpretation. Maybe you've missed the fact that Marx talks about revolution all the time?

[chimx]

marx also talked about using democratic institutions to transition society. from a purist stance, i'm gonna have to disagree.

[red_che]

Nachie:


Where exactly in that quote is Marx calling for an "advanced detachment" to "teach them that consciousness"? I don't see it. I'm pretty sure only Leninists see it.

In his Preface to A Critique to the Political Economy, Marx says:


In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

And in addition, read the Comunist Manifesto. ;)


According to Marx, the revolutionary concept of organization has to be consistent with the future of mankind, and not take old organizations as a model, even those which were actually revolutionary in the past."

Yeah, and their formaing of a political party is one that is entirely different from the bourgeois concept and form of party. Again, I encourage you to read and comprehend the Communist Manifesto.

Redstar:


Of course it does.

Do you also wear clothing from that era?

And have you learned to use indoor plumbing yet?

Hahaha... very funny, is this a joke? :lol: :lol:

We are not talking of clothings here. We are talking of the experiences of the proletarian class from since it existed and all the lessons learned from its struggle.

And if yout think that what Marx said during that time is not applicable today, then his analysis and studies of capitalism wouldn't be applied also today. And even his analysis of the proletarian struggle wouldn't apply today. And, to cut short, you are almost saying that Marxism (from Marx's era) isn't applicable today.

Well, you're wrong. The capitalism in Marx's era is still the capitalism today. no such fundamental changes have happened as to warrant a fundamental change or revision of Marxism. The only substantial changes to capitalism that I know is that it developed into Imperialism.

As to the strategies, the need for a Party, and everything Marx, Engels, or Lenin said were still valid today.

As such, the DoP (as what marx, Engels and Lenin) thought them to be is still not yet applied in its fullest concept. Also, the Party's significane in the proletarian struggle as what they told are, in my understanding, still very much needed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
As to the strategies, the need for a Party, and everything Marx, Engels, or Lenin said were still valid today.

*shakes head*

This is why "Marxism" can sometimes be successfully tagged with the "religion" label by its critics.

Taking everything those guys wrote as if it were revelation simply wrecks the paradigm altogether.

People who cannot see the world change are theoretically useless...museum curators who have nothing useful to say about anything.

All they can say is READ THE HOLY BOOKS and all will be clear!

And then, as often as not, they can't even get those right. Trying to convert Marx and Engels into "early Leninists" is simply ludicrous.

One may as well "argue" with a Christian! :o

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

[Nachie]

haha dude the only thing that quote says is that it wouldn't matter how many "vanguards" you have, communism will still only come when the material conditions are ready. anything else is a dictator trying to push an elephant through a pinhole.

thanks for recommending the communist manifesto. i'd never heard of that one, who wrote it? i'll try to pick it up and get back to you, i'm sure it will contain some startling Leninist revelation like,


The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
Oh shit! that actually doesn't sound like Leninism at all! In fact that kinda sounds like a conception of the communist party as an organic, unstable, non-formalized relation between and rising out of the entire proletariat!

but Leninists can get around this because they're the mutherfuckin' vanguard!

when they form a party, it is magically one with the working class. when they form a party, it magically has no interests separate from those of the proletariat as a whole. and of course when they form a party, they simply never EVER set up any sectarian principles of their own by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement. they just lead it by default, that's all. no shaping or molding involved. and when they form a party, it is totally different from the bourgeois concept and form of party :lol:

Capitalism hasn't changed at all since Marx's time?

You're drunk. Or severely inebriated at the least.

I recommend Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle

[red_che]

Redstar:


This is why "Marxism" can sometimes be successfully tagged with the "religion" label by its critics.

Taking everything those guys wrote as if it were revelation simply wrecks the paradigm altogether.

Including you. :(

You don't get it, do you?

What I was trying to say is that, it's not because Marx told or Engels told it. It is because what they told were the result of their thorough study of capitalist system and actual participation in the proletarian struggle.

What they had written were the lessons drawn from the actual experiences. They're not just dreaming or hallucinating. How 'bout you, where did you get your ideas? From the CNN? From the Nixon Research Center? :D


People who cannot see the world change are theoretically useless...museum curators who have nothing useful to say about anything.

Who didn't say the world doesn't change? What was simply stated was that the most basic characters of the capitalist system in 1849 are still its characters today. It changed, yes, it developed into Imperialism where it became worst.

Well, people who doesn't know how to differentiate a substantive/fundamental change from a non-substantive/non-fundamental one is basically an idiot. And he/she becomes more idiotic when he/she outrightly reject the lessons drawn from actual experiences. :)

Now, what you are putting forward, however, is not in conformity to what is needed according to the conditions of today. What you are advocating is the total revision (or to be more precise, outright exclusion :o ) of the entire Marxist thought. You want, based on all your explanations I have read so far in this board, Marxism to be phased out as if the objective conditions from where it emerged was now gone. You want even the most basic principles of Marxism to be rejected even when the most basic characters of capitalism and the proletarian struggle still remain.

Nachie:


dude the only thing that quote says is that it wouldn't matter how many "vanguards" you have, communism will still only come when the material conditions are ready.

Yes, and how can you know if the conditions are ready? That is the question. Further, how can it be done? Still harder question. But it doesn't come like a rotten fruit coming down of its tree.

There are steps, which I suppose, have been debated here in this board and everywhere else.

But there had been so many great experiences where the proletarian class can look up to and study. And a lot of these had been written down. And these had been written by those who actually had been through those revolutions.

Dude, there is no need for Marx to categorically say the vanguards are needed. Just read carefully and apply those to the actual conditions. ;)

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:57 AM
But there had been so many great experiences where the proletarian class can look up to and study. And a lot of these had been written down. And these had been written by those who actually had been through those revolutions.
There certainly are...

And all we're saying is, the chapters where it goes "and then the Leninists betrayed us and tons of workers got executed" are getting a little repetitive...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Dude, there is no need for Marx to categorically say the vanguards are needed.

Or to ever bother to set up a "vanguard" himself. :lol:

Was Marx the first "armchair theoretician"? :o

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

[KC]

Or to ever bother to set up a "vanguard" himself.

Nobody "sets up" a vanguard. It forms spontaneously.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 30 2006, 02:45 PM
Nobody "sets up" a vanguard. It forms spontaneously.
Which is why there are 9782349872342378492310897743218123741023 of them! :lol:

[KC]

Which is why there are 9782349872342378492310897743218123741023 of them!

There has been a vanguard for every movement. ;)

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 30 2006, 04:17 PM
There has been a vanguard for every movement. ;)
And every minute difference in their interpretation of what the Soviet Union was! :P

[red_che]

And all we're saying is, the chapters where it goes "and then the Leninists betrayed us and tons of workers got executed" are getting a little repetitive...

Who betrayed who?

You make false accusations based on your distorted analysis.

If somebody betrayed the proletariat, certainly those who are going against Marxism were the traitors. Those who want to scrap the experiences of the proletariat are the traitors. And these are the modern revisionists. I hope you don't belong to them. :(


Or to ever bother to set up a "vanguard" himself.

Was Marx the first "armchair theoretician"?

???


Nobody "sets up" a vanguard. It forms spontaneously.

And it comes out from the revolutionaries themselves.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:16 AM
And it comes out from the revolutionaries themselves.
In that case we won't have to worry about any Leninists taking part, and can sleep soundly.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[KC]

And it comes out from the revolutionaries themselves.

The revolutionaries are part of the vanguard, which comes into being spontaneously as a result of material conditions.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 11:17 AM
The revolutionaries are part of the vanguard, which comes into being spontaneously as a result of material conditions.
You've said this about five dozen times so far, and yet history has shown Leninism to be a progressive force in the third-world, and a reactionary force in the first. If you repeat something a hundred times, it does not come true.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I feel kinda stupid posting on a dead topic but I just don't understand. How could a revolution or post-revolutionary society not have centralization! It makes no sense! Where will they resupply, how do they call for reinenforcements? It is impossible to have a centrally planned econmy, yes communism means centrally planed, economy? You can't realistically make everything needed locally. Who will co-ordinate trade? There are thousands of questions. There is a reason for central governments, and to find out why you must look no farther than the wars of the city-states of greece.

[Nachie]

I'd say check out the thread on Affinity Groups in the Practice forum...


yes communism means centrally planed, economy
Uh, no.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Affinity groups make no sense. I'm not impressed. No one would won't to be a spokesperson if they were personally accountaable eveytime they did something the public doesn't want. Umm.. ever heard of disagreeing? People will constantly disagree and hold you accountable.

Also you didn't answer my questions about trade and supply and demand planning.

[Nachie]

I wasn't referring to affinity groups, I was referring to the Affinity Groups thread, which is off-topic at this point.


Also you didn't answer my questions
I suggest studying real examples from history because anything else is just theoretical bullshit.

You can check out the revolution in Hungary 1956 for a pretty good look at how society might just be able to spontaneously reorganize itself.

Also see the Aufheben pamphlet on the Zapatistas that I recommended to you in that very same Affinity Groups thread.

[KC]

You've said this about five dozen times so far, and yet history has shown Leninism to be a progressive force in the third-world, and a reactionary force in the first.

You're attempting to destroy my position by equating it with something wholly unrelated and uncomparable. Good job.

I never said anything about "Leninism". Sorry! ;)

[black magick hustla]

I feel the need to defend KC here!

when KC speaks about the vanguard, i believe he means that in any revolutionary situation, a group of individuals who have stellar organizational and leadership abilities would naturally spring out. i think this is pretty common sensical, there is always a group of people who are more influential and who are very persuasive in their methods.

this "vanguard" shouldnt be confused with the bolshevik vanguard party though. in a libertarian situation, the "spontaneous vanguard" will not have the tools to make their will absolute.

Bakunin gives a very charming analogy that is very suitable for what i mean:


Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:17 PM



I suggest studying real examples from history

Everytime I use facts from history to back my stance up on this forum, I get called brainwashed and discredited because I learned the fact from a capitalist so thus it's false.

[KC]

I feel the need to defend KC here!

when KC speaks about the vanguard, i believe he means that in any revolutionary situation, a group of individuals who have stellar organizational and leadership abilities would naturally spring out. i think this is pretty common sensical, there is always a group of people who are more influential and who are very persuasive in their methods.

this "vanguard" shouldnt be confused with the bolshevik vanguard party though. in a libertarian situation, the "spontaneous vanguard" will not have the tools to make their will absolute.

Spot on!

[barista.marxista]

Except that KC harbors Leninist sentiments and sympathies, and, based on the history of those who harbor Leninist sentiments and sympathies, to assume that what he means by "vanguard" is identicle to what Leninists mean by "vanguard" is entirely rational. But the revival of this topic isn't about KC or this "feud," but about LeftyHenry's question.


Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Jun 11 2006, 12:48 PM--> (LeftyHenry @ Jun 11 2006, 12:48 PM) I feel kinda stupid posting on a dead topic but I just don't understand. How could a revolution or post-revolutionary society not have centralization![/b]

Because the revolutionary movement necessitates that we, the workers, each take control of our own lives and our own interactions. It requires that we participate in the construction of our new society, and to centralize this effort immediately creates a caste of people whose only role in society is to mediate its creation. Contrary to how you feel, the revolutionary and post-revolutionary society necessitate de-centralization. Centralization has shown itself to always, always create a bureaucracy which is inherently reactionary and anti-proletarian.


It makes no sense! Where will they resupply, how do they call for reinenforcements?

As Nachie said in the Affinity Groups topic, just as Marx never left a blueprint for the post-revolutionary society, neither can we devise one. But I will help how I can. This revolutionary effort requires a massive rebellion on the part of the exploited classes. The mere act of revolution is a conscious rejection of capitalism and bourgeois mentality. Why can't the workers of place A, who have a lot of resource X, ship some of X to point B, who needs it, in return for solidarity, if not the material assets point B has that point A could use? Revolution would see resources enter the commons, and the participation of every worker would also include the sharing and utilizing of the resources we have, including reinforcements. If every worker in the revolution has a gun and the training for it, you have an army of decentralized soldiers who are participating in the fight. The ability to network with surrounding workers would reinforce everyone.


It is impossible to have a centrally planned econmy, yes communism means centrally planed, economy?

To quote an eloquent answer to this: "There is no such thing as 'authoritarian communism', nor an 'authoritarian communist.' [and, subsequently, a "centrally planned" communism - b.m.] As the root of the word communism suggests, communism must have at its heart communal activity. In other words activity, free from the constraints of authoritarianism, in which each person is involved directly and equally." -- commie zero zero


You can't realistically make everything needed locally. Who will co-ordinate trade? There are thousands of questions.

No, you can't make everything you need locally. But you can network with all the other workers in the revolution, to exchange resources you need in communal and egalitarian ways. There are many different models to organize this around, but as Nachie recommended, looking at concrete historical instances is the best way to understand this.


There is a reason for central governments, and to find out why you must look no farther than the wars of the city-states of greece.

I would recommend to you the song "That's About the Only Thing That Governments Have Done" (http://www.riotfolk.revolt.org/member_music_lyrics.php?id=4&song_id=19), by anarchist folkie Ryan Harvey. The song and the lyrics are available for free from that URL. :cool:


[email protected] 11 2006, 06:54 PM
Everytime I use facts from history to back my stance up on this forum, I get called brainwashed and discredited because I learned the fact from a capitalist so thus it's false.

No one should bash on anyone for having limited resources on information untainted by capitalist lies. The essay that Nachie recommended in the Affinity Groups thread can be found here: A Commune In Chiapas? (http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_9_zaps.html). It's from Aufheben, a libertarian-Marxist annual journal. It has an excellent description of the autonomous organizational techniques of the liberated communities in the Chiapas.

Another good source of information on autonomous organization is George Katsiaficas' book, The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life (http://www.eroseffect.com/books/subversion.html), available for free from that link.

[anomaly]

Another way of looking at the situation, LeftHenry, is that centralization, other than being unwanted, is entirely impractical for a revolutionary situation.

A revolutionary situation involves a majority of the masses rising against their oppressors. Actions will logically be localized. Having a central authority over this would, as b.m mentions, make things needlessly complicated. A bureacracy is inevitable with such centralization, and we all know how well that works.

Back in the day, perhaps a bureacracy was as 'efficient as we as humans could do'. But now, with the drastic increase in technology, it certainly is not. As far as how to call for reinforcements, for example, is it easiest to tell a representative, who then goes and tells his superior, who tells his superior...or is it easiest to simply get on a computer or telephone and tell surrounding grassroots groups that reinforcements are desired? I think choice B is rather obvious.

b.m, good post!

[Leo]

Here's something I wrote related to misunderstandings of Marx by Lenin, on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50476

(And I am posting this link to the thread over and over again, hoping someone would reply...Wow, I felt really hopeless and sad for a second :( )

[KC]

Except that KC harbors Leninist sentiments and sympathies

Prove it.


But the revival of this topic isn't about KC or this "feud,"

I'm sorry, barista, but you are the only one here with a "feud". All my posts are in response to your baseless accusations.

[JC1]

That's right. Becuase the logical conception of the vanguard is the one advocated by KC and Leninism (That is, the group of Lenin sympathiziers) is one in the same. The Anarchist as well as Ultra Right (That is the mass of "trotsky"ist/"Stalin"ist/"mao"ist group's(I put the quotes becuase these tendency's dont even follow there leader most of the time)) viewpoint is the mechanical conception.

This is my proposition. KC's conception of the vanguard can be called whatever, as long as its recognizied it our program.

That conception is that every group has diversity. It has advanced and juniour member's. The advanced member's have to create class institution's like the ones the bourgoise have (Universitys, Media, et cet era) to generate cadre.

Lenin said that the working class require the petit-bourgoise intelegensia to germinate counsince in there class. This is true. Our original leaders, Marx, Engel's and Lenin came from the petit bourgoise. But they emersed themselves in the working class.

Lenin in later work's, noted the working class should break with the petit bourgoise. This is what was advocated by Marxist's Leninist's, especialy in the 70's, 90's, 30', and today.

Thats Marx's, Lenin's, KC"s and My program.

Youre eithier with the working class or against us.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 06:22 AM
Youre eithier with the working class or against us.
i am against the working class

[KC]

Becuase the logical conception of the vanguard is the one advocated by KC and Leninism (That is, the group of Lenin sympathiziers) is one in the same.

I'm not "advocating" anything. I'm recognizing the inevitable existence of a vanguard.


KC's conception of the vanguard can be called whatever, as long as its recognizied it our program.

"The vanguard" isn't a program.



Thats Marx's, Lenin's, KC"s and My program.

Don't talk about me like you know my political beliefs.



i am against the working class

I bet you want to eat the working class you dirty cannibal! :lol:

[JC1]

I'm not "advocating" anything. I'm recognizing the inevitable existence of a vanguard.

Wordplay.


"The vanguard" isn't a program.


No, but it has one.


Don't talk about me like you know my political beliefs.

Chill, KC.

[KC]

Wordplay.

So is "advocating atoms" the same thing as "recognizing atoms exist"?


No, but it has one.

The vanguard doesn't have a "program". The vanguard has the same class interests as the rest of the working class.

Parties have programs. A vanguard isn't a party.

[JC1]

So is "advocating atoms" the same thing as "recognizing atoms exist"?


I mispoke.


The vanguard doesn't have a "program". The vanguard has the same class interests as the rest of the working class.

Uh huh. Those intrests are the program of the class.


Parties have programs. A vanguard isn't a party.

Party is a synonym for political orginization. A vanguard can utilize this form of orginization.

[barista.marxista]

If the revolution is not participatory, if it is not egalitarian, and if it is not organized in an autonomous way, then it is not revolutionary. History has proven this, and I don't care how proletarian your dick is: the revolution can only be made by the entirety of the working class, and the only way for the entirety of the working class to make a revolution (at least according to our current class composition) is through participatory autonomy. If a "vanguard" of "advanced" workers who were "more revolutionary" and "more political" did naturally form, and being "more revolutionary" they took a leading role in the revolution, than the duty of every real Marxist would be to execute every one of those motherfuckers, because the mere existence of an elite is threatening to the basic goals of the revolution.

[KC]

Uh huh. Those intrests are the program of the class.

Okay. It was just a semantics problem, then.


Party is a synonym for political orginization. A vanguard can utilize this form of orginization.

All members of the vanguard won't organize into a single party.


barista's crap

The vanguard is the most revolutionary, etc... What this means is that a vanguard will always arise and it will arise spontaneously and inevitably. If you pick a random group of people, you will always be able to pick out who is the most muscular, or who is the most studious, regardless of whether or not any of them really work out or study. That is why the vanguard will always come into being in a movement.

A "leading role in the revolution" is bad? We're not talking about people craving power, or people assuming power; we are talking about people being given power by society because of how those people act. Some people are just more vocal than others, some are better speakers, etc... They develop a respect from the community. They naturally become a leader, even though they have no leadership positions.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:54 PM
If the revolution is not participatory, if it is not egalitarian, and if it is not organized in an autonomous way, then it is not revolutionary. History has proven this, and I don't care how proletarian your dick is: the revolution can only be made by the entirety of the working class, and the only way for the entirety of the working class to make a revolution (at least according to our current class composition) is through participatory autonomy. If a "vanguard" of "advanced" workers who were "more revolutionary" and "more political" did naturally form, and being "more revolutionary" they took a leading role in the revolution, than the duty of every real Marxist would be to execute every one of those motherfuckers, because the mere existence of an elite is threatening to the basic goals of the revolution.
Did you read the Bakunin quote I posted?

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Marmot
A "leading role in the revolution" is bad? We're not talking about people craving power, or people assuming power; we are talking about people being given power by society because of how those people act. Some people are just more vocal than others, some are better speakers, etc... They develop a respect from the community. They naturally become a leader, even though they have no leadership positions.
Yes, because the goal of the revolution is to have everyone be a leader. In order for a revolution to be made, the consciousness of the masses must change radically. And in order to be moved towards arms against the bourgeois society, every worker must be willing to take a participatory role in the creation of the revolution. This doesn't mean every worker must be the most vocal, the loudest speaking. It means every person must take responsibility for the creation of the post-revolutionary society; everybody must participate in the actual creation of the society, instead of entrusting it to a group. And the existence of "leaders," who are so by virtue of being the "most revolutionary," and as such have a deciding role in the creation of the new society, is a direct threat to this.

[KC]

Yes, because the goal of the revolution is to have everyone be a leader. In order for a revolution to be made, the consciousness of the masses must change radically. And in order to be moved towards arms against the bourgeois society, every worker must be willing to take a participatory role in the creation of the revolution. This doesn't mean every worker must be the most vocal, the loudest speaking. It means every person must take responsibility for the creation of the post-revolutionary society; everybody must participate in the actual creation of the society, instead of entrusting it to a group.

I agree with all of this.


And the existence of "leaders," who are so by virtue of being the "most revolutionary," and as such have a deciding role in the creation of the new society, is a direct threat to this.


I'm sorry to inform you that that's just how it is; people are different. Some people are better at public speaking, theory, etc... These people will be more respected within the community and hence a leader arises. How is this reactionary? What is your solution? Kill these people because the community gives them power? :rolleyes:

[red_che]

Stalin says in his Reply to Social-Democrat:

First lie. In the author's opinion, "Lenin wants to restrict the Party, to convert it into a narrow organisation of profcssionals" (p. 2). But Lenin says: "It should not be thought that Party organisations must consist solely of professional revolutionaries. We need the most diversified organisations of every type, rank and shade, from extremely narrow and secret organisations to very broad and free ones" (Minutes, p. 240).

Second lie. According to the author, Lenin wants to "bring into the Party only committee members" (p. 2). But Lenin says: "All groups, circles, sub-committees, etc., must enjoy the status of committee institutions, or of branches of committees. Some of them will openly express a wish to join the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party and, provided that this is endorsed by the committee, will join it" (see "A Letter to a Comrade," p . 1 7).

Third lie. In the author's opinion, "Lenin is demanding the establishment of the domination of intellectuals in the Party" (p. 5). But Lenin says: "The committees should contain . . . as far as possible, all the principal leaders of the working-class movement from among the workers themselves" (see "A Letter to a Comrade," pp. 7-8), i.e., the voices of the advanced workers must predominate not only in all other organisations, but also in the committees.

Fourth lie. The author says that the passage quoted on page 12 of my pamphlet: "the working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism," etc. -- is "entirely a fabrication" (p. 6). As a matter of fact, I simply took and translated this passage from What Is To Be Done? This is what we read in that book, on page 29: "The working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism, but the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most diverse forms) bourgeois ideology nevertheless spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class still more." This is the passage that is translated on page 12 of my pamphlet. This is what our "critic" called a fabrication! I do not know whether to ascribe this to the author's absent-mindedness or chicanery.

Fifth lie. In the author's opinion, "Lenin does not say anywhere that the workers strive towards socialism of 'natural necessity'" (p. 7). But Lenin says that the "working class spontaneously gravitates towards socialism" (What Is To Be Done?, p. 29).

Sixth lie. The author ascribes to me the idea that "socialism is introduced into the working class from without by the intelligentsia" (p. 7), whereas I say that Social-Democracy (read: Socialism) (and not only Social-Democratic intellectuals) introduces socialist consciousness into the movement (p. 18).

Seventh lie. In the author's opinion, Lenin says that socialist ideology arose "quite independently of the working-class movement" (p. 9). But such an idea certainly never entered Lenin's head. He says that socialist ideology arose "quite independently of the spontaneous growth of the working-class movement" (What Is To Be Done?, p. 21).

I can't add anything else, because this is clear to me already. :)

[anomaly]

KC's position on 'leaders' is rather confusing. I've dealt with it before. Barista, I believe he means anyone who advocates and/or shares with other workers a revolutionary idea (anarchism/communism/socialism) is, by virtue simply of doing so, a leader. Now, that is not terminology I use, but so long as KC doesn't advocate these 'leaders' becoming rulers, I see no problem with his ideas. At least this one, anyway.

[black magick hustla]

Yes, and unless I didn't read it correctly, I fail to see what the relevance is. It is sensible to appeal to the bootmaker's authority on boots. But mustn't the revolution come from the proletariat? So musn't the proletariat be the authority on the creation of the new society? And so raising one section of the proletariat, because they can be called the "most revolutionary", to an authority position or elite position, cannot allow for the entirety of the proletariat to be the authority. And finally, even if Bakunin did say authority beyond the recognized skill was just, what the fuck difference does it make? It wouldn't make any difference if it was Marx calling for authority. They're just dead white guys with big beards.

Don't misunderstand me, I almost agree completely with you. However, as Bakunin said, the bootmaker will probably have more authority (in the sense that normal people will listen to him) than a cook when regarding the making of shoes. However I was not speaking about elevating the bootmaker to a ´position were he can impose his will through coercion,.

If I want to learn math, obviously I will listen much more to the math teacher than the doctor when pertaining math.

[anomaly]

Marmot, I believe that is 'rational authority', as Haraldur often says. I don't think anyone objects to that.

[barista.marxista]

I'm sorry to inform you that that's just how it is; people are different. Some people are better at public speaking, theory, etc... These people will be more respected within the community and hence a leader arises. How is this reactionary? What is your solution? Kill these people because the community gives them power?

You're using the human nature argument. "People are just lazy, they don't want to participate, so of course the entrust everything to the best revolutionaries." This is a mentality of the bourgeois society. Of course they don't want everyone to be participatory, because that would threaten their monopoly of power in the economy and the social-factory. This is exactly why Leninism has its roots in the bourgeois social-hierarchy that capitalism reinforces; to insist it's "just how it is" that not everyone can lead fetishizes human nature in the same way that bourgeois philosophy does. The goal of the revolution is to get everyone to participate, and thus everyone to be respected. As I said before, that doesn't mean everyone must be amazing at orating, or writing theory, or marksmanship -- it means everyone must be amazing at claiming control over the formation of their own lives and communities. And to simply give in to the necessity of leadership, claiming that's "just how it is," is not only bourgeois fetishization, but it's a direct threat to the creation of the new society. It would allow the creation of a class of bureaucrats, of people whose role is to lead so that other people don't have to. And we saw what happens with that -- so why would we advocate repeating it? I'm not advocating we execute the best shoemaker, or the best cook -- I'm advocating we execute the people who try to assume the roles of the "best revolutionary" and the "best leader".

[KC]

You're using the human nature argument.

Not at all. I am saying that people are different and some people are better at things than others. This is obviously true. You'd have to be a complete fucking idiot to not agree with that.


"People are just lazy, they don't want to participate, so of course the entrust everything to the best revolutionaries."

I don't think I ever said that. Care to address what I actually said, or did you just come here to attack straw men?


The goal of the revolution is to get everyone to participate

I said earlier that I agree with this. So what's your problem? That I use the "v" word?


I'm not advocating we execute the best shoemaker, or the best cook

These people are the best at their respective professions in the exact same way that the members of the vanguard are the "best revolutionaries". So you either are advocating this, or you recognize the idea of the vanguard as an inevitability.


I'm advocating we execute the people who try to assume the roles of the "best revolutionary" and the "best leader".

I never said anything about people "trying to assuming roles" or "positions". This entire time I have been talking about people that have been given leadership status informally through community respect.

[anomaly]

Yes, that is all well and good KC, however, my concern, and I believe Barista's as well, is your position on an official leadership 'status'; as you might say, a 'formal leader'. Do you advocate this?

I recall you saying that you believe Venezuela 'could be' heading for socialism. So is the 'Chavez-ism' method one that you advocate?

[Janus]

when KC speaks about the vanguard, i believe he means that in any revolutionary situation, a group of individuals who have stellar organizational and leadership abilities would naturally spring out. i think this is pretty common sensical, there is always a group of people who are more influential and who are very persuasive in their methods.

this "vanguard" shouldnt be confused with the bolshevik vanguard party though. in a libertarian situation, the "spontaneous vanguard" will not have the tools to make their will absolute.
Thank you. Someone finally understands KC's point.


You're using the human nature argument
I don't think that KC is saying that but that certain people will gravitate towards certain activities. Everyone will be involved. It's mainly about their interests and people just wont have the same abilities. But just because they're better at something doesn't give them the right to actually command others and force others to do their bidding.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 14 2006, 12:07 AM
I said earlier that I agree with this. So what's your problem? That I use the "v" word?
Your arguing that people will naturally allow for leaders to come in is completely contradictory to the idea that everyone must participate in the construction of a post-revolutionary society. Are you daft, or a hypocrite?


These people are the best at their respective professions in the exact same way that the members of the vanguard are the "best revolutionaries". So you either are advocating this, or you recognize the idea of the vanguard as an inevitability.

See, this is why I think you're a closet-Leninist. You think making revolution is a profession, which some people are "best" at. This is a notion rooted in the capitalist social hierarchy. Revolution must not be a profession that we entrust to the "best revolutionaries." All history for the last hundred and fifty years has proven this to be reactionary. The making of revolution must be done by everyone, it must be accepted as being as much a part of our everyday lives as eating or sleeping. It's only through this collective responsibility, through egalitarian participation, that communism can be formed. As I said, history has shown it cannot be made otherwise. It doesn't necessitate that everyone be the best at writing or speaking or whatever -- it necessitates everyone takes community control, and participates in their interactions of their communities.


I never said anything about people "trying to assuming roles" or "positions". This entire time I have been talking about people that have been given leadership status informally through community respect.

You're making the argument that it is in human nature to intrust leadership to the "best" leaders. This is the exact same fetishization of human nature that the bourgeoisie makes.

[KC]

barista, are you twisting my words because you want to be sectarian, or are you just an idiot?



Your arguing that people will naturally allow for leaders to come in is completely contradictory to the idea that everyone must participate in the construction of a post-revolutionary society.

Actually, it's not contradictory at all.


You think making revolution is a profession

I never even implied that. Nice try, though.


which some people are "best" at.

Well, some people are best at certain aspects which are important to the revolution. I named a few earlier, such as public speaking, organizational skills, etc... I'm sorry to inform you that people are different and some people are just going to be better at these things than others. I know you don't concern yourself with thinking in terms of reality, but this you can't deny.



You're making the argument that it is in human nature to intrust leadership to the "best" leaders. This is the exact same fetishization of human nature that the bourgeoisie makes.

So the best shoemaker won't be given respect by the community because of his ability to make shoes? The best cook? Again, this is the same situation. When people are exceptionally good at something, they are respected by the community for that ability. By ignoring this simple and obvious fact, you really are showing your idiocy.

[Rawthentic]

I would have to agree with KC on this point, even as an autonomist myself. Its a very abstract ideal to talk about leadership in the future, but I think that Barista is misconstruing KC's words, who makes a very good point on the issue of leadership.

[barista.marxista]

KC, you said:


These people are the best at their respective professions in the exact same way that the members of the vanguard are the "best revolutionaries".

You are equating revolution with a profession, and advocating that some people are just "better" making revolution than others. You cannot conceive of people collectively contributing to the organization of their communities, because your ideas are rooted in Leninism, whether or not you wish to admit it. I'm not denying the obvious fact that some people are better at public speaking, or that some people are better at making shoes. I'm denying the fact that some people are better at being revolutionary, and thus will become a caste of leaders which you call a "vanguard."

[KC]

You are equating revolution with a profession

I am equating revolutionary abilities with other abilities.


You cannot conceive of people collectively contributing to the organization of their communities

Of course I can. And I support it.


because your ideas are rooted in Leninism, whether or not you wish to admit it.

Which ideas are those?


I'm not denying the obvious fact that some people are better at public speaking, or that some people are better at making shoes.

So then you understand what I'm saying. I knew you'd come around to common sense eventually.

[anomaly]

Perhaps, KC, you can answer my questions, and all of this can be cleared up.

[KC]

Yes, that is all well and good KC, however, my concern, and I believe Barista's as well, is your position on an official leadership 'status'; as you might say, a 'formal leader'. Do you advocate this?

I am in support of representatives, elected and recallable at any time by the people they represent, which, by the way, they have in Venezuela.



I recall you saying that you believe Venezuela 'could be' heading for socialism. So is the 'Chavez-ism' method one that you advocate?

It depends on how much farther it is taken. Venezuela is really headed in the right direction, and I don't see anything wrong with anything they have done there. What do you find wrong with Venezuela? Chavez is recallable to recall at any time by the people, granted they get enough votes. I believe there have been 7 or 8 of these recall votes and every time it has happened Chavez has come out on top.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 16 2006, 04:13 PM
I believe there have been 7 or 8 of these recall votes and every time it has happened Chavez has come out on top.
Chavez has won 2 elections and a referendum. Where on earth are you pulling a number as high as 8 from?

[KC]

Chavez has won 2 elections and a referendum. Where on earth are you pulling a number as high as 8 from?


A speaker here from I believe the Venezuelan consulate said that last night.

[black magick hustla]

oh man

KC you sound like a trot

[anomaly]

What is wrong with the Venezuelan situation? KC, are you serious on this one?

From an anarchist perspective, the problem is obvious. In Venezuela, as in Russia and China before, we have a movement built around a single man. The working class struggle has been replaced by Chavezism. Just talk to Nachie a bit to see how strong the real Venezuelan working class movement is (he's been there). No, what is happening in Venezuela is little more than social democracy, which will lead, in all likelihood, to capitalism.

Now, I don't think many anarchists have a problem with 'leaders' such as the ones you theoretically describe when speaking of this 'vanguard', however, anarchists do have a problem with obvious rulers like Chavez. You probably recognize the difference.

[KC]

No, what is happening in Venezuela is little more than social democracy, which will lead, in all likelihood, to capitalism.

How can it "lead to capitalism" when it's already capitalist?

[anomaly]

On that classification, we disagree.

I think it will become a 'first world' capitalist nation, if you wish to be particular.

[KC]

I think it will become a 'first world' capitalist nation, if you wish to be particular.


That's quite a distinction. I don't think I'm being "particular" at all. Capitalism doesn't just mean "first world capitalism".

[anomaly]

The debate is pointless. We'll all see what happens.

But I think you should now understand why anarchists are opposed to your ideas, for the most part.

[KC]

Well, you're basically saying that nations have to be developed to a certain point to be deemed "capitalist". This not only goes against the materialist conception of history, but it also delves into the realm of subjectivism (i.e. how developed does a country have to be to be considered capitalist?).

Also, if a country doesn't meet this standard of development, then what is it? It's certainly not feudalist, nor is it slavery. So what would it be?