Which is the greater enemy? [Archive]

EusebioScrib

9th May 2006, 20:22

The current state apparatus and capitalism are in a dialectical relationship. One cannot exist without the other. Both are intertwined to such a degree that if one begins to collapse, the other also does simultaneously. To struggle against one is to struggle against both. Nachie put it best, such questions are rather pointless, just like metaphysics.

Well, the "state" exists because class antagonisms exist. It will be impossible for the revolution to "get rid" of class antagonisms immediately, so a transitional state will be required - a socialist state.

Well, it will be "impossible" to eliminate such antagonisms provided the vanguard party asserts itself as ruling class. However we don't have to worry about that in the developed capitalist nations. Our class has moved past that bullshit.

If the state can only exist when class antagonisms exist doesn't that mean that this "transitional state", which is supposed to last OH SO long until we workers can "learn" to live communually, has class antagonisms? Doesn't that mean that there must be a ruling class? Doesn't that mean that socialism is just another class-system which inevitably will have exploitation and oppression? I think so...

But a new state machinery will have to be built for this purpose, with its foundations in democratic organs of workers' power. The Soviet state from 1917-1928 being the most advanced example of this type of political structure so far.

A new state machinery will need to be built if the Vanguard "leads" the revolution (only probable in the third world...don't worry comrades, eventually our fellow workers in the third world will get rid of this bullshit too) so that the vanguard can maintain itself as ruling class of the new state-capitalist system. (Interesting form of capitalism in which the state and the capitalist class are inseprable. There is no "relative autonomy of the state" as Marx spoke of in this version of capitalism, making it one of the most brutal)

It's important to have a material analysis of the state, rather than treating is as some "historical bogeyman", thwarting things from time to time.

Lennies like to throw this around saying how we "anarchists" (I'm an Autonomist actually, for those who don't know) don't have material analysiss of the state, yet they never seem to show how ours is not materialistic. I guess it makes them sound more Marxist.

9th May 2006, 20:46

Well, it will be "impossible" to eliminate such antagonisms provided the vanguard party asserts itself as ruling class. However we don't have to worry about that in the developed capitalist nations. Our class has moved past that bullshit.

Actually it will be impossible to immediately eliminate class antagonisms no matter what the circumstances are. These things take time.

If the state can only exist when class antagonisms exist doesn't that mean that this "transitional state", which is supposed to last OH SO long until we workers can "learn" to live communually, has class antagonisms?

Yes.

Doesn't that mean that there must be a ruling class?

Yes.

Doesn't that mean that socialism is just another class-system which inevitably will have exploitation and oppression?

Exploitation? No. Oppression? Yes. It is the oppression of both the bourgeois class and its ideals by the proletariat.

A new state machinery will need to be built if the Vanguard "leads" the revolution (only probable in the third world...don't worry comrades, eventually our fellow workers in the third world will get rid of this bullshit too) so that the vanguard can maintain itself as ruling class of the new state-capitalist system.

No. A new state machinery - i.e. a proletarian state - will need to be built to maintain proletarian rule and to combat the bourgeoisie and its ideals.

yet they never seem to show how ours is not materialistic.

"State = hierarchy. Hierarchy = bad."
-Random Anarchist

barista.marxista

9th May 2006, 20:55

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 9 2006, 04:07 PM
A new state machinery - i.e. a proletarian state - will need to be built to maintain proletarian rule and to combat the bourgeoisie and its ideals.
And the proletarian "state" will be a non-institutionalized anti-state comprised of networked autonomous collectives and councils. It is no longer a "state" as we currently conceive of it, but instead a contradiction in and of itself, the continuous abolishment of state (and, parallel to this, hierarchy), just as how through revolution the proletariat itself becomes its own negation. Horizontalism is the only way to abolish all forms of class and exploitation, as history has very explicitly shown us.

Fistful of Steel

9th May 2006, 21:14

I think capitalism and the modern idea of state are intimately connected. While the state hurts our social and political freedom, capitalism hurts our economic freedom. If the state is undermined, yet capitalism remains then a degraded form of anarchy takes place. If capitalism is hurt, yet the state remains then you end up with something like the U.S.S.R. If both the state and capitalism are taken out in tandem, then only positive results can be yielded.

anomaly

9th May 2006, 21:26

Originally posted by RS2K
We abolish capitalism and its state apparatus "all at once".
RS2K beat me to it.

But that's what I think as well.

Preserving the state will lead to a new ruling class and thus a new ruled class. And why would a ruling class ever allow the 'withering away' of its underclass? It wouldn't.

If one is truly attached to the label 'the state', I agree most with barista.marxista's idea of 'the state'. (I don't think that would be a state (a state requires hierarchy), but that's just semantics).

Jimmie Higgins

9th May 2006, 21:38

Originally posted by barista.marxista+May 9 2006, 08:16 PM--> (barista.marxista @ May 9 2006, 08:16 PM)
Khayembii [email protected] 9 2006, 04:07 PM
A new state machinery - i.e. a proletarian state - will need to be built to maintain proletarian rule and to combat the bourgeoisie and its ideals.
And the proletarian "state" will be a non-institutionalized anti-state comprised of networked autonomous collectives and councils. It is no longer a "state" as we currently conceive of it, but instead a contradiction in and of itself, the continuous abolishment of state (and, parallel to this, hierarchy), just as how through revolution the proletariat itself becomes its own negation. Horizontalism is the only way to abolish all forms of class and exploitation, as history has very explicitly shown us. [/b]
Who are you to tell future workers how to run their society?

I think any "worker's state" will depend on the corse the revolution takes... it the ruling class is still strong, then workers will need more of a state to be able to defend themselves. If there is little opposition, then workers probably won't need as many structures to control society in their own intrests.

As far as which is the greater enemy, capitalism or the capitalist state, it's like asking should I be afraid of the gun or the bullet; both need eachother. Capitalism is the system and the state is how the capitalists butress and run their system. You can't get rid of capitalism without also getting rid of the capitalist state (examples are any attempt at Democratic socialism bringing real socialism through reform - generally you end up with a Pinochette or Hitler or Neo-Liberalism, not worker's power). If you get rid of the state but not capitalism, then generally you get another capitalist state and sometimes Democratic socialism (like in Germany after WWI) and then go back to the previous step.

MurderInc

9th May 2006, 21:47

I believe the greatest issues is what the DoP will do w/ the state aparatis as it uses power to insure adherence to socialist goals. It is VERY hard to give up ANY power and ANY aspect of the state for fear of a loss of control.

A DoP, explolited by a Stalin, can reinvent a state on levels capitalists only dream of...

barista.marxista

9th May 2006, 22:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 04:59 PM
Who are you to tell future workers how to run their society?

I think any "worker's state" will depend on the corse the revolution takes... it the ruling class is still strong, then workers will need more of a state to be able to defend themselves. If there is little opposition, then workers probably won't need as many structures to control society in their own intrests.
As a worker, I'm deciding how I want to see the state in my name set up. And as a Marxist, I make predictions based on the study of history and the development of working-class autonomy and organizational ability. Autonomism, contrary to Leninism, is not about telling anyone how to set up anything -- quite the opposite, it's about respecting the ability of workers to deal with their own localized material conditions in ways they see fit. History has shown that networks and councils are the most democratic method for order, and the least likely to incur corrupt bureaucracies -- in fact, they're never occurred in any system of councilism. This is why our autonomist "anti-state" is a stronger tool for the workers to defend themselves from their class enemies.

rouchambeau

9th May 2006, 22:36

The two are inseperable. If one were to try to take down capitalism, then the state would try to put them down. If one destroyed the state, then the bourgeoisie would simply create another one in its place.

EusebioScrib

9th May 2006, 22:39

Actually it will be impossible to immediately eliminate class antagonisms no matter what the circumstances are. These things take time.

Oh yea, it takes SOOOO long to put all the means of production in the hands of the workers. I'd estimate a few months at most. There will only be a few cappies here or there trying to dominant their local economy, but they are doomed to fail. Class antagonisms shouldn't take that long to abolish considering the proles is, oh what, 90% something percent of the population?

QUOTE
Doesn't that mean that there must be a ruling class?

Yes.

O RLY? Well, it appears a Leninist is openly saying that there will be a ruling class in "socialism". Suprising, they normally like the pretend there is actual working class power.

Exploitation? No. Oppression? Yes. It is the oppression of both the bourgeois class and its ideals by the proletariat.

Hmm generally the two go hand in hand, but okay, for the sake of arguement okay. Why is there a need to designate this "transition" if it's supposed to be the simple suppression of the bourgeioisie? See this suppression of bourgeois ideals is part of the qualitative changes of the revolution, actually most of this will probably be done by the time of said qualitative change. No, this simple "suppression" is too simple of a definition to describe what Leninists call for. It's something much more grandiose, no?

No. A new state machinery - i.e. a proletarian state - will need to be built to maintain proletarian rule and to combat the bourgeoisie and its ideals.

Oh Henny Penny, the sky is falling! Are you kidding me? A proletarian state? What a contradiction of terms. Let me ask you, sirrah, how does such a large segment of the population rule over such a tiny percentage? I don't see it possible. See the aim of the proles is supposed to be to wipe out the bourgeois. Like I said already, how fucking long can this really take? This "state" will cease to exist in a matter of months or even weeks!

"State = hierarchy. Hierarchy = bad."
-Random Anarchist

Hmm never heard of him, but he does make a good point. Hierarchy is bad for the working class. Doesn't classlessness imply no hierarchy, or did I not get the memo? Hierarchy has quite a material basis, you see. Hierarchy is based on class relations, which are based on productive relations. You see, it all fits quite well. So a hierarchy in lets say USSR was based on productive relations. The party controlled the means of production, and the workers didn't. It's as simple as that. It doesn't have to be hard. RS2K said: "they key to science is that everybody can do it" *not verbatim*

Who are you to tell future workers how to run their society?

If anyone is doing that, it's the Leninists. Telling them they MUST join a party and the vanguard MUST rule after the revolution for their safety. Gimme a break.

No, we Autonomists realize just that, that our class is AUTONOMOUS from capital, it's "official" orgs and from itself. Our class will ultimately decide what it wants to do. The only thing we do is offer up good guesses based on historical evidence. Historical evidence shows that workers seem to organically form autonomous networks as their prefered method of true organization. It also shows that workers are moving past bullshit unions and parties.

Those who accept the idea that we need a "transitional state" presuppose seveal things:
1. The revolution is apocalyptic

The revolution will be a short build up of events when workers react against some horrible conditions that the bourgeois impose upon them. This is wrong. Revolutions in history have followed a pattern of quantitative into qualitative changes. That is a gradual build up of gaining more and more power to the point of "dual-power." When this point is reached, tension builds so much that the rising class overthrows the old order bringing about the new. This is what happened in the transition from feudalism to capitalism and I suspect it will somewhat similar again.

2. Workers will have no experience of organizing in a communstic manner

The quantitative changes are our practices of communism. Workers won't first realize "we need to overthrow the system!" It's not the plane as day. They will begin demanding more and start building alternatives to the cappie sysytem. Self-valorization etc.

3. The revolution is a point in time not a process
N+1 Communism is a process, not a point in time. Communism begins once the working class begins demand more and it's power grows. Communism has existed since the 19th, hell even 18th century. It continues to manifest itself in every working class struggle from wage increases to civil rights to social alternatives.

9th May 2006, 23:01

I don't even think I'm going to acknowledge such shortsightedness and simple-mindedness (idiocy) with a response.

barista.marxista

9th May 2006, 23:03

Speaking of short-sightedness, how long until the state withers away? :rolleyes:

9th May 2006, 23:04

Speaking of short-sightedness, how long until the state withers away?

I'm sorry, but I'm sure even you can agree that the transition from capitalism to communism won't take "weeks". That's completely absurd and has no basis in reality.

I'm guessing this knucklehead believes in worldwide spontaneous revolution, as that's the only real way that this transition could happen so quickly; but, this worldwide revolution is completely ignoring historical materialism and is entirely utopian.

EusebioScrib

9th May 2006, 23:08

I don't even think I'm going to acknowledge such shortsightedness and simple-mindedness (idiocy) with a response.

I guess that's an easy way of saying "I don't know how to respond to your superior understanding of reality and of Marxism." That's okay...I don't blame you. It's hard for someone so anti-worker as yourself to understand what my class really wants and thinks.

I'm sorry, but I'm sure even you can agree that the transition from capitalism to communism won't take "weeks". That's completely absurd and has no basis in reality.

Well then perhaps you'd like to give a go at showing all of us how it's "absurd"?

I'm guessing this knucklehead believes in worldwide spontaneous revolution, as that's the only real way that this transition could happen so quickly; but, this worldwide revolution is completely ignoring historical materialism and is entirely utopian.

I don't "believe" in things with some sort of faith. By the time we have the material conditions for such a qualitative change, the world will be fully globalized and everyone will probably be speaking a universal language and all other languages being reduced to something like Italian dialects (secondary-languages with no real purpose). So it's safe to say that a worldwide revolution will be VERY possible.

Speaking of short-sightedness, how long until the state withers away?

I think Great Leader Kim said himself only like 400 years! YAY!

9th May 2006, 23:12

I guess that's an easy way of saying "I don't know how to respond to your superior understanding of reality and of Marxism."

No; it's an easy way of saying "I don't even think I'm going to acknowledge such shortsightedness and simple-mindedness (idiocy) with a response."

Well then perhaps you'd like to give a go at showing all of us how it's "absurd"?

I have better things to do with my time than respond to someone that doesn't show any knowledge of marxism at all.

EusebioScrib

9th May 2006, 23:14

Ummm.....no

Would anyone care to continue with some real discussion, rather than chickening out?

9th May 2006, 23:15

Would anyone care to continue with some real discussion, rather than chickening out?

This thread never would have been derailed if you didn't shit out that post.

Fistful of Steel

9th May 2006, 23:18

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 9 2006, 10:33 PM

Well then perhaps you'd like to give a go at showing all of us how it's "absurd"?

I have better things to do with my time than respond to someone that doesn't show any knowledge of marxism at all.
Classic defence, right there. He certainly put us "utopians" in our place. :lol:

Jimmie Higgins

9th May 2006, 23:43

It really is utopian. I am all for spontanious actions of workers and networks of groups working together, but there is going to have to be some level of democratic organization and control, in my opinion.

It's just like in a strike... you have to be united and vote on it and then all go out on strike and if people don't, you have to physically block them and prevent them from going to work. Is this authoritarian? Sure, but it is also democratic because people voted on this corse of action before hand. If you have a network of workers without voting and a centralized structure, then one group strikes when they think it's best and another strikes some other time and if you try and have a picket line an arnarchist will call you authoriarian because he wanted to go to work that day and so on.

In order to have both democracy and unity, I think some kind of party will be necissary. Otherwise Chicago will declare itself independant while Atlanta and Boston are wavering and not united yet, and so the national gaurd kills 20,000 workers in Chicago and puts down the insurrection, so this causes Boston to react even more strongly and have a general strike while New York gurella fighters blow some things up... and the bottom line is that we loose the revolution and a hundred thousand workers are killed and fascits are emboldened to terrorize the survivors because our side was uncoordinated and their side was coordinated.

Now after that, should we have a party installed as the new state... I do not think this would be the best option because the party would have no way to run society... in fact, the councils and strike bodies set up by workers would probably be much better able to run society.

Nachie

9th May 2006, 23:55

Gravedigger, the system of autonomous networked workers' councils that spring up organically in every revolutionary situation, from Hungary 1956 to Iraq at various times in the last century, seem to fit your requirements, do they not?

What's important isn't whether it's a "state", "anti-state", "non-state", or "stateless", but is it horizontal, or vertical? To fight for the horizontal, that is, to favor workers' natural self-organization over any system of imposed (and therefore unnecessary) bureaucracy, is to scrap the vanguard party.

EusebioScrib

10th May 2006, 00:11

Nachie covered everything I'da said, but I'd like to make a few additional comments.

Gravedigger,

It's just like in a strike... you have to be united and vote on it and then all go out on strike and if people don't, you have to physically block them and prevent them from going to work. Is this authoritarian? Sure, but it is also democratic because people voted on this corse of action before hand. If you have a network of workers without voting and a centralized structure, then one group strikes when they think it's best and another strikes some other time and if you try and have a picket line an arnarchist will call you authoriarian because he wanted to go to work that day and so on.

Well, if we were in that situation, we'd fuck up that anarchist for being a self-centered prick. :rolleyes:

Your taking anti-authoritarianism to the extreme, the kind Marx and Engels criticized. Like Engels said, revolution is the most authoritarian thing! We oppose authority that blocks working class advancement, that prevents our class from taking real power i.e. the authority of a union or party.

The real concept of autonomy that we should focus on with these examples would be working class autonomy form itself (rather autonomy of various sectors of said class from eachother i.e. black from white, women from men etc). Taking this idea to the extreme would be foolish. The idea basically stating that only minorities can define their own struggles and interests in regards to struggling against racism because it effects them much more than whites, or women should define their own struggles and interests with gender issues because they live in a patriarchal society. Now it's in the interest of the working class as a whole to combine all these struggles into a single struggle against capital. It's merely fighting on different fronts.

In order to have both democracy and unity, I think some kind of party will be necissary. Otherwise Chicago will declare itself independant while Atlanta and Boston are wavering and not united yet, and so the national gaurd kills 20,000 workers in Chicago and puts down the insurrection, so this causes Boston to react even more strongly and have a general strike while New York gurella fighters blow some things up... and the bottom line is that we loose the revolution and a hundred thousand workers are killed and fascits are emboldened to terrorize the survivors because our side was uncoordinated and their side was coordinated.

Your scenario is highly unlikely. What material interest do those three cities have of being entirely seperate from one another and not working together? None. So of course they will fail. Workers are smart enough to realize they need to coordinate on national and international levels. Look at the 1877 railroad strike. Unions played next to no role in this. It was entirely spontaneous yet workers coordinated on national levels from Baltimore, Pittsburgh and St. Louis in this event. We don't need a party to tell us we all need to work together, we know that ourselves.

Now after that, should we have a party installed as the new state... I do not think this would be the best option because the party would have no way to run society... in fact, the councils and strike bodies set up by workers would probably be much better able to run society.

Exactly. So why have a party in the first place?

Jimmie Higgins

10th May 2006, 00:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 11:16 PM
Gravedigger, the system of autonomous networked workers' councils that spring up organically in every revolutionary situation, from Hungary 1956 to Iraq at various times in the last century, seem to fit your requirements, do they not?

What's important isn't whether it's a "state", "anti-state", "non-state", or "stateless", but is it horizontal, or vertical? To fight for the horizontal, that is, to favor workers' natural self-organization over any system of imposed (and therefore unnecessary) bureaucracy, is to scrap the vanguard party.
I am all for workers councils. In Venusuela, there were neighborhood councils in working class areas and there was even some instances of duel power.

But without organization and without a party made up of radical workers, councils generally don't last beyond the revolutionary moment and in the case of venusuela, were happy to give the power back to parlement when a new president was put in place. I'm sure there were many workers who wanted to take that further, but these workers were not organized with like-minded workers to express that idea together and bring that idea to their local councils.

So, horizontally, we had 5 workers in this neighborhood and 10 in another and 3 more one two over who all had a similar view of how to take the movement forward... there is nothing anti-worker for all of them to get together and build a party on that basis so that they can argue their vision to the movement more strongly.

People don't like beurocracy because it is unaccountable to them. If councils met and had representatives go to reginal and then to national/international councils, then this would be burocracy, but it would be accountable through the democratic processs. I think the important thing is not horisontal or verticla, but that power resides and comes from the bottom, not the top-down.

The problem I have with the idea of networks of atomized groups is that it seems to have the underlying notion that workers have some kind of gene ticking away in their heads that will all bring them to the same consiousnes (anarchist or autonomist or whatever people are proposing here) at the same time. People don't work like that, having the same class intrests does not make all people think the same automatically. The ruling class organizes itself both when they were not ruling and fighting the aristocracy and now in order to rule over the working class.

Someone here said, oh well when the material conditions are right, workers consiousness will bring the revolution... material conditions are right right now (majority of most countries are workers and many countries are connected through trade... there is a high level of polarization)! Unfortunately there are all sorts of different ideas out there from liberal to religious that try and explain why the world is like it is and these churches and liberal orgs are organized and promote their ideas to people and this is what radical workers need to do. People try and solve their health problems through the power of prayer; how appealing is that alternative going to be when at the same time you have radicals winning strikes and winning free health care for themselvs and saying: if you want something, you have to fight for it, not beg the government or some magical force!

Jimmie Higgins

10th May 2006, 00:53

Why have struggles segregated within the working class? Shouldn't we seek to unite the working class?

For example in the US immigrant rights marches... shouldn't we involve ango union militants since legalizing immigrants would help all workers fight their employers together?

In the American Socialist Party, they had seperate orgs for Germans and Blacks and Italians and Estern Europeans and so on, but groups like the IWW and the US CP were much more effective in combating both racism and the bosses because they united different groups.

It seems to me that struggle in the US has been pretty horizontal (flat on its back we could say) for the last 30 years or so and it hasn't gotten us anywhere.

As to cities not workeing together... of course they would all want to be united, but what happens if there is already streetfighting in Chicago and New York and they think the time is right whereas there is a cold-snap in Boston and the national gaurd is there and forces in NY are unorganized and it's not the right time to revolt. We would need some kind of organized way to both communicate with eachother and be on the same page politically and tactically.

EusebioScrib

10th May 2006, 01:04

Why have struggles segregated within the working class? Shouldn't we seek to unite the working class?

Reread what I said. I said that all these struggles must be united in a single war against capital, not remain seperate, but we need to battle capital on all these fronts. Focusing on one particular front will get us no where.

The point was this. In regards to fighting Racism, no "worker" institution has the right to tell minorities how to struggle against it etc.

With Immigration, no union or party has the right to tell these workers they can't struggle for this or for that or how they can go about it.

It's about people deciding for themselves what to struggle and fight for and how to do it.

In the American Socialist Party, they had seperate orgs for Germans and Blacks and Italians and Estern Europeans and so on, but groups like the IWW and the US CP were much more effective in combating both racism and the bosses because they united different groups.

No, we're not fragmenting the working class. I explained it above.

It seems to me that struggle in the US has been pretty horizontal (flat on its back we could say) for the last 30 years or so and it hasn't gotten us anywhere.

That's because no one has been presenting new methods of organization for that amount of time. The goal of a model of organization is to make itself obsolete. Unions have done this, which is a good sign. We want to become obsolete. This is the basic goal of RAAN. We are beginning to see a lot of increase in workers struggles around the world. That is because new methods of organization have been adopted and new goals are being reached.

As to cities not workeing together... of course they would all want to be united, but what happens if there is already streetfighting in Chicago and New York and they think the time is right whereas there is a cold-snap in Boston and the national gaurd is there and forces in NY are unorganized and it's not the right time to revolt. We would need some kind of organized way to both communicate with eachother and be on the same page politically and tactically.

There is no "right time to revolt." The workers decide it themselves. If New York overthrows capital sometime before Boston what's the big deal? It's much better! It further inspires other cities to struggle and also helps them get a firm grip of the local economy to help production to defend Boston.

To be on the same page would mean only two things: both are fighting capital and both are creating worker power. Once we have these two conditions, which will most likely not be a problem, then we're on the same page. Communcation could be easy, especially with such tools as the Internet. We're able to communicate with anyone in the world and even into space if we so wish. Communication is not an issue.

Plus it's about autonomy. Boston needs to decide which tactics and politics are best for Boston and same goes for NYC, Philly, LA, London, Rome, Paris, Jakarta, Tokyo etc. Conditions will be different everywhere and things need to be worked out accordingly. People will decide for themselves what they want their new society to look like.

anomaly

10th May 2006, 01:37

Originally posted by Gravedigger
but there is going to have to be some level of democratic organization and control, in my opinion.
What is anarchism but democracy in society?

The people can 'organize and control' the people, as I always like to say.

Fistful of Steel

10th May 2006, 02:09

Originally posted by anomaly+May 10 2006, 12:58 AM--> (anomaly @ May 10 2006, 12:58 AM)
Gravedigger
but there is going to have to be some level of democratic organization and control, in my opinion.
What is anarchism but democracy in society?

The people can 'organize and control' the people, as I always like to say. [/b]
I agree. The state is an obsolete instrument that people can move beyond if they so choose. Claiming that it's necessary and any rejection of it is "utopian" seems to me to be reactionary bullshit.

anomaly

10th May 2006, 02:14

Originally posted by FoS
Claiming that it's necessary and any rejection of it is "utopian" seems to me to be reactionary bullshit.
Nah...it's just an easy argument for Leninists. Why debate when labels like 'ultra-leftist' and 'utopian anarchist' can be tossed around with such ease? :lol:

apathy maybe

10th May 2006, 02:53

Originally posted by Nachie+--> (Nachie) Is it possible to seriously confront either without having to deal with the other?[/b]
As some would say, it is possible to take control of the state (or to abolish it and then set up a new one). (As YKTMX says)

Originally posted by Khayembii Communique+--> ( Khayembii Communique) "State = hierarchy. Hierarchy = bad."
-Random Anarchist[/b]
You got it wrong. It is "Hierarchy = bad. State = hierarchy. Therefore state = bad."
And it isn't just some random anarchist. It is all anarchists.

[email protected]
If you get rid of the state but not capitalism, then generally you get another capitalist state and sometimes Democratic socialism (like in Germany after WWI) and then go back to the previous step.
But if you get rid of the capitalist state, nothing exists to protect capitalism or capitalists. Capitalism will then 'wither away'.

rouchambeau
The two are inseperable. If one were to try to take down capitalism, then the state would try to put them down. If one destroyed the state, then the bourgeoisie would simply create another one in its place. Not if we don't let them.

I see the state as the main enemy, because capitalists won't be able to defend themselves as easily if they do not have an armed police force on hand. The state is the biggest oppressor of the two. Capitalism is an enemy however, and I do think that if possible it would be best to abolish both capitalism and the state ASAP. I just hate the state more (even if it is easier to attack capitalism). The state I am talking about is any state, capitalist or 'socialist'. There are so many abuses that states have committed.

barista.marxista

10th May 2006, 03:01

The state and capitalism are in a dialectical relationship, baby!

piet11111

10th May 2006, 04:06

hmm after thinking long and hard about this i would consider the state needs to go first.

the only sensible course of action is getting rid of the police and army first then the cappies are ready to get slaughtered (and i mean slaughter i dont want any of them to live except children)

but then the paradox we need a coordinated defense force (especially in europe) preferably on national level this would probably be the militia with the former military's equipment.
it would be difficult to get our own men/women trained and up for using the advanced equipment just as effectively as the military did.
should we tolerate ex-military personel to stay ? (as in specialists not officers etc.)

Jimmie Higgins

10th May 2006, 04:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:25 AM

Why have struggles segregated within the working class? Shouldn't we seek to unite the working class?

Reread what I said. I said that all these struggles must be united in a single war against capital, not remain seperate, but we need to battle capital on all these fronts. Focusing on one particular front will get us no where.

The point was this. In regards to fighting Racism, no "worker" institution has the right to tell minorities how to struggle against it etc.

With Immigration, no union or party has the right to tell these workers they can't struggle for this or for that or how they can go about it.

It's about people deciding for themselves what to struggle and fight for and how to do it.
Maybe I did misunderstand, but I think that you are creating artificial barriers here:

I think non-black workers do have an intrest in getting rid of jim-crow. Additionally non-immigrant workers have an intrest in getting rid of immigration laws that seperate the working class. Amnesty would help the union movement because not only would there be a lot of new workers who are militant and able to unionize, but there also wouldn't be competition over jobs between two groups of workers (documewnted and undocumented) which ends up pushing wages down lower.

I'm not saying unions should tell the immigrant or civil rights movements what to do, just saying that since rank-and-file union workers and undocumented workers have a common enemy and mutual intrests, they should work in solidarity rather than saying unionists should only do trade-union activism and undocumented workers should only do immigrant rights stuff.

On another point, so right now there are several debates going on within the immigrant rights movement and not many organizations to represent one side of the debate or another. So if activists who were for 100% amnesty formed a coalition and published articles about why they think the way forward for the movement is through work actions and demands for amnesty - would this group suddenly be from outside the movement? Are they no longer workers because they have formed an organization? I don't know if I am making sense on this point. It seems like your view is that radical parties are somehow "outside" the class and the struggle and come in to tell workers what to do. As I see it, these parties and groups are from the struggle and part of it. Even the RCP who I do not agree with politically, were not formed in a vaccume in some lab (as much as they might seem like they are from outter space some times) and artificially injected into the struggle; they formed out of the anti-war movement and SDS - they were part of the movement that recognzed that in oreder to ultimately stop wars like Vietnam, you would have to end capitalism. So they are part of the class and class struggle - - just the part with the really wacky politics.

As to cities not workeing together... of course they would all want to be united, but what happens if there is already streetfighting in Chicago and New York and they think the time is right whereas there is a cold-snap in Boston and the national gaurd is there and forces in NY are unorganized and it's not the right time to revolt. We would need some kind of organized way to both communicate with eachother and be on the same page politically and tactically.

There is no "right time to revolt." The workers decide it themselves. If New York overthrows capital sometime before Boston what's the big deal? It's much better! It further inspires other cities to struggle and also helps them get a firm grip of the local economy to help production to defend Boston.

To be on the same page would mean only two things: both are fighting capital and both are creating worker power. Once we have these two conditions, which will most likely not be a problem, then we're on the same page. Communcation could be easy, especially with such tools as the Internet. We're able to communicate with anyone in the world and even into space if we so wish. Communication is not an issue.

Plus it's about autonomy. Boston needs to decide which tactics and politics are best for Boston and same goes for NYC, Philly, LA, London, Rome, Paris, Jakarta, Tokyo etc. Conditions will be different everywhere and things need to be worked out accordingly. People will decide for themselves what they want their new society to look like.

Well this is where I agree with you in theory, but not in practice. It would be disasterous for workers to hesitate into the revolution. If Atlanta had a revolution when NYC and DC and St Louis and the other major sections of the east coast were unprepared, the city would be cut off and even if the US military could not defeat the insurection through military power, it would starve the city out and isolate it. Then the US would gather up the military and any near-by militias (call the the good-ol Freicorps) and take the city back bloack by block on live TV so that workers in all other cities could see what happens if you try and revolt.

On the other hand, if the grat lakes areas and the east coast were able to have a revolution while Utah and Arizona were still filled with reactionaries, then it wouldn't be so bad to go ahead with the revolution and isolate Utah and Arizon because workers could still get supplies eveywhere they needed to go without thoes states.

So I think coordination and dicipline are important for our side... equally important is that, like you said, people in Chicago decide what specific tactics and things are necissary for their area... furthermore, any military-type actions should be done democratically with all the soldiers deciding together what to do and how to do it.

bloody_capitalist_sham

10th May 2006, 10:26

Can i just clarify.

When we are talking about the state, we are talking the police, armed forces and the civil servants yes?

Wont we still need a council/councils of some form for a while to help things move along quickly?

cheers

anti-authoritarian

10th May 2006, 11:22

The system (e.g. Capitalism) defines what the state is.

We would need to stop the power of Capitalists to overthrow the state.

But then again we would need to overthrow the state to stop the power of Capitalism...

Hmmm - a chicken or egg scenario.

I guess you just have to overthrow both...

Hit The North

10th May 2006, 12:38

{by blood_capitalist_sham}When we are talking about the state, we are talking the police, armed forces and the civil servants yes?

Wont we still need a council/councils of some form for a while to help things move along quickly?

Of course we will. The problem with the Anarchist position is that they have "state blindness". They seem unaware of the fact that not all States are the same. It's character is conditioned by (a) the relations of production (hence, there is a fundamental difference between the feudal state of Henry 8th and the capitalist state of William Pitt; and (b) the political character of those who control it (making a significant difference between the totalitarian state of Hitler and the welfare state of Clement Atlee).

Another quality of the State is that it is not only in the business of oppression but also enablement. The question is which groups and interests are being enabled.

Unless the post-revolutionary society is to lapse into petty regionalism with an attendent decline in the forces of production, then some form of central coordination will be absolutely necessary.

barista.marxista

10th May 2006, 16:49

*clears throat*

ANARCHISTS ARE NOT AGAINST COORDINATION AND ORDER, DIPSHIT!

Jesus fucking Christ. Ever hear of a federation?

10th May 2006, 16:59

*clears throat*

STOP BEING SO CONFRONTATIONAL, DIPSHIT!

Jesus fucking Christ. Ever hear of a debate?

Hit The North

10th May 2006, 17:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:10 PM
*clears throat*

ANARCHISTS ARE NOT AGAINST COORDINATION AND ORDER, DIPSHIT!

Jesus fucking Christ. Ever hear of a federation?
Yeah, I've heard of a federation. And they can only work if there is some form of central control either within each segment of the federal structure and/or mediating between the various segments of the structure.

And if that 'form of central control' is not a form of State, then what is it?

anomaly

10th May 2006, 21:18

Originally posted by Citizen Zero
And they can only work if there is some form of central control either within each segment of the federal structure and/or mediating between the various segments of the structure.
I am guessing that barista knows more about this topic than I do, but couldn't federations exist in a decentralized form?

For example, the NEFAC has many autonomous collectives rather than a true centralized structure. And there is no official hierarchy within those collectives that I know of.

But, you seem to be talking about organization after capitalism.

When we get to this point, I think such political or economic centralization will be detrimental to a functioning society. All of the bureacratic roles you metnion (for what else are they?) can be replaced by an advanced communication system. With technology, coordination becomes much easier, and we don't need the central authority you refer to.

barista.marxista

11th May 2006, 03:26

Jesus fucking Christ. Ever hear of a debate?

Citizen Zero implied anarchists are against organization. I wanted to clear it up that they are not, in fact, against organization. Plus: my exclaimation was cooler than your mockery, 'cause I used a different font. :cool:

Federations are organizations of autonomous collectives. NEFAC is an example of such. The central bodies of such exist for coordination, not subordination.

EusebioScrib

11th May 2006, 03:39

I think non-black workers do have an intrest in getting rid of jim-crow. Additionally non-immigrant workers have an intrest in getting rid of immigration laws that seperate the working class. Amnesty would help the union movement because not only would there be a lot of new workers who are militant and able to unionize, but there also wouldn't be competition over jobs between two groups of workers (documewnted and undocumented) which ends up pushing wages down lower.

I never claimed they didn't have an interest. Of course they have an interest. The working class has an interest in struggle on all these fronts. All these struggles benefit the entire class, with no negative effects at all.

I'm not saying unions should tell the immigrant or civil rights movements what to do, just saying that since rank-and-file union workers and undocumented workers have a common enemy and mutual intrests, they should work in solidarity rather than saying unionists should only do trade-union activism and undocumented workers should only do immigrant rights stuff.

Again your mistunderstanding me. My constant emphesis is on AUTONOMISM. Workers determining their own interests and struggles, no one else. I'm only saying that no "official" org has the right to tell workers to do this or that. Only workers can make that decision. I also never claimed that certain workers have to work on certain things. My examples were just that, examples.

:quote:Your next paragraph...:quote:

There is nothing wrong with workers forming organizations. You are taking my concepts out of context to extreme degrees.

The problem is fetishism of organizations. When an organization takes a place above the workers making decisions for them, that is where there is a problem. This organization seeks out it's own interests i.e. unions and parties.

So I think coordination and dicipline are important for our side...

Yes, I never said otherwise. I think your mistaking my views for some sort of "anti-organizationalism."

EusebioScrib

11th May 2006, 03:45

Citizen Zero your forgetting the MAJOR defining role of the state: for class mediation/repression.

The state is a tool. Tools can be used in only one way. Tell me, how would you use a screwdriver to nail a nail?

What I don't get is why the proles needs to establish a fucking elaborate state to last oh so long. How long can it take 98% of the population to eradicate 2% of the population from any political, social, or economic, and considering the fact that dual-power will probably be present?

11th May 2006, 05:14

Citizen Zero your forgetting the MAJOR defining role of the state: for class mediation/repression.

The state is a tool. Tools can be used in only one way. Tell me, how would you use a screwdriver to nail a nail?

You are correct.

How long can it take 98% of the population to eradicate 2% of the population from any political, social, or economic, and considering the fact that dual-power will probably be present?

A long time, considering the fact that world revolution doesn't happen overnight. ;)

anomaly

11th May 2006, 05:36

Originally posted by ES
What I don't get is why the proles needs to establish a fucking elaborate state to last oh so long.
They don't need to. Indeed, I have long felt that we'll need to smash the state.

Hit The North

11th May 2006, 11:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:45 AM
Citizen Zero your forgetting the MAJOR defining role of the state: for class mediation/repression.

The state is a tool. Tools can be used in only one way. Tell me, how would you use a screwdriver to nail a nail?

What I don't get is why the proles needs to establish a fucking elaborate state to last oh so long. How long can it take 98% of the population to eradicate 2% of the population from any political, social, or economic, and considering the fact that dual-power will probably be present?
From Marx himself:

"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." (CM)

To me this indicates that the state is not only engaged in maintaining the subordination of labour to capital but is also engaged in enabling the continued functioning of capital.

Likewise, a Workers State would function not only to defend the revolution against initial counter-revolution but would also be necessary to coodinate the various branches of economic activity. Ideally, it would do this through a minimal bureaucratic structure which would anyway be opened up to the direct democratic rule of the Proletariat. In other words, rather than being an organ superimposed upon society, it will be one which is completely subordinated to it. It will be a State of a qualitatively different order.

EusebioScrib

11th May 2006, 15:20

From Marx himself:

Oh, well if he said it, it MUST be right :lol:

To me this indicates that the state is not only engaged in maintaining the subordination of labour to capital but is also engaged in enabling the continued functioning of capital.

Maintaining the subordination of labor to capital IS enabling the continued functioning of capital.

Likewise, a Workers State would function not only to defend the revolution against initial counter-revolution but would also be necessary to coodinate the various branches of economic activity. Ideally, it would do this through a minimal bureaucratic structure which would anyway be opened up to the direct democratic rule of the Proletariat. In other words, rather than being an organ superimposed upon society, it will be one which is completely subordinated to it. It will be a State of a qualitatively different order.

Of course, that sounds fine and dandy, but it never seems to happen that way, does it?

barista.marxista

11th May 2006, 15:37

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11 2006, 06:55 AM
From Marx himself:

"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." (CM)

To me this indicates that the state is not only engaged in maintaining the subordination of labour to capital but is also engaged in enabling the continued functioning of capital.

Likewise, a Workers State would function not only to defend the revolution against initial counter-revolution but would also be necessary to coodinate the various branches of economic activity. Ideally, it would do this through a minimal bureaucratic structure which would anyway be opened up to the direct democratic rule of the Proletariat. In other words, rather than being an organ superimposed upon society, it will be one which is completely subordinated to it. It will be a State of a qualitatively different order.
Also from Marx himself:

"But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism."

You see, the quoting game works ways. But since you invest so much into it, how about this: your quote is from Marx in 1848, mine is from Marx in 1871 -- after Marx had seen the rise and fall of the only attempt at the DofP, and made his conclucions from it.

Why can't you Lennies fucking understand historical materialism? If something doesn't work after two dozen attempts and 80 years, you don't keep trying it. Maybe we should start to refer to you as "Marxist-Leninist-Alchemists"! :lol:

Hit The North

11th May 2006, 15:47

Originally posted by barista.marxista+May 11 2006, 02:37 PM--> (barista.marxista @ May 11 2006, 02:37 PM)
Citizen [email protected] 11 2006, 06:55 AM
From Marx himself:

"The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." (CM)

To me this indicates that the state is not only engaged in maintaining the subordination of labour to capital but is also engaged in enabling the continued functioning of capital.

Likewise, a Workers State would function not only to defend the revolution against initial counter-revolution but would also be necessary to coodinate the various branches of economic activity. Ideally, it would do this through a minimal bureaucratic structure which would anyway be opened up to the direct democratic rule of the Proletariat. In other words, rather than being an organ superimposed upon society, it will be one which is completely subordinated to it. It will be a State of a qualitatively different order.
Also from Marx himself:

"But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism."

You see, the quoting game works ways. But since you invest so much into it, how about this: your quote is from Marx in 1848, mine is from Marx in 1871 -- after Marx had seen the rise and fall of the only attempt at the DofP, and made his conclucions from it.

Why can't you Lennies fucking understand historical materialism? If something doesn't work after two dozen attempts and 80 years, you don't keep trying it. Maybe we should start to refer to you as "Marxist-Leninist-Alchemists"! :lol: [/b]
Each quote addresses different issues. The former is a concise exposition of the nature of the Capitalist State. The latter concerns itself with the absolute need for the revolution to smash the Capitalist State.

I agree with both positions and there is no contradition there.

If you want to bandy classic quotes (and I have no objection if it clarifies matters), why not put forward one that supports your position: i.e. that the victorious working class will have no need of a State of their own.

11th May 2006, 16:17

"But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes. The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature — organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor — originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism."

The proletariat can't merely take control of the bourgeois state. They must destroy the bourgeois state and construct a proletarian one in its place.

You see, the quoting game works ways.

No it doesn't, as your quote didn't support your side at all.

Why can't you Lennies fucking understand historical materialism?

We're not "Lennies". We're Marxists.

If something doesn't work after two dozen attempts and 80 years, you don't keep trying it. Maybe we should start to refer to you as "Marxist-Leninist-Alchemists"!

You're an anarchist. Your theory isn't even consistent with Marx.

Nachie

11th May 2006, 16:34

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 03:17 PM
The proletariat can't merely take control of the bourgeois state. They must destroy the bourgeois state and construct a proletarian one in its place.
There is no need to "construct" a new state. The proletariat, in autonomously self-valorizing on its own terms and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, has already constituted itself collectively as the violent suppression of class antagonisms. Marx's "workers' state" is only the negation of the capitalist state and not a new structure unto itself. It is not institutionalized, formalized, hierarchal, and especially not headed up by a Leninist or any other kind of political organization.

We're not "Lennies". We're Marxists.
Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbth! :lol:

Oh man now I need to clean all this OJ off the computer screen.

11th May 2006, 16:37

There is no need to "construct" a new state. The proletariat, in autonomously self-valorizing on its own terms and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, has already constituted itself collectively as the violent suppression of class antagonisms.

The suppression of class antagonisms = a state. Where people differ is what form this state should take. Anarchists don't realize this because of their kneejerk reaction to state.

Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbth!

Oh man now I need to clean all this OJ off the computer screen.

Marxists are those that believe in the proletarian state. Hence why we're Marxists. I don't think I've advocated anything "Leninist" ever.

Nachie

11th May 2006, 16:47

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 03:37 PM
The suppression of class antagonisms = a state.
Next time try not selectively quoting me.

I don't think I've advocated anything "Leninist" ever.
Howabout that time you said "Lenin rulez"?

Hit The North

11th May 2006, 16:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:20 PM

Likewise, a Workers State would function not only to defend the revolution against initial counter-revolution but would also be necessary to coodinate the various branches of economic activity. Ideally, it would do this through a minimal bureaucratic structure which would anyway be opened up to the direct democratic rule of the Proletariat. In other words, rather than being an organ superimposed upon society, it will be one which is completely subordinated to it. It will be a State of a qualitatively different order.

Of course, that sounds fine and dandy, but it never seems to happen that way, does it?
No, but then we've never seen a proletarian revolution in a mature capitalist country carried out by the workers for the workers.

Hitherto, the only "successful" revolutions we've seen have taken place in backward economies, often where the workers are a minority class, and always the revolution is thrown on the defensive against capitalist and imperialist forces. It would be a State strangely detached from reality which wouldn't be affected by those pressures.

The State is not some unchanging monolith of power and domination but is subject to the balance of class forces. Even under capitalism, it is possible for powerful, organised workers organisations to carve out gains for itself. The orientation of the State to the masses can move leftwards as much as it can move rightwards. But because the fundamental nature of the State is anchored in specific class relations (and, of course, it's primary aim is to defend those prevailing class relations), the pendulum swings are fixed around one central point: the primacy of private ownership of the means of production and exchange and the necessity of the private expropriation of surplus value. Any attempt on behalf of the workers to attack those fundamental planks of capitalism will be met with fierce resistance. Hense the need to SMASH the state.

Likewise, in a post revolutionary situation, the Workers State (founded on the principles of social equality and workers democracy) will be anchored in the absolute interests of the Proletariat, but its attenuations (degrees of centralisation or otherwise) will be rational responses to the objective balance of class forces.

And of course, the balance of class forces is not restricted to the territory of particular national revolutions but refers to the international context. A Communist revolution is the USA, for instance, will have less to fear and be able to meet the demands of a true workers democracy than a Communist revolution in Nepal.

11th May 2006, 17:00

Next time try not selectively quoting me.

It's not like I quoted you out of context. Here's what you said later:

Marx's "workers' state" is only the negation of the capitalist state and not a new structure unto itself. It is not institutionalized, formalized, hierarchal, and especially not headed up by a Leninist or any other kind of political organization.

The negation of the capitalist state being the destruction of the bourgeois state. And of course it will be a new structure. Even what you recommend as the DoP is a new strucure. It is a state of a different form than the bourgeois state, of course, but it is still a state according to the definition of state.

Howabout that time you said "Lenin rulez"?

That's obviously a joke. It's pretty funny to see how many people base their opinions on you off of your avatar and not what you actually say.

Nachie

11th May 2006, 17:06

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 04:00 PM
It is a state of a different form than the bourgeois state, of course, but it is still a state according to the definition of state.
Sure, but is it formalized, institutionalized, centralized, hierarchal, and/or headed up by a political party or Leninist organization?

You want to play to semantics. I want communism and don't really care what people call it.

That's obviously a joke.
Oh word so if I changed mine to Hitler it would be hilarious, I'm sure.

11th May 2006, 17:09

Sure, but is it formalized, institutionalized, centralized, hierarchal, and/or headed up by a political party or Leninist organization?

I never said it was. I said it was a state and nothing more.

Oh word so if I changed mine to Hitler it would be hilarious, I'm sure.

GODWIN'S LAW!!! I WIN!!! :D

Nachie

11th May 2006, 17:15

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 04:09 PM
I never said it was. I said it was a state and nothing more.
Ok, so now let's make the "dialectical leap" and calmly step into the 21st Century, where most people no longer define the state strictly according to 19th Century philosophy (if they ever did).

11th May 2006, 17:19

Ok, so now let's make the "dialectical leap" and calmly step into the 21st Century, where most people no longer define the state strictly according to 19th Century philosophy (if they ever did).

Regardless of how people define it now, this is the Marxist definition of the word state, and since we are talking about Marxism this is the definition that we use. So according to this definition, you agree with me?

Nachie

11th May 2006, 17:25

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 11 2006, 04:19 PM
So according to this definition, you agree with me?
Of course!

I also agree with almost everything in The State & Revolution.

11th May 2006, 17:27

Of course!

Awesome! :)

barista.marxista

11th May 2006, 19:04

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11 2006, 10:47 AM
Each quote addresses different issues. The former is a concise exposition of the nature of the Capitalist State. The latter concerns itself with the absolute need for the revolution to smash the Capitalist State.

I agree with both positions and there is no contradition there.

If you want to bandy classic quotes (and I have no objection if it clarifies matters), why not put forward one that supports your position: i.e. that the victorious working class will have no need of a State of their own.
Marx defines the state in several ways. You were putting forth the definition that the state is the instrument which manages the affairs of one class over another. This infers, therefore, that a proletarian "state" would be essentially the same thing, with the workers in control. My quote was a refutation of your inference. I'll make sure to deliberately spell out these kind of logical conclusions for you, since I forgot that we're in sixth grade here.

And S&R is to Leninism what the Bible is to Christianity. It's like holding up a Bible and saying "Look! We stand for peace and love and acceptance and utopia!", while the Church is the single greatest murdering institution of the last 2000 years. Because apparently you're a Marxist who ignores history, here's a quote from our boy Che: "Words that do not match deeds are unimportant." See the relevance?

11th May 2006, 19:17

This infers, therefore, that a proletarian "state" would be essentially the same thing, with the workers in control.

It will be the same thing in the sense that it will still be a state.

My quote was a refutation of your inference.

But he never claimed that the proletarian state would be identical to the bourgeois state. He merely stated that they are both states, albeit different forms.

Hit The North

11th May 2006, 20:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:04 PM
My quote was a refutation of your inference. I'll make sure to deliberately spell out these kind of logical conclusions for you, since I forgot that we're in sixth grade here.

I think you'll find the inference was yours. I'll make sure to deliberately spell out these kinds of grammatical errors for you, since I forgot that we're in remedial English class here. :P

BTW, you've still failed to come up with a classical quote which even implies that Marx believed the workers wouldn't need a state after the revolution.

Nachie

11th May 2006, 21:22

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 11 2006, 07:43 PM
BTW, you've still failed to come up with a classical quote which even implies that Marx believed the workers wouldn't need a state after the revolution.
Civil War in France:

"From the very outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine; that... this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."

"From [the philosophical legitimation of the state] follows a superstitious reverence for the state and everything connected with it, which takes root the more readily since people are accustomed from childhood to imagine that the affairs & interests common to the whole of society could not be looked after otherwise than as they have been looked after in the past, that is, through the state and its lucratively positioned officials"

1850 address to the Communist League:

"[Workers must] immediately establish their own revolutionary governments, whether in the form of municipal committees and municipal councils or in the form of worker's clubs or worker's committees"

Compare this to Lenin, for whom "Socialism is merely a state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and to this extent has ceased to be a state capitalist monopoly" (Collected Works Vol. 25 p 358)

I say again: semantics are stupid. It's not so much whether Marx was "explicity" or "by implication" statist or anti-statist, as that Lenin was an asshole.

EusebioScrib

11th May 2006, 21:25

No, but then we've never seen a proletarian revolution in a mature capitalist country carried out by the workers for the workers.

Well, by your narrow definition of "revolution", no we haven't. In terms of working class power, our revolution has been going on since possibly the 18th century to some extent. You view revolution only in narrow terms of the qualitative change from capital domination to worker domination. This is why Leninism has failed to have any success in the first world (the only reason they succeed in the third is because they latch onto national liberation anti-imperialist movements. They're only able to do such because there is no strong native bourgeois in that country, so they instead take the place after the revolt.)

We're not at a time where material conditions are such that class consciousness is at a level where people say "hey, I want Communism" and actually struggle for it. And worker's aren't going to one day wake up and say "Hey, Marxism makes OH SO much sense, we need to fight for communism, workers unite!" That would be nice, but we don't work that way. Gradually, as worker's power is built and workers learn new methods of organization, I'm sure we'll get to that point.

[b]Hitherto, the only "successful" revolutions we've seen have taken place in backward economies, often where the workers are a minority class, and always the revolution is thrown on the defensive against capitalist and imperialist forces. It would be a State strangely detached from reality which wouldn't be affected by those pressures.

Those revolutions were bourgeois revolutions, although they didn't take the "classical" character like the French or American revs. Let's use Russia as an example. Russia was under near complete foreign dominance, something like 90% of capital was owned by French, British or American firms with the largest amount to the former two. So because of this we know that the native bourgeoisie could not develop.

Yet Russia was still a feudal nation, the foreigners gained more from keeping Russia feudal and not allowing cappies to develop. So, it was left up to the various classes in Russia to become the new bourgeoisie. The petty-bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers each had a select few here and there to form the vanguard party, which took the place of the bourgeoisie after the revolution. However they didn't develop traditional capitalism, because surely they would succumb to "foreign capitalist or imperialist forces", so they had to think of something much faster: state-capitalism. That secured their dominance as a class and allowed for the development of Russia as a modern day imperialist nation.

This process (colonies liberating themselves and being able to compete with imperialists) will probably be repeated much more until there is some sort of equilibrium.

Sorry for getting off topic, but I figured the readers should know that considering you mentioned it.

monolith

Haha, that word brings back so many memories of shit here in Philly :lol:

Barista, I wonder if this is you know who?

and, of course, it's primary aim is to defend those prevailing class relations

Precisely! So why would workers want to defend the class relations of them ruling over the bourgeoisie (even such a class relation was even possible).

Hense the need to SMASH the state.

Der. But then what? Leninist logic is: We must smash the lamp, but then rebuild the lamp so it looks exactly the same but we must call it proletarian!

The "workers state" to be created after the revolution always tends to look like the same state they just smashed. Weird...

BTW, you've still failed to come up with a classical quote which even implies that Marx believed the workers wouldn't need a state after the revolution.

Don't want to intrube on ya'lls part of the debate, but I want to comment on this.

So, in order for us to promote a concept and call it Marxist, Marx had to have approved of it himself? No! If we did that then we wouldn't be Marxists would we. It doesn't matter if he agreed with it or disagreed. What matters is what we workers decide to do ourselves. If he doesn't like it, well that's too damn bad.

And to answer you, Marx DID believe the workers needed a state after the revolution. His concept of the DoP started to extend into something similar to Leninist centralized control over the economy. Why?

Marx believed that revolution was around the corner. But he also realized that conditions were far from being capable of communism. So he said the DoP would have to take on more centralized form over the economy to make such conditions possible. However, we see now that revolution was not around the corner and still isn't. But, conditions are most defintely present for communism, people just don't realize it quite yet.

Nachie

11th May 2006, 21:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:25 PM
So, in order for us to promote a concept and call it Marxist, Marx had to have approved of it himself? No! If we did that then we wouldn't be Marxists would we. It doesn't matter if he agreed with it or disagreed. What matters is what we workers decide to do ourselves. If he doesn't like it, well that's too damn bad.
RAIHT-AWN!

Ol' Dirty

11th May 2006, 21:39

I believe that both things are worthy of complete abolition, but the difference is, I think one should go befor the other.

I believe the state is greater evil that we must face. Really, think of all the weapons state has supported, weapons that give us the option of completly destroying one another:

Money: Worthless peices of paper, yet the root of the greatest obstuction to egalitarian society - capitalism- obtains its worth from one place, on central power that backs it and dictates its worth: the state. Without the state, money is as worthless as a peice of construction paper with latters and dollar signs on it with a president's face. Without the state, money loses its value. With its destruction, the union it brings with currency is utterly abolished, doing away from the individualistic anarchy that is capitalism.

Doing away with it: There is a loophole in state theory: the state's dependance on cabbage. Without money, monetary exchange, and trade, the social aspect of capitalism falls apart. If the people allow capitalism to flourish, it will. If they refuse to "compete", or, in other words, kill or be killed, dog-eat dog, or voluntarily enslave themselves -basically, withdraw support for the state (stop paying taxes, form food collectives, form collectives in general, refuse conscription, protest state actions, general civil disobedience, revolt)- the state is powerless, due to lack of material conditions, such as peoplepower. Material conditions in society can't exist without the social, and vice-versa.

Organized millitary: This is much a reversal of the people-state dependance, and a way to distance the state from its working masses. With the millitary, the state goes to war, quells insurections, and, in general, opposes the people. Of course, the millitary men and women aren't bad people; they've simply been lied to their wholle lives, about "how great our country is" and "For Old Glory, baseball, Grandma, and apple pie (which I rather like, but whatever. :D)!", and all that bull, or whatever "your countries" symbols are.

Doing away with it: Basicaly, the same as with above, only now one must withdraw their material support for it, and fight against them. That's really the tricky part: fighting.

To fight a poor army is easy, with enough people. If 70% of the people in a society were to "rise up and step away", make a few assaults, the state shall crumble. But against a superior force - such a that of the U.S- which is often apparent with superpowers, an overwhalming majority, adequate equipment, and the ability to use protracted guerrila conflict must be evident in the society. In imperialist powers fighting multiple wars, a fight on the homefront is a great idea (Swift kicks to the "state groin" and "kick em' while he's down" are necassary in revolution,) for the state shall not only have to split their forces thinly, and possibly abandon a conflict altogether, but it also cause great confusion in the ranks, and cause overwhelming support at home. This srategy is best used in strong movements with great armies.

I'll right some more latter.

Hit The North

11th May 2006, 22:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:25 PM

No, but then we've never seen a proletarian revolution in a mature capitalist country carried out by the workers for the workers.

Well, by your narrow definition of "revolution", no we haven't. In terms of working class power, our revolution has been going on since possibly the 18th century to some extent.

I think we have to distinguish between the ongoing class struggle (which is as old as Capitalism itself) and actual revolution.

You view revolution only in narrow terms of the qualitative change from capital domination to worker domination.

Yep, what else is it?

This is why Leninism has failed to have any success in the first world (the only reason they succeed in the third is because they latch onto national liberation anti-imperialist [bourgeois] movements.

You make a valid point. However, you seem to be judging Leninism's lack of success in the first world in terms of it failing to launch a revolution. But Leninism isn't a form of Blanquism which substitutes itself for the real movement of workers. It does, however, hope through the demonstration of the power of its ideas and tactics, to take a leading role in that movement.

We're not at a time where material conditions are such that class consciousness is at a level where people say "hey, I want Communism" and actually struggle for it.

Why, are we at a lower level of material conditions than, say, Tzarist Russia in 1917 or Spain in the '30s? Maybe we need to find other, more concrete reasons to explain our class's lack of revolutionary fervor.

And worker's aren't going to one day wake up and say "Hey, Marxism makes OH SO much sense, we need to fight for communism, workers unite!" That would be nice, but we don't work that way. Gradually, as worker's power is built and workers learn new methods of organization, I'm sure we'll get to that point.

Exactly. That's one of the key arguments of Lenin and Trotsky.

Your attempt to outline the objective constraints on the Soviet revolution further down in your post makes a refreshing change from the usual "Lenin was evil" claptrap some of the Anarchists peddle on this site.

Der. But then what? Leninist logic is: We must smash the lamp, but then rebuild the lamp so it looks exactly the same but we must call it proletarian!

If that was Lenin's position then he was wrong. But it wasn't, was it? Go back to your own analysis of how the Soviet Union was beseiged by a hostile imperialism, how the material conditions for capitalism, let alone socialism, were absent, and you'll be closer to understanding why the revolution failed. It's better than asserting that the failure lay in some 'original sin' in Lenin's logic. That's an idealist position where you argue that reality is shaped by the power of ideas. Although I'm guessing you know that.

And to answer you, Marx DID believe the workers needed a state after the revolution. His concept of the DoP started to extend into something similar to Leninist centralized control over the economy.

Yeah, I know.

Why? Marx believed that revolution was around the corner. But he also realized that conditions were far from being capable of communism. So he said the DoP would have to take on more centralized form over the economy to make such conditions possible.

Actually his most impassioned calls for centralisation were in relation to the Paris Commune's inability to centralise in order fight off the forces of reaction. The material level of production doesn't have a direct correlation to the forces of counter-revolution which might exist. Of course you may be correct that we can move more quickly to the withering away of the state due to the 1st world's higher material conditions. All well and good.

Janus

12th May 2006, 00:31

It depends on one's definition of state. If the state is capitalist, then their's no difference between them. However, if the state is truluy democratic and ruled by direct democracy then it is far less harmful than capitalism.

12th May 2006, 02:31

It depends on one's definition of state.

The one used by Marxists:

The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule.

Armed_Philosopher

14th May 2006, 22:45

" Which is the greater enemy? Capitalism or the state?"

I think the state is the greater enemy. Capitalism becomes a problem when capitalists become defacto "governments" as in landlords and land barons, or otherwise claim a monopoly on resources putting them into an exalted position of power.

The fight against capitalism and the state are both forms of opposition to hierarchy. Opposition to hierarchy includes oppostion to both the State and Capitalism, while opposition to capitalism is less inclusive.

LoneRed

15th May 2006, 02:08

they are one and the same, you cant just separate them and attack them separately, get real people

anomaly

15th May 2006, 22:42

Originally posted by Janus
However, if the state is truluy democratic and ruled by direct democracy then it is far less harmful than capitalism.
To paraphrase Bakunin, if this state will be so free and democratic, what reason have we to destroy it?

Reality, of course, works in different ways. In reality, the state always represents hierarchy, and I do not believe this Marxist dogma that the state will 'wither away'. The state is something to be destroyed along with capitalism.

15th May 2006, 22:44

In reality, the state always represents hierarchy

Of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie.

and I do not believe this Marxist dogma that the state will 'wither away'.

You still haven't explained how it would be in the interest of the proletariat to keep the bourgeoisie, a class opposed to them, when they don't need them.

Armed_Philosopher

15th May 2006, 22:51

"You still haven't explained how it would be in the interest of the proletariat to keep the bourgeoisie, a class opposed to them, when they don't need them."

Taking the wealth of the bourgeoisie can be part of the revolution itself. Once they dont own their factories and tracts of land anymore, then they are no longer the bourgeoisie and can join the proletariat.

Why label they as bourgeoisie when they no longer have any money or power? I say we can abolish both state and capitalism in one foul swoop.

A degree of organization is still practical in the early stages of the revolution, but this can be achieved through horizontal means, like the Anarcho-Syndacalists as just one example.

anomaly

15th May 2006, 22:54

KC, you don't seem to comprehend that when a class becomes a ruling class, its 'class nature', if you will, changes.

But I feel I have nothing left to say to you about the State. You are a statist, and I am an anarchist. Get over it.

15th May 2006, 22:57

KC, you don't seem to comprehend that when a class becomes a ruling class, its 'class nature', if you will, changes.

Again, you haven't explained why the proletariat will desire to keep the bourgeoisie around. There really is no reason, and this is why you haven't clarified your stance. Because you know you are wrong.

But I feel I have nothing left to say to you about the State. You are a statist, and I am an anarchist. Get over it.

You don't know what a state is.

Martin Blank

15th May 2006, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:19 PM
Why label they as bourgeoisie when they no longer have any money or power? I say we can abolish both state and capitalism in one foul swoop.
They will still have ties to the world capitalist market, to the rest of their class internationally. Taking their assets in one country is effective only to a point -- and that point is not near the achievement of the classless society.

Miles

anomaly

15th May 2006, 23:12

Originally posted by KC
Again, you haven't explained why the proletariat will desire to keep the bourgeoisie around.
Because they will be the ruling class. Whether you want to call it bourgeoisie or not, the point is that a ruling class does not want to rid itself of a class to rule over.

Miles, it is a rare occurence, but I am interested in your opinion. If we overthrow the bourgeoisie in one region (which must neccesarily be the starting point), would you say that that region becomes functionally classless?

15th May 2006, 23:16

Because they will be the ruling class. Whether you want to call it bourgeoisie or not, the point is that a ruling class does not want to rid itself of a class to rule over.

Again, you resort to being vague. Why will they want to keep the bourgeoisie and how would they exploit them? What kind of system do you envision this creating? It certainly wouldn't be capitalism, so what would it be? Clarify your position and stop being so vague.

anomaly

15th May 2006, 23:20

I have completely lost you.

You surely understand that a class's basic goals change when it becomes a ruling class, right? It happened with the nobility, it happened with the bourgeoisie, yet you are arguing that the proletariat will not want to maintain the conditions of its rule.

You say it will become a ruling class, no? Well, that requires a class to rule over, correct? And when such is the case, I ask you, why would any class want to destroy the conditions of its class rule?

What system would it be? I imagine you'd call it socialism.

Hit The North

15th May 2006, 23:28

Originally posted by anomaly+May 15 2006, 10:40 PM--> (anomaly @ May 15 2006, 10:40 PM)

[/b]

KC
Again, you haven't explained why the proletariat will desire to keep the bourgeoisie around.
Because they will be the ruling class. Whether you want to call it bourgeoisie or not, the point is that a ruling class does not want to rid itself of a class to rule over.

One class rules over another out of necessity - their livelihoods depend upon it. The Proletariat will have no reason to keep the bourgeoisie around as the success of a workers state depends upon the elimination of capitalism, not its indefinite preservation.

Of course, we could keep a few around and put them in zoos. They could strut around in their top hats, scaring the kids. :lol: ;)

15th May 2006, 23:29

I have completely lost you.

Not surprising.

You surely understand that a class's basic goals change when it becomes a ruling class, right?

Not really. Why would they?

It happened with the nobility, it happened with the bourgeoisie

No it didn't...

yet you are arguing that the proletariat will not want to maintain the conditions of its rule.

When a class becomes a ruling class it can manipulate society to further its aims. The nobility did this, the bourgeoisie did this, and the proletariat will do this. What aims does the proletariat have? Do you think that aim is to exploit others? Of course it isn't! The proletariat is against the bourgeoisie/petty bourgeoisie and the exploitative system that is capitalism. By taking control of society the proletariat will further its own interests; i.e. a world free of exploitation.

Your stance is basically that the proletariat is a class that desires to exploit people to further its aims or that its aims itself are exploitation. This is a horribly anti-worker stance and really goes a long way in showing your true colors.

What system would it be? I imagine you'd call it socialism.

Because socialism is really a socio-economic system seperate from capitalism. :rolleyes:

Also, I see that you have failed to answer any of the questions I asked above.

Martin Blank

15th May 2006, 23:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:40 PM
Miles, it is a rare occurence, but I am interested in your opinion. If we overthrow the bourgeoisie in one region (which must neccesarily be the starting point), would you say that that region becomes functionally classless?
No. The bourgeoisie in that area will continue to retain their ties to international capitalism, and the bourgeois of the areas not overthrown will do what they can to keep them alive as a class formation.

If, for example, capitalism in the U.S. was to be overthrown, the bourgeois who are the owners of GM, Ford, IBM, Microsoft, Delphi, etc., will still be the owners of the capital associated with those corporations in other countries. Moreover, their ties to this international capital will be maintained as much as possible by the capitalists of Europe and Asia, and by international entities like the UN and WEF.

The class struggle will continue after the victory of a revolution in one region or country. It will continue because the world capitalist system will continue to exist. Until world capitalism is overthrown, we will still be fighting the bourgeoisie.

Miles

EusebioScrib

15th May 2006, 23:44

Sorry for my late replies...busy week with work (mother's day is big for restaurants)

Again, you haven't explained why the proletariat will desire to keep the bourgeoisie around. There really is no reason, and this is why you haven't clarified your stance. Because you know you are wrong.

KC, you should be answering this question. I believe I've asked it several times in this debate, yet no Lennie has answered me. Your inverting the debate to save yourself from looking like a dumbass.

CITZEN ZERO:

I think we have to distinguish between the ongoing class struggle (which is as old as Capitalism itself) and actual revolution.

The class struggle is the revolution. This is a starting point for the degeneration of Marxists into Leninists.

You make a valid point. However, you seem to be judging Leninism's lack of success in the first world in terms of it failing to launch a revolution.

No, I judge Leninisms failure on the fact that the workers have said "fuck that jawn yo."

But Leninism isn't a form of Blanquism which substitutes itself for the real movement of workers. It does, however, hope through the demonstration of the power of its ideas and tactics, to take a leading role in that movement.

You basically said the same thing twice, only the first was from a workers perspective and the second was the propaganda you bombard us with. Sorry, doesn't work.

Why, are we at a lower level of material conditions than, say, Tzarist Russia in 1917 or Spain in the '30s? Maybe we need to find other, more concrete reasons to explain our class's lack of revolutionary fervor.

No, we're at a much higher level of material conditions. Tzarist Russia's material conditions were similar in quality to those of the French or American revolutions, similar in the sense that they were transitions from Feudalism to Capitalism. However they were unique in that there was much genuine worker power. This only happened because there was no strong native bourgeoisie and because the petty-bourgeoisie which led the revolution had to give a lot of concessions to make workers put faith into them. It's rather sad.

Spain in the 30's? It was a reaction against a Fascist uprising. The establishment of communes/collectives and the spreading of leftist ideals were only reactions to Fascism. Had there been no Fascist revolt, chances are nothing of the sort would have happened.

Each was indeed a struggle for worker power, yet a transformation of society to complete worker power was definitly not possible at the time.

Exactly. That's one of the key arguments of Lenin and Trotsky.

Not entirely. I said workers will reach that point when the find new methods of organization and as the struggle more. Leninism says: Capital is totally dominating the mob of workers. We need to "lead" them in a revolution because they are incapable of doing it themselves.

Your attempt to outline the objective constraints on the Soviet revolution further down in your post makes a refreshing change from the usual "Lenin was evil" claptrap some of the Anarchists peddle on this site.

Things are neither good nor evil, it's perspective. Lenin and the vanguard class accomplished just what they should have. It's generally a good thing that they did what they did because it sped up the development of capitalism in that nation and sparked hope for more bourgeois revolutions. Once we get those out of our way, we can move onto true workers power.

I believe my account of the Soviet Union was entirely correct from a historical materialist perspective.

if that was Lenin's position then he was wrong. But it wasn't, was it? Go back to your own analysis of how the Soviet Union was beseiged by a hostile imperialism, how the material conditions for capitalism, let alone socialism, were absent, and you'll be closer to understanding why the revolution failed. It's better than asserting that the failure lay in some 'original sin' in Lenin's logic. That's an idealist position where you argue that reality is shaped by the power of ideas. Although I'm guessing you know that.

Ah but you misquote me. The revolution did not fail. It was a COMPLETE success! It did what it was meant to do, build capitalism in Russia. It had no chance of being a workers revolution, even with the cases of genuine worker power (I outlined their causes earlier). Lenin's logic was right on. Stalin was his rightful heir because he kept his class in power and furthered economic development so that the USSR could be independent from other nations etc. I NEVER claimed it had anything to do with ideas. My constant arguement has always been MATERIAL CONDITIONS, which are, you know, in a dialectical relationship with ideas.

Yeah, I know.

Awesome ;) Cause some people tend to forget that.

Actually his most impassioned calls for centralisation were in relation to the Paris Commune's inability to centralise in order fight off the forces of reaction. The material level of production doesn't have a direct correlation to the forces of counter-revolution which might exist. Of course you may be correct that we can move more quickly to the withering away of the state due to the 1st world's higher material conditions. All well and good.

Yes. That's because he believed revolution was around the corner. The Commune was bound to fail, but it's a hell of an inspiration, no?

EusebioScrib

15th May 2006, 23:46

Not really. Why would they?

Because BEING DETERMINES CONSCIOUSNESS!!!!!!!! :D

*sorry, don't mean to get all up on your thing*

anomaly

15th May 2006, 23:46

Originally posted by KC
Your stance is basically that the proletariat is a class that desires to exploit people to further its aims or that its aims itself are exploitation.
My stance is, of course, that power corrupts.

Your stance is that, given power, the noble proletariat will work to destroy the conditions of their class rule. I say BS. Therefore, we should work to destroy class (functionally) and the state right away. Sure, it won't be communism. It will be collectivism.

I am not arguing the class's specific functions. I am arguing class relations, and power in general. Given power, a class will not want to give up that power. You disagree. (I am really just borrowing one of Bakunin's arguments here...I don't know why you can't follow)

But if we destroy the system that allows power itself to arise between classes, we don't have to worry about it.

I really don't know why you can't just accept the fact that you're a statist. It easily explains all of our disagreements.

15th May 2006, 23:54

My stance is, of course, that power corrupts.

Democracy is so corruptive :rolleyes:

1. Learn what state means.
2. Learn what class means.

Nachie

15th May 2006, 23:56

Originally posted by Scrib+--> (Scrib)No, I judge Leninisms failure on the fact that the workers have said "fuck that jawn yo."[/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]
You basically said the same thing twice, only the first was from a workers perspective and the second was the propaganda you bombard us with.

anomaly
I really don't know why you can't just accept the fact that you're a statist. It easily explains all of our disagreements.
I'm laughing my ass off over here :lol:

Hit The North

16th May 2006, 00:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 11:14 PM

My stance is, of course, that power corrupts...

Given power, a class will not want to give up that power.

Actually I think that is more appropriate to political parties rather than social classes. Parties are creatures of power and tend to develop an internal logic which makes their dissolution unthinkable.

This opens up an interesting question about the role revolutionary organisations will occupy after the revolution in terms of their relationship to the state.

barista.marxista

16th May 2006, 02:58

In response to Scrib's previous posts, I'd like to issue a PSA to everyone reading this topic:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4125/yeah1jp.gif

EusebioScrib

16th May 2006, 03:51

Hell yeaz :P

Nachie

16th May 2006, 06:30

I heart you crazy fuckers :wub:

LoneRed

16th May 2006, 06:34

fuck these are all Raaners. shit I gotta rally the Clers up in opposition mofuckers...

coda

16th May 2006, 06:53

In response to the question: I think the states whole structure is designed to Capitalism---- The treasury, the tax system, trade policies, imperialism, protectorates, etc. So, then, for a matter of course, the state needs to be captured and brought down

Nachie

16th May 2006, 07:04

shit I gotta rally the Clers up in opposition mofuckers
http://www.tenbullets.com/uploaded_images/batman-tv-series-batman-robin-4000246-769368.jpg

"Voluptuous vainas, Batman! We're totally outnumbered!"

"You're right, Robin. Let's retreat back to World Communist League Headquarters and rally the reinforcements mofuckers."

16th May 2006, 08:06

What's a Cler? Cleric?

EusebioScrib

16th May 2006, 15:47

"Voluptuous vainas, Batman! We're totally outnumbered!"

"You're right, Robin. Let's retreat back to World Communist League Headquarters and rally the reinforcements mofuckers."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I heart you crazy fuckers

Aww :blush:

fuck these are all Raaners

Pssssh it's RAANistas, *****! Get it right!

LoneRed

16th May 2006, 16:58

like i said in some other post the "ista" is the feminime of Rannist, go ahead and call yourselves that, its all the more humorous. Also I prefer MoRaans.

Nachie

16th May 2006, 17:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:58 PM
like i said in some other post the "ista" is the feminime of Rannist, go ahead and call yourselves that, its all the more humorous. Also I prefer MoRaans.
Hey arsehat! Didn't you see my reply (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49985&view=findpost&p=1292070976) to that?

It went something like,

"For all you know I don't identify as either of the prefabricated gender categories or sexual orientations and neither do many others in RAAN.

That said, "RAANist" would be an adjective whereas "RAANista" is a proper noun. In addition, it is neither a female nor male gender and can be used interchangably with "RAANite", which perhaps is more to your liking.

In languages such as Spanish where there actually are genders for words, terms that end in "ista" (comunista, anarquista, Marxista) are hardly seen as being exclusively "female". The terms companero/companera are an example of something that is, but this false duality can be overcome by the gender-neutral camarada, (comrade) which to you probably also sounds feminine."

In other words suck a D.

By the way, the more you try to come up with clever retorts like "MoRAANs", the more it consolidates our self-identification with the unique culture of RAANismo and its fundamentally different paradigm.