Marx Vs. Bakunin

[Bretty123]

What do you think of the concepts both proposed and the conflicts between Marxism and Anarchism?

Do you side with one and why?

[rouchambeau]

Why don't you state a few of them and we'll go from there.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yes, it would be beneficial to list the specific conflicts you wish to discuss. However, I will say that, at the time, Marx certainly won. No question about that.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 28 2006, 05:49 PM
Yes, it would be beneficial to list the specific conflicts you wish to discuss. However, I will say that, at the time, Marx certainly won. No question about that.
And that is why there are so many successful communist regions around the world now ...

No one 'won'. If anything the anarchists were correct in predicting that any movement away form decentralisation would lead, once more, to a state.


I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable. That is not to say that anarchism is any more scientific, just that many anarchists see Marxism as not scientific. Another between anarchists and certain Marxists on one hand and authoritarian Marxists is the role of the state in a post revolutionary society.

Edit: Added the bits in bold. This is what I meant orignially.

[Comrade Phil]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 09:37 AM
Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable.
So Anarchism does acknowledge the possibility of being false? Why?

[ComradeRed]

I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable. Thanks, Karl Popper.

Marxism is scientific, it works by a paradigm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paradigm) pattern.

Science works by paradigms; take for example the current paradigm in field theory. Quantum Field Theory asserts that every field has to have a particle associated with it (comically, ifyou use it to quantize a mattress, you get a matress particle: the matron).

Problem: what about gravity? There is no observable graviton. There are searches for gravitons, but more likely there will be a paradigm shift in field theory.

The same works for Marxism.

[bezdomni]

Thanks, Karl Popper.
:lol:


I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable.
Something doesn't have to be falsifiable to be scientific, as ComradeRed points out.

However, I think Marxism can be falsifiable. If one were to refute historical materialism, one would refute the entire scientific basis of Marxism.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 10:37 AM
I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable.
Is this based on the assumption that anarchism is scientific? Give me one example.

[hoopla]

I wouldn't say that all Marxist thin Marxism to be scientific.

[liberationjunky]

I would have to choose Bakunin.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:35 PM
I would have to choose Bakunin.
Why?

[The Grinch]

If we're talking specifically about Bakunin, let's remember that he believed in secret societies as a means to revolution.

Hardly democratic.

[D_Bokk]

Marx was, by far, the greater thinker. His accomplishments haven't been matched by any other economist or philosopher to date. Any Anarchist who hasn't read any of his writings or claims he was completely wrong is a fool.

In Das Kapital for this where he clearly outlined how capitalism will destroy itself and the proletariat will then rise up. One would imagine that since the previous government couldn't supply it's people with food, why then would the proletariat trust that a "Marxist" government would be different? Naturally they will take direct control over the means of production and completely eliminate the middleman, ie the government. This holds especially true in the bourgeois democratic governments of today where the proletariat technically has control over the government - but the government never rules in it's favor.

The Anarchists, if they hold true to their origins, will further the cause to true communism (which is what we all want, isn't it?) while the "Marxist" will condemn them. By this, I mean Anarchists will use terrorist strategy to weaken/destroy the imperialist powers while the Marxists will condemn terrorism and try to "educate" the masses. You cannot teach the proletariat to want communism, they must desire it with their own free will. To desire it, they must feel the wrath of capitalism - which they'll never endure until imperialism is wiped off the face of this Earth. The third world feels the wrath now - however they're hardpressed by superior weaponry and economic dependency to do much about it. Until both the high-tech weapons and imperialism are destroyed - capitalism will reign supreme.

Therefore, I would side with the tactics of Bakunin since all Marx did was put the inevitable down on paper.

[black magick hustla]

er.

Probably Marx won the upperhand.

However, Bakunin isn't certainly completely representative of today's anarchist paradigm.

If anything, the good class-war anarchist would use marxism as his/her scientific base and combine it with anarchist praxis.

I am sociologically Marxist, but I am politically anarchist.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Comrade Phil+--> (Comrade Phil)So Anarchism does acknowledge the possibility of being false? Why? [/b]What is there to be wrong about? As far as I know most anarchists don't make predictions and claim that it is inevitable that they will come about. Where as Marxism does.


Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed)[/b]
Marxism makes a claim that one of two things will happen, communism or a collapse of civilisation. There is no way to prove that correct or not. Even if one of the two happens, it is not necessarily because of the reasons Marx stated.

Similarly, other economic theories are not scientific either.

I did read that Wikipage, and I don't know how it would be applied to Marxism. If you could actually show this (rather then just stating it) that would be nice. So I admit I could be wrong.



Originally posted by SovietPants
However, I think Marxism can be falsifiable. If one were to refute historical materialism, one would refute the entire scientific basis of Marxism. But how would one refute historical materialism?



Citizen [email protected]
Is this based on the assumption that anarchism is scientific? Give me one example.No, who said it was? Most if not all sociological theories are not scientific, we just don't know enough about human interactions to be able to predict what these will do on a mass scale.


D Bokk
Any Anarchist who hasn't read any of his writings or claims he was completely wrong is a fool. Indeed any one who claims he is completely wrong is a fool. Even capitalists would have to agree with some of what he said. Doesn't mean he was completely correct.

[Leo]

I think the conflict is not between "Marxism" and "Anarchism", but it is in between Communism and Leftism (Left Capitalism), where we have 'Marxist' Leftists and 'Anarchist' Leftists in one hand who take the same side on every practical debate despite political vendettas each hold, and there 'Marxist' Communists and 'Anarchist' Communists.

And the feud between Marx and Bakunin is truly unimportant and irrelevant, as it was a personal feud which rise over the inheritance debate in the First International.

[ComradeRed]

Marxism makes a claim that one of two things will happen, communism or a collapse of civilisation. There is no way to prove that correct or not. Even if one of the two happens, it is not necessarily because of the reasons Marx stated. Marxism is more than merely a theory that is "stating that one of two things will happen".


Similarly, other economic theories are not scientific either. Well Marxism isn't "merely" an "economics theory". It's a paradigm.


I did read that Wikipage, and I don't know how it would be applied to Marxism. If you could actually show this (rather then just stating it) that would be nice. So I admit I could be wrong. My point is that falsifiability is irrelevant to science.

When there are things that a paradigm can't explain (like in my example of field theories, the nonexistence of gravitons), then the paradigm falls and there is a "paradigm shift".

A new paradigm with a new set of tools examines the phenomena and proposes a new explanation that is logically coherent.

Marxism is a paradigm. It has a set of tools to analyze class society. It applies these tools dynamically (vis-a-vis Historical Materialism), and it applies it conceptually (materialism) to challenge other paradigms.

It's not one grand theory to be falsified. It's a paradigm that can be improved upon.

[apathy maybe]

OK I understand your point now.

So if I think up a set of (mental) tools that can be used to describe a certain part of the world or human interactions, then that would be a paradigm. It could be completely useless, and if the area of study were useful would be rapidly replaced, but it would still be scientific?

An example of a paradigm shift, from a non-scientific set of theories to a scientific one would be the move to seeing that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and that other objects orbited other planets. Originally there was a religious paradigm, that was "improved" with complex mathematics, but then a new (scientific) paradigm came along that said that the old paradigm was shit, and gave new simpler mathematics.

Or take evolution, there was a paradigm (and still is in some places) that said that complex organisms had to have been created by a higher being (God). This is religious and I doubt that anyone would try and claim that it is scientific. Then evolution came along, observation and thought made a paradigm shift from religious to a scientific explanation.

My argument is that just because it is a paradigm, has a set of tools and is logical, does not mean that it is scientific. Freud is another theorist that I would say had a set of tools and an analysis, but I would also say that his theories were not (in the main) scientific. What do you think about Freud?

Oh, and while Marx's theories are not one grand theory to be falsified, he made claims that are not falsifiable. I never said that Marx was completely wrong, just that he wasn't scientific.

(Is this the time to split the thread? Getting a bit off topic.)

[ComradeRed]

I'm not gonna answer your post in order, just a warning!


(Is this the time to split the thread? Getting a bit off topic.) Not really, since we are discussing how scientific Marxism is. I'm arguing that using the Kuhnian sense of science, Marxism is very scienfitic.

You're arguing, if I am correct, using the Popperian sense of science, Marxism is not a scientific entity (since paradigms and falsifiability are incompatible philosophies of science).

Look at the wikipedia article again for the meaning of a scientific paradigm. You'll notice that it fits Marxism like a glove.


My argument is that just because it is a paradigm, has a set of tools and is logical, does not mean that it is scientific. Freud is another theorist that I would say had a set of tools and an analysis, but I would also say that his theories were not (in the main) scientific. What do you think about Freud? Well Freud either created or popularized the field of psychology. His stuff was as scientific as, say, Aristotlean gravity.

And consequently, the Freudian paradigm was replaced (a paradigm shift occured). There were problems that couldn't be answered (e.g. why is Freud so fixated on sex?).

This allowed a new set of tools to be introduced, a new paradigm to explain the (then) unexplainable phenomena.


Oh, and while Marx's theories are not one grand theory to be falsified, he made claims that are not falsifiable. I never said that Marx was completely wrong, just that he wasn't scientific. This seems to be getting into the field of ambiguity.

Things that are ambiguous are not falsifiable, correct?

But this is paradoxical, how can you have an ambiguous paradigm? Unless it was destined for a paradigm shift, which I haven't seen a legitimate one occurring for Marxism ever.

And I must ask, is a scientific radical leftism something to aspire to? Should we try to create a scientific leftist paradigm (assuming Marxism isn't it for some arbitrary reason)?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
I think the conflict is not between "Marxism" and "Anarchism", but it is in between Communism and Leftism (Left Capitalism), where we have 'Marxist' Leftists and 'Anarchist' Leftists in one hand who take the same side on every practical debate despite political vendettas each hold, and there 'Marxist' Communists and 'Anarchist' Communists.

And the feud between Marx and Bakunin is truly unimportant and irrelevant, as it was a personal feud which rise over the inheritance debate in the First International.
Why are you trying to redefine the word "Left"? Left is a general term to bring together all the leftist ideologies, ie Anarchy, Communism and Socialism. If left is how you define it, then why are you posting on RevolutionaryLEFT a "capitalist" forum by your definition?

The democrats and their ilk aren't anywhere near the left, no matter how many times they claim they are. So don't change it's definition because they're delusional.

[bezdomni]

But how would one refute historical materialism?
They wouldn't. :P

Unless they can prove that society doesn't change in relation to the means of production, or that class antagonism doesn't exist, or that feudalism never actually happened....

The reason for this is because Historical Materialism is correct.

Oh yeah, the LTV is also falsifiable....but it hasn't been proven false - so we can assume it is right.

The same cannot be said for bourgeois economics, even though they still are the dominant paradigm.

[Leo]

Why are you trying to redefine the word "Left"? Left is a general term to bring together all the leftist ideologies, ie Anarchy, Communism and Socialism.

Well, leftism is short for the capitalist left, as opposed to, of course, the communist left.

[Forward Union]

Both, were magnificent contributors to our revolutionary philosophies and values today. At least on the Libertarian half of the spectrum. I don't think I would "pick sides" that seems a bit immature.

Marx to me, was the first revolutionary thinker who's work I read, and he, undeniable, influenced my thinking greatly. But then, Bakunin made some pretty solid predictions of the path of "Authoritarian" Marxism,

"If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself."

I've also found that some of the things Bakunin said were later regurgitated by other thinkers,


Originally posted by Mikhail A. Bakunin+--> (Mikhail A. Bakunin)Where the state begins, individual liberty ceases, and vice versa.
[/b]

Lenin
“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

Of course Bakunin also said "From each according his faculties, to each according his needs" and sadly, we have no way of knowing if this was before or after Marx's "From each according their ability..."

Conspiracy :ph34r:

...But of course, most people will completely disagree with Bakunin on several points, like his anti-semitism, and his "secret society" bullshit, and realise that, despite all the brilliant theoretical contributions, he certainly talked a lot of shit.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed)Not really, since we are discussing how scientific Marxism is. I'm arguing that using the Kuhnian sense of science, Marxism is very scienfitic.[/b]OK I think I might be starting to get in over my head here. But I'll continue anyway. (By the way, educate me, what the hell is the Kuhnian sense of science? (Start a new thread perhaps.))


Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed)You're arguing, if I am correct, using the Popperian sense of science, Marxism is not a scientific entity (since paradigms and falsifiability are incompatible philosophies of science).

Look at the wikipedia article again for the meaning of a scientific paradigm. You'll notice that it fits Marxism like a glove.[/b]Now I think that I might be using Karl Popper's sense of science, but I am not really certain. I don't know enough about theories of science. But Popper definitely rings a bell, and he is an author that I want to read more of.


Originally posted by ComradeRed
Well Freud either created or popularized the field of psychology. His stuff was as scientific as, say, Aristotlean gravity.

[etc.]So was Freud scientific?

[email protected]
This seems to be getting into the field of ambiguity.

Things that are ambiguous are not falsifiable, correct?OK I think I am pretty deep here, um yes?

CR
And I must ask, is a scientific radical leftism something to aspire to? Should we try to create a scientific leftist paradigm (assuming Marxism isn't it for some arbitrary reason)?Yes, however, I don't think it is really possible. Human interactions are too complicated, too diverse to be mapped on any large scale. And any leftist social theory would have to be on a large scale. That is not to say that we cannot have theories of human interactions at this large scale, just I think that they cannot really be scientific. (And while Marx's theories fits this, as a theory of human interactions, personally I disagree with large chunks of it. Such as the class analysis,



Also I think that just because it is a paradigm, doesn't mean that the actual theory is a scientific one. Unless you are saying that a thing is a paradigm, therefore it is scientific (even if none of the claims with in it are actually scientific). I give the two religious examples again and Freud.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Love Undergroung+--> (Love Undergroung)Of course Bakunin also said "From each according his faculties, to each according his needs" and sadly, we have no way of knowing if this was before or after Marx's "From each according their ability..."[/b]I think Proudhon said it first ... Actually I think I am wrong (Proudhon was a mutualist). But I swear it was an anarchist.
Wikipedia thinks it was Louis Blanc.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Although Marx is popularly thought of as the author of the phrase, it has been widely speculated that he merely co-opted a term earlier used by other leaders of the socialist movement. It has further been suggested that, despite the secular nature of Marxism, inspiration for this creed was drawn from Christian socialism or directly from two lines in the Book of Acts in the Christian Bible:The slogan was first used by Louis Blanc in 1840, in "The orgsanization of work", as a detournment of a quote by the utopian socialist Henri de Saint Simon who claimed that each should be rewarded according to how much they work. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_acc...ng_to_his_need) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need))


LU
...But of course, most people will completely disagree with Bakunin on several points, like his anti-semitism, and his "secret society" bullshit, and realise that, despite all the brilliant theoretical contributions, he certainly talked a lot of shit.Absolutely, but as I have said else where, most anarchists are not Bakuninists, they take the good bits from each theorist, and throw away the crap. Many anarchists use a Marxian class analysis for example, but disagree with a lot of other parts of Marx (I personally don't agree that the Marxian class analysis is the best).

[Dyst]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 03:37 PM
And that is why there are so many successful communist regions around the world now ...

No one 'won'. If anything the anarchists were correct in predicting that any movement away form centralisation would lead, once more, to a state.


I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable. Another between anarchists and certain Marxists on one hand and authoritarian Marxists is the role of the state in a post revolutionary society.
You fucking idiot.

You talk about authoritarianism (as opposed to "freedom"..?) and then claim anarchism is the scientific "ideology"!

Let's talk about things that exist and matter. Right now billions of people are being tied down as slaves to a wage system that exploits 90% and gives insane profit to the remaining 10%. Hundreds of thousands die every day indirectly because of this system, while the wealthy (that would probably include most anarchists reading this) worries about getting fat.

What is the antidote for this disease? Armed resistance, force. Will it take someone in command to overthrow this, then fucking sign me on. It does not matter. And anyone resisting is obviously counter revolutionary. It's not a compromise, in fact that's exactly what it isn't.

And there is no way to determine the "role of the state" (ohh the great evillll, the representatives of the people!) in a post revolutionary society. We will take what we can and go where history allows us, where the material conditions are fit for our needs as a society.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by Dyst+Sep 4 2006, 02:23 PM--> (Dyst @ Sep 4 2006, 02:23 PM)
apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 03:37 PM
And that is why there are so many successful communist regions around the world now ...

No one 'won'. If anything the anarchists were correct in predicting that any movement away form centralisation would lead, once more, to a state.


I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable. Another between anarchists and certain Marxists on one hand and authoritarian Marxists is the role of the state in a post revolutionary society.
You fucking idiot.

You talk about authoritarianism (as opposed to "freedom"..?) and then claim anarchism is the scientific "ideology"!

Let's talk about things that exist and matter. Right now billions of people are being tied down as slaves to a wage system that exploits 90% and gives insane profit to the remaining 10%. Hundreds of thousands die every day indirectly because of this system, while the wealthy (that would probably include most anarchists reading this) worries about getting fat.

What is the antidote for this disease? Armed resistance, force. Will it take someone in command to overthrow this, then fucking sign me on. It does not matter. And anyone resisting is obviously counter revolutionary. It's not a compromise, in fact that's exactly what it isn't.

And there is no way to determine the "role of the state" (ohh the great evillll, the representatives of the people!) in a post revolutionary society. We will take what we can and go where history allows us, where the material conditions are fit for our needs as a society. [/b]
Very Brutal Truth right there, :D

I agree - whatever our desires may be they will be unable in the end to truly influence at great length the proletariat's actions - the proletariat will follow on their own course, guided by their own interests, ruining anyone who bothers them.

Historically, Bakunin only became a anarchist / populist / involved at ALL Within the workers movement after he found out that the workers movement seeked to overthrow the state.

I personally like his works on Religion, Idealism, and God, but the rest is just really useless. His prose and literary skills were amazing, but mostly used to hide his unthought-of-theory.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by ApathyMaybe+--> (ApathyMaybe)OK I think I might be starting to get in over my head here. But I'll continue anyway. (By the way, educate me, what the hell is the Kuhnian sense of science? (Start a new thread perhaps.)) [/b] It's the idea that science works in paradigms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paradigms) explained best by Thomas Kuhn in his groundbreaking book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The+Structure+of+Scientific+Revolutions).

It's a good, fast read; your local public library probably has a copy.


Now I think that I might be using Karl Popper's sense of science, but I am not really certain. I don't know enough about theories of science. But Popper definitely rings a bell, and he is an author that I want to read more of. Well, Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl+Popper) was a reactionary philistine (one of the "many" who claims to "debunk" Marxism).


So was Freud scientific? I repeat:
Originally posted by [email protected]
Well Freud either created or popularized the field of psychology. His stuff was as scientific as, say, Aristotlean gravity.


AM
OK I think I am pretty deep here, um yes? Yes.


Yes, however, I don't think it is really possible. Human interactions are too complicated, too diverse to be mapped on any large scale. And any leftist social theory would have to be on a large scale. That is not to say that we cannot have theories of human interactions at this large scale, just I think that they cannot really be scientific. (And while Marx's theories fits this, as a theory of human interactions, personally I disagree with large chunks of it. Such as the class analysis,Have you heard of Complex Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex+Systems)? I think it would be an adequate way to model the economy scientifically.

It is, furthermore, feasible to apply game theory dynamically in an evolving game to yield a mathematical formalism of historical materialism.

Or in economics? You could easily represent that as a system of nonlinear equations. Then interconnect the mathematical formalisms to the system of nonlinear equations. A sort of cellular automata whose rules are determined by a complex systems.

To make a science of socialism, it must first be placed on a mathematical basis!


Also I think that just because it is a paradigm, doesn't mean that the actual theory is a scientific one. Unless you are saying that a thing is a paradigm, therefore it is scientific (even if none of the claims with in it are actually scientific). I give the two religious examples again and Freud.
From wikipedia:
Scientific paradigm: Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn gave this word its contemporary meaning when he adopted it to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline during a particular period of time. Kuhn himself came to prefer the terms exemplar and normal science, which have more exact philosophical meanings. However, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn defines a scientific paradigm as:
what is to be observed and scrutinized,

the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject,

how these questions are to be structured,

how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.

[D_Bokk]

Love Underground:

You're a hypocrit. You'll support Bakunin and think it's not anti-Semetic to do so. But the moment someone supports a group you don't like you'll whine like a little baby that they're anti-Semetic. You're pathetic.

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann
Well, leftism is short for the capitalist left, as opposed to, of course, the communist left.
Since when?

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Dyst+Sep 4 2006, 02:23 PM--> (Dyst @ Sep 4 2006, 02:23 PM)
apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 03:37 PM
And that is why there are so many successful communist regions around the world now ...

No one 'won'. If anything the anarchists were correct in predicting that any movement away form centralisation would lead, once more, to a state.


I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable. Another between anarchists and certain Marxists on one hand and authoritarian Marxists is the role of the state in a post revolutionary society.
You fucking idiot.

You talk about authoritarianism (as opposed to "freedom"..?) and then claim anarchism is the scientific "ideology"!

Let's talk about things that exist and matter. Right now billions of people are being tied down as slaves to a wage system that exploits 90% and gives insane profit to the remaining 10%. Hundreds of thousands die every day indirectly because of this system, while the wealthy (that would probably include most anarchists reading this) worries about getting fat.

What is the antidote for this disease? Armed resistance, force. Will it take someone in command to overthrow this, then fucking sign me on. It does not matter. And anyone resisting is obviously counter revolutionary. It's not a compromise, in fact that's exactly what it isn't.

And there is no way to determine the "role of the state" (ohh the great evillll, the representatives of the people!) in a post revolutionary society. We will take what we can and go where history allows us, where the material conditions are fit for our needs as a society. [/b]
:X

Stalinist, maybe.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Originally posted by hoopla+Sep 4 2006, 11:19 PM--> (hoopla @ Sep 4 2006, 11:19 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:23 PM

apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 03:37 PM
And that is why there are so many successful communist regions around the world now ...

No one 'won'. If anything the anarchists were correct in predicting that any movement away form centralisation would lead, once more, to a state.


I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable. Another between anarchists and certain Marxists on one hand and authoritarian Marxists is the role of the state in a post revolutionary society.
You fucking idiot.

You talk about authoritarianism (as opposed to "freedom"..?) and then claim anarchism is the scientific "ideology"!

Let's talk about things that exist and matter. Right now billions of people are being tied down as slaves to a wage system that exploits 90% and gives insane profit to the remaining 10%. Hundreds of thousands die every day indirectly because of this system, while the wealthy (that would probably include most anarchists reading this) worries about getting fat.

What is the antidote for this disease? Armed resistance, force. Will it take someone in command to overthrow this, then fucking sign me on. It does not matter. And anyone resisting is obviously counter revolutionary. It's not a compromise, in fact that's exactly what it isn't.

And there is no way to determine the "role of the state" (ohh the great evillll, the representatives of the people!) in a post revolutionary society. We will take what we can and go where history allows us, where the material conditions are fit for our needs as a society.
:X

Stalinist, maybe. [/b]
In my personal view the difference between Communard-Representives and Bourgeois-Politicians is mainly that it makes the job of being a Politician SUCK, so no one wants to do it. (Thus Killing Power-Ambition)

During the 1871 Commune, The Representives had extreme workloads, having to manage everything. They went insane just from all the work they had to do. Being in power isn't all fun in games, and for these guys their power was so slim but work so great, and reward the same that they could not possible harbor stronger ambitions.

No threat from the State there for then, then it will "wither away".

:D

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Dyst+--> (Dyst)You talk about authoritarianism (as opposed to "freedom"..?) and then claim anarchism is the scientific "ideology"![/b]Dear dear. I never said that, and while I admit my original post might not have been clear (I have fixed it) I did state in later posts that I didn't think this. Not only that, I have also (in different places) stated that I don't think that anarchism is an ideology per say. It is rather a set of ideologies.


I then think you lost your mind or something, the original post (thread starter) asked what the difference between two 19th century theorists. I simply stated that in my opinion, a difference between two groups of people on the left (anarchists and certain Marxists on one side and authoritarian Marxists on the other) is the issue of the state after revolution. It should be obvious what each groups opinion is, and what my opinion is. I don't know why you started ranting, for I never said anything about fighting capitalism (which we all want to do).

Unless of course you think that capitalism is the worst thing possible. I think that capitalism and the state are both equally bad. The state (even if it is called "the people's state") is an oppressive organisation. It is used by a minority to suppress and control the majority. I don't think it is needed after a revolution, because the majority will be in power! But as soon as you try bringing "representatives" in to the system, you give a minority the power to control the majority again. You get oppression. So fuck your state, fuck the bourgeois state, fuck all states.



RevolutionaryMarxist
I agree - whatever our desires may be they will be unable in the end to truly influence at great length the proletariat's actions - the proletariat will follow on their own course, guided by their own interests, ruining anyone who bothers them.The proletariat will not try and establish a state. They will not need to, they will be in power. When the majority is in power, they do not need a system to oppress the majority. And you talk as if the proletariat is one monolithic bloc. It is not. Some will want to take power and force their will on others. You get shitheads in all classes, even the wonderful proletariat.



ComradeRed, I have to concede the debate to you. I do not know enough about what I am attempting to debate. Congratulations. But do answer my this (a simple yes or not answer will suffice), so the religious paradigms that were replaced by scientific ones where not scientific correct?

[ComradeRed]

ComradeRed, I have to concede the debate to you. I do not know enough about what I am attempting to debate. Congratulations. But do answer my this (a simple yes or not answer will suffice), so the religious paradigms that were replaced by scientific ones where not scientific correct? Can you give an example of this? Because the "religious" paradigms (e.g. in Astrophysics) were adopted from times of olde.

The thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth dates back to Ptolemy. The Church simply adopted it as its official astrophysics view. It existed regardless of the existence of the church.

It doesn't affect whether the paradigm is scientific or not.

I can't really imagine a "religious scientific paradigm" since religion stole everything from superstition and pre-existing ideas.

[apathy maybe]

Can you give an example of this? Because the "religious" paradigms (e.g. in Astrophysics) were adopted from times of olde.

The thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth dates back to Ptolemy. The Church simply adopted it as its official astrophysics view. It existed regardless of the existence of the church.

It doesn't affect whether the paradigm is scientific or not.

I can't really imagine a "religious scientific paradigm" since religion stole everything from superstition and pre-existing ideas.Argh. Paradigms exist that were adopted or created by religion (it does not matter which). I gave two examples above, creationism is one. It was superseded by the scientific evolution.

You say that science works on paradigms. I am asking if all paradigms are scientific?

If your answer is yes, then creationism must also be classed as scientific, which it is obviously not. (Creationism is obviously not scientific according to the falsification idea of science.) If your answer is no, then it is possible that historical materialism is also not scientific.

Actually another question: is Aristotlean gravity scientific?

I have also done a bit more reading since I last posted (instead of doing uni work), and even though I can't really articulate my reasons very well, I am going to stand by my claim that Marxism is not scientific. (And because I can't articulate my reasons, I am not going to post them.)

[ComradeRed]

Argh. Paradigms exist that were adopted or created by religion (it does not matter which). I gave two examples above, creationism is one. It was superseded by the scientific evolution. Well, by the Popperian sense of science, it was a good theory: it made definite predictions that were falsifiable, and explained a body of observeable phenomena.

Fotrunately, Creationism has since been debunked in every way a theory can be debunked...making it a poor quality theory (unless you are Popperian). But Creationism isn't a paradigm, it's a theory.



You say that science works on paradigms. I am asking if all paradigms are scientific?

If your answer is yes, then creationism must also be classed as scientific, which it is obviously not. (Creationism is obviously not scientific according to the falsification idea of science.) If your answer is no, then it is possible that historical materialism is also not scientific. The problem is that Creationism isn't a paradigm as there is no clearly defined set of analytical tools; it's a theory as it is an explanation of phenomena.

Marxism isn't a theory because it doesn't explain phenomena; rather it is a paradigm as it provides a set of analytical tools to accomplish this.

It has what is to be observed and scrutinized,

the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject,

how these questions are to be structured,

how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.
That makes it a scientific paradigm. Not all paradigms are scientific if it doesn't fulfill that criteria.


Actually another question: is Aristotlean gravity scientific? Well, yes.

It was replaced by a new Paradigm because of its inability to answer problems (e.g. the fact that in a vacuum objects of different masses fall at the same rate).

This was in turn replaced when it had problems answering what happens when the observer and the observed are at relatively different reference frames.

That was replaced when the reference frames are accelerated or not.

As you can plainly tell, it's a number of paradigm shifts. This evolutionary process allows explanations to be more coherent and logical than they were before; despite however intuitive or appealing the earlier paradigms may have been.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+Sep 3 2006, 09:37 PM--> (Citizen Zero @ Sep 3 2006, 09:37 PM)
apathy [email protected] 28 2006, 10:37 AM
I think that one of the main 'conflicts' today between Marxists and anarchists is on the issue of science. Marxism isn't scientific, it isn't falsifiable.
Is this based on the assumption that anarchism is scientific? Give me one example. [/b]
It has as its basis Marx's paradigm of Historical Materialism and accepts his analysis of capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 4 2006, 11:10 AM
his [Bakunin] "secret society" bullshit
What people fail to understand when they criticise Bakunin for these "secret societies" is that he lived first of all in Russia and then in other equally reactionary countries on Mainland Europe.

Bakunin lived in a time of massive reaction, and unlike Marx never fled to a comparatively democratic country as Britain, which allowed political activism. There was a need for secrecy otherwise groups would be smashed and their members arrested, exiled, imprisoned or executed.

When you criticise Bakunin for this reason, it must be done so in its historical context.

[TC]

The fact that Prince Bakunin believed that a tiny "Secret Alliance" of his underground elite could stage coup-detats without the participation of the working class or population at large showed that he was far more of a "vanguardist" than Marx and Lenin who also lived in a time of reaction but never had such pretenses.


Originally posted by Prince Bakunin sayz
It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

This association has its origin in the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies...organize, not the army of the Revolution...but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people.

There need not be a great number of these men. One hundred revolutionaries, strongly and earnestly allied, would suffice for the international organization of all of Europe. Two or three hundred revolutionaries will be enough for the organization of the largest country.



So there you have it, a tiny elite will be our saviors, this has nothing to do with living in the era of reaction it has to do with wanting to be a "general staff" over the people who it will direct as its army, where just two hundred "secret brothers" should stage a coup in a nation a hundred million.

Marx and Lenin on the other hand knew that the working classes would free themselves and they helped organize mass movements of workers, rather secret societies of russian aristocrats and royals fantasizing about some sort of palace coup.

And by the way, you know who can afford to live in 'secret societies'? Rich people like Prince Bakunin and Prince Kropotkin who don't have to work. The authoritarian anarchist vision is out of touch with the people and with reality.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by TragicClown+Sep 5 2006, 12:56 PM--> (TragicClown @ Sep 5 2006, 12:56 PM)
Prince Bakunin sayz
It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

This association has its origin in the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies...organize, not the army of the Revolution...but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people.

There need not be a great number of these men. One hundred revolutionaries, strongly and earnestly allied, would suffice for the international organization of all of Europe. Two or three hundred revolutionaries will be enough for the organization of the largest country.
[/b]
Historical. Context.

Anyway, it's a position that he changed after the Paris Commune.


Rich people like Prince Bakunin and Prince Kropotkin who don't have to work. The authoritarian anarchist vision is out of touch with the people and with reality.

Ad hominem attacks. You’re argumentation is extremely poor.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 11:56 AM
The fact that Prince Bakunin believed that a tiny "Secret Alliance" of his underground elite could stage coup-detats without the participation of the working class or population at large showed that he was far more of a "vanguardist" than Marx and Lenin
Libertarian-revolutionaries should be incredibly critical of his "shadow vanguardism" , and thankfully, I think everyone is. I certainly don't know any anarchists that advocate this form of vanguard, though I know pleanty of Leninists who are worringly uncritical of Bolshevik Vanguardism, and the so called democracy and Accountability (but I'm not in the mood to go off on that tangant)

But what I can't get my head around is how "vanguardism" is a criticism coming from a Leninist? In fact, that quote seems remarkably in line with your revolutionary 'preferences' ...of course he doesn't mention accountability and democracy - but I don't think he's far off the mark of Lenin.

Do you prefer Bakunins revolutionary Elite approach to the decenteralised revolutionary principals of Libertarian Communism?

[Entrails Konfetti]

I don't know if it's right to pin them against eachother like this, for one thing it was Marx who forumulated that people will desire change through consciousness (class struggle) and not by some moral eternal truth, and from that all types of Communists (except the Christian-Communists--the organization before the Communist League was a communal Christian organization) incorporated that into their theory. The study of how material circumstances in the past present and future influence peoples consciousness is historical materialism is at the core of modern Communism, something which we all uphold-- in that sense we're all Marxists.

But as for the question of a Communist organization, both of them really didn't leave a complete idea about how to go about this, probably because they both figured that you can't have a fixed rigid figure because the future develops and aquires new ways of doing things than from the past.

I speculate that Marx and Bakunin just didn't like eachother.

[ComradeRed]

I speculate that Marx and Bakunin just didn't like eachother. From what I can tell from the literature, I think it began as a friendly competition that went ugly.

Bakunin later comments that both he and Marx acted too harshly towards each other, and Bakunin was unhappy about that.

Just my two cents.

[Leo]

Originally posted by El Kablamo
I speculate that Marx and Bakunin just didn't like eachother.

This is a quite right speculation :lol:

Marx actually did like Bakunin before their feud, he admired Bakunin's enthusiasim and debating skills. When Bakunin joined the First International, Marx was quite happy about it, and they did work pretty well together. Proof: The events in France. But their feud was personal.

I made a research about the split of the first international and I have a pretty neat story about Marx and Bakunin's feud. I had posted it before, but what the heck:

Okay, so the first international was debating wether they should keep inheritence or not. Of course Marx and Engels were completely against inheritence, and they excepted members of this revolutionary organization to be like them on this, and most of the members were mostly like them. Bakunin however was supporting the right to inherit, apparently he was expecting to inherit lots of money from a relative, and he arranged a meting to vote this. Of course Marx was like "Oh my god <_< is this guy for real?" and he sent his tailor to represent him in the meeting. So Bakunin passionatly roared and defended the right to inherit however members of the international decided that they were collectively against inheritance with an overwhelming majority. Apparently Bakunin didn&#39;t take this too well :lol:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+Sep 5 2006, 05:17 PM--> (ComradeRed @ Sep 5 2006, 05:17 PM)
I speculate that Marx and Bakunin just didn&#39;t like eachother. From what I can tell from the literature, I think it began as a friendly competition that went ugly. [/b]
It began over the First International&#39;s position on inhereitence. Bakunin, supported by a large delegation on the International, called for the abolition of inheretience rights immediately, whereas Marx argued that this was fallacous and "reactionary"; that inhereitence rights could only be abolished in the process of social transformation.


History of the First International
This was the question concerning the right of inheritance, which was raised by some of the French delegates led by Bakunin. Brismee, in the name of the committee which had been appointed to report on the question, informed the congress that the majority of the committee adopted the outlook sponsored by Bakunin, and he placed a resolution to this effect before the delegates. The right of inheritance, constituting as it does an essential feature of individual ownership, has powerfully contributed to the passing of landed property and social wealth into the hands of a few, to the detriment of the many, and consequently it is one of the gravest obstacles to the transference of the land to the collectivity. On the other hand, the right of inheritance, no matter how restricted it may be, by preventing individuals from having absolutely the same possibilities of moral and material development, constitutes an unrighteous privilege which is a permanent menace to social equity. Therefore the congress, having adopted the principle of collective ownership, had, logically, to agree to the complete and radical abolition of the right of inheritance, this abolition being one of the indispensable prerequisites to the enfranchisment of Labour.

In the name of the General Council, Eccarius presented another report, which obviously represented Marx’s views. Herein the right of inheritance was explained to be, not the cause, but the legal outcome of the existing economic system. Consequently, the abolition of the right of inheritance would be the natural result of the general transformation of society leading to the disappearance of private ownership of the means of production. But the abolition of the right of inheritance could not itself serve as the starting-point of the social transformation; the attempt to bring about such a sequence would be fallacious in theory and reactionary in practice. The right of inheritance could only be successfully attacked during a phase of social transition when the old economic base still persisted, but the proletariat had attained enough political power to effect radical modifications in the legal system. Among such transitional measures competent to serve the ends of social enfranchisement, were first, an increase of legacy duty, and secondly, a restriction of the right of bequest.[199]

Bakunin delivered a powerful speech in defence of the committee’s report. While agreeing that what were called legal or political rights had, throughout history, been nothing but the expression or the product of pre-existent facts, he went on to say that it was no less certain that law in its turn became the cause of subsequent facts. Law was thus a very real and very potent phenomenon, and law must be annulled by those who wished to inaugurate a new social system. Thus the right of inheritance, being at first the outcome of the forcible appropriation of natural and social wealth, subsequently became the foundation of the political State and the legally established family, which guaranteed and sanctioned individual ownership. That is why the right of inheritance must be abolished. He maintained that he was eminently practical in his desire that this right should be abolished. It was true that the forcible expropriation of the small agriculturists would arouse strong opposition, and would make the petty landowners side with the reaction. It was therefore necessary, for the time being, to leave them undisturbed in their holdings. But what would happen if the right of bequest were not abolished? The peasants would transmit their holdings to their children, as private property, and with the sanction of the State. But if, while the extant social system were being liquidated, the political and legal liquidation of the State were simultaneously achieved, if the right of inheritance were abolished, what would be left to the peasants? Nothing but the fact of ownership; and this ownership, devoid of legal sanction and deprived of the powerful protection of the State, could easily be modified by the pressure of events and revolutionary forces.

The result of the voting on the committee’s resolution concerning the right of inheritance, was as follows: ayes, 32; noes, 23; abstentions, 13; absent, 7. The voting on the resolution drawn up by the General Council was: ayes, 19; noes, 37; abstentions, 6; absent, 13. Thus even the committee’s resolution failed to secure a clear majority of all the delegates, and therefore it was not formally adopted. But there was a clear majority against the General Council’s proposal, 37 out of a total of 62 delegates present.[200] The first open conflict between Marx and Bakunin had ended in a victory for the latter, and thus it was that the General Council came to realise how grave a danger was germinating in the womb of the International. Such was the beginning of the ruthless struggle between rival trends, a struggle which was to rive the International in sunder.

History of the First International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/ch10.htm)

[emokid08]

I choose Bakunin. He had great foresight and predicted the future totalitarian nature of the Red Beauracracy. I&#39;ve heard all the nasty things about Bakunin, but aside from all that, I think his Libertarianism wins out over Marx&#39;s Statism.

:banner: :star: :AO: :A: :redstar: