Would anarchists?

[elmo sez]

What if there was a revolution and it was leaning more on the leninist/trotskyist side of things, it had a majority support - would anarchists here support it ? And on its success try to work within the new workers state to speed up its disolution (with the ultimatum that if the power of the state was strenghtened and not weakened that a new revolution would begin) or would you keep up the war imediatly and oppose the new state violently ?

[Clarksist]

I would fight against the government, but not in the name of the "party". I think a radicalized left would generally be a good thing, and would keep the "party" in check.

[which doctor]

I would oppose the new state.

"Worker's" states are little more than bureaucratic nightmares that have never progressed to communism so far.

I don't see how a state could peacefully dissolve seeing it's not in the class interests of the bureaucrats who run all the smoke and mirrors.

[elmo sez]

FoB so would you continue the war against the new state violently ?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:02 PM
I don't see how a state could peacefully dissolve seeing it's not in the class interests of the bureaucrats who run all the smoke and mirrors.
Can you define 'smoke and mirrors'?

And what if, as Lenin posited, these 'beuraucrats' were elected workers, directly accountable and were paid the wokring-man's wage - there would be no 'class interest' other than prole involved

[liberationjunky]

I would still support it. Its much better than our current system. I wouldn't change to a leninist but i dont understand why you wouldn't support the better of the two choices.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by elmo [email protected] 1 2006, 10:08 PM
FoB so would you continue the war against the new state violently ?
If a Socialist Revolution was a realistic consideration at present this question would be appropriate. At the moment it's just nit-picking.

[elmo sez]

Nit picking or trying to find common ground between groups that are right now very divided ... just trying to get a feel for opinions

[which doctor]

FoB so would you continue the war against the new state violently ?
Since the state would most likely react to me in a violent way, then yes, I would retaliate in a violent manner as well.


Can you define 'smoke and mirrors'?
States that are made to look all nice and democratic but in reality are marred with inefficient bureaucrats and corruption.


And what if, as Lenin posited, these 'beurocrats' were elected workers, directly accountable and were paid the wokring-man's wage - there would be no 'class interest' other than prole involved
Well, class interests are a little more complicated than just bourgeois(the oppressor) and proletariat(the oppressed). People working for the government have their own interests since it is the government who employs them.


I would still support it. Its much better than our current system. I wouldn't change to a leninist but i dont understand why you wouldn't support the better of the two choices.
ARGH, more dualism! There are more than 2 choices!

[bombeverything]

What if there was a revolution and it was leaning more on the leninist/trotskyist side of things, it had a majority support - would anarchists here support it ? And on its success try to work within the new workers state to speed up its disolution (with the ultimatum that if the power of the state was strenghtened and not weakened that a new revolution would begin) or would you keep up the war imediatly and oppose the new state violently?

I would actively fight against the creation of a new state. Why settle for anything less if things had come that far?


Its much better than our current system. I wouldn't change to a leninist but i dont understand why you wouldn't support the better of the two choices.

That is like saying voting works. I don't care if one 'choice' is 'better' than the other, I would oppose them both. As anarchists we are against all forms of authority, remember? If you would be happy with a leninist/trotskyist 'workers state' then why bother being an anarchist?


And what if, as Lenin posited, these 'beuraucrats' were elected workers, directly accountable and were paid the wokring-man's wage - there would be no 'class interest' other than prole involved

It does not matter if they are paid the same. The control they have over things translates into a material advantage. If the situation above actually truly existed why would there be a need for a state?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:32 PM
It does not matter if they are paid the same. The control they have over things translates into a material advantage. If the situation above actually truly existed why would there be a need for a state?
Well since it appears you can't read...

"These 'beuraucrats' were elected workers, directly accountable and were paid the working-man's wage"

[Umoja]

If by Marxist government you mean a government that tells workers what to do, instead of giving them a choice in the matter, I'd say no. I'd be the first one fighting against it. Liberation from capitalist masters only to be enslaved again by bueracrats? No thanks.

[The Grey Blur]

If by Marxist government you mean a government that tells workers what to do

Here's a question: If a government (soviet) is composed of workers then rather than telling 'workers what to do' they'd well...*scratches head*...well, they'd be telling themselves what to do wouldn't they?

Hmm...


Liberation from capitalist masters only to be enslaved again by bueracrats?
:lol: I've yet to hear how Anarchist decision-making would be different than that proposed by myself so far

[Taevus]

I would not support it.

[bombeverything]

"These 'beuraucrats' were elected workers, directly accountable and were paid the working-man's wage"

No I can read. You should learn how to spell. Why is there a need for a state then? Are the workers incapable of running their own affairs? I think the issue here is the question of what constitutes a 'state'. If these workers were directly elected and their only role was to communicate the message of the group then I would not consider this a 'state'. I would, however, consider it a 'state' if they were there to 'represent' the workers and thus make decisions on their behalf.


Here's a question: If a government (soviet) is composed of workers then rather than telling 'workers what to do' they'd well...*scratches head*...well, they'd be telling themselves what to do wouldn't they?

Hmm...

If workers can make their own decisions why do we need a government?

[The Grey Blur]

Why is there a need for a state then?
To crush your Anarchist asses

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 2 2006, 12:35 AM

Why is there a need for a state then?
To crush your Anarchist asses

:rolleyes: This thread is really getting to you isn't it? I wonder why. You posted so you have to accept that people will actually respond to your comments. Deal with it or leave. Or maybe answer the question? Note: at the same time I am not necessarily disagreeing with your last post. The role of the state is indeed to wipe out all opposition to it's rule and that would obviously include anarchists.

[bcbm]

I would probably work within the state as a left-antagonist in order to continually progress things. I wouldn't bother with arms unless the state acted against me, or my comrades.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by elmo [email protected] 1 2006, 10:00 PM
What if there was a revolution and it was leaning more on the leninist/trotskyist side of things, it had a majority support - would anarchists here support it ? And on its success try to work within the new workers state to speed up its disolution (with the ultimatum that if the power of the state was strenghtened and not weakened that a new revolution would begin) or would you keep up the war imediatly and oppose the new state violently ?
I'd see how things worked

if it was acceptable, i'd go along with it. The revolution isnt something which is going to be exactly how I want it to be.


If however it completely fucks up, well then yes i'll resist it, violently if need be.

[Umoja]

If a revolution happened in America, in the communist sense, most anarchist would realize that their ideas were already lost. The mystical revolution that communist speak of wouldn't usher in any type of anarchy that most anarchist would ever expect to see, it'd just need to a new state to hate against. We'd all congregate on online forums hosted on "ClintonLives.com" (because she'd be the Martyr of the revolution) and argue over details of a new world order with the Libertarians. :lol:

[which doctor]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 1 2006, 08:02 PM
I would probably work within the state as a left-antagonist in order to continually progress things. I wouldn't bother with arms unless the state acted against me, or my comrades.
Historically speaking, nearly all states (of any kind) have used violence against anarchists.

[Clarksist]

Well, class interests are a little more complicated than just bourgeois(the oppressor) and proletariat(the oppressed). People working for the government have their own interests since it is the government who employs them.

Although, if they also had to go on with their other job, and were paid by merely that...


Historically speaking, nearly all states (of any kind) have used violence against anarchists.

That's true. But a truly socialist government would only ask for peace and for democracy to decide.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Sep 1 2006, 08:32 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Sep 1 2006, 08:32 PM)
elmo [email protected] 1 2006, 10:00 PM
What if there was a revolution and it was leaning more on the leninist/trotskyist side of things, it had a majority support - would anarchists here support it ? And on its success try to work within the new workers state to speed up its disolution (with the ultimatum that if the power of the state was strenghtened and not weakened that a new revolution would begin) or would you keep up the war imediatly and oppose the new state violently ?
I'd see how things worked

if it was acceptable, i'd go along with it. The revolution isnt something which is going to be exactly how I want it to be.


If however it completely fucks up, well then yes i'll resist it, violently if need be.[/b]
But what if it just stagnated? Some socialists support a state that is 'transitory', but when in history has the creation of a socialist state led to communism, or anything that even resembled democracy?

Others promote the Sweden-style high-tax social-democracy type of permanent socialist state, where the people are, in some ways, legitimately taken care of by 'collective society'. However, when the economy falters, the system regresses. Programs suffer cutbacks, and the welfare state falls apart. I think these types of socialist states are unstable at best, since a few reforms in the wrong direction would significantly degrade the quality of the system.

I don't want the quality of my life and my living conditions to be determined by a state, other people's taxes, or the economy. I don't want to settle for a reformed state because it's 'better than what we have now'. In fact, the last thing I want is to settle for a reformed system, where 'representatives' of the people make an 'average person's wage'. I want to never have to make a wage ever again. I want you to never have to work for a wage ever again. I want to make something useful. I don't want to make money.


I'm young, I won't lie. But if I've learned one thing in my life, it's that in the end a person can only ever depend on themselves for anything they want or need, and that they will do whatever needs to be done to reach those ends. The individual knows what is best for them at any point in time, and control of people and resources (the function of a 'state') only stifles human potential by denying people access to resources, and/or trying to control their output (as, say, according to a market, or state 'quota').


I've yet to hear how Anarchist decision-making would be different than that proposed by myself so far

Let the people decide for themselves what is best for them and their communities. Let them build and create the things they want and need, and let them decide the best way to distribute these things. State intervention is unnecessary; all the existence of a state does is open up countless avenues for siphoning off value from labour, and the continued oppression, control, and exploitation of some people in favour of others. Those who control the rations control the rationing.

I'm just not into that. I won't trust anyone who claims to act in my interest. I act in my own interest. And I don't need anyone to represent me. I am quite capable of representing myself. And so is everyone else.

Communities, and individuals within those communities, should have autonomy over themselves, and themselves alone.

To answer the question, I think it's a waste of human lives and human potential to not oppose the creation of a 'workers state' after a revolution. I know what I'm fighting for. And the creation of a new state/hierarchy/class system/beaurocracy "in the interest of the people" is not it.

[apathy maybe]

I doubt that you would see a revolution with a majority being Leninists as such. I think that there is more likely going to be a revolution, some people will be Leninists, some anarchists, some whatever, and the majority will be just sick of capitalism and the corruption and destruction. They will not want Leninism, or anarchism, they will want an end to the crap.

As do I now. And part of the crap is the state and government. So if a group did try and seize power (Leninists or anyone else), I would oppose them. Violently. We do not need the crap of someone telling us how to live our lives, what we can do, where we can work etc. Fuck capitalism, and fuck the state.

(And the reason states are opposed to anarchists, because anarchists want to do away with the state. Whether it be capialist or socialist or whatever, states will try and defend themselves, and anarchists will try and destroy them.)

[CheRev]

I wouldn´t support a new state. Any so-called Anarchist that would is not an Anarchist. That´s as simple as it gets. If you support a state you can´t be an Anarchist... sorry.

Whether I´d use violence as means of change would depend on factors at the time.

[Forward Union]

I wouldn't support the formation of a new state. I would fight in the revolution against the current state, and hopefully secure my own community. If the revolution were to happen today, it's likely the anarchists would take the town I live in. We are simply far more numerous than the authorotarian left, far more active, and supported by other grassroots activists. But even that ain't that good :lol:

[Ceeker]

I would oppose it. I probably wouldn't do so violently (unless things were really looking bad, or violence was used against workers), but I would continue to be politically active.

[Enragé]

But what if it just stagnated? Some socialists support a state that is 'transitory', but when in history has the creation of a socialist state led to communism, or anything that even resembled democracy

Well then i'd do the same thing as i do now.

Try to organise, debate, agitate, try to get a (new) revolution.

And yes that implies violence if need be.


Others promote the Sweden-style high-tax social-democracy type of permanent socialist state, where the people are, in some ways, legitimately taken care of by 'collective society'. However, when the economy falters, the system regresses. Programs suffer cutbacks, and the welfare state falls apart. I think these types of socialist states are unstable at best, since a few reforms in the wrong direction would significantly degrade the quality of the system.

Sweden and the like arent socialist.
Any self-respecting (revolutionary) socialist does not want this.

Its just capitalism where they try to remove the rough edges, but they never succeed, capitalist logic dictates that


I don't want the quality of my life and my living conditions to be determined by a state, other people's taxes, or the economy. I don't want to settle for a reformed state because it's 'better than what we have now'. In fact, the last thing I want is to settle for a reformed system, where 'representatives' of the people make an 'average person's wage'. I want to never have to make a wage ever again. I want you to never have to work for a wage ever again. I want to make something useful. I don't want to make money.

same here comrade

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by bombeverything+Sep 2 2006, 12:50 AM--> (bombeverything @ Sep 2 2006, 12:50 AM)
Permanent [email protected] 2 2006, 12:35 AM

Why is there a need for a state then?
To crush your Anarchist asses

:rolleyes: This thread is really getting to you isn't it? I wonder why. You posted so you have to accept that people will actually respond to your comments. Deal with it or leave. Or maybe answer the question? Note: at the same time I am not necessarily disagreeing with your last post. The role of the state is indeed to wipe out all opposition to it's rule and that would obviously include anarchists. [/b]
I was too tired to debate (if you check the time it's about midnight)

But thanks for the free psychiatric analysis

[Delta]

I would resist the state as much as I possibly could. I would try to convince others that it wasn't the correct way to go and as LoveUnderground said, I would hope to secure my own community for libertarian ideals. Once my community was secured, I would hope to secure others.

If the worker's state was truly democratically controlled, then I can't imagine them wanting to suppress an anarchist community which was also directly democratic. However, I think that's unlikely to happen and violent resistance will unfortunately be necessary.

Giving into the state during a revolution would be a complete waste of the revolution's momentum.

[Cult of Reason]

I would react violently to anyone trying to set up a new state during the revolution. However, if it ever got to the point where it seemed inevitable that they would win, I would flee as I would probably be on oe of their lists.

That is why, if I live to see a revolution, I will encourage people to shoot people who suggest building a new state apparatus. Or do it myself if the revolution is soon enough. Prevention is better than cure.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by elmo [email protected] 1 2006, 11:00 PM
What if there was a revolution and it was leaning more on the leninist/trotskyist side of things, it had a majority support - would anarchists here support it ?
It would very much depend on the formation of the state and its attitude towards anarchists.

During the Russian revolution, the very first revolution of its kind, the anarchists [largely], having no other historical precedence sided with the Bolsheviks.

Unfortunately as time progressed it became very clear that the warnings of Bakunin and the criticisms of the state by anarchists started to become a reality. At this point it was necessary for anarchists to propagandise against the state, ultimately to their destruction.

1921, at Peter Kropotkin's funeral in Russia, was the last time Lenin allowed anarchists to assembly. After that, all rights of assembly, freedom of speech and activity were ruthlessly suppressed by the Bolshevik regime.

The issue here is that the state is defined differently between Marxists, Leninists and anarchists. In the Marxist sense of a state, I can quite easily support that within the context of decentralised workers collectives and militias (which is essentially anarchism).

If however, the state became a centralised structure of control dominated by a party hierarchy it would be very necessary, as history has clearly demonstrated from the failed Leninist revolutions, to struggle against it.

Changing one centralised state structure for another is not how you create communism. As Bakunin said: "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'The Peoples' stick."

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:17 PM
Historically speaking, nearly all states (of any kind) have used violence against anarchists.
Sure, but I'm willing to give comrades the benefit of the doubt.


I wouldn´t support a new state. Any so-called Anarchist that would is not an Anarchist. That´s as simple as it gets. If you support a state you can´t be an Anarchist... sorry.

Nonsense. I may not be a fan of states, but I can recognize when they're doing something good and acting better than their predecessors and that attacking such a state could benefit my enemies.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:54 PM
That is why, if I live to see a revolution, I will encourage people to shoot people who suggest building a new state apparatus. Or do it myself if the revolution is soon enough. Prevention is better than cure.
Don't shoot people who suggest things, use reason instead. If they try to force a state upon you, then yes, shoot them.

[Cult of Reason]

It is my impression that those who would suggest a state in such a situation would have a one to one relationship with those who want to have a position in the state heirarchy once it is constructed, and hence are those who would wish to force such a construct onto others, and so would try to do such when the opportunity presented itself.

[LoneRed]

by reading this thread, how can people not see the anti-worker position of anarchism? they are against the formation of the workers state, the only state that can properly lead to their emancipation, for the empowerment of workers.

[bombeverything]

I was too tired to debate (if you check the time it's about midnight)

Ok fair enough (time zones, etc).


But thanks for the free psychiatric analysis

Anytime :D.


by reading this thread, how can people not see the anti-worker position of anarchism? they are against the formation of the workers state, the only state that can properly lead to their emancipation, for the empowerment of workers.

What? We are against a workers 'state' not workers control. How is making a distinction between organisation and hierarchy an 'anti-worker' stance.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:12 PM
by reading this thread, how can people not see the anti-worker position of anarchism?
How could you see it?

[LoneRed]

The only form of workers power before communism, is the workers state, phrase it how you want, it has many names, but if you are against the workers state, you are against working class empowerment, if you just call it communes, or collectives or what have you, and its the same in principle than thats another story, but if you do not want the workers to take the power in the form of a workers state, in order to defend themselves against the backlash of the bourgeoisie you are anti-prole.

granted some anarchists here are pro-worker, but dont count your blessings.

[KC]

I wouldn´t support a new state.

Nice avatar you've got there. :lol:

[anomaly]

'State' today is a meaningless word. My reaction to the structure would be based on my observances at that time.

However, semantics aside, I would always be fighting for anarchy.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:15 PM
The only form of workers power before communism, is the workers state, phrase it how you want, it has many names, but if you are against the workers state, you are against working class empowerment, if you just call it communes, or collectives or what have you, and its the same in principle than thats another story, but if you do not want the workers to take the power in the form of a workers state, in order to defend themselves against the backlash of the bourgeoisie you are anti-prole.

granted some anarchists here are pro-worker, but dont count your blessings.
Most anarchists use "state" in a different way than most Marxists, which I think is where a great deal of tension, confusion, etc arise. I suport the dictatorship of the proletariat.