Ok now for the leninists etc

[elmo sez]

the revolution is under way and its largely an anarchist one , anarchists have the majority of the support , would you oppose the direct transition to communism ? and try to slow the revolution down ? if you follow me

[More Fire for the People]

There is no such thing as an anarchist revolution. It would either fail as a revolution or fail post-revolution.

[The Grey Blur]

I would do an Orwell and join a tiny sect vacillating between the dominant Anarchism and the Leninists

POUM for teh win

[RaiseYourVoice]

i think from a leninist perspective... "i wouldnt oppose it, simply because it'll never happen"

[elmo sez]

i some how expected those answers ... how do you know it will never happen ?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 1 2006, 06:46 PM
There is no such thing as an anarchist revolution. It would either fail as a revolution or fail post-revolution.
And I'm guessing you have no evidence to back these claims up?

[Clarksist]

There is no such thing as an anarchist revolution. It would either fail as a revolution or fail post-revolution.

Nice side step to the question.

Even though, if it did fail "post-revolution" and that revolution was an anarchist one, then it is an anarchist revolution.

[apathy maybe]

I do not know why Leninists would oppose an anarchist revolution that had a majority of people on side. Surely they would be happy to move towards an anarchist (communist) society sooner then what might have happened if they had been in power.

[Clarksist]

I do not know why Leninists would oppose an anarchist revolution that had a majority of people on side. Surely they would be happy to move towards an anarchist (communist) society sooner then what might have happened if they had been in power.

How then, would their precious "party" be there for them to take hold of?

Democratic centrism does not lead to freedom. The state does not lead to statelessness. These are all for the proletariat to create.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:03 PM

I do not know why Leninists would oppose an anarchist revolution that had a majority of people on side. Surely they would be happy to move towards an anarchist (communist) society sooner then what might have happened if they had been in power.

How then, would their precious "party" be there for them to take hold of?

Democratic centrism does not lead to freedom. The state does not lead to statelessness. These are all for the proletariat to create.
Don't be mean. Leninists (I think) actually do want communism, they just see their way as more likely to get there. So while some Leninists might oppose an anarchist revolution, the smart ones will realise that communism would be just around the corner and join in.

[KC]

This question is bullshit, particularly because it lacks material conditions.

Moreover, I don't think there's such thing as "anarchist revolution". There's such thing as proletarian revolution implementing what Lenin wrote in State & Revolution, and that should be done if material conditions allow it.

[Vargha Poralli]

i think from a leninist perspective... "i wouldnt oppose it, simply because it'll never happen"


i agree with this opinion.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:03 AM

I do not know why Leninists would oppose an anarchist revolution that had a majority of people on side. Surely they would be happy to move towards an anarchist (communist) society sooner then what might have happened if they had been in power.

How then, would their precious "party" be there for them to take hold of?

Democratic centrism does not lead to freedom. The state does not lead to statelessness. These are all for the proletariat to create.
Democratic centralism does lead to freedom. beaurocratic centralism doesn't. Anarchism simply leads to chaos because there is no experience in a completely different system and no one knows what to do. No one can tell people what to do in order to survive even if elected by the people because there is no hiarchy and state. There's a reason that anarchism is associated with violence, riots, a chaos. That reason is that every time there is suddenly no state present, there is chaos and riots. That accomplishes nothing for the proletariat.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

[QUOTE=Hopscotch Anthill,Sep 1 2006, 06:46 PM] There is no such thing as an anarchist revolution. It would either fail as a revolution or fail post-revolution.
And I'm guessing you have no evidence to back these claims up?


The evidence is history and everything anarchism has been associated with.

[QUOTE]i think from a leninist perspective... "i wouldnt oppose it, simply because it'll never happen"

Exactly.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:23 PM
Anarchism simply leads to chaos because there is no experience in a completely different system and no one knows what to do. No one can tell people what to do in order to survive even if elected by the people because there is no hiarchy and state. There's a reason that anarchism is associated with violence, riots, a chaos. That reason is that every time there is suddenly no state present, there is chaos and riots. That accomplishes nothing for the proletariat.
You obviously have no understanding whatsoever of Anarchist theory

If an Anarchist revolution is taking place as Elmo is proposing then

1) Anarchism, as an ideology, would have to have a majority of support among workers

2) They would have formed themselves into self-governing committees or collectives

3) Statists, of whatever form would have to compromise with the larger grouping

Thus it is apparent that Anarchism is not 'anarchy' as you posit but simply direct proleteriat democracy.

Anarchism's true failing is that in it's refusal to use the state to crush beurgeois resistance it will find itself ruthlessly suppressed before it's reforms of society can take hold.

There are of course, deeper critiscisms of Anarchism but that at least should give you an idea of a rational anti-Anarchist argument instead of the cynical, pro-Capitalist crap you've spouted.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 2 2006, 04:20 PM

Anarchism's true failing is that in it's refusal to use the state to crush beurgeois resistance it will find itself ruthlessly suppressed before it's reforms of society can take hold.

Why can't the organized populace suppress bourgeois resistance?

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Delta+Sep 2 2006, 11:35 PM--> (Delta @ Sep 2 2006, 11:35 PM)
Permanent [email protected] 2 2006, 04:20 PM

Anarchism's true failing is that in it's refusal to use the state to crush beurgeois resistance it will find itself ruthlessly suppressed before it's reforms of society can take hold.

Why can't the organized populace suppress bourgeois resistance? [/b]
In the political implementation of Marxism, a politically organized armed populace of worker councils and communities will face bourgeois resistance. The only true difference is that anarchists believe that there will not be a section of the working class that will agitate and lead. They ignore something that is historically and socially true, that all revolutions have some sort of vangaud that is leading their certain class towards a certain goal. CNT is actually an organization that could really be considered "marxist". They practiced a strange form of reworded democratic centralism and they followed the principle that some sort of direct organization is needed in order to achieve socialism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 02:50 AM
This question is bullshit, particularly because it lacks material conditions.

Moreover, I don't think there's such thing as "anarchist revolution". There's such thing as proletarian revolution implementing what Lenin wrote in State & Revolution, and that should be done if material conditions allow it.
What a load of shit. There is a little event in history called the Spanish Revolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Sep 3 2006, 01:02 AM--> (violencia.Proletariat @ Sep 3 2006, 01:02 AM)
Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 02:50 AM
This question is bullshit, particularly because it lacks material conditions.

Moreover, I don't think there's such thing as "anarchist revolution". There's such thing as proletarian revolution implementing what Lenin wrote in State & Revolution, and that should be done if material conditions allow it.
What a load of shit. There is a little event in history called the Spanish Revolution. [/b]
Spain? I think not. Spain was a perfect example of anarchists who truley resembled that of marxists. CNT worked alongside the government, implemented democratic centralism, ruled with a iron fist on the streets of Barcelona and the rural areas of Catalonia, and even had what can be considered a "vangaurd" of political agitators that made up an invisible hierarchy of political and millitary leaders.

[violencia.Proletariat]

CNT worked alongside the government, implemented democratic centralism, ruled with a iron fist on the streets of Barcelona and the rural areas of Catalonia, and even had what can be considered a "vangaurd" of political agitators that made up an invisible hierarchy of political and millitary leaders.

The CNT bureacracy (which theoretically and in future attempts will be avoided or destroyed) worked alongside the government. That was clearly A MISTAKE!

Ruled with an iron fist on the streets of Barcelona? What are you talking about? If your referring to the republican government than yes! But they were disarming anarchists later in the war.

If you are referring to the affinity groups such as los solidarios, they were not a vanguard in a marxist leninist sense. We can get into semantics here, but whats the point. They had no power over the people, they were just very militant agitators.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 2 2006, 06:20 PM
Anarchism's true failing is that in it's refusal to use the state to crush beurgeois resistance it will find itself ruthlessly suppressed before it's reforms of society can take hold.
Do you really think that a state is necessary post-revolution in order to 'crush bourgeois resistance'? If there is bourgeois resistence, then it hasn't been a complete revolution, has it? If, post-revolution, sects of people organize to replace the capitalist system, don't you think the (now armed) 'proletariat' would do something to stop them? (Especially assuming, as in your example, that anarchist ideology did have the majority of support among the proletariat.)

Crushing bourgeois resistance should be up to the people, not a 'state', shouldn't it? Personally, I think I can tell the difference between someone who is working with me toward a common goal -building communities and the like- and someone trying to organize those communities to reinstate the capitalist order. And, simply put, I would hope to have the power to deal with those people myself, without relying on some kind of state militia or police squad to do it for me.

[LoneRed]

fyi, The people are the state. Workers state

DOP, remember

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:55 PM
fyi, The people are the state. Workers state

DOP, remember
If it's a dictatorship of the proletariat, then there must be someone being dictated to, and there's no guarantee that it will be limited to the 'bourgeoisie'. I want to abolish police, courts, prisons, and the like, not transfer their control to 'the workers, as represented by the party/state'.

And honestly, how much bourgeois resistence could one expect after a revolution? If everyone is armed, then how can a person (or group of people) hope to take control of any propety or the means of production without major backlash from all of the people around them? If the communist/anarchist ideology had majority support (enough to have materialized a successful revolution), then I would think that bourgeoisie resistance could be easily smothered by individuals and communities, without need for any state to come in and save them.

[KC]

If it's a dictatorship of the proletariat, then there must be someone being dictated to, and there's no guarantee that it will be limited to the 'bourgeoisie'.

You're right. It will be limited to all class enemies of the proletariat.


I want to abolish police, courts, prisons, and the like, not transfer their control to 'the workers, as represented by the party/state'.

And nobody wants to use the bourgeois state. You're obviously not very knowledgeable on marxist theory. The point is to destroy the bourgeois state and construct in its place a workers state, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat.



And honestly, how much bourgeois resistence could one expect after a revolution?

See: Russian Revolution 1917. ;)

[Whitten]

Would you anarchists join the Leninists if the revolution was ujnderway and the support mostly leninist? didnt think so. You despise the state, leninists despise wasting the chance at revolution.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by elmo [email protected] 2 2006, 12:44 AM
the revolution is under way and its largely an anarchist one , anarchists have the majority of the support , would you oppose the direct transition to communism ? and try to slow the revolution down ? if you follow me

what do you mean if the revolution was underway? Anarchism happens overnight remember. :lol:

;)