J.V. Stalin's Anarchism or Socialism?

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

It has come to the Chairman's attention that many in the anarchist and "anti authoritarian" fake Communist movement do not understand or do not know that Anarchism as a theory is bunk: this has been conclusively proven not just by me but by Karl Marx over 100 years ago and then again by a great Marxist-Leninist Comrade Stalin.

Perhaps it would be good advice for the dopey anarchists to stop smoking weed and start opening up a book and reading at how Stalin dissects the anarchist theory in his groundbreaking: "Anarchism or Socialism" ?

Because really we can only have one or the other.

Comrade Stalin's "Anarchism or Socialism?" Available complete. (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)

[Cryotank Screams]

It has come to the Chairman's attention

LMFAO!!

It takes a truly vain and pathetic person to need some bogus title to pump themselves up and give them a sense of intellectualism and importance.


Perhaps it would be good advice for the dopey anarchists to stop smoking weed and start opening up a book and reading at how Stalin dissects the anarchist theory in his groundbreaking: "Anarchism or Socialism" ?

Marijuana use has nothing to do with intellect dumbass, furthermore I would not call Stalin's little essay "dissecting," Anarchist theory, nor would I call it groundbreaking; he did not disprove anything.


Karl Marx over 100 years ago and then again by a great Marxist-Leninist Comrade Stalin.

Well I would assume Marx would disagree with Anarchist theory, due to ideological differences and his rivalry with Bakunin but I highly doubt he disproved the plausibility or validity of Anarchism, and I highly doubt the bumbling fool Stalin did either.

[Invader Zim]

Are you still here peddling this drivel? Most of the Stalin kiddies lose interest and leave to pester some other fools.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 10, 2006 01:43 am

It has come to the Chairman's attention

LMFAO!!

It takes a truly vain and pathetic person to need some bogus title to pump themselves up and give them a sense of intellectualism and importance.


Perhaps it would be good advice for the dopey anarchists to stop smoking weed and start opening up a book and reading at how Stalin dissects the anarchist theory in his groundbreaking: "Anarchism or Socialism" ?

Marijuana use has nothing to do with intellect dumbass, furthermore I would not call Stalin's little essay "dissecting," Anarchist theory, nor would I call it groundbreaking; he did not disprove anything.


Karl Marx over 100 years ago and then again by a great Marxist-Leninist Comrade Stalin.

Well I would assume Marx would disagree with Anarchist theory, due to ideological differences and his rivalry with Bakunin but I highly doubt he disproved the plausibility or validity of Anarchism, and I highly doubt the bumbling fool Stalin did either.
Weren't you a Maoist at one point in time?

On topic: This thread is worthless garbage, but it's something I'd expect from "the chairman".

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:53 pm
Weren't you a Maoist at one point in time?


Yes, however I just didn't agree with it anymore, I just couldn't keep defending an ideology that oppressed the working class, so I found a philosophy I agree with more, I think it is much more in tune with what I believe, with what I feel should happen, and what I read by Anarchist authors made sense, so I switched to Anarcho-Communism.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58118

[chimx]

someone should restrict this guy for spamming stalinist crap. he is not trying to promote discussion, just a cult of personality. this forum has a history of restricting stalinists that get out of hand like MLS, why are they making an exception for him this time?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:18 pm
someone should restrict this guy for spamming stalinist crap.
He has been restricted :hammer:

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] 10, 2006 02:59 am
Yes, however I just didn't agree with it anymore, I just couldn't keep defending an ideology that oppressed the working class, so I found a philosophy I agree with more, I think it is much more in tune with what I believe, with what I feel should happen, and what I read by Anarchist authors made sense, so I switched to Anarcho-Communism.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58118
Cool, I wish I had the ability to switch ideologies like TV channels. The way you put it, as suddenly "switching", rather than a process of some sort, goes best to show that you have indeed fully broken with Marxism.

[Black Dagger]

I love how you, Hiero and other 'stalinists', sorry... 'Marxist-Leninists' always make fun of people for showing signs of critical thought, 'wait, you mean you don't just stick dogmatically to the same position for your entire life?!!' Crazy radical i know, peoples ideas actually evolve :o
Oh, and I doubt you'd show the same bitterness if he was 'switching' to your corpse-ridden ideology. :rolleyes:

[Zeruzo]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10, 2006 12:00 pm
I love how you, Hiero and other 'Marxist-Leninists' always make fun of people for showing signs of critical though, 'wait, you mean you don't just stick dogmatically to the same position for your life?!!' Crazy radical i know, peoples ideas actually evolve :o
I doubt you'd show the same bitterness if he was 'switching' to your corpse-ridden ideology.
Evolve, yes...
He just switched ideologies like that, thats not evolving...
That just shows how un-educated he wa son his previous ideology, and how firm of a believer he was in his own thoughts. He'll probably break with anarchism maybe within a year, maybe 20... but he will...
I have far more respect for anarchists that stick to they're guns, then for 'Marxist-Leninists' that just called themselve 'Marxist-Leninist' for a year, and are totally un-educated on the subject, and switch to Anarchism like that...

[Black Dagger]

Evolve, yes...
He just switched ideologies like that, thats not evolving...
That just shows how un-educated he wa son his previous ideology, and how firm of a believer he was in his own thoughts. He'll probably break with anarchism maybe within a year, maybe 20... but he will...
I have far more respect for anarchists that stick to they're guns, then for 'Marxist-Leninists' that just called themselve 'Marxist-Leninist' for a year, and are totally un-educated on the subject, and switch to Anarchism like that...

Right, so you know Scarlet Hammer personally do you?

How long he was a M-L? Why he changed his ideas? How long he's been an anarchist etc. etc?

No? If not, you really have no basis from which to assume such authority on this matter.

[Zeruzo]

Right, so you Scarlet Hammer personally do you?

No, but reading the provided threath says enough...



How long he was a M-L? Why he changed his ideas? How long he's been an anarchist etc. etc?

It was more of a general statement. But still shows a lack of education on you're previous ideology if you change you're thought after reading 1 persons books extensively while not even trying to find out the Leninist counter-points.



No? If not, you really have no basis from which to assume such authority on this matter.

Well, the provided threath gives enough authority...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58118

[Black Dagger]

No, but reading the provided threath says enough...

Of course it doesnt, dont' be silly, you dont actually know ANYTHING about this comrade except for the small amount you've read on this board. As ive already pointed out you, you dont know anything about how long he was a M-L, how he came to questioning these ideas and how and why he changed positions, so no, simply reading the statement that a person has changed their POV is not a basis for any of broad statements and judgements you are making.


It was more of a general statement.

A general statement, so why did you repeatedly use the term 'he'?


Originally posted by you
He just switched ideologies like that, thats not evolving... That just shows how un-educated he wa son his previous ideology, and how firm of a believer he was in his own thoughts. He'll probably break with anarchism maybe within a year, maybe 20... but he will...

'He' and 'His' as in Scarlet Hammer, it was a statement obviously directed at SH, not to a 'general' people as you're now claiming, and as such makes a series of completely unsupported and baseless assertions, both as to his grasp of revolutionary theory, his committment to ideas and his personal character... all this despite the fact your only knowledge of this comrade comes from reading a couple of statements on an internet message board.



But still shows a lack of education on you're previous ideology if you change you're thought after reading 1 persons books extensively while not even trying to find out the Leninist counter-points.


Not really. I was a Marxist-Leninist for much longer than i have been an anarchist-communist, from the age of about 15 till about 20. Throughout this whole period i was not exposed to a single text on anarchism, and dismissed it as a completely impractical notion, anarchists as 'anti-organisation' and 'anarchism in practice' as chaos etc. - despite never reading much if anything of serious anarchist theory or analysis.

Nevertheless by this point in my political development i had accumulated criticisms of M-L as an ideology on my own terms independant of anarchism,the nail in my M-L coffin came with the reading of a single essay - of course it wasnt this essay that led me to change my ideas, but this was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

Im sure this is how it was with SH, and with most people generally, you begin a process of drift where you develop criticisms of these ideas that you hold, through debate or reflection, these build up and then you sit down and read something, an essay, or maybe have a conversation and that's it, you make the conscious decision to seek out a new perspective, something that accomodates your criticisms, and better reflects your vision of the communist movement, organisation, tactics etc.

'That' book, essay or conversation didnt cause you to 'switch', rather its the culmination of a much broader process of intellectual development.


Well, the provided threath gives enough authority...

Um... no it doesnt. All that thread provides is this,

'I have been reading Kropotkin quite extensively, and am getting very interested in Anarchism (as ironic as that may sound), so my question to the forum is, where are some good sites, and good books, that would contain good information on Anarchism, (mainly what I am looking for is theory).'

The words of someone who is interested in learning about a new perspective, that gives you fuck all 'authority' to make serious statements about this comrades theoretical development as a ML, or forumulate negative opinions of his personal character, committment etc.

[Zeruzo]

Of course it doesnt, dont' be silly, you dont actually know ANYTHING about this comrade except for the small amount you've read on this board. As ive already pointed out you, you dont know anything about how long he was a M-L, how he came to questioning these ideas and how and why he changed positions, so no, simply reading the statement that a person has changed their POV is not a basis for any of broad statements and judgements you are making.

I never said i knew how long he was a Marxist-Leninist, now did i...
How and why... well i might not know the why's... but i do know the hows... he started reading Kropotkin, quite simple.



A general statement, so why did you repeatedly use the term 'he'?

If i would be you i would re-read what i said, but just to make it simple, i'll quote myself:


I have far more respect for anarchists that stick to they're guns, then for 'Marxist-Leninists' that just called themselve 'Marxist-Leninist' for a year, and are totally un-educated on the subject, and switch to Anarchism like that...

For specifications: here i just stated that i have more respect for die-hard anarchists then for leninists that as a matter of speaking were only Marxist-Leninist for a year and then switch to anarchism, cause they dont know shit about the ideology in the first place.




'He' and 'His' as in Scarlet Hammer, if it was a statement obviously directed at SH, not to a 'general' people as you're now claiming, and as such makes a series of completely unsupported and baseless assertions, both as to his grasp of revolutionary theory, his committment to ideas and his personal character... all this despite the fact your only knowledge of this comrade comes from reading a couple of statements on an internet message board.

But where do i say that he only was a Marxist-Leninist for a year?




Not really. I was a Marxist-Leninist for much longer than i have been an anarchist-communist, from the age of about 15 till about 20. Throughout this whole period i was not exposed to a single text on anarchism, and dismissed it as a completely impractical notion, anarchists as 'anti-organisation' and 'anarchism in practice' as chaos etc. - despite never reading much if anything of serious anarchist theory or analysis.

That just shows a lack of knowledge on the ideology of anarchism, not a great amount of knowledge on the ideology of Marxist-Leninism...



Nevertheless by this point in my political development i had accumulated criticisms of M-L as an ideology on my own terms independant of anarchism,the nail in my M-L coffin came with the reading of a single essay - of course it wasnt this essay that led me to change my ideas, but this was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

But where did he say he got them independently, as he said himself he got them chewed for him and shoved in his mouth by Kropotkin. He quite clearly stated that he got the ideology just by reading Kropotkin, which shows a lack of critical thought, not a critical thought as was claimed somewhere in this threath.



Im sure this is how it was with SH, and with most people generally, you begin a process of drift where you develop criticisms of these ideas that you hold, through debate or reflection, these build up and then you sit down and read something, an essay, or maybe have a conversation and that's it, you make the conscious decision to seek out a new perspective, something that accomodates your criticisms, and better reflects your vision of the communist movement, organisation, tactics etc.

Actually i've seen quite a lot 'Marxist-Leninists' that just said... ohw ok... well in that case i'm anarchist (well only 2, but still you only have yourself as a back up, so that quite even things out).
You can of course seek these things, but you should never forget the other side of the story... And of course if you ahve doubts about you're own ideology you can just find out what Lenins or other Marxist-Leninists reply's to such doubts were (There's a high probability that certain Bolsheviks had the same doubts).



'That' book, essay or conversation didnt cause you to 'switch', rather its the culmination of a much broader process of intellectual development.


To quote SH:


so I switched to Anarcho-Communism.



Um... no it doesnt. All that thread provides is this,

'I have been reading Kropotkin quite extensively, and am getting very interested in Anarchism (as ironic as that may sound), so my question to the forum is, where are some good sites, and good books, that would contain good information on Anarchism, (mainly what I am looking for is theory).'

The words of someone who is interested in learning about a new perspective, that gives you fuck all 'authority' to make serious statements about this comrades theoretical development as a ML, or forumulate negative opinions of his personal character, committment etc.

I never formulated a negative opinion of his character, i did of his committment, and is this odd?
Of course it's ok to learn new perspectives... in order to understand an ideology you should firstly read they're literature. But he never asked for any criticism whether it be capitalist or communist criticism on anarchism. Which is very important in order to understand more about anarchy and it's opponents.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 07:58 am
Cool, I wish I had the ability to switch ideologies like TV channels. The way you put it, as suddenly "switching", rather than a process of some sort, goes best to show that you have indeed fully broken with Marxism.
It was a process, I read, and researched and came upon to the conclusion in which I did, and personally I took doc's advice, if you don't believe fully in something anymore, and found something better then skip the former, there is no point in hanging on for dear life, all because of some title.

How long should I have gone before "switching," hmm? Really I would love to know the "true," prescribed amount of time? What there isn't any set standard? It shouldn’t even matter?

Then gee, I guess you should shut the fuck up.


Evolve, yes...
He just switched ideologies like that, thats not evolving...

Why does time matter? I would rather support something I believe in more, and not hang on tooth and claw to some title, for the sake of popularity and dogma, if you find something better go to it, that's my philosophy, fuck time, fuck standards, if something doesn't represent you, then skip it.


That just shows how un-educated he wa son his previous ideology, and how firm of a believer he was in his own thoughts.

I wasn't uneducated, sure I wasn't mature in knowledge but I wasn't ignorant of it either, I've only gotten into politics now for around 6 or so months, I've been reading constantly.


He'll probably break with anarchism maybe within a year, maybe 20... but he will...

Fuck you.


I have far more respect for anarchists that stick to they're guns, then for 'Marxist-Leninists' that just called themselve 'Marxist-Leninist' for a year, and are totally un-educated on the subject, and switch to Anarchism like that...

Again I didn't know the ends and out, but I did have a firm grasp on the subject.


For specifications: here i just stated that i have more respect for die-hard anarchists then for leninists that as a matter of speaking were only Marxist-Leninist for a year and then switch to anarchism, cause they dont know shit about the ideology in the first place.

This is exactly what I was talking about in that thread, fuckholes like this that damn people for changing, and not sticking to some ideology like it's some fucking religion, I found a revolutionary path that I feel is more plausible, more fair and less oppressive to the working class, one in which I can support with out having to constantly defend tyrants soaked in the blood of the proletariat, that killed and oppressed all in the name of revolution.

A philosophy that seeks to free humanity, that seeks to abolish all masters, and that is a philosophy I would want to support.

Another thing I like is the abolishment of the wage system, which I have always found trival; source? In a lot of my posts I refer to money as "monopoly money," meaning I find it to be nothing but bits of metal and paper, meaningless and something that should be done away with as soon as possible, and I hate how is it become the all mighty master of the world.

I found something that says what I felt, something that struck a chord with me intellectually, so I said "well, no harm in reading more into it," and the more I read the more I liked and found my self in agreement with it, till it got to the point where I said, "I'm an Anarchist."

Fuck you, Fuck your Dogmatism, I'm not here to play the "true or not," game, or the popularity game, or for titles, or any other idiocy, I'm here to learn, and to converse, not play some childish bullshit games.

[Zeruzo]

It was a process, I read, and researched and came upon to the conclusion in which I did, and personally I took doc's advice, if you don't believe fully in something anymore, and found something better then skip the former, there is no point in hanging on for dear life, all because of some title.

And have you studied the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist critics on this new ideology?
I can understand you might not fully believe in an ideology anymore, but just completely ignoring it is... odd... to say the least...



How long should I have gone before "switching," hmm? Really I would love to know the "true," prescribed amount of time? What there isn't any set standard? It shouldn’t even matter?

5 months, 2 weeks a day 11 hours and 25 minutes...

I never said there should be a set time, but just taking more things into consideration before fully 'switching', you could just call it 'unsure' instead of switching, so you have the time to study each ideology.




Why does time matter? I would rather support something I believe in more, and not hang on tooth and claw to some title, for the sake of popularity and dogma, if you find something better go to it, that's my philosophy, fuck time, fuck standards, if something doesn't represent you, then skip it.

Of course, but is reading a couple of books already 'believing'?



I wasn't uneducated, sure I wasn't mature in knowledge but I wasn't ignorant of it either, I've only gotten into politics now for around 6 or so months, I've been reading constantly.

Immature in knowledge and uneducated, i dont see a difference... But ok...
Ok, so it's 6 months... thats far from enough time to get truly convinced of the Marxist-Leninist ideology for most people. Which explains a lot...
I doubted for at least 2 years before i found myself a stable ideology, thats why i never labelled myself.



Fuck you.

If this message board still exists in 20 years, i'll pass by just for the heck of it...



This is exactly what I was talking about in that thread, fuckholes like this that damn people for changing, and not sticking to some ideology like it's some fucking religion, I found a revolutionary path that I feel is more plausible, more fair and less oppressive to the working class, one in which I can support with out having to constantly defend tyrants soaked in the blood of the proletariat, that killed and oppressed all in the name of revolution.

So, you were just unable to defend you're previous ideology?
Or at least, the ideology in practise.



A philosophy that seeks to free humanity, that seeks to abolish all masters, and that is a philosophy I would want to support.

Then i dont see why you switched...



Another thing I like is the abolishment of the wage system, which I have always found trival; source? In a lot of my posts I refer to money as "monopoly money," meaning I find it to be nothing but bits of metal and paper, meaningless and something that should be done away with as soon as possible, and I hate how is it become the all mighty master of the world.

This isn't specifically anti-leninist, Guevara for example and Molotov had the same idea's.



I found something that says what I felt, something that struck a chord with me intellectually, so I said "well, no harm in reading more into it," and the more I read the more I liked and found my self in agreement with it, till it got to the point where I said, "I'm an Anarchist."

And you never tried to challenge this ideology?



Fuck you, Fuck your Dogmatism, I'm not here to play the "true or not," game, or the popularity game, or for titles, or any other idiocy, I'm here to learn, and to converse, not play some childish bullshit games.

A game?
I'm quite serious actually...
And it's far from dogmatism, i just find it very odd how someone can just 'switch' to another ideology... Which you now tried to explain, it is as much of a learning experience for me as it is for you (as in trying to understand other people). I have a tendency of doing that in a little provocative way, so i'm sure i'll receive a reply. And of course it was a more direct reply in deffence of Matthijs too.

[Cryotank Screams]

And have you studied the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist critics on this new ideology?I can understand you might not fully believe in an ideology anymore, but just completely ignoring it is... odd... to say the least...

Yea, I've read critics, I've read Anarchism vs. Marxism essays and what have you, I've even read essays written by other Anarchists critic on the sect, that has called out to me the most.

I am already formulating counter-arguments, reading, studying, and evaluating.

If you have any you feel I should read, by all means, link me up.


you could just call it 'unsure' instead of switching, so you have the time to study each ideology.

Initially I did label myself as unsure, but again the more I read the more it made sense to me, and the more I found myself agreeing with what was being said.


Of course, but is reading a couple of books already 'believing'?

No, me agreeing with said books, I feel is the road to believing.


I doubted for at least 2 years before i found myself a stable ideology, thats why i never labelled myself.

Ok, that is YOUR experience, and YOU, that shouldn't be the basis for evaluating me, even though that is the only tool you may have, your experiences should damn my experiences.


So, you were just unable to defend you're previous ideology?
Or at least, the ideology in practise.

I could have learned to bend things, and defend it, but consciously I didn't want to defend something I felt was oppressive in practice, and condoned in theory.


Then i dont see why you switched...

Come on, think about it, ;) .


And you never tried to challenge this ideology?

Of course, I still am, and yet I still find myself agreeing, I do that with everything I believe in, I always challenge everything I believe in, that way I can defend it better when debating, and learn more.


i just find it very odd how someone can just 'switch' to another ideology... Which you now tried to explain, it is as much of a learning experience for me as it is for you (as in trying to understand other people).

I didn't just "switch," I read information, and came to agreement, conclusion, and a decision.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] November 9, 2006, 09:43 pm
I highly doubt he [Marx] disproved the plausibility or validity of Anarchism, and I highly doubt the bumbling fool Stalin did either.

I take it you have not studied the history of the First International, the debates with Proudhon and important works such as "Poverty of Philosophy," or "the Bakuninists at Work."

As for the "bumbling fool" [sic], did you read the pamphlet "Anarchism or Socialism?" in question?

[Zeruzo]

Yea, I've read critics, I've read Anarchism vs. Marxism essays and what have you, I've even read essays written by other Anarchists critic on the sect, that has called out to me the most.

Of course i have read anarchist works, or i wouldn't have really asked :).



I am already formulating counter-arguments, reading, studying, and evaluating.

If you have any you feel I should read, by all means, link me up.

Thats good to hear, i know a very good book, but forgot it's title...
Ah found it, it's a dutch book though...

Well:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...chism/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/anarchism/index.htm)

Has Marxs criticism on Anarchism, i myself haven't read all of it of course... But it'd be a good start.



Initially I did label myself as unsure, but again the more I read the more it made sense to me, and the more I found myself agreeing with what was being said.

Ok, in this case i haven't said anything.



Ok, that is YOUR experience, and YOU, that shouldn't be the basis for evaluating me, even though that is the only tool you may have, your experiences should damn my experiences.

My experience next to that is that people that label themselves too fast switch ideologies way too much.



Come on, think about it, wink.gif .

Well, Marxists and Anarchists both agree such a society should be created, the difference between both is that the means through which it is created is felt to be different. In my opinion you cant have such a society while A. bourgeouisie states still exist. B. The bourgeouisie as an entity and way of thinking, culture etc... exists.



Of course, I still am, and yet I still find myself agreeing, I do that with everything I believe in, I always challenge everything I believe in, that way I can defend it better when debating, and learn more.

Ok, so please tell me: What in Anarchism (specifically Anarcho-Communism) do you prefer over Marxist-Leninism?

[An archist]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin Stalin+November 10, 2006 01:19 am--> (Marx Lenin Stalin @ November 10, 2006 01:19 am) It has come to the Chairman's attention
[/b]
'We, the king of England have decided'


Originally posted by [email protected]

The hub of modern social life is the class struggle. In the course of this struggle each class is guided by its own ideology. The bourgeoisie has its own ideology -- so-called liberalism. The proletariat also has its own ideology -- this, as is well known, is socialism.

You do know that most votes for the extreme right come from the working class?


Stalin

If the "doctrine" of the Anarchists expresses the truth, then it goes without saying that it will certainly hew a path for itself and will rally the masses around itself.

So it means that if you tell the truth, the masses will automatically follow you? Why waste time on the social struggle anymore? capitalism is definitely the way to go!

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:53 pm
As for the "bumbling fool" [sic], did you read the pamphlet "Anarchism or Socialism?" in question?
I have and again I have failed to see how he disproved Anarchism.

Yes, I called him a bumbling fool, because his work is so dry, and lacks creativity, substance and meat, and it seems to me like he struggles really hard with writing, like it's almost painful for him.


My experience next to that is that people that label themselves too fast switch ideologies way too much.

Everything I do has meaning, I don't believe in switching ideologies for aesthetics or any such reason; my "switching," was sincere.


Well, Marxists and Anarchists both agree such a society should be created, the difference between both is that the means through which it is created is felt to be different.

Exactly, which played a role in my "switching."

I believe we so should totally skip the master stage, even if it is a "revolutionary," one, and give power to the proletariat and not power to some bureaucratic vanguard, the people deserve autonomy, and self-government.


What in Anarchism (specifically Anarcho-Communism) do you prefer over Marxist-Leninism?

I. I don't believe the proletariat need leaders or any sort, or a chairman, I believe they should be self-governing.
II. The abolishment of ALL social hierarchies.
III. The abolishment of the wage labor system.
IV. That property should be communally owned by the people, and be in direct control of the people and not some state or vanguard.
V. Direct democracy instead of democratic centralism.

[Nilats]

Scarlet Hammer why don't you SHUT UP as it is obvious you know nothing of Comrade Stalin or Marxism Leninism. Let the ones who do know something speak.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:24 pm
Scarlet Hammer why don't you SHUT UP as it is obvious you know nothing of Comrade Stalin or Marxism Leninism. Let the ones who do know something speak.
Actually I do know about stalin, and Marxism, my fine stalin kiddie, and if you haven't noticed, that has been discussed in this thread, and sadly this thread has turned into the "me, me, me," thread without my desire; I am only answering people's questions, blame them for asking not me for answering, you ask, I answer.

Now why don't you go lap at MLS's feet or whatever PABists do, ok?

Would anyone else care to take a shot at me? Honestly? This is growing very tiresome, in so much is I don't want to be discussed in a thread about something else, I would rather disscuss Leftist politics, philosophy, etc.

[Nilats]

Please do go somewhere else. Marxism Leninism is a serious revolutionary philosophy.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:32 pm
Marxism Leninism is a serious revolutionary philosophy.
Oh, I forgot, sorry for insulting your religion, I will pray to stalin to forgive me, ;) .

hail stalin full of grace, marx is with thee,...hail stalin full of grace, marx is with thee...

[Nilats]

Chairman MLS made a serious post about the contributions and arguments Comrade Stalin made against anarchism. You have responded to NONE of these points and instead instigate and provoke personal insults and attacks instread.

Either address the points made by Stalin or don't say anything at all. Simple.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:42 pm
Chairman MLS made a serious post about the contributions and arguments Comrade Stalin made against anarchism. You have responded to NONE of these points and instead instigate and provoke personal insults and attacks instread.

Either address the points made by Stalin or don't say anything at all. Simple.
I read this article awhile ago. As I recall, it was basically a bunch of ad hominem attacks and accusations grounded in absolutely nothing. Yawn.

Although it does contain my favorite Stalin quote:
"Oh, those anarchists!"

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:42 pm
Chairman MLS made a serious post about the contributions and arguments Comrade Stalin made against anarchism. You have responded to NONE of these points and instead instigate and provoke personal insults and attacks instread.

Either address the points made by Stalin or don't say anything at all. Simple.
Actually I did, scroll up, I was the first person to comment on this thread, and I addressed MLS's post.

[Zeruzo]

I have and again I have failed to see how he disproved Anarchism.

Yes, I called him a bumbling fool, because his work is so dry, and lacks creativity, substance and meat, and it seems to me like he struggles really hard with writing, like it's almost painful for him.

Well, just beceause he tried to make it seem logical to the proletariat, and write for the proletariat, doesn't make him a bumbling fool...



Exactly, which played a role in my "switching."

I believe we so should totally skip the master stage, even if it is a "revolutionary," one, and give power to the proletariat and not power to some bureaucratic vanguard, the people deserve autonomy, and self-government.

If you'd give power to the proletariat wouldn't that make you're anarchism some odd form of socialism?



I. I don't believe the proletariat need leaders or any sort, or a chairman, I believe they should be self-governing.
II. The abolishment of ALL social hierarchies.
III. The abolishment of the wage labor system.
IV. That property should be communally owned by the people, and be in direct control of the people and not some state or vanguard.
V. Direct democracy instead of democratic centralism.

I. So you dont believe the more ideologically educated part of the proletariat should be the vangaurd of the proletariat?

II. Yes, who doesn't.... Only on certain occasions hierarchy is a neccesity.

III. As communists want, but abolishing it right away is plkainly impossible while the system co-exists with capitalism. Stalin wrote a good book about it:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...blems/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm)

IV. well the people can control it, but if the people just start producing things it'll end up in bull-shit. Lets say the central-planing agency says a certain factory should make medicines and the workers just plainly decide they should make jeans. That would mean that tons of people would be without medicines beceause of this far too far reaching level of autonomy, which is in it's turn against the best interest of the masses and individualistic.

V. Democratic Centralism is important in order to keep unity in front of the Capitalists. When you oppenly fight out you're differences the Capitalists will exploit this, as has been shown many times in history.

[Cryotank Screams]

If you'd give power to the proletariat wouldn't that make you're anarchism some odd form of socialism?

No, how is giving power to the people, a odd form of socialism?


I. So you dont believe the more ideologically educated part of the proletariat should be the vangaurd of the proletariat?

Whome decides who is more intelligent? Isn't that sort of like social darwinism? The inteligent, control the less inteligent?


II. Yes, who doesn't.... Only on certain occasions hierarchy is a neccesity.

Hierarchy in all forms is oppressive, and requires always a state appartus.


IV. well the people can control it, but if the people just start producing things it'll end up in bull-shit. Lets say the central-planing agency says a certain factory should make medicines and the workers just plainly decide they should make jeans. That would mean that tons of people would be without medicines beceause of this far too far reaching level of autonomy, which is in it's turn against the best interest of the masses and individualistic.

Why? Your assuming that the workers are just a bunch of selfish fools, in an Anarchist society the workers would have need of it too, therefore they are not going to make jeans instead of medicines.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+November 10, 2006 06:53 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ November 10, 2006 06:53 pm)
Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] November 9, 2006, 09:43 pm
I highly doubt he [Marx] disproved the plausibility or validity of Anarchism, and I highly doubt the bumbling fool Stalin did either.

I take it you have not studied the history of the First International, the debates with Proudhon and important works such as "Poverty of Philosophy," or "the Bakuninists at Work." [/b]
Proudhon wasn't on the First International and he has very little to do with modern day anarchism. His anarchism also had very little to do with the anarchism of Bakunin who was on the First International.


As for the "bumbling fool" [sic], did you read the pamphlet "Anarchism or Socialism?" in question?

I've read it, yes, and the basis of the entire essay is founded in an utter lack of understanding of anarchist theory and praxis.

This for example...


Stalin
The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism.

Classic anarchism is built on the principles of historical materialism and class struggle; just as Marxism is. Bakunin himself argued that very same point in 'Marxism, Freedom and the State', in which he commeds Marx for his critique of capitalism.

Clearly Stalin had paid no attention to the works of Bakunin or of the history of anarchism and instead writes a rhetorical polemic, perhaps in an attempt to propaganidse the popularity of the anarchist movement in Russia, perhaps because he genuinely thought he was contributing to the theoretical attacks on anarchism. Either way it is the most vulger piece of writing against anarchism I have ever read, and I've read many!

The entire essay founds no theoretical argument nor does it advance already founded criticisms of anarchism. The work is a joke and should not be taken seriously by anyone interested in countering anarachism or anarchists.

The SWP have made better criticisms!

[Zeruzo]

No, how is giving power to the people, a odd form of socialism?

Since you just replace the word proletariat with people it doesn't anymore...



Whome decides who is more intelligent? Isn't that sort of like social darwinism? The inteligent, control the less inteligent?

I never said intelligent, i said ideologically educated. Which has nothing to do with intelligence...



Hierarchy in all forms is oppressive, and requires always a state appartus.

Yes, only to whom this oppresion is aimed difers per state.



Why? Your assuming that the workers are just a bunch of selfish fools, in an Anarchist society the workers would have need of it too, therefore they are not going to make jeans instead of medicines.

No, i just dont think that without at least a plan Anarchism wouldn't work...
And of course it will be defeated by the bourgeouisie beceause of it's lack of a proffesional army, unity, class-struggle and ideological education.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 07:42 pm
Chairman MLS made a serious post about the contrib
Where are they, because I can't see them. All I see is some spurious attack about anarchism being "bunk" and a link to the most laughable criticism of anarchism ever created.

I would hardly call it serious!


Either address the points made by Stalin or don't say anything at all. Simple.

Which points? Anyone who invests even the slightest amount of time in studying anarchism or anarchist history can clearly see that what is written in the essay is pure nonsense.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] November 10, 2006, 2:00 p.m.
No, how is giving power to the people, a form of socialism?

The productive forces are socially organized under capitalism, and yet the relations of production are not. The whole point of socialism is to abolish the concept of private property, to give the proletariat power over the bourgeoisie (hence dictatorship of the proletariat) due to some of the ills remaining from capitalism (alienation for example) and present during the transition from capitalism to communism.


Whome decides who is more intelligent? Isn't that sort of like social darwinism? The inteligent, control the less inteligent?

The working class- due to laboring extensive under the capitalist relations- has little time for reading and studying the social question in full detail- yet in terms of social organization the proletariat has advanced considerably. The intelligentsia represent a minority that sell their individual talents to the capitalist, and can be well versed in theory- but poorly experienced in practical activity. This antagonism is overcome by the minority dedicating itself to the majority, by the intelligentsia devoting itself to inspiring political consciousness in the working class and giving a theoretical character to what is otherwise spontaneous activity. Once the proletariat has seized power, it is necessary for the intelligentsia to further dedicate itself to educating and further raising the consciousness of the proletarian masses; so that by communism, everyone will be highly cultured and educated and be able to be completely involved in a fully democratic society. The unfortunate fact is that there is inequality under capitalism in terms of consciousness and especially material needs, and only through the transition through careful planning can we overcome these antagonisms and reach a very highly developed society in communism.


Hierarchy in all forms is oppressive, and requires always a state appartus.

During the socialist transition, the proletariat will dominate the bourgeois class and the other strata who desire a return to the capitalist relations of production. Once socialists have overcome the old evils and inequalities through careful planning, through the apparatus (for one to simply ignore the problems existing from capitalism and to just simply declare that "we are in full communism!" without studying the contradictions present means to make a grave and serious error), once society has reached its highest development, the state will no longer be needed. It will wither away.


Why? Your assuming that the workers are just a bunch of selfish fools, in an Anarchist society the workers would have need of it too, therefore they are not going to make jeans instead of medicines.

In practice, we know that without a higher level of consciousness, the workers will only be inspired by material needs and greed will set in because the workers will have in mind not socialism, but capitalism- see Eastern Europe or modern-day China for an example, or a very good example would be the incident which happened this year with the Bolivian mining collectives. No, the proletariat must side-by-side reach a high level of consciousness and meet their material needs if we are to successfully reach communism.

[Cryotank Screams]

In practice, we know that without a higher level of consciousness, the workers will only be inspired by material needs and greed will set in because the workers will have in mind not socialism, but capitalism

You say power to the working class! one minute, and then say they are not fit to lead themselves or have power, which I find hypocritical.


During the socialist transition, the proletariat will dominate the bourgeois class and the other strata who desire a return to the capitalist relations of production.

No, the vanguard will rule over the people, thus there will still be oppressed people, nothing will change.


once society has reached its highest development, the state will no longer be needed. It will wither away.

The state will never wither away, the only way to get rid of it, is to destroy it completely.


The working class

Bullshit, the vanguard deems who is fit, the people have no say in it.


the minority dedicating itself to the majority

History shows it is the other way around, ;) .


Once the proletariat has seized power, it is necessary for the intelligentsia to further dedicate itself to educating and further raising the consciousness of the proletarian masses

Which didn't happen, and probably never would happen.


everyone will be highly cultured and educated and be able to be completely involved in a fully democratic society.

Yes, once the vanguard deems everyone is not stupid anymore then they can attempt to have their say in what is going on, and what should happen, :rolleyes: .


The whole point of socialism is to abolish the concept of private property

Which will NEVER happen unless you go straight to the source, and abolish private property out right, no transition shit because it only reverts back to what it was, just in a more hidden state and disguised in a red costume.

[Patchd]

Ok, hang on a second. I'm confused, it looks like the PAB have invaded revleft (:lol:), are they some organisation formed just from members on this website, or is it some organisation from the outside which just troll on here?

:lol: :lol: :lol: "Chairman MLS" :lol: :lol: :lol: , he can kiss my arse...what you gonna do? Put me in a gulag now?

[The Author]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+ November 10, 2006, 03:22 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 10, 2006, 03:22 pm)Proudhon wasn't on the First International and he has very little to do with modern day anarchism. His anarchism also had very little to do with the anarchism of Bakunin who was on the First International.[/b]

I did not say Proudhon was on the First International. I mentioned Proudhon in reference to his debates with Marx, followed by the First International as two points in the conflict between Marxists and Anarchists.


Classic anarchism is built on the principles of historical materialism and class struggle; just as Marxism is. Bakunin himself argued that very same point in 'Marxism, Freedom and the State', in which he commeds Marx for his critique of capitalism.

And then Bakunin went on to talk about concepts such as "liberty of each individual," and "spontaneous organization of labor" and to be apolitical which run completely against the concepts of Marxism regarding organization and tactics. And because the Anarchist ideas run contrary to Marxist ideas- and in practice proved to fail because in truth, Anarchist ideas do not pay attention to material conditions, that is why it has been debunked as a theory. For example:


There is the point which principally divides the Revolutionary Socialists or Collectivists from the Authoritarian Communists, who are upholders of the absolute initiative of the State. Their goal is the same; each party desires equally the creation of a new social order founded only on the organisation of collective labor, inevitably imposed on each and everyone by the very force of things, equal economic conditions for all, and the collective appropriation of the instruments of labor. Only, the Communists imagine that they will be able to get there by the development and organisation of the political power of the working-classes, and principally of the proletariat of the towns, by the help of the bourgeois Radicalism, whilst the Revolutionary Socialists, enemies of all equivocal combinations and alliances, think on the contrary that they cannot reach this goal except by the development and organisation, not of the political but of the social and consequently anti-political power of the working masses of town and country alike, including all favorably disposed persons of the upper classes, who, breaking completely with their past, would be willing to join them and fully accept their program.

Hence, two different methods. The Communists believe they must organize the workers' forces to take possession of the political power of the State. The Revolutionary Socialists organize with a view to the destruction, or if you prefer a politer word, the liquidation of the State. The Communists are the upholders of the principle and practice of authority, the Revolutionary Socialists have confidence only in liberty. Both equally supporters of that science which must kill superstition and replace faith, the former would wish to impose it; the latter will exert themselves to propagate it so that groups of human beings, convinced, will organize themselves and will federate spontaneously, freely, from below upwards, by their own movement and conformably. to their real interests, but never after a plan traced in advance and imposed on the "ignorant masses" by some superior intellects.

and


It is the triumph of humanity, it is the conquest and accomplishment of the full freedom and full development, material, intellectual and moral, of every individual, by the absolutely free and spontaneous organization of economic and social solidarity as completely as possible between all human beings living on the earth.

and


Karl Marx is a man of immense statistical and economic knowledge. His work on Capital, though unfortunately bristling with formulas and metaphysical subtleties, which render it unapproachable for the great mass of readers, is in the highest degree a scientific or realist work: in the sense that it absolutely excludes any other logic than that of the facts.

Clearly, Stalin was not so wrong after all, it seems. In fact, it seems his essay was right on target in exposing the ills of this ideology.

And do the comments of the Anarchists, modern or in the past, sound so very different from what Bakunin has said?


Scarlet [email protected] November 10, 2006, 04:09 pm
You say power to the working class! one minute, and then say they are not fit to lead themselves or have power, which I find hypocritical.

The working class is instilled with consciousness from without by the "vanguard," the intellectuals; and as time passes, with a political consciousness and with arms, the working class is able to seize political power. Then, strategy and tactics will have to change in view of the objective conditions. In order to make the necessary social and economic changes, the working class must be instilled with a consciousness towards producing for the good of society as a whole and not just individually. There are of course defects from capitalism which remain- practice has shown that these defects exist- and it is essential to combat these defects through education and mass action. Plus, you forget that the transition is in the hands of the dictatorship of the proletariat and that the fullest sense of democracy cannot be possible so long as the remaining ills of capitalism are in place. Through careful effort, once these problems are overcome, the state will wither away, and classes will be abolished, and the fullest, truest sense of collective democracy will be possible.


No, the vanguard will rule over the people, thus there will still be oppressed people, nothing will change.

You keep saying "people," without any class basis. It was the proletariat that ruled, in the USSR from the late 1910s to the early 1950s, in China from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, in Albania from the 1940s until the 1980s, it is the proletariat that rules in Cuba and North Korea today. The only "oppressed" people were those seeking to return those countries back to their capitalist fetters.

Demonstrate otherwise, I am not convinced.


The state will never wither away, the only way to get rid of it, is to destroy it completely.

How do you propose to deal with the bourgeoisie? How do you propose to deal with the bourgeoisie in one country, or the bourgeoisie that attempts to invade a socialist country from another country?

Demonstrate otherwise, I am not convinced.


Bullshit, the vanguard deems who is fit, the people have no say in it.

History has shown quite the opposite. Take Cuba, for instance. Are you saying that the working class has no say in what goes on in the affairs in Cuban government? Concrete facts show the opposite. All you have said is what Anarchists have said, long before the twentieth century. And again, there is no class basis in your comment, which is quite revealing.

Demonstrate otherwise, I am not convinced.


History shows it is the other way around, ;)

According to Anarchist thought. In practice, however, these complaints of "authoritarianism" are made against organizations when Anarchists, Trotskyites, and other opportunists and revisionists want their independence and to conduct spontaneous work against the demands of the organization.

Demonstrate otherwise, I am not convinced.


Which didn't happen, and probably never would happen.

The history of the socialist countries where illiteracy was eliminated and a higher consciousness was gradually instilled proves otherwise- although there were defects and the need for improvement, but that is to be expected given that these countries were in the transition phase.

Demonstrate otherwise, I am not convinced.


Yes, once the vanguard deems everyone is not stupid anymore then they can attempt to have their say in what is going on, and what should happen, :rolleyes: .

How are you going to have direct democracy if people are not highly cultured? One can see that there is great inequality among the classes in terms of education and material needs. If people are not consciously aware of politics, if they are apolitical, which is what you are espousing, how can there be true, direct democracy?

Demonstrate otherwise, I am not convinced.


Which will NEVER happen unless you go straight to the source, and abolish private property out right, no transition shit because it only reverts back to what it was, just in a more hidden state and disguised in a red costume.

Demonstrate how such a process was not taking place, I am not convinced. All I hear are the usual Anarchist "criticisms," but no concrete facts to back them up.

[Cryotank Screams]

It was the proletariat that ruled, in the USSR from the late 1910s to the early 1950s, in China from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, in Albania from the 1940s until the 1980s, it is the proletariat that rules in Cuba and North Korea today.

Dictatorship of the proletariat and the whole concept of a worker's state is a phantom, because once the working class seize power, and form the vanguard, and have control over the state and means of production, they are no longer workers or the working class and instead become the ruling class.

Therefore, the proletariat did not rule in the USSR, China, Albania, Cuba, and especially North Korea.


According to Anarchist thought.

No according to historical facts; the USSR was not this dedicated minority to the majority otherwise you wouldn't have had the forced famine in ukraine (1932-1933), how was that minority being dedicated to the majority? Or the purges, and the gulag system, how was that the minority caring about the majority? Or in present day north korea, where il steals his favorite actors, gets drunk, and lives in luxury while the rest of the country is starving, again how is the minority dedicated the majority there?

The vanguard is dedicated to the vanguard, and the working class has to be dedicated to the vanguard, or else.


The history of the socialist countries where illiteracy was eliminated and a higher consciousness was gradually instilled proves otherwise

Did illiteracy rates go down? Yes, however the vanguard and state was not dedicated to raising the higher consciousness of the people, they were dedicated to ruling over the people, and making sure the people believed what they told them to believe, and do what the told them to do.


How are you going to have direct democracy if people are not highly cultured?

Define highly cultured.


One can see that there is great inequality among the classes in terms of education and material needs. If people are not consciously aware of politics, if they are apolitical, which is what you are espousing, how can there be true, direct democracy?

This can be easily combated, by education and communal ownership; making knowledge accessible to everyone, having all material needs accessible to everyone, meaning property, means of production, houses and such will be communally owned by the people.


Originally posted by Kropotkin
"All things for all men, since all men have need of them, since all men worked to produce them in the measure of their strength, and since it is not possible to evaluate everyone's part in the production of the world's wealth... All is for all!"


Demonstrate how such a process was not taking place, I am not convinced. All I hear are the usual Anarchist "criticisms," but no concrete facts to back them up.

Through revolution.


How do you propose to deal with the bourgeoisie? How do you propose to deal with the bourgeoisie in one country, or the bourgeoisie that attempts to invade a socialist country from another country?

Through education, and to combat capitalism and the bourgeoisie from outside, militias will be formed, and guerilla warfare will be used.


Are you saying that the working class has no say in what goes on in the affairs in Cuban government? Concrete facts show the opposite.

No facts are concrete, neither of us could provide concrete facts and data because it would written by biased sources, I don't live in cuba and I fairly certain you don't either, therefore, we don't know for sure; your statement has been made on unfounded proof.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Scarlet [email protected] November 10, 2006, 09:20 pm
Dictatorship of the proletariat and the whole concept of a worker's state is a phantom, because once the working class seize power, and form the vanguard, and have control over the state and means of production, they are no longer workers or the working class and instead become the ruling class.

Therefore, the proletariat did not rule in the USSR, China, Albania, Cuba, and especially North Korea.

You say the proletariat "did not rule" because the working class became the ruling class. A contradiction, because the proletariat is the working class. And the whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is for the proletariat to seize political power and dominate the bourgeoisie and help build socialism. Unless, of course, you want to take the Anarchist "theory" of apolitical strategy and relying strictly on spontaneity, which has proven to have never worked in practice.


No according to historical facts; the USSR was not this dedicated minority to the majority otherwise you wouldn't have had the forced famine in ukraine (1932-1933), how was that minority being dedicated to the majority? Or the purges, and the gulag system, how was that the minority caring about the majority? Or in present day north korea, where il steals his favorite actors, gets drunk, and lives in luxury while the rest of the country is starving, again how is the minority dedicated the majority there?

The vanguard is dedicated to the vanguard, and the working class has to be dedicated to the vanguard, or else.

The famine was not "forced" but was the result of natural causes and cost far fewer lives than the bourgeois and Nazi propagandists would have one believe. See, for instance, Douglas Tottle's Fraud, Famine, and Fascism (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm) for details. Same goes for the purges and gulags being grossly exaggerated, see Mario Sousa's Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/lies.html) for details. And as for your claims about kidnappings and the "starving," here are some details:

From http://www.korea-is-one.org/article.php3?id_article=1966


North Korea did indeed kidnap a handful of Japanese citizens in the 70s, employing them as Japanese language instructors. Japan has tried to make much of it, in the manner of an abusive husband turning the tables on his wife’s grievances by complaining about her burning the toast. The handful of Japanese kidnapped in the 70s is a trifle compared to the 8.4 million Koreans Japan enslaved in its 35-year colonization of Korea and the 200,000 Korean women who were forced into sexual slavery as “comfort women” to satiate the sexual appetites of the soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army. [66] Some “700,000 people were forcibly taken to Japan,” that is kidnapped, between 1939 and 1945. [67] It should be said that it requires no stretch of the imagination to see how a country that kidnapped 700,000 people, and pressed them into slave labor and sexual slavery, and sanitizes its history textbooks to gloss over the outrage, is an infinitely larger threat to north Korea than north Korea is to it. This is all the more so, considering the imperatives of capitalism that drove Japan to carve out East Asia as its exclusive domain of exploitation, have in no way disappeared, and considering that the United States is now prepared to loosen its reins on Japan, to allow its subordinate some room to exercise its imperialist muscles.

and http://www.korea-is-one.org/article.php3?id_article=2276


Agricultural land was collectivized while farmers were able to keep their own homes and small garden plots. He credits the gardens as greatly helping farmers during the famine of the 1990s. North Korean farmland was worked communally, and farmers received a share of the harvest based on the number of hours of work they had done.

Formally low- and middle-class families now occupied favored social positions, and formally wealthy families who remained in the North could work and earn their way back up the social ladder. Only the very bottom rung was permanently reserved for Japanese collaborators.

Cumings pays careful attention to the weather and crop disasters of the 1990s. North Korea experienced record-breaking floods (1995 and 1996) followed by an equally severe drought and famine (1997). The author believes that the food shortage problem “has provided little evidence of a collapse of state power, except for breakdowns at the local level.” And Cumings adds, even at its worst, “the famine only began to approach India’s year-in, year-out toll (in proportionate terms) of infant mortality and deaths from malnutrition or starvation which I only mention because the media’s recent habit of depicting Kim Jung Il’s frolicking among a heap of starved cadavers.”

Finally, Cumings describes a declassified CIA report on North Korea, and a part of that report which describes the achievements of that society. The report says “North Korea provides compassionate care for war orphans in particular and children in general; ‘radical change’ in the position of women (there are more college-educated women than college-educated men); genuinely free-housing; preventive medicine on a national scale accomplished to a comparatively high standard; infant mortality and life expectancy rates comparable to the most advanced countries until the recent famine; ‘no organized prostitution’ and ‘the police are difficult if not impossible to bribe.’”

You see, in practice, it was the "vanguard" which dedicated itself to the working class, and the working class was in power. Until the counterrevolutionary revisionists launched a coup in the USSR in the 1950s and China in the 1970s and reversed the gains of the revolution. But remember, wherever the revolution steps, the counterrevolution steps too. Hence why the struggle continues.


Did illiteracy rates go down? Yes, however the vanguard and state was not dedicated to raising the higher consciousness of the people, they were dedicated to ruling over the people, and making sure the people believed what they told them to believe, and do what the told them to do.

The Khrushchevites and the Dengites did and have done their utmost to reverse the raising of the higher consciousness of the proletariat. Still, in Cuba and North Korea, education and raising consciousness is still essential to transition from representative democracy towards total direct democracy.

Here's another interesting bit of material on democracy in the USSR, by Grover Furr:

Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform Part 1 (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html)

Part 2 (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html)



Define highly cultured.

The old evils of racism, sexism, nationalism, social inequality, homophobia would be wiped out, gone forever. There would be equality in the fullest sense of the term. But if the consciousness of the people is not raised, along with material incentives, these evils would remain.


This can be easily combated, by education and communal ownership; making knowledge accessible to everyone, having all material needs accessible to everyone, meaning property, means of production, houses and such will be communally owned by the people.

That's what was taking place in these socialist countries which you despise.


Through revolution.

I asked you to demonstrate how the socialist countries- going through the transition- did not abolish private property. I am waiting for an answer.


Through education, and to combat capitalism and the bourgeoisie from outside, militias will be formed, and guerilla warfare will be used.

I see. You want to "educate" the bourgeoisie within the country. But what if some of the bourgeoisie do not want to learn? What if they take up arms, and decide to attack your stateless society? What will you do then? As for the bourgeoisie from other countries: well, if your adversary was organized in a manner like that of the Wehrmacht, you could probably wage guerrilla warfare against it; but then the struggle would be a much longer, more drawn out and more costly affair than if you had conventional forces at your fingertips. I hope you can see why the "state" is still a necessity so long as there is a bourgeoisie within a country and imperialism without and around the world.



No facts are concrete, neither of us could provide concrete facts and data because it would written by biased sources, I don't live in cuba and I fairly certain you don't either, therefore, we don't know for sure; your statement has been made on unfounded proof.

While it is true that there are biased sources, it is wrong to assume that facts are not "concrete." This is wrong. If you want proof about the working class ruling in Cuba, here's an interesting letter (http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/330/20523) for starters, and there is plenty of information on this board alone which proves the working class has power.

[rebelworker]

"If your not a marxist in your youth your heartless.
If your not an anarchist communist by the time youve spent a few years organising your living in a fantasy land."

- Me

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+November 11, 2006 01:12 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ November 11, 2006 01:12 am) And then Bakunin went on to talk about concepts such as "liberty of each individual," [/b]
Bakunin argued for individual liberty in the context of the emancipation of the working class. Bakunin always argued, in fact it was his main tenet, that freedom and individual liberty could only exist in the context of working class freedom and liberty.


Originally posted by [email protected]
The capitalist ruling class has no religion, no ideals, and no illusion. It is cynical and unbelieving because it denies the real base of human society, the complete emancipation of the working class. Bourgeois society, by its very nature of interested professionalism, must maintain centres of authority and exploitation, called States. The labourers, by their very economic needs, must challenge such centres of oppression.

The inherent principles of human existence are summed up in the single law of solidarity. This is the golden rule of humanity, and may be formulated thus: no person can recognise or realise his or her own humanity except by recognising it in others and so cooperating for its realisation by each and all. No man can emancipate himself save by emancipating with him all the men about him.

My liberty is the liberty of everybody. I cannot be free in idea until I am free in fact. To be free in idea and not free in fact is to be revolt. To be free in fact is to have my liberty and my right, find their confirmation, and sanction in the liberty and right of all mankind. I am free only when all men are my equals. (first and foremost economically.)

Solidarity in Liberty: The Workers Path to Freedom (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/writings/ch04.htm)

Furthermore, Malatesta, who was a disciple of Bakunin latter wrote as one of the main theoreticians for anarchist communism:


Malatesta
...it is a truth that history has made the proletariat the main instrument of the next social change, and that those fighting for the establishment of a society where all human beings are free and endowed with all the means to exercise their freedom, must rely mainly on the proletariat.

My Trial: Class Struggle or Class Hatred (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/trial.html)

The whole concept of individual liberty is taken completely out of context and distorted by Leninists for whatever reason that is. The fact is, class struggle anarchists have always maintained that individual liberty should exist in the context of working class emancipation. Not seperate to it as you wish to maintain.


"spontaneous organization of labor"

I accept that the idea that the working class can organise themselves without the need of a political party or leadership deviates from the Leninist paradigm. This is of course a fundamental difference, but it is a difference barely explored in Stalin's essay and no serious attempt at a refutation is made.


to be apolitical which run completely against the concepts of Marxism regarding organization and tactics.

What does that actually mean?


and in practice proved to fail because in truth, Anarchist ideas do not pay attention to material conditions

Being anti-authoritarian and rejecting the workers state paradigm does not equate to ignoring material conditions.

The state is a self-perpetuating degenerative institution that can never bring about a transition to communism.

This has been materially proven on countless occasions throughout the last 100 years.


Clearly, Stalin was not so wrong after all, it seems. In fact, it seems his essay was right on target in exposing the ills of this ideology.

It didn't "expose" anything, it simply maintained misconceptions as truth. There's a big difference.

[black magick hustla]

reading stalin to learn about anarchism is like reading ronald reagan to learn about marxism.

[Nilats]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+November 11, 2006 04:48 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ November 11, 2006 04:48 am)
Scarlet [email protected] November 10, 2006, 09:20 pm
Dictatorship of the proletariat and the whole concept of a worker's state is a phantom, because once the working class seize power, and form the vanguard, and have control over the state and means of production, they are no longer workers or the working class and instead become the ruling class.

Therefore, the proletariat did not rule in the USSR, China, Albania, Cuba, and especially North Korea.

You say the proletariat "did not rule" because the working class became the ruling class. A contradiction, because the proletariat is the working class. And the whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is for the proletariat to seize political power and dominate the bourgeoisie and help build socialism. Unless, of course, you want to take the Anarchist "theory" of apolitical strategy and relying strictly on spontaneity, which has proven to have never worked in practice.


No according to historical facts; the USSR was not this dedicated minority to the majority otherwise you wouldn't have had the forced famine in ukraine (1932-1933), how was that minority being dedicated to the majority? Or the purges, and the gulag system, how was that the minority caring about the majority? Or in present day north korea, where il steals his favorite actors, gets drunk, and lives in luxury while the rest of the country is starving, again how is the minority dedicated the majority there?

The vanguard is dedicated to the vanguard, and the working class has to be dedicated to the vanguard, or else.

The famine was not "forced" but was the result of natural causes and cost far fewer lives than the bourgeois and Nazi propagandists would have one believe. See, for instance, Douglas Tottle's Fraud, Famine, and Fascism (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/famine.htm) for details. Same goes for the purges and gulags being grossly exaggerated, see Mario Sousa's Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/lies.html) for details. And as for your claims about kidnappings and the "starving," here are some details:

From http://www.korea-is-one.org/article.php3?id_article=1966


North Korea did indeed kidnap a handful of Japanese citizens in the 70s, employing them as Japanese language instructors. Japan has tried to make much of it, in the manner of an abusive husband turning the tables on his wife’s grievances by complaining about her burning the toast. The handful of Japanese kidnapped in the 70s is a trifle compared to the 8.4 million Koreans Japan enslaved in its 35-year colonization of Korea and the 200,000 Korean women who were forced into sexual slavery as “comfort women” to satiate the sexual appetites of the soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army. [66] Some “700,000 people were forcibly taken to Japan,” that is kidnapped, between 1939 and 1945. [67] It should be said that it requires no stretch of the imagination to see how a country that kidnapped 700,000 people, and pressed them into slave labor and sexual slavery, and sanitizes its history textbooks to gloss over the outrage, is an infinitely larger threat to north Korea than north Korea is to it. This is all the more so, considering the imperatives of capitalism that drove Japan to carve out East Asia as its exclusive domain of exploitation, have in no way disappeared, and considering that the United States is now prepared to loosen its reins on Japan, to allow its subordinate some room to exercise its imperialist muscles.

and http://www.korea-is-one.org/article.php3?id_article=2276


Agricultural land was collectivized while farmers were able to keep their own homes and small garden plots. He credits the gardens as greatly helping farmers during the famine of the 1990s. North Korean farmland was worked communally, and farmers received a share of the harvest based on the number of hours of work they had done.

Formally low- and middle-class families now occupied favored social positions, and formally wealthy families who remained in the North could work and earn their way back up the social ladder. Only the very bottom rung was permanently reserved for Japanese collaborators.

Cumings pays careful attention to the weather and crop disasters of the 1990s. North Korea experienced record-breaking floods (1995 and 1996) followed by an equally severe drought and famine (1997). The author believes that the food shortage problem “has provided little evidence of a collapse of state power, except for breakdowns at the local level.” And Cumings adds, even at its worst, “the famine only began to approach India’s year-in, year-out toll (in proportionate terms) of infant mortality and deaths from malnutrition or starvation which I only mention because the media’s recent habit of depicting Kim Jung Il’s frolicking among a heap of starved cadavers.”

Finally, Cumings describes a declassified CIA report on North Korea, and a part of that report which describes the achievements of that society. The report says “North Korea provides compassionate care for war orphans in particular and children in general; ‘radical change’ in the position of women (there are more college-educated women than college-educated men); genuinely free-housing; preventive medicine on a national scale accomplished to a comparatively high standard; infant mortality and life expectancy rates comparable to the most advanced countries until the recent famine; ‘no organized prostitution’ and ‘the police are difficult if not impossible to bribe.’”

You see, in practice, it was the "vanguard" which dedicated itself to the working class, and the working class was in power. Until the counterrevolutionary revisionists launched a coup in the USSR in the 1950s and China in the 1970s and reversed the gains of the revolution. But remember, wherever the revolution steps, the counterrevolution steps too. Hence why the struggle continues.


Did illiteracy rates go down? Yes, however the vanguard and state was not dedicated to raising the higher consciousness of the people, they were dedicated to ruling over the people, and making sure the people believed what they told them to believe, and do what the told them to do.

The Khrushchevites and the Dengites did and have done their utmost to reverse the raising of the higher consciousness of the proletariat. Still, in Cuba and North Korea, education and raising consciousness is still essential to transition from representative democracy towards total direct democracy.

Here's another interesting bit of material on democracy in the USSR, by Grover Furr:

Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform Part 1 (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html)

Part 2 (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html)



Define highly cultured.

The old evils of racism, sexism, nationalism, social inequality, homophobia would be wiped out, gone forever. There would be equality in the fullest sense of the term. But if the consciousness of the people is not raised, along with material incentives, these evils would remain.


This can be easily combated, by education and communal ownership; making knowledge accessible to everyone, having all material needs accessible to everyone, meaning property, means of production, houses and such will be communally owned by the people.

That's what was taking place in these socialist countries which you despise.


Through revolution.

I asked you to demonstrate how the socialist countries- going through the transition- did not abolish private property. I am waiting for an answer.


Through education, and to combat capitalism and the bourgeoisie from outside, militias will be formed, and guerilla warfare will be used.

I see. You want to "educate" the bourgeoisie within the country. But what if some of the bourgeoisie do not want to learn? What if they take up arms, and decide to attack your stateless society? What will you do then? As for the bourgeoisie from other countries: well, if your adversary was organized in a manner like that of the Wehrmacht, you could probably wage guerrilla warfare against it; but then the struggle would be a much longer, more drawn out and more costly affair than if you had conventional forces at your fingertips. I hope you can see why the "state" is still a necessity so long as there is a bourgeoisie within a country and imperialism without and around the world.



No facts are concrete, neither of us could provide concrete facts and data because it would written by biased sources, I don't live in cuba and I fairly certain you don't either, therefore, we don't know for sure; your statement has been made on unfounded proof.

While it is true that there are biased sources, it is wrong to assume that facts are not "concrete." This is wrong. If you want proof about the working class ruling in Cuba, here's an interesting letter (http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/330/20523) for starters, and there is plenty of information on this board alone which proves the working class has power. [/b]
This is a marvelous post comrade! It is excellent and deserves the widest possible audience! Very good work!

[The Author]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+ November 11, 2006, 01:46 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 11, 2006, 01:46 pm)I accept that the idea that the working class can organise themselves without the need of a political party or leadership deviates from the Leninist paradigm. [/b]


Bakunin
I am a confirmed disciple of economic and social equality. Outside of this, 1 know, freedom, justice, manliness, morality, and the welfare of the individual as well as that of the community, can only be a hollow lie, an empty phrase. This equality must realize itself through the free organization of labor and the voluntary cooperative ownership of the means of production, through the combination of the productive workers into freely organized communes, and the free federation of the communes. There must be no controlling intervention of the state.

This is the point which separates, especially, the revolutionary socialists from the authoritarian i. e. marxian socialists. Both work for the same end. Both are out to create a new society. Both agree that the only basis of this new society shall be: the organization of labor which each and all Will have to perform under equal economic conditions, following the demands of nature; and the common ownership of, everything that is necessary to perform that labor, lands, tools, machinery, etc. But, where as, the revolutionary socialists believe in the direct initiative of the workers themselves through their industrial combinations, this is anarchist stand point in contradiction to marxian or as it claims to be scientific. The authoritarians believe in the direct initiative of the state. They imagine they can reach their goal with the help of the radical parties (new it should be understood as communist) through the development and organization of the political power of the working-class, especially the proletariat of the big towns, due to concentration of large industries employing large mass of proletariat. But the revolutionary socialist oppose all these compromising and confusing alliances. They are convinced that the goal of a free society can only be reached through the development and organization of the non-political, but social power of the working class of both town and country, with the fusion of forces of all these members of the upper class who are willing to declass themselves and ready to break with the past, and to combine together for the same demands. The revolutionary socialists are opposed, therefore, to all politics.

Thus we have two methods:

1. The organization of the representative or political strength of the proletariat for the purpose of capturing political power in the state in order to transform society.

2. The organization of the direct strength, the social and industrial solidarity of the proletariat for the purpose of abolishing all political power and the state.

The advocates of both methods believe in science, which is out to slay superstition, and which shall take the place of religious church belief. But the former propose to force it into humanity, whilst the latter seek to convince the people of its truth, to educate them everywhere, so that they shall voluntarily organize and combine--freely, from the bottom upwards through individual initiative and according to their true interests, but never according to a plan drawn up before hand for the "ignorant masses" by a few intellectually superior persons.

Revolutionary--new known as libertarian socialists believe that in the instinctive yearnings and true wants of the masses, is to be found much sound reason and logic than in the deep wisdom of all the doctors, servants, and teachers of humanity who, after many disastrous attempts, still dabble in the problem of making the people happy. Humanity, think they, has been ruled and governed much toe long and so they think this state of the affairs should continue. Indeed the search of people's trouble, lies not in this or that form of government, but in the existence and manifestation of Government itself, whatever form it may assume.

This is the historical difference between the authoritarian communist ideas, scientifically developed through the German Marxist school and partly adopted by English and American Socialists, on one hand and the Anarchist ideas of Joseph Pierre Proudhon which have educated the proletariat of the Latin countries and led them intellectually to the last consequences of Proudhon's teachings. This latter revolutionary or libertarian socialism has now for the first time, attempted to put its ideas into practice in the Paris Commune.

[The Feral Underclass]

Erm...?

[Keyser]

This is a marvelous post comrade! It is excellent and deserves the widest possible audience! Very good work!

Do you ever or are you going to ever make a post where you can actually come up with your own criticisms of anarchism or are you going to keep up with the cocksucking of anyone who makes a post and calls themselves a marxist-leninist?

It is so fucking clear from your posts that you are either MLS or some internet buddy of his who makes supportive posts of MLS's. Which means the joke that is PAB is made up of only it's chairman or has at most two people. Yeah, I can see you changing the course of world history. :rolleyes:

Like MLS you are some young teen who gets all hot and wet when ever they see the speeches of some dictator.

Get a brain and come up with your own fucking critique of anarchism, or is the 'chairman' to thick to do that?

[Nilats]

Originally posted by Anarchism [email protected] 12, 2006 01:12 pm

This is a marvelous post comrade! It is excellent and deserves the widest possible audience! Very good work!

It is so fucking clear from your posts that you are either MLS or some internet buddy of his who makes supportive posts of MLS's. Which means the joke that is PAB is made up of only it's chairman or has at most two people. Yeah, I can see you changing the course of world history. :rolleyes:
Do you ever do anything so radical as to read someone's posts? Or is that too outlandish for you?

I have freely admitted here, on multiple threads, that I do know MLS personally, I am one of his friends, I am in the PAB. This is no secret and no mystery.

Keeping your vicious insults and completely uncalled for homophobic attacks, (calling me a "cocksucker") simply for saying I agreed with another person's posts, you know absolutely nothing about the organization that I belong to, and so what if we are only small right now? Which we again freely admit we are. Do you know how many revolutionary parties and congresses started out with just a dozen or less members? (No I guess you wouldn't)

And if joining a BIG party is all you care about, then maybe you should consider joining all the huge bourgeois parties with millions of people in their membership rolls, and then you can really seem all 'high and mighty' as you attack the much smaller revolutionary ones. Yea, and call them "cocksuckers" too! That'll really show them!

My, what a tough guy you are! What a revolutionary! :rolleyes:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+November 11, 2006 09:53 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ November 11, 2006 09:53 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] November 11, 2006, 01:46 pm
I accept that the idea that the working class can organise themselves without the need of a political party or leadership deviates from the Leninist paradigm.


Bakunin
I am a confirmed disciple of economic and social equality. Outside of this, 1 know, freedom, justice, manliness, morality, and the welfare of the individual as well as that of the community, can only be a hollow lie, an empty phrase. This equality must realize itself through the free organization of labor and the voluntary cooperative ownership of the means of production, through the combination of the productive workers into freely organized communes, and the free federation of the communes. There must be no controlling intervention of the state.

This is the point which separates, especially, the revolutionary socialists from the authoritarian i. e. marxian socialists. Both work for the same end. Both are out to create a new society. Both agree that the only basis of this new society shall be: the organization of labor which each and all Will have to perform under equal economic conditions, following the demands of nature; and the common ownership of, everything that is necessary to perform that labor, lands, tools, machinery, etc. But, where as, the revolutionary socialists believe in the direct initiative of the workers themselves through their industrial combinations, this is anarchist stand point in contradiction to marxian or as it claims to be scientific. The authoritarians believe in the direct initiative of the state. They imagine they can reach their goal with the help of the radical parties (new it should be understood as communist) through the development and organization of the political power of the working-class, especially the proletariat of the big towns, due to concentration of large industries employing large mass of proletariat. But the revolutionary socialist oppose all these compromising and confusing alliances. They are convinced that the goal of a free society can only be reached through the development and organization of the non-political, but social power of the working class of both town and country, with the fusion of forces of all these members of the upper class who are willing to declass themselves and ready to break with the past, and to combine together for the same demands. The revolutionary socialists are opposed, therefore, to all politics.

Thus we have two methods:

1. The organization of the representative or political strength of the proletariat for the purpose of capturing political power in the state in order to transform society.

2. The organization of the direct strength, the social and industrial solidarity of the proletariat for the purpose of abolishing all political power and the state.

The advocates of both methods believe in science, which is out to slay superstition, and which shall take the place of religious church belief. But the former propose to force it into humanity, whilst the latter seek to convince the people of its truth, to educate them everywhere, so that they shall voluntarily organize and combine--freely, from the bottom upwards through individual initiative and according to their true interests, but never according to a plan drawn up before hand for the "ignorant masses" by a few intellectually superior persons.

Revolutionary--new known as libertarian socialists believe that in the instinctive yearnings and true wants of the masses, is to be found much sound reason and logic than in the deep wisdom of all the doctors, servants, and teachers of humanity who, after many disastrous attempts, still dabble in the problem of making the people happy. Humanity, think they, has been ruled and governed much toe long and so they think this state of the affairs should continue. Indeed the search of people's trouble, lies not in this or that form of government, but in the existence and manifestation of Government itself, whatever form it may assume.

This is the historical difference between the authoritarian communist ideas, scientifically developed through the German Marxist school and partly adopted by English and American Socialists, on one hand and the Anarchist ideas of Joseph Pierre Proudhon which have educated the proletariat of the Latin countries and led them intellectually to the last consequences of Proudhon's teachings. This latter revolutionary or libertarian socialism has now for the first time, attempted to put its ideas into practice in the Paris Commune. [/b]
Seriously, what are you trying to prove here?