cullinane
16th November 2001, 23:38
Dear Shadow of a Guest,
Yes I studied and was involved with anarchism/anarchists for a year. It was my opening introduction to 'left' politics. I would be interested if you could clarify more specifically what you mean when you say
"you obviously learnt nothing in that year." I'm also wondering why you find it so amusing that I studied anarchism. You cannot make rational evaluations on a method, unless you learn that method, can you not? Otherwise I would inevitably make half-baked assumptions on different topics.
Yes anarchism is strategically inferior to the practices of socialism. Certainly, your pacifistic stance is quite odd..how can you make a 'non violent' revolution when a revolution is nothing else? Violence is the midwife of all new societies.
The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose freedom is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses. For anarchism, the emancipation of the masses, the collective, is impossible until the individual is free. Its slogan must be then "everything for the individual". Quite amazing really, when you think about it. The foundations of the French Revolution, a bourgeois revolution, was individualism..indeed under 'pure' capitalism, the competitive model seeks nothing but the free entry and exit of the individual and his property rights.
The cornorstone of Marxism, is the masses, the masses freedom is the principal condition for the freedom of the individual. Thus "everything for the masses".
The state is an apparatus of oppression. Its an apparatus of the ruling capitalist class. When the working class take power, the bourgeois state will have to be replaced by a special coercive force for the suppression of the capitalists and their power, a power which is nothing but counter-revolutionary. This is suppression of the capitalists, by the worker's, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Instead of organizing an instrument of coercion of the capitalist class, by the working class, Anarchists simply wish to "abolish the state", practically overnight. This false notion is based on the believe that the capitalists won't make any attempt of counterrevolution. As we can see, from say, Chile in the 70s, this notion is absurd.
Anarchists, prefer to shrug this off, and in return say to the effect that an 'armed proletariat' themselves will stop capitalist reaction, which, an armed proletariat in reality is a proletarian 'state'! Workers councils - important as it is- does not satisfy the fundamental problem. In and off themselves, workers councils, soviets solves nothing. Whats decisive is the party that leads them. In February 1917, the workers and soldiers of Petrograd set up soviets, a set of fundamental importance. But however, they were reduced to impotence. On their own, they fell into the hands of the Mensheviks or other Social Democrats who aligned themselves with the bourgeoisie. Under such conditions, these soviets soon dissolved and were merely a transient phenomena. Without the help of a revolutionary party, with educated and steeled cadres, organically tied from within and outside the working class, can the working class seize and hold power.
Anarchists will say,but such a party will lead to a bureaucracy! Stalinism they cry! The whole history of the workers movement shows the need for a revolutionary party. Without one it fails. Shadow of a Guest mentions Paris 68.
It failed because no party existed to coordinate the radicalised students and the potentially revolutionary militant workers (who were bought off by their reactionary trade unions). Frankly, your assertion, shadow of a guest, that Paris 68 was in anyway "anarchist" is bizarre. The only person I recall, to name it an anarchist movement was De Gaulle himself! In fact it was made up of a majority of students, professing 'New Left' Marxism, mixed in with strands of Maoism, Trotskyism, Leninism, Marcusism, Anarchistism etc..etc..!! I believe the majority of students professed the 'new left socialism', which was popular then. A sort of Czechoslovakia 'socialism with a human face' idea.
Anarchists are extremely hostile to politics. They abstain completely from parliament, a legally protected vehicle of revolutionary propaganda is used by revolutionaries....they are completely isolated from the working classes. To abstain from the political struggle and send them all to the devil may seem ever so radical, but in practice is does the opposite. It amounts to handing over the workers to the existing leaders without a struggle.
Anarchism is like an umbrella full of holes. The most tragic case was Spain 1936.
The CNT anarchist workers played a heroic role against the fascists. They set up soviets in Barcelona, Catalonia was in the hands of the workers. But when the the CNT were invited to take power they refused! An opportunity lost. Yet later, these same CNT leaders did not hesitate to enter as ministers in the bourgeoise Popular Front government, which played the same role in Spain as the Provisional Government did in Russia in 1917.
Your equation with political vanguardism leading the masses is neccessarily stalinism is completely ignorant. Stalinism is a completely one dimensional term and is entirely overused without substance.
Stalinism was nothing but a reaction to the social context in which it found itself particularly between 1924-1953. Its after effects and to a certain extent, its practices were still felt right up until the 1980s in the USSR. Stalinism was refuted by Khrushchev, Togliatti, Mao, Castro etc..etc..Most Marxists realise that you cannot allow a state to whiter away or expect communism in a world where you are surrounded by hostile states. That would be suicide. Please define clearly what you mean by Stalinism.
You asked me to explain the current massive upsurge of support for anarchism.
No problem. Most middle class youth today, are completely repelled by what the Cold War propaganda called communism. Like many, their thinking, inevitably, without any study, is permeated with the ideology of the capitalist class, the ideas of each generation are the ideas of the ruling class. Its completely understandable. My first involvement with politics was with anarchism, when I was 16, I equated Marxism with totalitarianism, absolute power must corrupt..etc..
You fear violence, communism, you dream of idealistic pacifism.
Quite frankly, pacifism is nothing but a defeat for the working class. When the police and the army come to smash in your heads, candle light processions won't save you.
What is this principle, this assumption that makes you believe that anarchism is close to success again? Comrade, I don't wish to continue argueing over our beliefs, like I've said before I respect anarchists and their commitment, I wish you would respect mine. I have no interests in dealing with anarchism anymore.
Anarchists, are the abstractors of quintessence, who can only draw forth some poor conclusions from mummified principles. It is bourgeois moralistic individualism.
I apologise if there are many mistakes, spelling or grammar, I'm very tired and haven't the energy to read over what I've written. I'll write more later perhaps.
I hope you do not feel any of the above is an attack on you, as I have no problems with your opinions at all.
you can email me at [email protected] if you have more issues with me.
Yes I studied and was involved with anarchism/anarchists for a year. It was my opening introduction to 'left' politics. I would be interested if you could clarify more specifically what you mean when you say
"you obviously learnt nothing in that year." I'm also wondering why you find it so amusing that I studied anarchism. You cannot make rational evaluations on a method, unless you learn that method, can you not? Otherwise I would inevitably make half-baked assumptions on different topics.
Yes anarchism is strategically inferior to the practices of socialism. Certainly, your pacifistic stance is quite odd..how can you make a 'non violent' revolution when a revolution is nothing else? Violence is the midwife of all new societies.
The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose freedom is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses. For anarchism, the emancipation of the masses, the collective, is impossible until the individual is free. Its slogan must be then "everything for the individual". Quite amazing really, when you think about it. The foundations of the French Revolution, a bourgeois revolution, was individualism..indeed under 'pure' capitalism, the competitive model seeks nothing but the free entry and exit of the individual and his property rights.
The cornorstone of Marxism, is the masses, the masses freedom is the principal condition for the freedom of the individual. Thus "everything for the masses".
The state is an apparatus of oppression. Its an apparatus of the ruling capitalist class. When the working class take power, the bourgeois state will have to be replaced by a special coercive force for the suppression of the capitalists and their power, a power which is nothing but counter-revolutionary. This is suppression of the capitalists, by the worker's, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Instead of organizing an instrument of coercion of the capitalist class, by the working class, Anarchists simply wish to "abolish the state", practically overnight. This false notion is based on the believe that the capitalists won't make any attempt of counterrevolution. As we can see, from say, Chile in the 70s, this notion is absurd.
Anarchists, prefer to shrug this off, and in return say to the effect that an 'armed proletariat' themselves will stop capitalist reaction, which, an armed proletariat in reality is a proletarian 'state'! Workers councils - important as it is- does not satisfy the fundamental problem. In and off themselves, workers councils, soviets solves nothing. Whats decisive is the party that leads them. In February 1917, the workers and soldiers of Petrograd set up soviets, a set of fundamental importance. But however, they were reduced to impotence. On their own, they fell into the hands of the Mensheviks or other Social Democrats who aligned themselves with the bourgeoisie. Under such conditions, these soviets soon dissolved and were merely a transient phenomena. Without the help of a revolutionary party, with educated and steeled cadres, organically tied from within and outside the working class, can the working class seize and hold power.
Anarchists will say,but such a party will lead to a bureaucracy! Stalinism they cry! The whole history of the workers movement shows the need for a revolutionary party. Without one it fails. Shadow of a Guest mentions Paris 68.
It failed because no party existed to coordinate the radicalised students and the potentially revolutionary militant workers (who were bought off by their reactionary trade unions). Frankly, your assertion, shadow of a guest, that Paris 68 was in anyway "anarchist" is bizarre. The only person I recall, to name it an anarchist movement was De Gaulle himself! In fact it was made up of a majority of students, professing 'New Left' Marxism, mixed in with strands of Maoism, Trotskyism, Leninism, Marcusism, Anarchistism etc..etc..!! I believe the majority of students professed the 'new left socialism', which was popular then. A sort of Czechoslovakia 'socialism with a human face' idea.
Anarchists are extremely hostile to politics. They abstain completely from parliament, a legally protected vehicle of revolutionary propaganda is used by revolutionaries....they are completely isolated from the working classes. To abstain from the political struggle and send them all to the devil may seem ever so radical, but in practice is does the opposite. It amounts to handing over the workers to the existing leaders without a struggle.
Anarchism is like an umbrella full of holes. The most tragic case was Spain 1936.
The CNT anarchist workers played a heroic role against the fascists. They set up soviets in Barcelona, Catalonia was in the hands of the workers. But when the the CNT were invited to take power they refused! An opportunity lost. Yet later, these same CNT leaders did not hesitate to enter as ministers in the bourgeoise Popular Front government, which played the same role in Spain as the Provisional Government did in Russia in 1917.
Your equation with political vanguardism leading the masses is neccessarily stalinism is completely ignorant. Stalinism is a completely one dimensional term and is entirely overused without substance.
Stalinism was nothing but a reaction to the social context in which it found itself particularly between 1924-1953. Its after effects and to a certain extent, its practices were still felt right up until the 1980s in the USSR. Stalinism was refuted by Khrushchev, Togliatti, Mao, Castro etc..etc..Most Marxists realise that you cannot allow a state to whiter away or expect communism in a world where you are surrounded by hostile states. That would be suicide. Please define clearly what you mean by Stalinism.
You asked me to explain the current massive upsurge of support for anarchism.
No problem. Most middle class youth today, are completely repelled by what the Cold War propaganda called communism. Like many, their thinking, inevitably, without any study, is permeated with the ideology of the capitalist class, the ideas of each generation are the ideas of the ruling class. Its completely understandable. My first involvement with politics was with anarchism, when I was 16, I equated Marxism with totalitarianism, absolute power must corrupt..etc..
You fear violence, communism, you dream of idealistic pacifism.
Quite frankly, pacifism is nothing but a defeat for the working class. When the police and the army come to smash in your heads, candle light processions won't save you.
What is this principle, this assumption that makes you believe that anarchism is close to success again? Comrade, I don't wish to continue argueing over our beliefs, like I've said before I respect anarchists and their commitment, I wish you would respect mine. I have no interests in dealing with anarchism anymore.
Anarchists, are the abstractors of quintessence, who can only draw forth some poor conclusions from mummified principles. It is bourgeois moralistic individualism.
I apologise if there are many mistakes, spelling or grammar, I'm very tired and haven't the energy to read over what I've written. I'll write more later perhaps.
I hope you do not feel any of the above is an attack on you, as I have no problems with your opinions at all.
you can email me at [email protected] if you have more issues with me.