Anarchist revolution

[Pirate Utopian]

i have some questions on anarchist revolutions.

if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?
and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?
also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?

[Phalanx]

Much of that will already be laid out before the revolution succeeds. Workers aren't going to work with the system, they'll work outside it. Because they'll already be organized before any shooting begins, there won't be any need for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The only way capitalists could regain control over the populace is if a foreign imperial power sends in military aid. And a Leninist revolution isn't free from that kind of threat either.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 25, 2007 04:27 pm
i have some questions on anarchist revolutions.

if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?
and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?
also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?
IMHO Makhno in the Ukraine is an interesting example of how this worked out.

[YSR]

I've always liked the old anarchist slogan "All power to the soviets," as I think it rather answers this question for us.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 25, 2007 06:02 pm
I've always liked the old anarchist slogan "All power to the soviets," as I think it rather answers this question for us.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I do believe that "All power to the soviets" was a slogan of the October Revolution, of the Bolsheviks.

[apathy maybe]

You're forgiven. The slogan of the Bolsheviks was "All power to the Bolsheviks" :P.

As to the original poster, I'm glad you asked these questions rather then continue under a misunderstanding.

"if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?" Firstly, Anarchists won't win a revolution, the workers will. They may be inspired by anarchist thought, but I don't that most would call themselves anarchists (just like people now don't identify as capitalists mostly). Secondly, you can't "abolish power". You try and disperse it maximumly. That is, you (the "invisible hand" of the revolution) give power to everyone equally as much as possible.

"and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?" Well, my theory is that once the first step is accomplished the rest just follows logically. If you can't oppress other people, you got socialism. Communism will happen if people want it.

"also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?" So rephrasing your question to take into account my first answer, we stop capitalists from taking power after dispersing it simply. We don't let them. After all, they are a small minority of the population, they won't be doing anything that the majority doesn't want them to do.

Imagine you tried to to fight six people at once, now imagine a capitalist trying the same thing, but with six hundred. No contest correct.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 25, 2007 06:44 pm
You're forgiven. The slogan of the Bolsheviks was "All power to the Bolsheviks" :P.

As to the original poster, I'm glad you asked these questions rather then continue under a misunderstanding.

"if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?" Firstly, Anarchists won't win a revolution, the workers will. They may be inspired by anarchist thought, but I don't that most would call themselves anarchists (just like people now don't identify as capitalists mostly). Secondly, you can't "abolish power". You try and disperse it maximumly. That is, you (the "invisible hand" of the revolution) give power to everyone equally as much as possible.

"and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?" Well, my theory is that once the first step is accomplished the rest just follows logically. If you can't oppress other people, you got socialism. Communism will happen if people want it.

"also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?" So rephrasing your question to take into account my first answer, we stop capitalists from taking power after dispersing it simply. We don't let them. After all, they are a small minority of the population, they won't be doing anything that the majority doesn't want them to do.

Imagine you tried to to fight six people at once, now imagine a capitalist trying the same thing, but with six hundred. No contest correct.
Before you forgive me, let's establish if there's anything to forgive.

http://marxists.nigilist.ru/archive/lenin/...1917/jul/18.htm (http://marxists.nigilist.ru/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/18.htm)

"All Power to the Soviets!" by VI Lenin; first published July 18, 1917

[chimx]

It was originally popular amongst anarchists. This is one of the reasons that anarchists were initially involved with the October coup and why terms like "anarcho-bolshevism" were not-at-all uncommon in 1917.

[rebelworker]

I think there would actually be a "dictatorship of the proletariate" as opposed to a "dictatorsip of the Party" practiced by the Bolsheviks.

The working class would collectively through bodies like community and workplace councils federate a sort of (real)workers goverment. This true mass democracy would be responsible for making the "rules" which would exclude private ownership of production and private armies, thus eliminating the power of the ruling class.

Where needed, popular militias would enforce this popular rule an crush counter revolutionary oposition. Most likely in the form of a civil war like in Russian and Spain. Instead of a central govt. there would be the federation of revolutionary and workers militias that would be at the forefront of the war against the old order and invading external powers.

[RedLenin]

I have a question for anarchists as well. Do you believe that anarchists should organize and take a leadership role? Not to take power of course, but to actually show the way forward and organize for victory?


The working class would collectively through bodies like community and workplace councils federate a sort of (real)workers goverment. This true mass democracy would be responsible for making the "rules" which would exclude private ownership of production and private armies, thus eliminating the power of the ruling class.

That is exactly what I want and I think that is what most marxists want.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:01 pm
I have a question for anarchists as well. Do you believe that anarchists should organize and take a leadership role? Not to take power of course, but to actually show the way forward and organize for victory?
During the revolution? No. Some might advocate that (see Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship" theory) but a true revolution will be run entirely by workers. The early stages of the revolution will be determined by those that are politically involved and are getting other workers active as well. But once there's a solid portion of the proletariat ready to revolt, there won't be a need for any sort of anarchist 'vanguard'.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by RedLenin+--> (RedLenin)I have a question for anarchists as well. Do you believe that anarchists should organize and take a leadership role? Not to take power of course, but to actually show the way forward and organize for victory?[/b]Depends on what you mean by "leadership role", I don't personally see anything wrong with anarchists offering different alternatives or helping to co-ordinate actions or whatever.


Tatanka Iyotank
During the revolution? No. Some might advocate that (see Bakunin's "invisible dictatorship" theory) but a true revolution will be run entirely by workers. The early stages of the revolution will be determined by those that are politically involved and are getting other workers active as well. But once there's a solid portion of the proletariat ready to revolt, there won't be a need for any sort of anarchist 'vanguard'.And where does it say that anarchists can't be also workers? Once there are a bunch of people who are committed to revolt, it doesn't matter what their politics (or if they have any ideology at all). As to "anarchist 'vanguard'" it depends on what you mean. If you mean in the (most common) Leninist sense, then no. But there is nothing wrong with people showing alternatives and helping to organise.

I'll repeat it, anarchists can be workers and workers can be anarchists, so anarchists can be part of the working class uprising.

[Lamanov]

There's no such thing as "anarchist revolution", as there's no "communist" one.

We have proletarian revolutions.

[Phalanx]

I'll repeat it, anarchists can be workers and workers can be anarchists, so anarchists can be part of the working class uprising.

I never said anarchists can't be workers. Hopefully many workers by the time of revolution will be anarchists, but that's all based on how hard we work now.

As for an anarchist vanguard, I don't think there'll be anything resembling that during the revolution. Again, the most crucial work we do now is before the revolution, because when it actually begins, there won't be any 'professional' revolutionaries leading the charge, it'll be the workers.


There's no such thing as "anarchist revolution", as there's no "communist" one.

We have proletarian revolutions.

Exactly. We should care less about our respective ideologies and more about organizing the workers.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 25, 2007 05:27 pm
i have some questions on anarchist revolutions.

if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?
and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?
also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?
Did any of the tards in this thread actually answer your question?

[rouchambeau]

I think there are some assumptions you have about revolution that should be examined.

The first question seems to presume that anarchists will take control of the state and economy in the same way the Jacobins did in the French Revolution. Now, I don't speak for every anarchist, but an anarchist way of transforming social relations resides in establishing dual power and community while destroying oppressive institutions.

The second question is far too large to get into, and there are probably hundreds of different answers to it.

Third, we* would most likely fight off capitalist reactionaries in the same way the ARA combats fascism and racism: through force and persuasion when appropriate.

*again I don't speak for all anarchists. Hell, the term has become so broad that it's almost meaningless to use it in many cases.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+January 28, 2007 02:17 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ January 28, 2007 02:17 am)
Big [email protected] 25, 2007 05:27 pm
i have some questions on anarchist revolutions.

if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?
and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?
also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?
Did any of the tards in this thread actually answer your question? [/b]
That's really helpful you know. chimx got warned for using the word "retarded", but I bet you aren't going to get warned for your completely unwarranted comment that includes "tard" (short for retard for those who didn't know) as an insult.

Why don't you just fuck off and kill yourself? Save us all some fucking pain having to read your stupid fucking posts. I feel stupider actually even replying to this comment.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 25, 2007 04:32 pm




Much of that will already be laid out before the revolution succeeds. Workers aren't going to work with the system, they'll work outside it. Because they'll already be organized before any shooting begins, there won't be any need for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

:lol: I love this arguement; "don't worry, you can trust us, we'll know what we're doing then don't worry about that now."


The only way capitalists could regain control over the populace is if a foreign imperial power sends in military aid. And a Leninist revolution isn't free from that kind of threat either.

however in a leninist society there is a people's liberation army as well as a strong democratically centralized government to combat such a attack. In a anarchist society, the most responsive organ would be perhaps little local councils, however for the most part there would be nothing and a nationwide attack would be devastating and easy for a imperial army.

[Fawkes]

I love this arguement; "don't worry, you can trust us, we'll know what we're doing then don't worry about that now."
You know what argument I also love? The one about how the government will just decide when it's ready to dismantle itself and then do so.

[Pirate Utopian]

i have another question, how do you prevent another country from taking over the anarchist country?

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:02 am



however in a leninist society there is a people's liberation army as well as a strong democratically centralized government to combat such a attack. In a anarchist society, the most responsive organ would be perhaps little local councils, however for the most part there would be nothing and a nationwide attack would be devastating and easy for a imperial army.
How can you have a strong and centralised gov't which is at the same time democratic?
And what is good about democracy anyway? I

[Nusocialist]

however in a leninist society there is a people's liberation army as well as a strong democratically centralized government to combat such a attack.
That doesn't make sense,how can you have a strong and centralised state that is democratic?

In a anarchist society, the most responsive organ would be perhaps little local councils, however for the most part there would be nothing and a nationwide attack would be devastating and easy for a imperial army.
And in a Leninist society there would be a bureaucratic,nomenclatura class that will grow up which will take the place of the capitalists but ultimately be worse.

[rouchambeau]

i have another question, how do you prevent another country from taking over the anarchist country?
By fighting.

[Pirate Utopian]

but how, seeing as there is no army or whatever

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 28, 2007 05:13 pm
but how, seeing as there is no army or whatever
A post from LSD on this issue (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=61617&view=findpost&p=1292249377)

Read that and you should get a broad idea.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 25, 2007 12:27 pm




if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?

Anarchists don't tale power. We advocate direct democracy from the beggining.


and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?

Because the revolution is workers seizing the means of production. Decisions are then placed in the communities hands in order to build a society based on mutual aid.


also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?

Well if it's armed resistance, workers militias will put it down. I'm all for suppressing the capitalist class post revolution.

[Fawkes]

A post from LSD on this issue
That's a really good link.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 11:53 am

however in a leninist society there is a people's liberation army as well as a strong democratically centralized government to combat such a attack.
That doesn't make sense,how can you have a strong and centralised state that is democratic?

In a anarchist society, the most responsive organ would be perhaps little local councils, however for the most part there would be nothing and a nationwide attack would be devastating and easy for a imperial army.
And in a Leninist society there would be a bureaucratic,nomenclatura class that will grow up which will take the place of the capitalists but ultimately be worse.
Democratic Centralism is part of Marxist-Leninist theory and espouses the ideas of freedom of discussion; unity of action. IE all party officials are elected and recallable, all issues are open to disscussion, however once a descision has been made (democratically), you must stick to the party line and go along with it. This creates a unity and efficieny within the party. This principle was also applied to the USSR and PRC.


You know what argument I also love? The one about how the government will just decide when it's ready to dismantle itself and then do so.

unfortunatly in the real world where revolutions don't occur at the same time in very different regions, a state is necessary to combat opposing imperialist powers.

THe state won't disapear in a generation or two or three while there are still capitalist regimes in exsistant which could crush a government-less society in a second, however, the roots of this were in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China; in Shangai for example, the municipal party was dismantled and replaced with a sort of anarchistic local worker council mode of government.

[Fawkes]

Who said that because it is government-less it would be crushed?

[Phalanx]

THe state won't disapear in a generation or two or three while there are still capitalist regimes in exsistant which could crush a government-less society in a second, however, the roots of this were in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China; in Shangai for example, the municipal party was dismantled and replaced with a sort of anarchistic local worker council mode of government.

So, once all capitalist regimes are gone, you're saying the leaders of these Marxist-Leninist states will just cede power? Sounds like wishful thinking.

A more realistic scenario would be stalinist leaders unwilling to give up power and the true revolutionaries are forced into breaking the structure up once again.

[Fawkes]

^^ That's how I imagine it happening in certain areas of the world in the future.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 28, 2007 09:40 pm

THe state won't disapear in a generation or two or three while there are still capitalist regimes in exsistant which could crush a government-less society in a second, however, the roots of this were in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China; in Shangai for example, the municipal party was dismantled and replaced with a sort of anarchistic local worker council mode of government.

So, once all capitalist regimes are gone, you're saying the leaders of these Marxist-Leninist states will just cede power? Sounds like wishful thinking.

A more realistic scenario would be stalinist leaders unwilling to give up power and the true revolutionaries are forced into breaking the structure up once again.
power would become pointless, the socialist state is structured to dismantle itself. Like I said, cultural revolutionary China is a good example.


Who said that because it is government-less it would be crushed?

in the real world, raising armies, funding them, feeding them equiping them, training them, and co-ordinating them take a government.

[Fawkes]

No they don't, and to think otherwise shows the you are brainwashed into believing that humans need authority in their lives. Read the link from LSD that TAT posted on the first page for further elaboration.

[Phalanx]

power would become pointless, the socialist state is structured to dismantle itself. Like I said, cultural revolutionary China is a good example.

No, Marxist Leninist states would simply replace one oppressor with another. Stalin and Lenin, for example, rid the workers of one enemy, but in placing themselves in power, gave the workers another.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 28, 2007 09:51 pm

power would become pointless, the socialist state is structured to dismantle itself. Like I said, cultural revolutionary China is a good example.

No, Marxist Leninist states would simply replace one oppressor with another. Stalin and Lenin, for example, rid the workers of one enemy, but in placing themselves in power, gave the workers another.
Who said they were enemies of the workers? They aremed the workers with the state power necessary to drive the kulaks from their land, collective agriculture, put the soviets in power, and build socialism.


No they don't, and to think otherwise shows the you are brainwashed into believing that humans need authority in their lives.

dude, have you ever seen a fucking army? it survives on the basis of discipline and relative hiarchy. And no I'm not brainwashed, its called, realistic/non-utopic.

Its fucking idiotic, to say that an organized state with intellegence agencies, various branches, and hiarchy would be defeated by various local autonomous communes with no sense of rigid discipline.

[Fawkes]

Tell me, why is it idiotic to think that? What makes you think that in order for people to fight, they need hierarchy?

I won't be able to respond until tomorrow because I'm going to bed.

[Phalanx]

Who said they were enemies of the workers? They aremed the workers with the state power necessary to drive the kulaks from their land, collective agriculture, put the soviets in power, and build socialism.

They manipulate the workers. Just like the capitalists now arm the workers for imperialist adventures. When they (the Marxist-Leninists) feel like they've consoldiated power, the repression begins. It's happened throughout the history of Marxist-Leninist revolutions, there's a honeymoon period, and after that the leaders become enemies of the workers.

[Vargha Poralli]

LeftyHenry is right in this matter. Autonomous communes will not stand against well trained,well equipped and well organised ruling classes of todays. Better we learn lessons from Paris Commune,German Revolution and Oaxaca's experience.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:35 pm

Democratic Centralism is part of Marxist-Leninist theory and espouses the ideas of freedom of discussion; unity of action. IE all party officials are elected and recallable, all issues are open to disscussion, however once a descision has been made (democratically), you must stick to the party line and go along with it. This creates a unity and efficieny within the party. This principle was also applied to the USSR and PRC.




Democratic centralism is an oxymoron.

And the USSR ended up a totalitarian class society.


unfortunatly in the real world where revolutions don't occur at the same time in very different regions, a state is necessary to combat opposing imperialist powers.
Once you have a state you can't have a revolution so how would that work?


THe state won't disapear in a generation or two or three while there are still capitalist regimes in exsistant which could crush a government-less society in a second,
They cannot do that without reasonable grounds or they'd show their true colours.
You should act with libertarian principles, work on the social revolution, fight the capitalists if they come but not destroy the revolution with authority.

however, the roots of this were in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China;
Which great revolution was this,the one that ended in millions of deaths, a class society and the china of today?

in Shangai for example, the municipal party was dismantled and replaced with a sort of anarchistic local worker council mode of government.
Right,sure it was :huh:

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:00 am
LeftyHenry is right in this matter. Autonomous communes will not stand against well trained,well equipped and well organised ruling classes of todays. Better we learn lessons from Paris Commune,German Revolution and Oaxaca's experience.
Perhaps we should learn the lessons of Mao and Stalin instead?

And how about Makhno and the Spanish civil war, without the counter-revolutionary plotting of the Bolsheviks imagine what they could of achieved.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:00 am
LeftyHenry is right in this matter. Autonomous communes will not stand against well trained,well equipped and well organised ruling classes of todays. Better we learn lessons from Paris Commune,German Revolution and Oaxaca's experience.
And let us not forget the covert actions that the capitalist powers use against post-revolutionay societies. It requires a strong workers state in order to survive these covert attacks (bombings, sabotage, terrorism, disinformation/propaganda, assassinations, organizing and arming of counter-revolutionary guerillas using ether remnants of the bourgeoisie or foreign mercenaries, etc) that are designed to overthrow, or at lest destabilise the post-revolutionay order, destroy it's economy, and create chaos. Autonomous communes cannot maintain enough control and discipline to prevent these covert actions from causing the new revolutionary order to collapse into chaos.

[ComradeR]

Edit: double post.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 29, 2007 02:32 pm--> (Nusocialist @ January 29, 2007 02:32 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 06:00 am
LeftyHenry is right in this matter. Autonomous communes will not stand against well trained,well equipped and well organised ruling classes of todays. Better we learn lessons from Paris Commune,German Revolution and Oaxaca's experience.
Perhaps we should learn the lessons of Mao and Stalin instead?

And how about Makhno and the Spanish civil war, without the counter-revolutionary plotting of the Bolsheviks imagine what they could of achieved. [/b]

Perhaps we should learn the lessons of Mao and Stalin instead?

There is nothing wrong with that. Especially Mao's military writings are very much worth learning.


And how about Makhno and the Spanish civil war,

Ok add them up too.Sorry for not mentioning them in first place.


without the counter-revolutionary plotting of the Bolsheviks imagine what they could of achieved.

Nothing IMO. Makhno allied with whites on many occasions and his thugs were more brutal than Red Army.

Bolsheviks had no role in failure of Spanish civil war for your information. I think you need to study history first.


Once you have a state you can't have a revolution so how would that work?

Seriously study this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/)

[Pirate Utopian]

this has got very off-topic.
LeftyHenry i already agree with your marx-leninist theory, who are you trying to convert?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 29, 2007 01:32 pm
this has got very off-topic.
LeftyHenry i already agree with your marx-leninist theory, who are you trying to convert?
Did you read the link I gave you?

[Pirate Utopian]

yes it was very informative, thank you

[Fawkes]

Autonomous communes will not stand against well trained
A lack of hierarchy does not mean a lack of training at all. The militias in an autonomous commune could very easily be just as well trained as imperialist soldiers, not to mention the advantages they would have such as fighting on their own familiar territory.


well equipped
You seem to be forgetting that only a very small amount of Leftists are primitivists. First of all, this post-revolution society we are speaking of would most likely be in a first world, post-industrial nation and would already be very technologically advanced. Second, who's to say that technological advancements, even in things such as defense technology, would not occur in a post-revolution society? The militias would be very well equipped because they would most likely have access to technology and weapons left by the once ruling nation and they would most definitely make technological advancements of their own.


well organised
Lack of hierarchy does not mean lack of organisation.

Look at the insurgents in Iraq, the majority of guerillas in Iraq operate in small cells, (as far as I know). They are doing a pretty good job at staving off the entire U.S. military with relatively primitive weapons technology. Now, imagine that same situation but with the insurgents having weapons technology equal to or greater than that of the attacking army. Also, like LSD said, the capturing of nuclear weapons could also do a lot for the revolutionaries by making imperialist forces think twice about invading.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by razboz+January 25, 2007 05:04 pm--> (razboz @ January 25, 2007 05:04 pm)
Big [email protected] 25, 2007 04:27 pm
i have some questions on anarchist revolutions.

if anarchists win a revolution and take power will they imediately abolish it?
and if so, how can the anarchists establish socialism and communism?
also how do anarchists to stop the capitalists from taking power after you disposed of it?
IMHO Makhno in the Ukraine is an interesting example of how this worked out. [/b]
Nestor Makhno established what could be considered a centralized command structure for his military that adopted similar principles of discipline that the Red Army had. He was feared for his treatment of deserters and urban workers, and with this, many anarchists went on to actually condemn him as a "anarcho-stalinist". In 1920, Ivanov V., one of the heads of the local soviets, wrote this description of Makhno’s camp: “The regime is brutal, the discipline is hard as steel, rebels are beaten on the face for any small breach, no elections to the general command staff, all commanders up to company commander are appointed by Makhno and the Anarchist Revolutionary War Council, Revolutionary Military Soviet (Revvoensovet) became an irreplaceable, uncontrollable and non-elected institution. Under the revolutionary military council there is a ‘special section’ that deals with disobediences secretly and without mercy.” In the cities, the soviets no longer retained power, and Makhno placed various officers in the position of mayor in almost all of the urban centers.

He also went on to attack Red Army convoys that were bringing much-needed grain to the cities. When railway and telegraph workers from the Ekaterinoslav-Sinelnikovo line were still suffering after a long period of starvation under Denikin’s occupation, they asked Makhno to pay them for their work. He responded with, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.” In a separate incident, he told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armoured car, I will take this armoured car for free and pay nothing.” He is a bandit at best.

[Nusocialist]

There is nothing wrong with that. Especially Mao's military writings are very much worth learning.
And of course the mass murder they both had such skill there,and if we are going to go the Leninist way it'll come in handy.

Nothing IMO. Makhno allied with whites on many occasions and his thugs were more brutal than Red Army.
That is not true,they neither allied with whites and they certainly weren't more brutal than the Bolshvik counter-revolutionaries, remember the Cheka and the Red terror?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

And here is the truth about the Makhno and the whites.

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq/h_6_12.htm

No, they did not. However, black propaganda by the Bolsheviks stated they did. Victor Serge wrote about the "strenuous calumnies put out by the Communist Party" against him "which went so far as to accuse him of signing pacts with the Whites at the very moment when he was engaged in a life-and-death struggle against them." [Memoirs of a Revolutionary, p. 122]


As it says it is true they did collaborate with counter-revolutionaries

So while the Bolsheviks claimed that the Makhnovists had made a pact with General Wrangel, the facts are that Makhnovists fought the Whites with all their energy. Indeed, they considered the Whites so great a threat to the revolution they even agreed to pursue a pact with the Bolsheviks, who had betrayed them twice already and had subjected both them and the peasantry to repression. As such, it could be argued that the Bolsheviks were the only counter-revolutionaries the Makhnovists can be accurately accused of collaborating with.

Seriously study this.
Why? Leninism is dead,get over it, it killed millions and achieved nothing but totalitarian states.

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:30 pm

Nestor Makhno established what could be considered a centralized command structure for his military that adopted similar principles of discipline that the Red Army had. He was feared for his treatment of deserters and urban workers, and with this, many anarchists went on to actually condemn him as a "anarcho-stalinist". In 1920, Ivanov V., one of the heads of the local soviets, wrote this description of Makhno’s camp: “The regime is brutal, the discipline is hard as steel, rebels are beaten on the face for any small breach, no elections to the general command staff, all commanders up to company commander are appointed by Makhno and the Anarchist Revolutionary War Council, Revolutionary Military Soviet (Revvoensovet) became an irreplaceable, uncontrollable and non-elected institution. Under the revolutionary military council there is a ‘special section’ that deals with disobediences secretly and without mercy.” In the cities, the soviets no longer retained power, and Makhno placed various officers in the position of mayor in almost all of the urban centers.

He also went on to attack Red Army convoys that were bringing much-needed grain to the cities. When railway and telegraph workers from the Ekaterinoslav-Sinelnikovo line were still suffering after a long period of starvation under Denikin’s occupation, they asked Makhno to pay them for their work. He responded with, “We are not like the Bolsheviks to feed you, we don’t need the railways; if you need money, take the bread from those who need your railways and telegraphs.” In a separate incident, he told the workers of Briansk, “Because the workers do not want to support Makhno’s movement and demand pay for the repairs of the armoured car, I will take this armoured car for free and pay nothing.” He is a bandit at best.
The Authoritarian Marxists have been spreading lies about anarchism for a long time, this is nothing new.

[Nusocialist]

Nestor Makhno established what could be considered a centralized command structure for his military that adopted similar principles of discipline that the Red Army had.

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq/h_6_5.htm

Being influenced by anarchist ideas, the Makhnovists were organised along libertarian lines.

I recommend you read these.

http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq.html
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/makfaq/h_6_15.htm

[Vargha Poralli]

And of course the mass murder they both had such skill there,and if we are going to go the Leninist way it'll come in handy.

Revolution will be inherently violent and authoritarian unless it happens in your dreams. And you must not take westerns propaganda as a fact.

About Makhnov

Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1919-mil/ch49.htm)


There is Soviet Great Russia and there is the Soviet Ukraine.

And besides them there is also another, little-known state, namely, Gulyay-Polye. This is ruled by the headquarters of a certain Makhno. To start with, he had a guerrilla detachment, then a brigade, then, apparently, a division, and now all this has been repainted almost into a special insurgent ‘army’. Against whom are Makhno’s men rebelling? This question needs to be given a clear answer—an answer in word and in deed.

Makhno and his closest co-thinkers consider themselves Anarchists, and on this basis they ‘reject’ state power. So then, they are enemies of the Soviet power? Obviously, since Soviet power is the state power of the workers and working peasants.

But the Makhnovites cannot bring themselves to say openly that they are against Soviet power. They dissemble and prevariate: local Soviet power they say they recognise, but they reject central power. But all the local Soviets in the Ukraine recognise the central power which they themselves have elected. Consequently, the Makhnovites actually reject not only the central Ukrainian authority but also the authority of all the local soviets in the Ukraine. What then do they recognise? They recognise the authority of the Gulyay-Polye Makhnovite soviets, that is, the authority of a circle of Anarchists in the place where this has temporarily succeeded in establishing itself. This is actually the entire clue to the political wisdom of the Makhno move ment.

However, the Makhnovite ‘army’ needs cartridges, rifles, machine-guns, artillery, trucks, railway-engines and money. All these things are concentrated in the hands of the Soviet power, being produced and distributed under its direction. Therefore the Makhnovites have to turn to that very power which they do not recognise, in order to ask for money and cartridges. But, since the Makhnovites quite justifiably fear that the Soviet power might deprive them of everything without which they cannot live, they have decided to secure their independence by seizing the great riches of the country, so as then to enter into ‘treaty’ relations with the rest of the Ukraine.

In Mariupol uyezd there is much coal and grain. But since the Makhnovites are sitting on the railway branch-line from Mariupol, they are refusing to allow the coal and grain to leave except in exchange for other supplies. It has come about that, while rejecting the ‘state power’ created by the workers and peasants of the whole country, the Makhnovite leadership has organised its own little semi-piratical power, which dares to bar the way for the Soviet power of the Ukraine and ofall Russia. Instead of the country’s economy being properly organised according to a general plan and conception, and instead of a co-operative, socialist and uniform distribution of all the neces sary products, the Makhnovites are trying to establish domina tion by gangs and bands: whoever has grabbed something is its rightful owner, and can then exchange it for whatever he hasn’t got. This is not products-exchange but commodity-stealing.

The Makhnovites shout: ‘Down with parties, down with the Communists, long live non-party sovietsl’ But this is actu ally a miserable lie. Makhno and his companions-in-arms are not non-party people at all. They are all of the Anarchist persuasion, and send out circulars and letters summoning Anarchists to Gulyay-Polye so as to organise their own Anar chist power there. If they hoist the ‘non-party’ flag, this is only in order to throw dust in the eyes of the most benighted and backward peasants, who understand nothing about parties. Actually, the ‘non-party’ flag serves as the best possible cover for kulak elements. The kulaks do not dare to admit openly that they belong to the party of the Black Hundreds, for they fear they would be punished for that. Therefore they are most willing to make a show of being non-party. At present the SRs, the worst section of the Mensheviks, the Cadets, and all counter-revolutionaries in general who find it too dangerous to appear in public in their natural guise take cover behind ‘non party-ness’.

Communists do not hide their faces or furl their banners.

They present themselves openly to the working people as a party. The workers and peasants have come to know the Communists in action, by experience and in hard struggle. It is precisely for this reason that the party of Communist-Bolsheviks has acquired a decisive influence among the masses, and thereby also in the Soviets.

Counter-revolutionaries of every hue hate the Communist Party. The Makhnovites share this same feeling towards the Communists. Hence the profound sympathy felt by all pog romists and Black-Hundred rascals for the ‘non-party’ banner of the Makhnovites. The Gulyay-Polye kulaks and the Mariupol speculators echo with enthusiasm the words of the Makhnovites: ‘We do not recognise the state power which demands coal and grain. What we have seized we shall keep

In this respect as in all others, the Makhnovites are no different from the Grigoriyevites; Grigoriyev also rebelled against the central authority in the name of local non-party soviets, that is, against the organised will of the whole working class, in the name of individual kulak groups and bands. It was not accidental that Grigoriyev, when he raised the banner of savage, pogrom-making mutiny and set out to exterminate the Communist, called on ‘baiko’ Makhno to conclude a pog romists’ alliance with him. It is true that Makhno declined. But not at all for reasons of principle. At the Anarchist congress at Gulyay-Polye Makhno openly called for revolt against the Soviet power. If he did not revolt together with Grigoriyev, this was only because he was afraid, evidently realising the complete hopelessness of an open revolt.

Makhno’s ‘army’ is guerrilla-ism at its worst, although there are in it quite a few good rank-and-file fighters. No hint of order and discipline is to be found in this ‘army’. There is no supply organisation. Food, uniforms and ammunition are seized wherever they happen to come to hand, and they are expended in the- same careless way. This ‘army’ also fights when it feels like it. It obeys no orders. Individual groups advance when they can, that is, when they encounter no serious resistance, but at the first firm push from the enemy they scatter in all directions, surrendering stations, towns and military equipment to an opponent small in numbers. The blame for all this lies wholly with the muddle-headed and dissipated Anarchist commanders.

In this ‘army’, commanders are elected. The Makhnovites shout raucously: ‘Down with appointed commanders!’ This they do only so as to delude the ignorant element among their own soldiers. One can speak of ‘appointed’ persons only under the bourgeois order, when Tsarist officials or bourgeois ministers appointed at their own discretion commanders who kept the soldier masses subject to the bourgeois classes. Today there is no authority in Russia but that which is elected by the whole working class and working peasantry. It follows that comman ders appointed by the central Soviet Government are installed in thcir positions by the will of the working millions. But the Makhnovite commanders reflect the interests of a minute group of Anarchists who rely on the kulaks and the ignorant.

The anti-popular character of the Makhno movement is most clearly revealed in the fact that the army of Gulyay-Polye is actually called ‘Makhno’s Army’. There, armed men are united not around a programme, not around an ideological banner, but around a man[B]. It was exactly the same with Grigoriyev. In the Soviet Ukraine and in Soviet Russia regiments and divisions are weapons in the hands of the working class as a whole. In the Gulyay-Polye state the armed detachments are weapons in the hands of citizen Makhno. We have seen what this leads to. The private ‘army’ of Ataman Grigoriyev first went along with the Petlyurists, then caine over to the Soviet power, then, led by Grigoriyev, it rebelled in the name of Grigoriyev himself.[B] Armed masses, ignorant and deceived by the ‘non-party’ slogan, become a blind tool in the hands of adventurers.

Such is the Gulyay-.Polye state and the ‘army’ of Gulyay Polye. Scratch a Makhnovite and you will discover a Grigoriyevite. But most often there is no need even to scratch him: a frenzied kulak or petty speculator who barks at Com munists frankly gives himself away.

Soviet power is the dictatorship of the working class, which has transformed state power into an instrument of socialist reconstruction. At the same time, Soviet power has to protect the socialist country from the rabid onslaughts of the bourgeoisie. Is it thinkable in such a situation to permit on the territory of the Soviet republic the existence of armed bands which form themselves around atamans and Batkos, bands which do not recognise the will of the working class, which seize whatever they like and fight with whomsoever they choose? No, it is time to finish with this Anarcho-kulak debauchery, to finish with it firmly, once and for all, so that nobody will ever want to indulge in such conduct again.


How Is Makhno’s Troop Organised? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/military/ch73.htm)



Why? Leninism is dead,get over it, it killed millions and achieved nothing but totalitarian states.

So we better live in capitalist states ? Leninism is just a practical extension of Marxism in the age of imperialism.Saying Leninism is dead is like saying Marxism is dead.


A lack of hierarchy does not mean a lack of training at all. The militias in an autonomous commune could very easily be just as well trained as imperialist soldiers, not to mention the advantages they would have such as fighting on their own familiar territory.


Why did Paris commune fall, German revoltuion fail ? I am no expert at military affairs but as a witness of many failed Hartals and demonstration had shown be the effect of Police forces in India and I am sure army of bourgeoisie states will be much stronger than Indian Police.


You seem to be forgetting that only a very small amount of Leftists are primitivists.


What has this to do with primitivism ?


First of all, this post-revolution society we are speaking of would most likely be in a first world,

Which is just a speculation nothing to do with reality.


Second, who's to say that technological advancements, even in things such as defense technology, would not occur in a post-revolution society?

Where did I say that ?


The militias would be very well equipped because they would most likely have access to technology and weapons left by the once ruling nation and they would most definitely make technological advancements of their own.

My issue is revolution it self not a post revolution society.


Lack of hierarchy does not mean lack of organisation.

But organisation is based on Hierarchy.


Look at the insurgents in Iraq, the majority of guerillas in Iraq operate in small cells, (as far as I know). They are doing a pretty good job at staving off the entire U.S. military with relatively primitive weapons technology.

A very bad example. As far as I know they are more busily fighting their sectarian violence not US army.


Now, imagine that same situation but with the insurgents having weapons technology equal to or greater than that of the attacking army.

Really it is good when imagining.

[bcbm]

But organisation is based on Hierarchy.

No it isn't.

[The Feral Underclass]

Me and four other friends organised a trip to the countryside the other day and I made sure I was elected Chairman of the committee to make decisions, because otherwise nothing would have got done...My friends are pretty stupid.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:51 am
Tell me, why is it idiotic to think that? What makes you think that in order for people to fight, they need hierarchy?

I won't be able to respond until tomorrow because I'm going to bed.
Not necessarily rigid hiarchy as in the imperialist militaries but some sense of order and centralism to stand against the strong centralism of the imperialist armies. Mao Zedong was a strong advocate of military democracy...

As g. ram pointed out, you only need to look to the various communes that were crushed by imperialist forces to understand why autonomous communes won't/don't work well against large well co-ordinated armies.


A proper measure of democracy should be put into effect in the army, chiefly by abolishing the feudal practice of bullying and beating and by having officers and men share weal and woe. Once this is done, unity will be achieved between officers and men, the combat effectiveness of the army will be greatly increased, and there will be no doubt of our ability to sustain the long, cruel war.

"On Protracted War" (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 186.

Apart from the role played by the Party, the reason why the Red Army has been able to carry on in spite of such poor material conditions and such frequent engagements is its practice of democracy. The officers do not beat the men; officers and men receive equal treatment; soldiers are free to hold meetings and to speak out; trivial formalities have been done away with; and the accounts are open for all to inspect.... In China the army needs democracy as much as the people do. Democracy in our army is an important weapon for undermining the feudal mercenary army.

"The Struggle in the Chingkang Mountains" (November 25, 1928), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 83.

The policy for political work in our army units is fully to arouse the rank and file, the commanders and all working personnel in order to achieve three major objectives through a democratic movement under centralized leadership, namely, a high degree of political unity, better living conditions, and better military technique and tactics. The Three Check-ups and Three Improvements now being enthusiastically carried out in our army units are intended to attain the first two of these objectives through the methods of political and economic democracy. With regard to economic democracy, the representatives elected by the soldiers must be ensured the right to assist (but not to bypass) the company leadership in managing the company's supplies and mess. With regard to military democracy, in periods of training there must be mutual instruction as between officers and soldiers and among the soldiers themselves; and in periods of fighting the companies at the front must hold big and small meetings of various kinds. Under the direction of the company leadership, the rank and file should be roused to discuss how to attack and capture enemy positions and how to fulfil other combat tasks. When the fighting lasts several days, several such meetings should be held. This kind of military democracy was practiced with great success in the battle of Panlung in northern Shensi and in the battle of Shihchiachuang in the Shansi-Chahar-Hopei area. It has been proved that the practice can only do well and can do no harm whatsoever.

Mao on Military Democracy in "Quotations from Mao Zedong" (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch15.htm)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 29, 2007 03:59 am

Who said they were enemies of the workers? They aremed the workers with the state power necessary to drive the kulaks from their land, collective agriculture, put the soviets in power, and build socialism.

They manipulate the workers. Just like the capitalists now arm the workers for imperialist adventures. When they (the Marxist-Leninists) feel like they've consoldiated power, the repression begins. It's happened throughout the history of Marxist-Leninist revolutions, there's a honeymoon period, and after that the leaders become enemies of the workers.
Yeah there is repression, repression of the bourgiousie and imperialists, those who oppose worker collectives, worker run factories, and state power in the hands of the workers and peasants, those who want to restore fascism, fuedalism, and imperialism as well as institutionalize homlessness, poverty, death by curable dieseases for lack of healthcare, lack of education, and other barbarities. For them, the former rulers and captialists, socialism is a fucking nightmare but for the workers who now are told to rise up and secure their future and take control, it's the opposite.

Socialism is no joke, dictatorship over the bourgieousie is sometimes very necessary. For the proletariat however, it is the most democratic society (people's rule) as they are encouraged to revolt as well as strike down the cappies.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 29, 2007 12:32 pm
this has got very off-topic.
LeftyHenry i already agree with your marx-leninist theory, who are you trying to convert?
my posts are mostly directed at Fawkes and Nusocialist and the Tatanka Iyotank and anarchists in general not M-Ls like me you and g.ram

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:57 am



Democratic centralism is an oxymoron.

And the USSR ended up a totalitarian class society.

Totalitarianism is a bourgieousie farce, and democratic centralism is not an oxymoron, I think I explained it to you in my last post. It's a major tenet of Marxist-Leninism. Also non M-L parties use it so I've heard.


Once you have a state you can't have a revolution so how would that work?

erm... ya you can, what do you think we want to overthrow? The capitalist state. Anyhow, the cultural revolution is a perfect example of a Revolution within a revolution which aimed to defeat the capitalists in the party through encouraged mass participation and to usher in communism (eventually) and avoid the beaucratic revisionist mold of the Soviet Union.


They cannot do that without reasonable grounds or they'd show their true colours.
You should act with libertarian principles, work on the social revolution, fight the capitalists if they come but not destroy the revolution with authority.

This has been said a million times before...

A revolution is inherently authoritarian because it is one class overthrowing and supressing another


Which great revolution was this,the one that ended in millions of deaths, a class society and the china of today?

Seems like you need to brush up on your Chinese Communist history. After Mao died, there was a capitalist coup in which Deng Xioping ascended to the position of Chairman of the Communist Party of China. With him, he brought other revisionists who had been all but defeated by the anti-revisionist camp. They destroyed the people's communes and installed capitalism by opening up the market to companies like Nike and Wal-Mart.


Right,sure it was :huh:

It's no big secret. Have you heard of

http://www.google.com/

? It's very useful

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 09:24 am

But organisation is based on Hierarchy.

No it isn't.
All organization requires some sort of leadership.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:12 pm
All organization requires some sort of leadership.
Yes and no. Leadership also does not have to mean hierarchy.


Totalitarianism is a bourgieousie farce

Yeah, socialist countries were never police states, they were paradise on earth! :rolleyes:


nyhow, the cultural revolution is a perfect example of a Revolution within a revolution which aimed to defeat the capitalists in the party through encouraged mass participation and to usher in communism (eventually) and avoid the beaucratic revisionist mold of the Soviet Union.

And it was a phenomenal bloodbath that accomplished all of fucking none of those things.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 01, 2007 05:18 am--> (black coffee black metal @ February 01, 2007 05:18 am)
[email protected] 31, 2007 11:12 pm
All organization requires some sort of leadership.
Yes and no. Leadership also does not have to mean hierarchy. [/b]
There is no such thing as a form of organization that is non-hierarchical. The existence of organization actually presupposes a hierarchy, if words continue to have meaning. This is not a real distinction you are drawing. It is an obvious, transparent attempt to save face, the utter confusion of anarchist rhetoric having been exposed for all to see. Insofar as your argument rests upon a fiction, that there can be "organization" without "hierarchy", it has no meaning. It is a pure absurdity. Every form of organization requires the necessary submission to authority. Engels once wrote that "the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way." Subordination means hierarchy - at the very least, between those who are in the majority and the dissenters in the minority! Hierarchy is only evil when abused.

[bcbm]

There is no such thing as a form of organization that is non-hierarchical.

That is strange... I've been part of many.


The existence of organization actually presupposes a hierarchy, if words continue to have meaning.

No... not really. Organization merely assumes a group of individuals coming together for a common purpose, something that is entirely possible with no hierarchy.


This is not a real distinction you are drawing. It is an obvious, transparent attempt to save face, the utter confusion of anarchist rhetoric having been exposed for all to see.

Distinction between what? I am suggesting it is possible to have organization with hierarchy, that is, where all members are equal. I know this is possible because I have experienced it, but even so, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to figure out how it would work.

And I am not an anarchist. Take your boring, ****ish, sectarian bullshit somewhere else.


Insofar as your argument rests upon a fiction, that there can be "organization" without "hierarchy", it has no meaning. It is a pure absurdity.

Snoooze.


Every form of organization requires the necessary submission to authority.

Unless there is no authority. :rolleyes:


Engels once wrote that "the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way."

Oh shit, well if ENGELS wrote it... :rolleyes: x7 Who drags quotes from dead people into discussions where they are completely unnecessary?



Subordination means hierarchy - at the very least, between those who are in the majority and the dissenters in the minority!

You're assuming a certain type of organization and using that to prove your point. I'm pretty sure that is a logical fallacy.


Hierarchy is only evil when abused.

Who said hierarchy was evil? I didn't, so I don't know why you're mentioning that. Don't try to be a smartass, prick.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 07:06 pm
And I am not an anarchist. Take your boring, ****ish, sectarian bullshit somewhere else.
Autonomist-Stalinist?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by black rose+February 01, 2007 09:41 am--> (black rose @ February 01, 2007 09:41 am)
black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 07:06 pm
And I am not an anarchist. Take your boring, ****ish, sectarian bullshit somewhere else.
Autonomist-Stalinist? [/b]
:lol:

[Fawkes]

Why did Paris commune fall, German revoltuion fail ? I am no expert at military affairs but as a witness of many failed Hartals and demonstration had shown be the effect of Police forces in India and I am sure army of bourgeoisie states will be much stronger than Indian Police.
They fell/failed because they did not have the support from the population needed to carry out a successful revolution.


What has this to do with primitivism ?

You just seemed to be implying that leftists would not be willing to develop weapons of the same caliber as professional armies.


Which is just a speculation nothing to do with reality.

Isn't the whole idea that socialism will work a speculation?


Where did I say that ?

When you said something along the lines of "better trained".


My issue is revolution it self not a post revolution society.

Sorry, I was talking about a post-revolution society, but while we are on this topic, a Marxist-Leninist revolution would not necesarily be any better equipped than an anarchist one.


But organisation is based on Hierarchy.

I see that BCBM has already responded to this and I agree with him/her that that is a totally ludicrous statement to make.


A very bad example. As far as I know they are more busily fighting their sectarian violence not US army.
Than why hasn't the U.S. military "won" yet if they're just fighting themselves?


Really it is good when imagining.

So are a lot of things that are equally as possible (i.e. socialism).

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 05:18 am




Yes and no. Leadership also does not have to mean hierarchy.

:lol: I'll lead you if you lead me


Yeah, socialist countries were never police states, they were paradise on earth! :rolleyes:

so you'd rather they let the bourgieousie bring exploitation, institutionalized poverty, oppression, and other horrors of capitalism back?


And it was a phenomenal bloodbath that accomplished all of fucking none of those things.

Not really, and it did until there was a coup. The Xiopingist coup just demonstrated the necessity for it and that class struggle continues throughout socialism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Sorry, I was talking about a post-revolution society, but while we are on this topic, a Marxist-Leninist revolution would not necesarily be any better equipped than an anarchist one.

That explains why there are so many anarchist revolutions taking place all over the world right now, why the only Marxist-Leninist revolutions taking place are in Colombia, Bangladash, India, Nepal, the Philipines, and Peru.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:52 pm
so you'd rather they let the bourgieousie bring exploitation, institutionalized poverty, oppression, and other horrors of capitalism back?
No, the workers will prevent capitalists from returning to power. Once the power is fully in the hands of the proletariat, there's nothing a handful of capitalists could do to put themselves back in power.


That explains why there are so many anarchist revolutions taking place all over the world right now, why the only Marxist-Leninist revolutions taking place are in Colombia, Bangladash, India, Nepal, the Philipines, and Peru.

As history shows, the Marxist-Leninist revolutions are carried out by a few hundred or a few thousand followers. A true proletarian revolution would involve much of the working populace, not just a select few 'professional' revolutionaries.

[bcbm]

so you'd rather they let the bourgieousie bring exploitation, institutionalized poverty, oppression, and other horrors of capitalism back?


Oh yeah thats exactly what I fucking meant! I mean, the exploitation and horrors of "communism" under Mao fucking ruled, right?!


Not really, and it did until there was a coup. The Xiopingist coup just demonstrated the necessity for it and that class struggle continues throughout socialism.

What?! The cult.rev. was a fucking mess before the coup!

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:54 pm

Sorry, I was talking about a post-revolution society, but while we are on this topic, a Marxist-Leninist revolution would not necesarily be any better equipped than an anarchist one.

That explains why there are so many anarchist revolutions taking place all over the world right now, why the only Marxist-Leninist revolutions taking place are in Colombia, Bangladash, India, Nepal, the Philipines, and Peru.
That is because M-L is a more widespread ideology than anarchism and has nothing to do with their access to weapons.


so you'd rather they let the bourgieousie bring exploitation, institutionalized poverty, oppression, and other horrors of capitalism back?
You try to make it seem like the only alternative to a USSR type-state/nation/commune/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is capitalism. I'd rather not have either of those things.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 09:56 pm

so you'd rather they let the bourgieousie bring exploitation, institutionalized poverty, oppression, and other horrors of capitalism back?


Oh yeah thats exactly what I fucking meant! I mean, the exploitation and horrors of "communism" under Mao fucking ruled, right?!


Not really, and it did until there was a coup. The Xiopingist coup just demonstrated the necessity for it and that class struggle continues throughout socialism.

What?! The cult.rev. was a fucking mess before the coup!
Mao messed up quite a bit. In spite of his grave errors, there can be no doubt that what the communists did in China before Deng was far better than what the nationalists were going to do.

I think Left Henry's point is that the choice was, truly, between the communists in China (who helped the peasants and people through education, aid and more) and the nationalists (who opened fire on peasents when they demonstrated over 1,000% increase in taxation). Saying that x or y would have been better isn't exactly relevant to the situation.

I think a valid argument is that even though he made many mistakes, Mao was a positive influence for China.

Fawkes

It's hard to argue against the statement that Marxism-Leninism has been far more active and far more successful in fighting capitalism.

[Fawkes]

I recognize that and the fact that M-Lism is far more widespread than anarchism.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 01, 2007 05:16 pm
Fawkes

It's hard to argue against the statement that Marxism-Leninism has been far more active and far more successful in fighting capitalism.
If it's been so successful in fighing capitalism, then why have all ML states turned into capitalist ones?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by FoB+February 01, 2007 10:50 pm--> (FoB @ February 01, 2007 10:50 pm)
manic [email protected] 01, 2007 05:16 pm
Fawkes

It's hard to argue against the statement that Marxism-Leninism has been far more active and far more successful in fighting capitalism.
If it's been so successful in fighing capitalism, then why have all ML states turned into capitalist ones? [/b]
Good thing Catalunya isn't capitalist today....

The Russian Revolution was a positive impact and influence for at least a decade. After that, it became corrupt and inefficient, but still better than the capitalism that has replaced it (IMO, one can hardly call it Marxist-Leninist at that point, however). Its achievements deserve to be admired, or at the very least, acknowledged.

This isn't about anarchism not being practical/good/anything like that; this is about the fact that Marxism-Leninism has done more in the world than anarchism has.

[Fawkes]

There is no denying that M-L has been far more active in the world of politics than anarchism has.

[RGacky3]

People talking about Anarchists comming to power is strange, Anarchists want to eliminate power, so the only thing they'd need to fight is someone trying to re-establish power.

[Phalanx]

No, anarchists want the proletariat to come to power, not themselves.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Fawkes+February 01, 2007 10:01 pm--> (Fawkes @ February 01, 2007 10:01 pm)
[email protected] 01, 2007 04:54 pm

Sorry, I was talking about a post-revolution society, but while we are on this topic, a Marxist-Leninist revolution would not necesarily be any better equipped than an anarchist one.

That explains why there are so many anarchist revolutions taking place all over the world right now, why the only Marxist-Leninist revolutions taking place are in Colombia, Bangladash, India, Nepal, the Philipines, and Peru.
That is because M-L is a more widespread ideology than anarchism and has nothing to do with their access to weapons.


so you'd rather they let the bourgieousie bring exploitation, institutionalized poverty, oppression, and other horrors of capitalism back?
You try to make it seem like the only alternative to a USSR type-state/nation/commune/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is capitalism. I'd rather not have either of those things. [/b]
Yeah and there is a reason why Marxist-Leninism is more widespread? Can you guess it? Yup that's right, it's more realistic as demonstrated just by combat tactics against imperialists.

and you are taking a very subjective look at the Soviet Union, the view that is spoon fed to you. That is why you have to think for yourself and research alternative sources and THEN weigh the two.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by FoB+February 01, 2007 10:50 pm--> (FoB @ February 01, 2007 10:50 pm)
manic [email protected] 01, 2007 05:16 pm
Fawkes

It's hard to argue against the statement that Marxism-Leninism has been far more active and far more successful in fighting capitalism.
If it's been so successful in fighing capitalism, then why have all ML states turned into capitalist ones? [/b]
Because those capitalist states had a 200 year headstart, Because there was capitalist coup; ie the capitalists won the class struggle battle.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:40 pm
Yeah and there is a reason why Marxist-Leninism is more widespread? Can you guess it? Yup that's right, it's more realistic as demonstrated just by combat tactics against imperialists.
Uh, no, it is that M-L groups were funded by a superpower. Anarchists don't have those sort of resources and thus groups had to depend on the USSR for support.


and you are taking a very subjective look at the Soviet Union, the view that is spoon fed to you. That is why you have to think for yourself and research alternative sources and THEN weigh the two.

I've thought for myself and researched, and I still thik the USSR was a fucked-up police state and dictatorship.

[Fawkes]

Yeah and there is a reason why Marxist-Leninism is more widespread? Can you guess it? Yup that's right, it's more realistic as demonstrated just by combat tactics against imperialists.
Capitalism is more widespread than M-Lism, does that mean capitalism is better?


and you are taking a very subjective look at the Soviet Union, the view that is spoon fed to you. That is why you have to think for yourself and research alternative sources and THEN weigh the two.
I do think for myself believe it or not. All I was saying is that I wouldn't want to live in a U.S.-type place, nor would I like to live in a U.S.S.R.-type one.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 02, 2007 06:11 am





Uh, no, it is that M-L groups were funded by a superpower. Anarchists don't have those sort of resources and thus groups had to depend on the USSR for support.

Uh no, what superpower funds the Naxalites, Prachandistas, Shining Path, and New Democratic Army today? What about before? The Shining Path never recieved aid from a superpower as well as the July 26 movement, neither do the current day marxist-leninist movments.


I've thought for myself and researched, and I still thik the USSR was a fucked-up police state and dictatorship.

Yeah, a dictatorship of the proletariat (until 1953), where the proletariat had control of society and state power, where the political system was based off of local soviets or worker councils. Obviously you closed yourself off to only one view in your research: the anarchist and capitalist view of the Soviet Union which viewed the soviet union as an evil state, or a threat to the current system, either way it passes judgement before even researching like you.


Capitalism is more widespread than M-Lism, does that mean capitalism is better?

No. The difference is that the proletariat chose/choose and were/are the revolutionary base of marxist-leninism. Anarchism is supposed to have the same base, yet it is rare outside the "first world" while marxism-leninism is currently the ideology of several revolutionary movements. This means the workers consistantly chose Leninism over Anarchism as their ideology.


I do think for myself believe it or not. All I was saying is that I wouldn't want to live in a U.S.-type place, nor would I like to live in a U.S.S.R.-type one.

that's your opinion of course, and in this thread I have emphasized the fact that the image of the USSR portrayed by the US is greatly flawed among other things.

But also, the goal of a Marxist-Leninist(-Maoist) revolution is not to recreate China under Mao or the Soviet Union under Lenin, but to go even farther and aim for a even more radically different society where people are told to revolutionize their world. A large part of historical materialism is the critiscism, understanding, and learning from mistakes and successes of past events in history, and marxist-leninists like all marxists apply that.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 02, 2007 10:02 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ February 02, 2007 10:02 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 02, 2007 06:11 am





Uh, no, it is that M-L groups were funded by a superpower. Anarchists don't have those sort of resources and thus groups had to depend on the USSR for support.

Uh no, what superpower funds the Naxalites, Prachandistas, Shining Path, and New Democratic Army today? What about before? The Shining Path never recieved aid from a superpower as well as the July 26 movement, neither do the current day marxist-leninist movments.


Capitalism is more widespread than M-Lism, does that mean capitalism is better?

No. The difference is that the proletariat chose/choose and were/are the revolutionary base of marxist-leninism. Anarchism is supposed to have the same base, yet it is rare outside the "first world" while marxism-leninism is currently the ideology of several revolutionary movements. This means the workers consistantly chose Leninism over Anarchism as their ideology.

[/b]
Firstly, Anarchism, untill just after the Russian revolution, was far more widespread an ideology worldwide than marxism.

After the aparent success of the Bolshevik coup huge sections of the working class turned towards what they thought was a working model of revolution.

Before the truth about the soviet system became widespread (remember communication, especially among the working classes, was not nearly as accessable as it is today, even in the third world.) Stalinism and the Third International, with huge resources at their disposal began to consolidate there dominance of the left worldwide.

For an example of how this happened one has to look no further than the spanish civil war, where the anarchists had a huge majority among the working class, and the communist party was a tiny middle lass organisation, and despite the fact that the party acted in a totally counter revolutionary manner, they became the dominat force on the ledt due to financil backing from Stalin.

Imagine this process ebing repeated everywhere in the world, you now have an ideological shift towards Bloshevism, despite the original intentions of the working class, who along ideological and practical lines had chosen anarchism untill the 1920's.

It is true that many modern day ML movements got no financial support from Stalin or Mao, but many did, and the fact is that the debate and hegemony had shifted towards an authoritarian style of Marxism. This is where the debate now started from, and splits came from this tradition, despite the continued exisatance in many places of smaller anti authoritarian organisations of the earlier proletarian traditions like syndicalism and councilism.

As to the accusation that anarchism hardly existed outside of the first world this is blatantly false.
The first labour unions in China where founded by anarchists (Mao was at one point an anarchist).
Latin American revolutionary politicas where totally dominated by anarchist and revolutionary syndicalism until about the 20's. (this is true of Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Chile, Allende in fact was mostly inspired by an anarchist at an early age, I could go on).
Africa had a large anarchist movement in the south and west coast.
In Korea many of the leading anti imperialst heros were anarchist, many have officil state recognition to this day as greta political figures.

Anarchism went through a period of downturn do to the rise of the international power of the communist party (sometimes due to phisical repression at the hands of the Stalinists), But it is again on the rise, most makedly in some areas of the third world.

Your statements about The Bolsheviks system in russia is just farcical, any ncritical reading of the russian revolution shows that the working class was disarmed and marginalised politically as early as about 1919. There were some major benefits for the life and health of the working class, but the same can be said even more so of the United States in the same period. the point is in neither place was the working class in the saddle.

[bcbm]

Yeah, a dictatorship of the proletariat (until 1953), where the proletariat had control of society and state power, where the political system was based off of local soviets or worker councils. Obviously you closed yourself off to only one view in your research: the anarchist and capitalist view of the Soviet Union which viewed the soviet union as an evil state, or a threat to the current system, either way it passes judgement before even researching like you.

Hey dickhead, I just said that I HAVE DONE MY OWN RESEARCH. Its not my problem that you can't get over the fact that the USSR was a deformed and fucked-up failure.

[Fawkes]

People don't need to be told to do it, they can do it themselves.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 03, 2007 12:28 am

Yeah, a dictatorship of the proletariat (until 1953), where the proletariat had control of society and state power, where the political system was based off of local soviets or worker councils. Obviously you closed yourself off to only one view in your research: the anarchist and capitalist view of the Soviet Union which viewed the soviet union as an evil state, or a threat to the current system, either way it passes judgement before even researching like you.

Hey dickhead, I just said that I HAVE DONE MY OWN RESEARCH. Its not my problem that you can't get over the fact that the USSR was a deformed and fucked-up failure.
No it wasn't it was a workers state and socialist until a revisionist coup in 1953.


Firstly, Anarchism, untill just after the Russian revolution, was far more widespread an ideology worldwide than marxism.

No shit? Anarchism was an idea since the neolithic revolution, a lack of government.


After the aparent success of the Bolshevik coup huge sections of the working class turned towards what they thought was a working model of revolution.

It wasn't a coup, saying this shows lack of knowledge on the situation. The bolsheviks had played major roles in revolutionizing the soviets, planning strikes, protests, and educating on class consciousness. The interim government was a joke that had less power than the soviets did, the final takeover of power was a result of years and years of worker actions and uprisings.


For an example of how this happened one has to look no further than the spanish civil war, where the anarchists had a huge majority among the working class, and the communist party was a tiny middle lass organisation, and despite the fact that the party acted in a totally counter revolutionary manner, they became the dominat force on the ledt due to financil backing from Stalin.

Yeah go ahead and blame it on Stalin because he gave to arms only to the republic and trained and funded the International Brigades, which, at first, were barred from Spain and fighting for the Republic by the Anarchistas.


Imagine this process ebing repeated everywhere in the world, you now have an ideological shift towards Bloshevism, despite the original intentions of the working class, who along ideological and practical lines had chosen anarchism untill the 1920's.

Ah so this is your point. Well, I'll challenge you on that. Marxism was extremly popular in Russia, that was how the bolshevik revolution occured. It was also popular in Germany as a revolution right after would appear to establish socialism as well as in America for large part. Eugene V. Debs had acquired many votes. While Germany and America weren't necessarily Bolshevik situations, they were socialist and the bolshevik revolution would really be in the same socialist tradition as these movements. Bolshevism only became a ideology later because it was in particular, the Soviet Socialist movement.


It is true that many modern day ML movements got no financial support from Stalin or Mao, but many did, and the fact is that the debate and hegemony had shifted towards an authoritarian style of Marxism. This is where the debate now started from, and splits came from this tradition, despite the continued exisatance in many places of smaller anti authoritarian organisations of the earlier proletarian traditions like syndicalism and councilism.

Marxism is inherently authoritarian, we've covered this already, and there is a reason why it shifted *It was realistic, not utopic, and was living and breathing unlike "libertarian" and left wing communism has ever been. The workers realized that Marxist-Leninism is realistic. That is why it has had countless successes while anarchism has had none.


Anarchism went through a period of downturn do to the rise of the international power of the communist party (sometimes due to phisical repression at the hands of the Stalinists

blaming it on the "stalinists" again without evidence, eh?


As to the accusation that anarchism hardly existed outside of the first world this is blatantly false.
The first labour unions in China where founded by anarchists (Mao was at one point an anarchist).
Latin American revolutionary politicas where totally dominated by anarchist and revolutionary syndicalism until about the 20's. (this is true of Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Chile, Allende in fact was mostly inspired by an anarchist at an early age, I could go on).
Africa had a large anarchist movement in the south and west coast.
In Korea many of the leading anti imperialst heros were anarchist, many have officil state recognition to this day as greta political figures.

that's hardly "significant" I'm not saying that it doesn't exsist and that it has no influence, but it is definatly not the mainstream revolutionary proletarian movement outside of the first world where it is shared with leninism.


Your statements about The Bolsheviks system in russia is just farcical, any ncritical reading of the russian revolution shows that the working class was disarmed and marginalised politically as early as about 1919. There were some major benefits for the life and health of the working class, but the same can be said even more so of the United States in the same period. the point is in neither place was the working class in the saddle.

on the contrary, the workers held state power and had control through soviets, that is why despite the anarchists claiming that Stalin was a cappie or whatever and the bourgieousie had risen again, worker advancements continued, agriculture was collectivized/collectivly run, private property disapeared, the workers were given state power and told to revolutionize society and teh world they lived in.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:51 pm
No it wasn't it was a workers state and socialist until a revisionist coup in 1953.
:rolleyes: I'm agreeing to disagree.




No shit? Anarchism was an idea since the neolithic revolution, a lack of government.

Durr anarchism means more than that.


Yeah go ahead and blame it on Stalin because he gave to arms only to the republic and trained and funded the International Brigades, which, at first, were barred from Spain and fighting for the Republic by the Anarchistas.

Stalin wouldn't give guns to those who didn't follow the USSR's line, and they still managed to hold their fucking own in the streets and countryside while the rest of the world had its thumb up their ass.

And let's not forget what happened later..


Marxism is inherently authoritarian, we've covered this already, and there is a reason why it shifted *It was realistic, not utopic, and was living and breathing unlike "libertarian" and left wing communism has ever been. The workers realized that Marxist-Leninism is realistic. That is why it has had countless successes while anarchism has had none.

So realistic, it has failed everywhere! Wowee! I think your reasoning is more than a little flawed. How is anarchism or whatever else you're shit-talking not "living and breathing?"

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 03, 2007 01:56 am



:rolleyes: I'm agreeing to disagree.

why the fuck are you even posting this ad-hominum shit?



Durr anarchism means more than that.

Yeah of course, but anarchism as he preaches was definatly less popular than Socialism, so I presume he was talking about the dictionary definition.


Stalin wouldn't give guns to those who didn't follow the USSR's line, and they still managed to hold their fucking own in the streets and countryside while the rest of the world had its thumb up their ass.

Many freedom fighters in the International Brigades weren't communists dumbass


And let's not forget what happened later..

Oh yeah let me guess, Stalin attempted to create a anarchist genocide or something, right?


So realistic, it has failed everywhere! Wowee! I think your reasoning is more than a little flawed. How is anarchism or whatever else you're shit-talking not "living and breathing?"

It didn't fail, the proletariat just lost the class struggle. The fact that it was restored in China and the Soviet Union just proves that class struggle continues under socialism and instead of uniting the proletariat was split into little factions making it all the easier. Marxist-Leninism is not a old ideology, and is much younger than capitalism and imperialism. We have lost ground yes, but class struggle is not dead and that fact alone is the reason why we'll make that ground up.

Do you think that if it were a anarchist revolution that had occured instead of the bolshevik one that we'd be in your little utopia? Of course not and I've outlined that in this thread.

[Rawthentic]

Need I remind all those here that LeftyHenry is an RCP member? What a damn joke. He sees anarchism as a utopia, thats ignorant bullshit. Anarchist revolution is like the rest, but without the crap (elitist, petty-bourgeois vanguard Party) like the RCP.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Unfortunatly for you, that "crap", the whole organizational thingy has proved to be quite necessary in past revolutions.

[ComradeR]

While anarchism is very good in theory, it does not work in the real world for a very simple reason. In order to reach a stateless society requires that the entire working class has a well-developed sense of responsibility and class conscience, and is grounded in their "natural morality". i.e. an enlightened prolotariet, free of the educational and economic conditioning of capitalism. But in order for this enlightenment to occur on a mass scale requires several generations of socialist education free of capitalist influence, but this can only begin to happen after the capitalist system has been smashed.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:04 am
Unfortunatly for you, that "crap", the whole organizational thingy has proved to be quite necessary in past revolutions.
So care to point to any communist societies for me? I've looked, but I can't find any.


The USSR had a system set up, so that, even if you think it was a great place to live until 1953, it was always possible to change it. Any top-down structure is easy to change, which is why anarchists reject these sort of structures.


Mind you, anarchists (most of them anyway) aren't against organisation. And to try and categorise anarchists as anti-organisational is not only ignorant, but quite stupid. Anyway, enjoy.

[rebelworker]

Well, i guess i just learned Left henry cant read...
You ignored every major point I made and rebuffed with a bunch of blathering nosense.

Il respond more in a minute, Now I gotta watch some Rosanne.

[Fawkes]

While anarchism is very good in theory, it does not work in the real world for a very simple reason. In order to reach a stateless society requires that the entire working class has a well-developed sense of responsibility and class conscience, and is grounded in their "natural morality". i.e. an enlightened prolotariet, free of the educational and economic conditioning of capitalism. But in order for this enlightenment to occur on a mass scale requires several generations of socialist education free of capitalist influence, but this can only begin to happen after the capitalist system has been smashed.
What makes you think that that couldn't happen in an anarchist society?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:02 pm
Well, i guess i just learned Left henry cant read...
You ignored every major point I made and rebuffed with a bunch of blathering nosense.

Il respond more in a minute, Now I gotta watch some Rosanne.
I did make a response. I am sorry you don't like it, if you would like, I'll give you the splendid opportunity to ignore it and concede to Leninism. ;)

It was your post that was blathering nonsense, you didn't get specific, just made bold hyperbole statements with no back up. Your only point was "anarchism was more popular than bolshevism before 1917" well dipshit, no fucking shit, bolshevism didn't exsist. It would be like saying CPUSAism or RCPUSAism now. It was a Russian political party that follwed socialism, and socialism was definatly more popular than the style of anarchism you talk about. Leninism wasn't used by people until after Lenin died.

Also, keep in mind marxism was a brand new ideology, what counts is that as it got older and more well known it became more popular than anarchism, why? Because it was simply more realistic.

[Pirate Utopian]

i sorta agree with henry, before russian revolution anarchism just had more attention then marxism, afterwards people saw more potential in marxism then anarchism.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by apathy maybe+February 03, 2007 01:03 pm--> (apathy maybe @ February 03, 2007 01:03 pm)





[/b]

Apathy Maybe
So care to point to any communist societies for me? I've looked, but I can't find any.

Yeah because, for the 19th time on this thread, class struggle continues under socialism. If the proletariat splits into factions and fails to fight revisionism it can easily lose the class struggle, just as it is now under capitalism. I fail to see the difficulty people have at grasping this concept as no one has responded to it yet.


The USSR had a system set up, so that, even if you think it was a great place to live until 1953, it was always possible to change it. Any top-down structure is easy to change, which is why anarchists reject these sort of structures.

Great well communism is something that needs to be worked towards. In the real world, if it just fell on our laps immediatly there would chaos. Every situation in history where there is a lack of government body because the people overthrew it, chaos has insued. That is why when I ask Average Joe on the street what he pictures anarchism to look like, he recounts the stereotype it has earned.

Socialism is the period of transition and while we won't see communism in one, two, or three generations of socialism progress is made with every generation.


Mind you, anarchists (most of them anyway) aren't against organisation. And to try and categorise anarchists as anti-organisational is not only ignorant, but quite stupid. Anyway, enjoy.

Yes but autonomous organization is not organization. Little autonomous militias cannot stand against one large centrally co-ordinated imperialist army. The first few pages of this debate were about that and every anarchist on this thread has ignored what I and g. ram pointed out.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 03, 2007 06:44 pm
i sorta agree with henry, before russian revolution anarchism just had more attention then marxism, afterwards people saw more potential in marxism then anarchism.
really, rebelworker's statement pisses me off because he attempts to protray marxism as hijacking the worker's movement. That's bullshit. It didn't hijack the movment, it proved itself as a non-utopic ideology period.

[Fawkes]

Yes but autonomous organization is not organization.
What?


Little autonomous militias cannot stand against one large centrally co-ordinated imperialist army. The first few pages of this debate were about that and every anarchist on this thread has ignored what I and g. ram pointed out.
Actually, neither you or g.ram were able to refute our arguments.


and socialism was definatly more popular than the style of anarchism you talk about.
Anarchism is a form of socialism.


That is why when I ask Average Joe on the street what he pictures anarchism to look like, he recounts the stereotype it has earned.
What about what he pictures communism to look like? I'm pretty sure I can guess his response.


Your only point was "anarchism was more popular than bolshevism before 1917"
No, actually I think s/he made a pretty good point about how anarchism is gaining popularity in third world nations.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:13 pm




Actually, neither you or g.ram were able to refute our arguments.

what the hell are you talking about? You guys changed the subject to Democratic Centralism. I've responded to everything the anarchists have said in this thread.



Anarchism is a form of socialism.

No its not. In socialism there is a state.


What about what he pictures communism to look like? I'm pretty sure I can guess his response.

irrelevent because we're arguing the organization line plus, anarchism hasn't been the target of capitalism's propaganda machine for the past century.


No, actually I think s/he made a pretty good point about how anarchism is gaining popularity in third world nations.

Really? You think that just saying something makes a point? Okay fine. Communism is gaining popularity in Africa. Thus, it is now true using the Fawkes-Rebelworker formula. :rolleyes:

[Rawthentic]

And socialism has never existed LeftyHenry. Not in any of your Maoist states or Leninist ones. It is anarchism and left-communism that have produced the most organic people's uprisings, none of that elitist vanguard shit, like in Spain, Hungary, where the workers revolted against the Soviet (Leninist) parasitic bureaucracy, as well as the Paris '68 uprisings.

[Fawkes]

what the hell are you talking about? You guys changed the subject to Democratic Centralism. I've responded to everything the anarchists have said in this thread.
You never responded to what I said on pages 2 and 3 about how an autonomous militia would work. g.ram did respond, though he never responded once I refuted what he was saying.



No its not. In socialism there is a state.
Socialism is the communal ownership of the means of production.


irrelevent because we're arguing the organization line plus, anarchism hasn't been the target of capitalism's propaganda machine for the past century.
What the hell are you talking about, yeah it has. How about when reporters say "Somalia is in a current state of anarchy." It may be more subtle, but anarchism has definitely been attacked and continues to be by the media.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

A lack of hierarchy does not mean a lack of training at all. The militias in an autonomous commune could very easily be just as well trained as imperialist soldiers, not to mention the advantages they would have such as fighting on their own familiar territory.

Not if they're outnumbered for example. A imperialist army can easily call for reinforcements or can just focus a ton of troops on one battle like D-Day for example. Plus, they are better equiped because they have a nation's taxes funded into them. Look at the US for example, 300 billion dollars go to the army. They have hitech tanks and shit. Do you really think that a commune of what 10,000 people at most could stand against a well co-ordinated imperialist army in both arms, technology, funding, and man-power (remember they were going to send millions of soldiers to invade Japan in WWII yet commune A only has like 10,000 people!).


You seem to be forgetting that only a very small amount of Leftists are primitivists. First of all, this post-revolution society we are speaking of would most likely be in a first world, post-industrial nation and would already be very technologically advanced.

There it is again, that "don't worry, trust us" arguement. The truth is, revolutions will first break out in the place where oppression of the proletariat and peasantry class is raw like Nepal and India today. Not in the USA where workers have better standards of living than workers in the rest of the world.

You can't even call that an arguement, because that will not be what its like. Spain wasn't a first world country yet the anarchists always point to it as their shining example.


Second, who's to say that technological advancements, even in things such as defense technology, would not occur in a post-revolution society?

I'm not saying they wouldn't. I'm saying that a independent and autonomous commune would be less effective at making technological advancements. Why? Because they don't have as much resources to invest in a project to say create a sateillite as a centralized government like USSR did. Sputnik was a nation-wide project using resources from all the Soviet Socialist Republics that made the Union.

Plus, as a matter of fact, there might be jelousy and nationalism that arises between communes. Say one commune is starving yet has put resources towards building a nuke. Another commune wants the nuke but Commune A doesn't want to give it unless its for grain. Commune B could give the grain in solidarity, or not. Either way, a wall of technology and nationalism has been created as well as tensions you see? If it gives the grain it won't put its people in a good position however if it doesn't it will be backwards from the other communes.

The system I think you are preposing would create loyalty commune not class.


The militias would be very well equipped because they would most likely have access to technology and weapons left by the once ruling nation and they would most definitely make technological advancements of their own.

And then we will live happily ever after right?...:roll: No this is just speculation what if the revolution occurs in Haiti first? What tech do they got? You're basing your entire arguement on the idea that it will happen first in a first world country. If it doesn't, your little uprising is fucked! If it does, its still fucked because there is no central line. Half the communes may decide to fight an invasion while the other half try peacful negiotions, maybe not even half will fight. Why? Because there is no line. That is why the Zocalo in Oaxaca fell within a day of the PFP coming. Some people in the APPO voted for peaceful resistance, some voted for violent, and some voted for masturbation. That is why anarchism is utopic.


Look at the insurgents in Iraq, the majority of guerillas in Iraq operate in small cells, (as far as I know). They are doing a pretty good job at staving off the entire U.S. military with relatively primitive weapons technology.

Not really. Again. Some insurgents masturbate, some blow themselves and civilians up, and some snipe Americans but the truth is that compared to Vietnam where we were in for 8 years and 50,000 American Soldiers died because of the Marxist-Leninist Vietcong, only 3000 American soldiers have died in 4 years. Why? Because there is no unified front and the guerillas are fighting each other just like autonomous communes might. Plus alot of the more effective militias are more centralized like the Madhi Army I think.

[rebelworker]

OK your point about Marxism rise in the world was adressed in my post, you just ignored what i said.

Everywhere maxist parties supported by Soviet money existed they violently attacked elements of the worker movement, often the majority, that they felt at ods with, this is true in both the first and third world.

If your nieve enough to need examples I can give them, but if that the case its sad that you cant or wont even defend the strategy of you tendency in public.

Anarchism was realistsic in the Spanish civil war, just not all anarchists, some made mistakes, possible the most important not crushing the communist party when they had the chance.

As to your point about isoled militias, I agree, so do most anarchist globally,there are just many on this board who have pushed another position.

Durrutti, Makhno and the other branches of anarchism that make up the fastes growing wing of anachism supported a united anarchist militian, coordinated by a revolutionary coincil, with electable officers. It was very effective whenever put in practice. Unlike Communist Party Practice it was not ever used to supress other elemnts of the working class movement.

The Bolshevik and ML line is inherently flawed in its analysi of power and the role of the party in deforming the revolutionatry will of the working class.

You say marxism was a new ideology, as is platformist and especifist anarchism.

The Bolshevik model won over huge chunks of the anarchism movement, the first US CP was made up of huge numbers of former anarchist militants. It looked atainable,I agrree, the reality is that it didnt work and cant work for reasons we have argued about in dozens of threads.

The more Communists parties seize power in the modern era the more they will fail in a very open way(due to the mass communication capablitities we have today).

Anarchism may again have achance to prove itself, anachist have leaned alot, it dosnt seem like Many marxists have.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:14 pm



Socialism is the communal ownership of the means of production.

That's Communism.


You never responded to what I said on pages 2 and 3 about how an autonomous militia would work. g.ram did respond, though he never responded once I refuted what he was saying.


my bad. I didn't see that, I was busy responding to the 18 other anarchists posting on this thread. RevLeft should really do some anarchist purges because there are like 50 anarchists for every leninist :P


What the hell are you talking about, yeah it has. How about when reporters say "Somalia is in a current state of anarchy." It may be more subtle, but anarchism has definitely been attacked and continues to be by the media.

That's because they're going by the dictionary defintion, also that is rare as fuck compared to commie bashing in the news, in school, and everywhere. Hell we have a entire class devoted commie bashing, its called modern global history

[bcbm]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 02, 2007 09:36 pm--> (LeftyHenry @ February 02, 2007 09:36 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 03, 2007 01:56 am



:rolleyes: I'm agreeing to disagree.

why the fuck are you even posting this ad-hominum shit? [/b]
Acknowledging that we are not ever going to agree on the subject is not "ad-hominum(sic)."



Yeah of course, but anarchism as he preaches was definatly less popular than Socialism, so I presume he was talking about the dictionary definition.

Don't be an arse.



Many freedom fighters in the International Brigades weren't communists dumbass

The International Brigades were controlled by the USSR fuckhead.



Oh yeah let me guess, Stalin attempted to create a anarchist genocide or something, right?

No, there certainly weren't thousands of people rounded up and shot for not wanting to abandon the militias and the revolution and actually try to improve their lot. Nope.



It didn't fail, the proletariat just lost the class struggle. The fact that it was restored in China and the Soviet Union just proves that class struggle continues under socialism and instead of uniting the proletariat was split into little factions making it all the easier. Marxist-Leninism is not a old ideology, and is much younger than capitalism and imperialism. We have lost ground yes, but class struggle is not dead and that fact alone is the reason why we'll make that ground up.

Funny how the same stupid shit you try to say proves anarchism is a failure proves something entirely different for ML.


Do you think that if it were a anarchist revolution that had occured instead of the bolshevik one that we'd be in your little utopia? Of course not and I've outlined that in this thread.

I'm neither a utopian nor an anarchist, but I certainly think a more libertarian minded revolution would produce better results. Either way, your attitude that the USSR and other ****ish hells are beyond criticism isn't helping anybody.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:30 pm






OK your point about Marxism rise in the world was adressed in my post, you just ignored what i said.

um no I didn't. I adressed your post point by point. Like this one.


If your nieve enough to need examples I can give them, but if that the case its sad that you cant or wont even defend the strategy of you tendency in public.

What the fuck are you blabbering about. I gave you examples of socialism's popularity.


Anarchism was realistsic in the Spanish civil war, just not all anarchists, some made mistakes, possible the most important not crushing the communist party when they had the chance.

No the biggest mistake was trying to stop the communist international brigades form fighting.


Durrutti, Makhno and the other branches of anarchism that make up the fastes growing wing of anachism supported a united anarchist militian, coordinated by a revolutionary coincil, with electable officers. It was very effective whenever put in practice. Unlike Communist Party Practice it was not ever used to supress other elemnts of the working class movement.


That sounds like what Mao proposed, in anycase, that goes against your battle cry of no hiarchy, plus what working class movements are you refering to? Kronsdadt? Yeah they were well known fascists and anti-semites and supporters of the pogroms. Hitler has the same goals.


The Bolshevik and ML line is inherently flawed in its analysi of power and the role of the party in deforming the revolutionatry will of the working class.

typical baseless anarchist rhetoric.


The Bolshevik model won over huge chunks of the anarchism movement, the first US CP was made up of huge numbers of former anarchist militants. It looked atainable,I agrree, the reality is that it didnt work and cant work for reasons we have argued about in dozens of threads.


Again, that doesn't mean that the bolsheviks hijacked the movement as you imply, rather it means that the bolsheviks actually won a workers revolution and proved their ideology, somethign anarchists have never really done other than one failed revolution with trotskyists and "Stalinists" fighting in it too.


The more Communists parties seize power in the modern era the more they will fail in a very open way(due to the mass communication capablitities we have today).

That is an upsurd anti-worker statement. They won't fail, they'll build socialism. Very big difference, but I guess you see that as failure.



Anarchism may again have achance to prove itself, anachist have leaned alot, it dosnt seem like Many marxists have.

Of course we have, wtf do you think? We think that Marx Lenin Stalin and Mao were perfect? No we recognize their mistakes and successes throught critical marxist analysis and learn from them that is why no party today has the exact same line as the CCP in 1949 or the CPSU in 1917

[The Author]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+ January 25, 2007 12:32 pm--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ January 25, 2007 12:32 pm)Because they'll already be organized before any shooting begins, there won't be any need for a dictatorship of the proletariat. [/b]

Curious, how does the organization of the workers relate to the dictatorship of the proletariat?


The only way capitalists could regain control over the populace is if a foreign imperial power sends in military aid.

Is this the only way capitalists can regain control?


[email protected] January 28, 2007 12:57 pm
Anarchists don't tale power. We advocate direct democracy from the beggining.

...the revolution is workers seizing the means of production. Decisions are then placed in the communities hands in order to build a society based on mutual aid.

How does one attain direct democracy without taking power?

How do workers seize the means of production if, going by Anarchist ideology, taking power is taboo?


I'm all for suppressing the capitalist class post revolution.

Doesn't this action require the state, another taboo for Anarchism? After all, the state is that organ of suppression of one class to dominate another class.


Well if it's armed resistance, workers militias will put it down.

How would workers militias be organized?

[Rawthentic]

No the biggest mistake was trying to stop the communist international brigades form fighting.

You're such an ignorant little ****, go back and suck Avakian's cock.

The Spanish Civil War was an anarchist revolution, where the people actually controlled their workplaces and communities. The Soviet Communists along with the Communist Party (ML), destroyed the revolutionary anarchist movement to abide by the Soviet Union's fucked up guidelines. So in essence they destroyed a revolution with no little help from the Fascists.

The Soviet Union suppressed the working class. This shows in Hungary, where real revolutionaries wanted socialism, but real socialism, not the Leninist state-capitalism, so they attacked the bureaucracy, only to be violently suppressed by the State forces, as is typical under capitalism.

[Hit The North]

You're such an ignorant little ****, go back and suck Avakian's cock.

Comrade, I think you need to moderate your language and respect the right of other comrades to hold a different opinion to yourself.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:48 pm



If your nieve enough to need examples I can give them, but if that the case its sad that you cant or wont even defend the strategy of you tendency in public.

What the fuck are you blabbering about. I gave you examples of socialism's popularity.



Durrutti, Makhno and the other branches of anarchism that make up the fastes growing wing of anachism supported a united anarchist militian, coordinated by a revolutionary coincil, with electable officers. It was very effective whenever put in practice. Unlike Communist Party Practice it was not ever used to supress other elemnts of the working class movement.


That sounds like what Mao proposed, in anycase, that goes against your battle cry of no hiarchy, plus what working class movements are you refering to? Kronsdadt? Yeah they were well known fascists and anti-semites and supporters of the pogroms. Hitler has the same goals.


God damn your an ignorant ass.

I was stating the facts about the long history of your tendancy to violently supress any section of the working class that is independant of your fucked up view on revolution and both gave and offered to give more examples of it. You are either totally oblivious to the realities of how history has played out (Im pretty sure this is in play) and/or just to cowardly to admit to this.

As for anarchist Militias, the point is it is they were secondary to the power of the economic emancipation of the class, not an opressive wing of a party dictatorship as the case with most of hat you defend. If it sounds like what Mao Proposed mabey its because he hald on to a little of the anarchist Ideas that he had learnt.

I have met some ex Panthers who have since moved to anarchism who felt that alot of the good points of maoism can be realted to his early anarchist influences. Lets see what Bob has to say about that.

As for Kronstadt, get your head out your ass. Are you serrious, only a bunch of Stalinist hacks wold still beleive that line. Even Prominent Bolsheviks at the time admited to the amount of outright bullshit they spouted to defend their party line.

Anarchist Militias had social bases of millions of working people. The proletariate was far more developed and active in Spain than in Russia. If you still take Stalinist propaghanda to be a reliable source then there may be no hope for you. Get a grip Kronstadt was an white plot like Elvis is fucking Engels in my bathroom right now.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:48 pm


Of course we have, wtf do you think? We think that Marx Lenin Stalin and Mao were perfect? No we recognize their mistakes and successes throught critical marxist analysis and learn from them that is why no party today has the exact same line as the CCP in 1949 or the CPSU in 1917
Thats right, the RCP hasn't believed homosexuality is a burgeoise deviation for at least 5 years.

Lead on oh helmsman in adversity. I bow before your dialectical prowess.

Avakian's insight gives me a rage'n hard on.
god I feel feeble...

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 03, 2007 11:45 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ February 03, 2007 11:45 pm)

[/b]

black coffee

Acknowledging that we are not ever going to agree on the subject is not "ad-hominum(sic)."

No but just saying it was a evil police state is.


The International Brigades were controlled by the USSR fuckhead.

Yeah but the members weren't all communists. It was antifas from all over the world organized, equiped, funded, and supported by the Soviet Union


No, there certainly weren't thousands of people rounded up and shot for not wanting to abandon the militias and the revolution and actually try to improve their lot. Nope.

what the hell are you talking about, the only place where "communists" and anarchists clashed was in Barcelona and that was only the PCE which was ultra-leftist and went against the Marxist-Leninist line of the CPSU in support and aid of the struggle.

If you're talking about the arrest of leading POUM members, Intelligitmate made a post some time ago about POUM-Nazi collaborations. There was some evidence that POUM and the Nazis were working together to widen anarchist-communist sectarianism.

Other than those which don't qualify your statement, the Marxist-Leninists stood firmly by the struggle. The Republic would've lost Barcelona very early thus establishing Franco earlier had it not been for Soviet tanks and Soviet backed International Brigades on the frontlines.


Funny how the same stupid shit you try to say proves anarchism is a failure proves something entirely different for ML.

What a great rebuttle. Now go fuck yourself.


I'm neither a utopian nor an anarchist, but I certainly think a more libertarian minded revolution would produce better results. Either way, your attitude that the USSR and other ****ish hells are beyond criticism isn't helping anybody.

Yes they were hellish for the bourgieous, however for us proletariat it wasn't. And I've never said it's beyond critiscism. I have critiscisms for the Soviet Union, like its top down form as opposed to the bottom up form of socialism demonstrated by the PRC of 1966. I just don't throw away worker struggles as garbage like you.


Thats right, the RCP hasn't believed homosexuality is a burgeoise deviation for at least 5 years.

The RCP's old line on homosexuality was that its something we don't know enough about and that it had only flourished under capitalism, but it was clearly stated in the draft programme that the RCP is against all forms of oppression. Thus the RCP was never homophobic and had homosexual members, but thought that since it was rare in the PRC and USSR, it would not flourish in socialism.

In anycase, the RCP did self-critiscism on this. Plus, the anarchist movement was not free of homophobia either. For example, well known spanish anarchists wrote that as anarchists we are morally superior and cleaner than gays or something like that according to wikipedia.



I was stating the facts about the long history of your tendancy to violently supress any section of the working class that is independant of your fucked up view on revolution and both gave and offered to give more examples of it. You are either totally oblivious to the realities of how history has played out (Im pretty sure this is in play) and/or just to cowardly to admit to this.

What the fuck? Aright where are the examples then? Sorry if I missed them. Yes the Soviet Union and China aided Marxist-Leninists movements over Anarchist movements. Why? Because they knew that they'd fail. However what you're claiming is farce, neither state while socialist went out of its why to suppress working class movements, unless you're one of those fuckheads who think fascism is a "right wing working class movement" which yes, it did suppress.

I've already pointed out how the International Brigades and Soviet tanks as well as fighters which drove back fascists were crucial to the defence of the republic.


As for anarchist Militias, the point is it is they were secondary to the power of the economic emancipation of the class, not an opressive wing of a party dictatorship as the case with most of hat you defend. If it sounds like what Mao Proposed mabey its because he hald on to a little of the anarchist Ideas that he had learnt.

So does this mean you're fine with hiarchy? Does it also mean that you're fine with the concept of fascists and imperialists who want to restore institutionalized poverty, homelessness, and exploitation being able to seize power in your little "non-hiarchial" councils?


As for Kronstadt, get your head out your ass. Are you serrious, only a bunch of Stalinist hacks wold still beleive that line. Even Prominent Bolsheviks at the time admited to the amount of outright bullshit they spouted to defend their party line.

That's because you can be in the Bolshevik (or communist then) Party but not be a communist. Bakhurin for example was openly state capitalism amd had a hard-on about a market economy. Others were the same.


Anarchist Militias had social bases of millions of working people. The proletariate was far more developed and active in Spain than in Russia. If you still take Stalinist propaghanda to be a reliable source then there may be no hope for you. Get a grip Kronstadt was an white plot like Elvis is fucking Engels in my bathroom right now.

So did socialist groups and militias. I can assert facts too. You're not getting anywhere. Anarchism is still utopic and has failed miserably at every corner at being chosen by working people other than one revolution which was also coincidently a "trotskyist" and marxist-Leninist fought one. Oh ya and bullshit about the millions. If that was true than why was Spain the only revolution in which Anarchists were involved in. With millions they'd be doing the same as MLs.

Please, enough with the ad-homs. What isn't propaganda? You anarchists are so fucking closeminded you don't read anything critical to your view. Yeah, it's onesided but so is everything else. You Get Your head out of your ass, The truth is usually somewhere in between but definatly not the anti-worker shit you spout.

[rebelworker]

Are you even reading my posts?

And are you really unaware of the massive amounts of repression meted out by "socialist" states against independent left wing workers?

You RCP types are more delusional than i thought... :wacko:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:22 am








You're such an ignorant little ****, go back and suck Avakian's cock.

How many parties have you been in in the last month fuckhead, you bash che and the cuban workers with a che avatar, and were part of both the Communist League and Free People's Movement while they split. This is some game for you bourgiousie suburban punk kiddies. Keep masturbating about an anti-worker utopia, try not to think about real worker struggles going on all over the world under the banner of Marxist-Leninism today, the fact that anarchism is a unproven utopic impossibility, and that you contradict yourself so much you have become the forum joke. I am delighted to see you on this thread because it means that I have another fucking moron to shut up.


The Spanish Civil War was an anarchist revolution, where the people actually controlled their workplaces and communities. The Soviet Communists along with the Communist Party (ML), destroyed the revolutionary anarchist movement to abide by the Soviet Union's fucked up guidelines. So in essence they destroyed a revolution with no little help from the Fascists.

Hey fuckhead, instead of repeating RAAN rhetoric why don't you try the reading thing, it really works. The Soviet Union was the only power aiding Spain (along with France) in terms of tanks, arms, fighters, and trained fighters.

worker's took over their workplace in Socialist countries too. What do your think the whole collectivization thing in the soviet union was? It was peasants backed by state power and worker brigades becoming the masters of society and fighting class war and revisionism by attacking and overthrowing the kulak fuedal slave masters.

Here is a direct quote from a witness of China's Cultural Revolution:

"Plant after Plant, Office after Office was taken over by its workers. Detachments of the People's Liberation Army, at the request of the Shanghai Worker's Revolutionary Rebel General Headquarters, took up posts along with worker's militia to guard key points -- power stations, waterworks, transport centers, telephone and radio stations -- in order to prevent sabotage. The workers had studied Marx's work on the Paris Commune. Noting his critiscism that the Communards had not seized the banks, they posted pickets at all banks to prevent a run on their funds it was a classical revolutionary take over of power... "

-- Jack Chen, Inside the Cultural Revolution (pp. 254-255)

Once again try actually reading about the struggles of workers in creating socialism in the 20th century instead of just chewing and reguretating anarchist rhetoric. Funny how your fucking dumbass called me ignorant...


The Soviet Union suppressed the working class. This shows in Hungary, where real revolutionaries wanted socialism, but real socialism, not the Leninist state-capitalism, so they attacked the bureaucracy, only to be violently suppressed by the State forces, as is typical under capitalism.

I've already said the Soviet Union underwent a revisionist coup in 1953 when Khruschev took power and started a program of liberalism. So the Soviet Union in 1956 when the Hungarian revolt took place was hardly socialist.

You are partially right that it was a left-wing worker revolt, however only originally and it was anti-revisionist based not anarchist as you like to masturbate about. It was however, quickly hijacked by nationalist opportunists. On the other hand, many pro-Soviet Union workers opposed the revolt. I heard somewhere on the anniversarry of this event that there was a monument put up near the capital by the current "socialist" government "in honor" of those who defended the capital during the revolt.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:24 am
Are you even reading my posts?

And are you really unaware of the massive amounts of repression meted out by "socialist" states against independent left wing workers?

You RCP types are more delusional than i thought... :wacko:
Yes actually I am reading them, and I am even proving it to you by responding to it point by point. You're a fucking idiot because you respond to my posts with general random posts like this one and then when I ask for specifics you go "oh its obvious" or "you should know" and other bullshit excuses for a defunct 13 year old punk ideology.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:25 pm
And socialism has never existed LeftyHenry. Not in any of your Maoist states or Leninist ones. It is anarchism and left-communism that have produced the most organic people's uprisings, none of that elitist vanguard shit, like in Spain, Hungary, where the workers revolted against the Soviet (Leninist) parasitic bureaucracy, as well as the Paris '68 uprisings.
There has only been one Maoist state and that was the pinnacle of socialism so far. Many movments all over the world are in the progress of waging people's war or New Democratic Revolution to recreate it and go farther towards communism while anarchists and ultra-leftists sit and ***** about Leninism.

[ComradeR]

What makes you think that that couldn't happen in an anarchist society?
Because in order for an anarchist revolution to be successful, it requires that the entire prolotariet to have broken free of capitalist educational and economic conditioning before the revolution takes place. But this cannot happen untill after the capitalist system has been destroyed, or else you will end up with the working class fractioning, with elements of the working class turning on each other over various reasons (ethnic, religious, economical etc.). While other elements turn to the ousted bourgeoisie, leading to a major counter revolution. The main reason a "state" is required during the post-revolutionary period is to provide order and security (and by order and security i mean preventing the working class from fractioning, and to repress the bourgeoisie) during the period it takes to educate the entire working class and break the capitalist conditioning. This takes several generations to accomplish, free from the capitalist system. Unfortanatly anarchism ignores this fact which is why no anarchist revolution has ever managed to succeed.


Everyone should chill out with the extreme levels of flamming. At a certain point it starts to turn the whole debate into an insult contest with some jargon mixed in.
Yeah no kidding people it's getting ridiculous.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:48 am

What makes you think that that couldn't happen in an anarchist society?
Because in order for an anarchist revolution to be successful, it requires that the entire prolotariet to have broken free of capitalist educational and economic conditioning before the revolution takes place.
I don't know what you're refering to here, but can you point me to a piece of anarchist theory that asserts such a thing, because I have never come across one?

A revolution in and of itself is neither Marxist nor Anarchist; it's simply the culmination of class struggle. What defines a revolution is how the working class choose to organise themselves. They can either do that by themselves, free from hierarchical intervention (Anarchism) or they can allow a centralised command structure do it for them (Leninism).

The conclusion of this choice will ultimately see the revolution succeed or fail.


But this cannot happen untill after the capitalist system has been destroyed, or else you will end up with the working class fractioning, with elements of the working class turning on each other over various reasons (ethnic, religious, economical etc.). While other elements turn to the ousted bourgeoisie, leading to a major counter revolution.

In the context of class struggle there is no historical evidence that supports that assertion.


The main reason a "state" is required during the post-revolutionary period is to provide order and security (and by order and security i mean preventing the working class from fractioning, and to repress the bourgeoisie) during the period it takes to educate the entire working class and break the capitalist conditioning.

Theoretically perhaps, but materially it doesn't work.


This takes several generations to accomplish, free from the capitalist system. Unfortanatly anarchism ignores this fact...

It's not ignored, we simply reject the notion that a state is required to achieve it.


...which is why no anarchist revolution has ever managed to succeed.

In terms of what?

Certainly no anarchist revolution has created communism but then again neither has a Marxist one.

If we measure success by the material application of both theories then anarchism has certainly not been falsified, whereas Marxism has been - on every occasion it has been attempted.

In science, a scientist proposes a hypothesis and then tests it. Once it has been tested time and time again the results are measured and a conclusion reached: Is the hypothesis true or false...?

Marxism is undoutedly false.



Everyone should chill out with the extreme levels of flamming. At a certain point it starts to turn the whole debate into an insult contest with some jargon mixed in.
Yeah no kidding people it's getting ridiculous.

I think it's rather funny.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:41 am

Yes actually I am reading them, and I am even proving it to you by responding to it point by point. You're a fucking idiot because you respond to my posts with general random posts like this one and then when I ask for specifics you go "oh its obvious" or "you should know" and other bullshit excuses for a defunct 13 year old punk ideology. [/quote]
The point is you are not respondng to m posts, but spouting your well practiced rhetoric in general statements that you think anarchists are always on about.

OK, Im gonna have one more go at this.

You continue to speak of the success of ML ism and the failure of anarchism. Unfortunately we are working from two very different measures of success.

Again I think it has been more than adequitly proven by both therists and history that by buildind a party based dictatorship, and this is exactly what the bolsheviks did, that the power of the state will not wither away,as you insist, but create a new ruling class of functionaries.

During tis process of power consolidation the Bolsheviks often unleashed great waves of slander against elements of the revoltionary in order to justify crushing them by force. It as aknowledged by some members of the party at the time that alot of this was pure fiction.

Between this and the proces of carefully strippin all power away from working class institutions not controlled by the Bolshevik party, most importantly the factory commitees, the very base of the most pure elements of the revolutionary layer of the working class, the Bolshevik party effectivly politically disarmed the political will of the working class and empowered a new layer of party hacks and managers.

Stalin was able to take control of the country, because the country was run not by the working class but by the party.

As for Stalin himself the mere fact that you see him as a revolutionary at all discredits anything you have to say about transitional state socialism.

The man was a brutal tyrant. he was also crazy. His vision of reality was so distoted that he had leading members of is own party erased from history. That should be a warning for you. unless you are a groundless yes man for leadership you can expect great treatment from you own "comrades".

Every level of inter party purges never expects they will be the next. From the workers opposition to the show trials, the guy holding the axe is always the next to go.

This phenomenon of inter party purges is found throughout the history of vanguard parties, from the Russian revolution to the modern Guerrilla army of the Phillipines, and saysalot about the inherent flaws with the ideology. Im not going to give examples now, because this email is getting long and because, as I tried to point out before, Im sure you know all the examples because ITS YOUR IDEOLOGY and I hope you know your true history and are prepared to defend it.

The fact the mass amounts of party comrades are the ore of you organisation, and a few months later you party is so full of counter revolutionaries that you need to have massive bloody purges should set off some warning bells. I mean if the workers are actually in controll, not a party dictatorship as I and most of you critics point out, then how can a small group, of party members no less, take power?

As for the authoritarian methods employed by the various Communist parties to gain prominance after the russian revolution, I already gave the example, which you ignored, of the Spanish Communist party goin from a tiny organisation of middle class intelectuals and small landowners (this comes from the parties own figures)to possible the strongest element of the liberal burgeoise coalition govt, who's secret police were employed to kill, imprison and torture revolutionary working class militants. And who's police force kept weapons from the working class antifacists at the front lines so they could seize liberated workplaces from the revolutionary workers and return them to the hands of the govt.

Now that obviously isnt clear enough for you, so I will use examples from my home country instead.
In the 1920's, like in most places around the world, the militant workers in Canada had overwealmigly chosen an ideology that rightfully put them at the center of their own liberation, revolutionary syndicalism. Unfortunately for them there was a new force on th scene that wanted obedience from these uncontrollable rebels, the Communist party. In order to impose there supremacy in the workers movement they employed a tactic that had been very successful for the bosses at supressing the revolutionary unionists, they sent goons armed with club into union meeting to beat revolutionary speakers. Its true these nieve synicalists did have a flaw in their ideology, like latter to be discovered at a much grater cost in Span, the workers must not only be organised to defeat there bosses, but they must be millitarily prepared to defeat the hole range of counter revolutionaires that would be aligned against them in a revolutionary situation, including authoritarian communists.

Fast forward a few decades to Montreal in the 1970's, now the largest Communist Party in North America was the group publishing the paper "En Lutte". These Maoists used to use chains and bats to beat trotskyists and anarchits in the streets at demos, carrying on a fine tradition.

Finally you accuse anarchism of being a utopian punk ideology. The final straw of a tendancy lead by petty burgeoise intellectuals. (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Avakian).

There are utopian wings of anarchism, just as there are utopian wings of sociallism. I think neither of us are guilty of that.

I myself have never been a punk (though I enjoy going to the odd show :D) , and my organisation is made up largely of people well beyond the age of being punx, Though I do think Durrutti was in a Crass cover band for a few years before leading one of the most impressive and effective self organised working class millitias in history.

Anarchism has had its theoretical failings, like any ideology, but it has prove itself organisationally and militarily capable on a couple of occasions, and with all the lessons learned through hisory i hope we gat another chance to be involved in meaningfull mass social transformation.

Any failing of anrchism historically has been adressed by "the platform", "towards a fresh revolution" or especifismo (a current of social insertion developed by the 50 year old Paraguyan Anarchist federation and now adopted or studied by most large anarchist communist organisations).

I hope this clears up any holes I had left in my earlier posts...

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I'll respond to this later, I think there's a rally in east harlem today that I should go to

[manic expression]

The bottom line here is that M-L has been more successful than anarchism, Marxism has creates socialism and workers' states, while anarchism only has Catalunya and part of Ukraine to its name.

Some may say that the M-L dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently against the interests of the workers, but this is false, and that is obvious when one looks at the Soviet Union before 1928, or Cuba today. The dictatorship of the proletariat means just that: the rule of the working class. While this may be corrupted, every system has a danger of being manipulated.

The inner-party politics that some point out are indicative of discussion. When it comes to purges, I would argue that the Bolsheviks really didn't carry out unreasonable purges until Stalin's consolidation of power.

None of this is to say that anarchism isn't a viable model or theory. I also recognize that the communists hampered the anarchists in Spain. At any rate, measuring validity of a political system shouldn't be done solely through counting its successes IMO.

Just a few things I wanted to add.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Tatanka [email protected] 02, 2007 03:09 am
No, anarchists want the proletariat to come to power, not themselves.
Being in Power, means you have to be in Power over someone, who will the workers have Power over? no one, if EVERYONES in power, then theres no Power.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by RGacky3+February 04, 2007 06:01 pm--> (RGacky3 @ February 04, 2007 06:01 pm)
Tatanka [email protected] 02, 2007 03:09 am
No, anarchists want the proletariat to come to power, not themselves.
Being in Power, means you have to be in Power over someone, who will the workers have Power over? no one, if EVERYONES in power, then theres no Power. [/b]
But you can have power over yourself. Under capitalism, workers have no power because the system is set to oppress them. Anarchism, or Libertarian Communism gives workers power over themselves.

[The Grey Blur]

in Spain, Hungary, where the workers revolted against the Soviet (Leninist) parasitic bureaucracy, as well as the Paris '68 uprisings.
And Leninists played key roles in all these uprisings. Fucking read a book.


And socialism has never existed
Soviet Russia pre Stalin, the Spanish collectives, the Paris Commune, the 68 uprising, the current situation in Venezuala, Hungary 1918-19, Bavaria 1919, the Limerick Soviet, Cuba, etc etc etc etc etc et fucking cetera!

Everyone start being scientific before I go crazy on yo' asses!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:25 pm
And socialism has never existed LeftyHenry.
That's a very silly claim to make.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+February 04, 2007 10:46 pm--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ February 04, 2007 10:46 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:01 pm

Tatanka [email protected] 02, 2007 03:09 am
No, anarchists want the proletariat to come to power, not themselves.
Being in Power, means you have to be in Power over someone, who will the workers have Power over? no one, if EVERYONES in power, then theres no Power.
But you can have power over yourself. Under capitalism, workers have no power because the system is set to oppress them. Anarchism, or Libertarian Communism gives workers power over themselves. [/b]
Ok, under that definition then YES, you can have power of yourself, but thats pushing the definition.

In that case Anarchism is against ALL POWER, other than the power over yourself. Think about it, If I was saying that Anarchism was against all power, even power over yourself, that would mean I would be advocation a system where NO ONE MAKES ANY DESICIONS EVER.

Damn people, you know what I mean :P, stop splitting hairs.

[ComradeR]

I don't know what you're refering to here, but can you point me to a piece of anarchist theory that asserts such a thing, because I have never come across one?
I was referring to the fact that whenever i talk to anarchists about a revolution they always argue that it isn't possible for one to succeed (and actually create socialism) unless you have 90-100% of the working class actively involved in the revolution, which isn't possible unless the entire prolotariet has broken free of the capitalist conditioning prior to the revolution.


A revolution in and of itself is neither Marxist nor Anarchist; it's simply the culmination of class struggle. What defines a revolution is how the working class choose to organise themselves. They can either do that by themselves, free from hierarchical intervention (Anarchism) or they can allow a centralised command structure do it for them (Leninism).
And what of right-wing elements of the prolotariet? (such as conservatives and fascists etc.) or those who side with the bourgeoisie? (such as the petty-bourgeoisie) groups like these do make up a hefty chunk of the working class, how do anarchists plan on preventing them from crushing or hijacking the revolution without hierarchical organisation? (all organisation on a large scale is inheritantly authoritarian and hierarchical, even if it's democratic, arguing otherwise is folly.)


The main reason a "state" is required during the post-revolutionary period is to provide order and security (and by order and security i mean preventing the working class from fractioning, and to repress the bourgeoisie) during the period it takes to educate the entire working class and break the capitalist conditioning.



Theoretically perhaps, but materially it doesn't work.

It has in the past, but the working class ultimetly failed to maintain control over the state. But now thanks to the information age it will be easier to maintain a more decentralized state, thus allowing a much better chance for the prolotariet to maintain control of the state in any future revolution.


...which is why no anarchist revolution has ever managed to succeed.



In terms of what?
In the terms that an anarchist movement has never managed to succeed in toppling a capitalist government.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:40 am

...which is why no anarchist revolution has ever managed to succeed.



In terms of what?
In the terms that an anarchist movement has never managed to succeed in toppling a capitalist government.
Could you give me an example of a revolution where there were absolutely no anarchists active? (or marxists, or socialists for that matter)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The point is you are not respondng to m posts, but spouting your well practiced rhetoric in general statements that you think anarchists are always on about.

I'm actually backing my claims up and going through your posts point by point, you're the one making shitty general and unspecific claims and rebuttels.


OK, Im gonna have one more go at this.


:rolleyes:


You continue to speak of the success of ML ism and the failure of anarchism. Unfortunately we are working from two very different measures of success.

Ya you measure success in ultra-leftist anti-worker units which score a never proven ideology the highest, whie I measure it in terms of revolutions carried out under the banner, revolutions fought under the banner, and worker power and rights won


Again I think it has been more than adequitly proven by both therists and history that by buildind a party based dictatorship, and this is exactly what the bolsheviks did, that the power of the state will not wither away,as you insist, but create a new ruling class of functionaries.


yeah the working class as the ruling class. Communism is not something that just falls on our lap, something that comes without working towards it. This is where anarchism is flawed, it either ignores the idea that capitalists and the former bourgioeusie still exsist after the revolution, or uses the "don't worry, trust us, we're anarchist" arguement. Socialism is necessary to establish the proletariat. That can't be done without marxist transition.


During tis process of power consolidation the Bolsheviks often unleashed great waves of slander against elements of the revoltionary in order to justify crushing them by force. It as aknowledged by some members of the party at the time that alot of this was pure fiction.

What members? You could be a bolshevik but not a communist. Bakhurin for example loved the NEP and wanted it to stay permanent. He was essentially a state-capitalist. I've said this before, and I'm tired or debating this shit.


Between this and the proces of carefully strippin all power away from working class institutions not controlled by the Bolshevik party, most importantly the factory commitees, the very base of the most pure elements of the revolutionary layer of the working class, the Bolshevik party effectivly politically disarmed the political will of the working class and empowered a new layer of party hacks and managers.

The soviets exsisted until the end of the soviet union. Was their beauracracy in the Soviet Union? Yeah, and that was on of Mao's main critiscisms of Stalin however it was the working class and poor peasantry that benefited from the industrialization and policies of the CPSU pre-1953. Workers were encouraged to revolutionize society and were the soul of the soviet union and they saw their wages and living standards increase dramatically because of the struggle of their soviet representitives.


Stalin was able to take control of the country, because the country was run not by the working class but by the party.

On the contrary, Stalin was only the general sectretary of the party. I reccomend Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform by Grover Furr.


As for Stalin himself the mere fact that you see him as a revolutionary at all discredits anything you have to say about transitional state socialism.

Yeah how reactionary he was, he only collectivized agriculture driving out the fuedal slave owners and installing the farmers and peasantry class in control, passed legislature to make woman completly equal to men, end the pogroms, end all private property thus making the people in collective control of the entire country, and waged a war in which the Nazis would be dealt at least 75% of their casualties on the eastern front as well as industrializing the country in a socialist fashion in 10 years what took the bourgiousie 200. Yeah you're completly right.


Every level of inter party purges never expects they will be the next. From the workers opposition to the show trials, the guy holding the axe is always the next to go.

D.N. Pritt was a witness of the moscow trials and proved they were fair. Plus, he was a member of the British capitalist Labor Party. Keep in mind the Bolshevik Party followed the principles of Democratic Centralism. All actions were democratically decided on, there was freedom of discussion, however once a descision was made, you had to stick by the line, it wasn't an option, and that is what kept the Soviet Union strong especially in its early days, its iron discipline. If there had been many factions openly fighting in the party it would've torn itself apart. Don't believe me? Look at your beloved Spanish Revolution. Part of the reason it failed was not that Stalin was some evil sabatuer who gave to much aid to the Republic and none to the Anarchists but rather, Anarchists and Communists were slaughtering each other tensions had gotten so high, and ultra-leftists chose not to fight. Lenin easily predicted this and that was the reason the Soviet Union was able to exsist through some of the toughest times in human history. Those who were trying to split Union apart and ignore Democratic Centralism in favor of the same conclusion that had fated the Spanish Revolution were expelled.


This phenomenon of inter party purges is found throughout the history of vanguard parties, from the Russian revolution to the modern Guerrilla army of the Phillipines, and saysalot about the inherent flaws with the ideology. Im not going to give examples now, because this email is getting long and because, as I tried to point out before, Im sure you know all the examples because ITS YOUR IDEOLOGY and I hope you know your true history and are prepared to defend it.

This topic has been covered before, I'm suprised you haven't realized that. The purges had a reason and that reason was to preserve socialism. Capitalists were in the party advocating for defeatist and state capitalist lines, many attempted to sabotage programs. In China, many local politicians who were against the Great Leap Forward and prefered the Khruschev-style system lied about grain production to sabotage the production. In any system someone who commits fraud like that to the people is subject to trials, and as D.N. Pritt a eye witness of these trials (which I don't think you are) wrote, these trials were not "show" trials.

I'm not gonna debate history with you. Why? Because your ideology HAS no history. Mine does, the worker's overwhelmingly chose it. Were mistakes made? Of course, and very critical mistakes but all systems have failures before they succeed and since marxism is a scientific ideology and scientists get things wrong all the time as they learn more, we marxists have learned from our past mistakes. That said socialism was the first time people were encouraged to challenge every production relation, class relation, gender and race relation, and the oppression and exploitation of capitalism and the results were a radically different world where the workers and the masses were in control of the system in every sphere from their workplace to their neighborhood. That is why even today with everyone but leninists calling communism "dead", there are struggles going on all over the world under the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist banner. By the way, if anarchism was so popular before the bolsheviks supposedly killed the working class as you and other anarchists like to think, where were all the revolutions? Even with the international communist movement in temporary withdrawl there are worldwide revolutions.


As for the authoritarian methods employed by the various Communist parties to gain prominance after the russian revolution, I already gave the example, which you ignored, of the Spanish Communist party goin from a tiny organisation of middle class intelectuals and small landowners (this comes from the parties own figures)to possible the strongest element of the liberal burgeoise coalition govt, who's secret police were employed to kill, imprison and torture revolutionary working class militants. And who's police force kept weapons from the working class antifacists at the front lines so they could seize liberated workplaces from the revolutionary workers and return them to the hands of the govt.

The PCE was not a Communist party it was and ultra-leftist party which deviated from the comintern's line of support and aid of the struggle in Spain. As for the second part of your statement, that is completely false and an exageration. The only case which resembles that was tensions which broke out in Barcelona at one point however otherwise that is false. Plus it wasn't secret police, it was regular cops, and the anarchists had the same type of precincts.


Now that obviously isnt clear enough for you, so I will use examples from my home country instead.
In the 1920's, like in most places around the world, the militant workers in Canada had overwealmigly chosen an ideology that rightfully put them at the center of their own liberation, revolutionary syndicalism. Unfortunately for them there was a new force on th scene that wanted obedience from these uncontrollable rebels, the Communist party. In order to impose there supremacy in the workers movement they employed a tactic that had been very successful for the bosses at supressing the revolutionary unionists, they sent goons armed with club into union meeting to beat revolutionary speakers. Its true these nieve synicalists did have a flaw in their ideology, like latter to be discovered at a much grater cost in Span, the workers must not only be organised to defeat there bosses, but they must be millitarily prepared to defeat the hole range of counter revolutionaires that would be aligned against them in a revolutionary situation, including authoritarian communists.

Fast forward a few decades to Montreal in the 1970's, now the largest Communist Party in North America was the group publishing the paper "En Lutte". These Maoists used to use chains and bats to beat trotskyists and anarchits in the streets at demos, carrying on a fine tradition

Got a source? Anarchists have done the same thing here. according to RAAN's wiki, they attacked two outlets of Revolution books vandalized everything and beat the crap out of the peole working there. A trotskyist from the spartiscist league tried to spit on me once as well.

Also You're stories are generic. I could just be like, Hey one time some anarchists attacked a maoist meeting with clubs. That has surely happened although I don't know about it but its just as specific as your little example.



Finally you accuse anarchism of being a utopian punk ideology. The final straw of a tendancy lead by petty burgeoise intellectuals. (Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Avakian).

There are utopian wings of anarchism, just as there are utopian wings of sociallism. I think neither of us are guilty of that.

Yeah go ahead and accuse the workers organizing revolutions or fighting in 'em of being petty-bourgieousie :rolleyes: that is actually the last straw of the anarchist tendency, I far from done debating with you ;) everything you have argued has been refuted by marxist-leninists in many occassions.

Yes there are utopian wings of socialism, like trotskyism, however I'm a marxist-leninist which is a proven scientific theory. Until anarchism proves itself as being the great shining eample for workers to follow in practice, then most people will continue to see it as utopic is so many words.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by An archist+February 05, 2007 10:56 am--> (An archist @ February 05, 2007 10:56 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 10:40 am

...which is why no anarchist revolution has ever managed to succeed.



In terms of what?
In the terms that an anarchist movement has never managed to succeed in toppling a capitalist government.
Could you give me an example of a revolution where there were absolutely no anarchists active? (or marxists, or socialists for that matter) [/b]
he said movement and sure, China, Cuba, Nepal etc... yes there were anarchists in Spain and Russia and even Nicaragua, but other then Spain they were outnumbered and only joined in and avoided ultra-leftism because the revolutions were harcore, hardline Marxist-Leninist.

[Rawthentic]

How many parties have you been in in the last month fuckhead, you bash che and the cuban workers with a che avatar, and were part of both the Communist League and Free People's Movement while they split. This is some game for you bourgiousie suburban punk kiddies. Keep masturbating about an anti-worker utopia, try not to think about real worker struggles going on all over the world under the banner of Marxist-Leninism today, the fact that anarchism is a unproven utopic impossibility, and that you contradict yourself so much you have become the forum joke. I am delighted to see you on this thread because it means that I have another fucking moron to shut up.

I have been around Party members and Leninists long enough. I bash Cuba and the Cuban workers? What an utter distortion. I criticize Cuba for its problems, not the workers. I am no longer an FPM member, I in fact never was, so shit like that isnt going to get you anywhere. I am a League member, but who gives a fuck? Its not Leninist or else I wouldnt be a part of it. I think that if we asked around the forum, we'd see who the real moron is, posting all the retarded shit that you do. And to call me bourgeoisie is also ridiculous because you're a member of the RCP, a petite-bourgeois party. I am not an anarchist if you haven't noticed. I see that there are several ML movements around the world, and I support the people's struggle for liberation, but I will keep criticizing it, because history has shown what it has done. Anarchism for the most part is a large movement in the US and Europe, participating in the class struggle. So take it easy comrade, you're not getting anywhere.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:13 am
No but just saying it was a evil police state is.
No it isn't. A state is not "a man," so it therefore can not have an "against the man" logical fallacy applied to it.


Yeah but the members weren't all communists. It was antifas from all over the world organized, equiped, funded, and supported by the Soviet Union

Yes, exactly what I said- the USSR only funded those groups they agreed with (ie controlled).


what the hell are you talking about, the only place where "communists" and anarchists clashed was in Barcelona and that was only the PCE which was ultra-leftist and went against the Marxist-Leninist line of the CPSU in support and aid of the struggle.

The Stalinists imprisoned and executed a lot of anarchists and militia fighters following the May Days.


If you're talking about the arrest of leading POUM members, Intelligitmate made a post some time ago about POUM-Nazi collaborations. There was some evidence that POUM and the Nazis were working together to widen anarchist-communist sectarianism.

Some evidence probably amounts to Stalinist ****s stretching the details until they are unrecognizable to cover their own asses. Yeah, I'll buy that.


Other than those which don't qualify your statement, the Marxist-Leninists stood firmly by the struggle. The Republic would've lost Barcelona very early thus establishing Franco earlier had it not been for Soviet tanks and Soviet backed International Brigades on the frontlines.

And imagine what could've happened if ALL the militias had gotten modern weapons.


What a great rebuttle. Now go fuck yourself.

"When anarchism fucks up, it proves anarchism is worthless and counter to the working class, but when Marxism-Leninism fucks it, its just bad timing or any other excuse I can come up with." That is basically your argument, sorry.


I just don't throw away worker struggles as garbage like you.

I'm interested in workers struggles, but I'm not interested in one bunch of ****bags replacing a different group of ****bags and pretending to have the interests of anyone but themselves in mind. Further, I'm sick of the backstabbing from within such struggle by power-hungry ****s from any faction.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:10 pm


And to call me bourgeoisie is also ridiculous because you're a member of the RCP, a petite-bourgeois party.

Um no. the RCP is revolutionary proletarian communist party, most of my comrades are unemployed or employed in part time bad paying jobs like waiters and painters. Others are highschool students from proletarian backgrounds or who are proletarian themselves. No party member I've met is petty-bourgiousie, or owns some sort of means of production. Sure, some are better off than others, but claiming that we're petty bourgiouesie is plain wrong.


So take it easy comrade, you're not getting anywhere.

:rolleyes: yeah because I was the one who started flaming you, right? Not the guy responding to your flame.

[Rawthentic]

yeah because I was the one who started flaming you, right? Not the guy responding to your flame.


Not exactly, it's because of logical fallacy on your part. Black coffee black metal sums it up quite good in his last post.

[The Grey Blur]

Leftyhenry if you think the Moscow show trials were "fair" you are seriously disturbed.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 06, 2007 04:07 pm
Leftyhenry if you think the Moscow show trials were "fair" you are seriously disturbed.
Sorry, I forgot the article. I think a witness to the trials is a more credible source than you.


The Moscow Trial was Fair

1

By D. N. PRITT, K.C., M.P.

I STUDIED the legal procedure in criminal cases in Soviet Russia somewhat carefully in 1932, and concluded (as published at the time in "Twelve Studies in Soviet Russia") that the procedure gave the ordinal accused a very fair trial. Having learnt from my legal friends in Moscow on my return this summer that the principal changes realised or shortly impending were all in the direction of giving greater independence to the Bar and the judges and greater facilities to the accused, I was particularly interested to be able to attend the trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev and others which took place on August 1936.

Here was, born the point of view of a lawyer, a politician, or an ordinary citizen, a very good test of the system.

The charge was a serious one. A group of men, almost all having earned high merit for their services at various stages of the anxious and crowded history of Soviet Russia, still not two decades old, almost all having been under some measure of suspicion for counter-revolutionary or deviationist activities, and most of them having had such activities condoned in the past on assurances of the loyalty in the future, were now charged with long, cold-blooded, deliberate conspiracy to bring about the assassination of Kirov (who was actually murdered in December, 1934), of Stalin, of Voroshilov and other prominent leaders.

Their purpose, it seemed, was merely to seize power for themselves, without any pretence that they had any substantial following in the country and without any real policy or philosophy to replace the existing Soviet Socialism. [They wanted capitalism. – RC ed.]

With all its difficulties and shortcomings, with all the opposition, military or commercial, of the outside world, Soviet Socialism has raised a terribly backward Asiatic State in some 19 years to a State of world importance, of great industrial strength, and above all of a standard of living which, starting somewhere about the level of the more depressed peoples of India, has already overtaken that of many races of Eastern Europe and will soon claim comparison with that of the most favoured of Western industrial people.

And the charge against the men was not merely made. It was admitted, admitted by men the majority of whom were shown by their records to be possessed of physical and moral courage well adapted to protect them from confessing under pressure. And at no stage was any suggestion made by any of them that any sort of improper treatment had been used to persuade them to confess.

The first thing that struck me, as an English lawyer, was the almost free-and-easy dameanour of the prisoners. They all looked well; they all got up and spoke, even at length, whenever they wanted to do so (for the matter of that, they strolled out, with a guard, when they wanted to).

The one or two witnesses who were called by the prosecution were cross-examined by the prisoners who were affected by their evidence, with the same freedom as would have been the case in England.

The prisoners voluntarily renounced counsel; they could have had counsel without fee had they wished, but they preferred to dispense with them. And having regard to their pleas of guilty and to their own ability to speak, amounting in most cases to real eloquence, they probably did not suffer by their decision, able as some of my Moscow colleagues are.

The most striking novelty, perhaps, to an English lawyer, was the easy way in which first one and then another prisoner would intervene in the course of the examination of one of their co-defendants, without any objection from the Court or from the prosecutor, so that one got the impression of a quick and vivid debate between four people, the prosecutor and three prisoners, all talking together, if not actually at the same moment -- a method which, whilst impossible with a jury, is certainly conducive to clearing up disputes of fact with some rapidity

Far more important, however, if less striking, were the final speeches.

In accordance with Soviet law, the prisoners had the last word -- 15 speeches after the last chance of the prosecution to say anything.

The Public prosecutor, Vishinsky, spoke first. He spoke for four or five hours. He looked like a very intelligent and rather mild-mannered English business man.

He spoke with vigour and clarity. He seldom raised his voice. He never ranted, or shouted, or thumped the table. He rarely looked at the public or played for effect.

He said strong things; he called the defendants bandits, and mad dogs, and suggested that they ought to be exterminated. Even in as grave a case as this, some English Attorney-Generals might not have spoken so strongly; but in many cases less grave many English prosecuting counsel have used much harsher words.

He was not interrupted by the Court or by any of the accused. His speech was clapped by the public, and no attempt was made to prevent the applause.

That seems odd to the English mind, but where there is no jury it cannot do much harm, and it was noticeable throughout that the Court’s efforts, by the use of a little bell, to repress the laughter that was caused either by the prisoners’ sallies or by any other incident were not immediately successful.

But now came the final test. The 15 guilty men, who had sought to overthrow the whole Soviet State, now had their rights to speak; and they spoke.

Some at great length, some shortly, some argumentatively, others with some measures of pleading; most with eloquence, some with emotion; some consciously addressing the public in the crowded hall, some turning to the court.

But they all said what they had to say.

They met with no interruption from the prosecutor, with no more than a rare short word or two from the court; and the public itself sat quiet, manifesting none of the hatred it must have felt.

They spoke without any embarrassment or hindrance.

The executive authorities of U.S.S.R. may have taken, by the successful prosecution of this case, a very big step towards eradicating counter-revolutionary activities.

But it is equally clear that the judicature and the prosecuting attorney of U.S.S.R. have taken at least as great a step towards establishing their reputation among the legal systems of the modern world.

Link (http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/mo-trial.html)

[Phalanx]

It doesn't matter if they were able to give a speech or two. Their fates were sealed before they stepped into the courtroom.

Also, do you think it was a concidence that the majority of those on trial were Jewish? Maybe, just maybe, the accusations that Stalin persecuted Jews and Ukranians are well founded :o

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 06, 2007 01:20 am




Yes, exactly what I said- the USSR only funded those groups they agreed with (ie controlled).The Stalinists imprisoned and executed a lot of anarchists and militia fighters following the May Days.


Why should the hell should they have given arms to the anarchists? arms are not free, and besides the anarchists killed a Soviet pilot who was bailing before arms negiotiations began. Also, anarchists were doing the same thing.


Some evidence probably amounts to Stalinist ****s stretching the details until they are unrecognizable to cover their own asses. Yeah, I'll buy that.

Nah not really, I'll pull up the link from the thread later. Now I'm in a rush. (that's why I'm skipping pointless shit)


When anarchism fucks up, it proves anarchism is worthless and counter to the working class, but when Marxism-Leninism fucks it, its just bad timing or any other excuse I can come up with." That is basically your argument, sorry.

No you're just not very good at reading my posts.

[bcbm]

Why should the hell should they have given arms to the anarchists?

Anti-fascist unity, what the Stalinist ****s were preaching? :rolleyes: Of course, you're furthering my point: the USSR only gave arms to those it agreed with/controlled. So far you, uh, haven't really disagreed.


arms are not free, and besides the anarchists killed a Soviet pilot who was bailing before arms negiotiations began.

Linx.


Also, anarchists were doing the same thing.

Really? Which major anarchist state was supplying arms to the anarchists?


No you're just not very good at reading my posts.

You're right, sorry. Your basic argument in this thread has actually been "ML is more widespread because it is realistic; anarchists have no way to defend themselves at all. Also, the USSR/PRC was a paradise and anyone who opposes it wants capitalism or feudalism back!"

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by GrandMonster Mao+January 28, 2007 04:02 am--> (GrandMonster Mao @ January 28, 2007 04:02 am)
Tatanka [email protected] 25, 2007 04:32 pm




Much of that will already be laid out before the revolution succeeds. Workers aren't going to work with the system, they'll work outside it. Because they'll already be organized before any shooting begins, there won't be any need for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

:lol: I love this arguement; "don't worry, you can trust us, we'll know what we're doing then don't worry about that now." [/b]
I said that right before a television fell on my back because I was lifting up the dresser that had the television on it while it was being lifted.

"Shut up; I know what I'm doing--- OW, SON OF A *****!"

[Leo]

And socialism has never existed

Soviet Russia pre Stalin, the Spanish collectives, the Paris Commune, the 68 uprising, the current situation in Venezuala, Hungary 1918-19, Bavaria 1919, the Limerick Soviet, Cuba, etc etc etc etc etc et fucking cetera!

So you do think that socialism can be established in one country/region/city.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 02, 2007 08:20 pm


And socialism has never existed

Soviet Russia pre Stalin, the Spanish collectives, the Paris Commune, the 68 uprising, the current situation in Venezuala, Hungary 1918-19, Bavaria 1919, the Limerick Soviet, Cuba, etc etc etc etc etc et fucking cetera!

So you do think that socialism can be established in one country/region/city.
That is not he meant by that post I assume.

Those places didn't have Socialism IMO but conditions necessary for Socialism.


Any revolution in any place today or some 10 years or some 50-100 years later cannot install Socialism immediately the day after the revolution .It might take some time and it will be a continuous process. A lots of things and democratic tasks needs to be continued.

[Leo]

That is not he meant by that post I assume.

I am not so sure about that.


Those places didn't have Socialism IMO but conditions necessary for Socialism.

Everywhere have "conditions necessary for socialism". It's just that the socialist mode of production can be installed only when the proletariat has taken political power worldwide.

[syndicat]

ComradeR:
I was referring to the fact that whenever i talk to anarchists about a revolution they always argue that it isn't possible for one to succeed (and actually create socialism) unless you have 90-100% of the working class actively involved in the revolution, which isn't possible unless the entire prolotariet has broken free of the capitalist conditioning prior to the revolution.

This makes no sense. Just think for a minute of the assumptions of a social anarchist viewpoint. Their view is that a workers revolution, to succeed, has to involve the participation of a very large number of working class people because it is a movement of self-liberation, of the working itself taking over the running of things. The social anarchist aim is to create a society based on participatory democracy, via workplace assemblies and neighborhood assemblies, as the base units. so a very large part of the working class needs to be involved.

in the case of the Spanish revolution of 1936, the CNT -- the mass anarchist union -- had about 40% of all the wage earners in the main manufacturing region of Catalonia as members, for example, and about another 8% of the workers belonged to the POUM unions, who were allies of the CNT. and there were many workers in the UGT unions who were also actively involved in things like expropriation of industries. so a bit more than half the working class were actually organized and involved in the revolutionary process.


And what of right-wing elements of the prolotariet? (such as conservatives and fascists etc.) or those who side with the bourgeoisie? (such as the petty-bourgeoisie) groups like these do make up a hefty chunk of the working class, how do anarchists plan on preventing them from crushing or hijacking the revolution without hierarchical organisation? (all organisation on a large scale is inheritantly authoritarian and hierarchical, even if it's democratic, arguing otherwise is folly.)

It's simply false that "all organization on a large scale is inherantly authoritarian and hierarchical." In the Spanish revolution the driving force of the revolution was an anarchist union federation with 2 million members. It consisted at the base of local industrial unions which had no paid officials, were run through workplace meetings, shop steward committees, etc. They had local labor councils -- elected delegates from the unions in that area, and regional federations and a national federation. They made decisions by delegate congresses.

They were able to defeat the military coup of July 19 1936 with armed worker defense organizations, and then, using arms from the army and police, they built their own revolutionary army, controlled by the union.

so they did what you say is impossible.


The main reason a "state" is required during the post-revolutionary period is to provide order and security (and by order and security i mean preventing the working class from fractioning, and to repress the bourgeoisie) during the period it takes to educate the entire working class and break the capitalist conditioning.

A state is a hierarchical structure run by professionals and managers, like the corporations. Do you think the workers can control the type of top-down hierarchy a corporation has? It's a ridiculous idea. Corporations are structured that way to control the working class, and the same is true of the state. The state has a top-down structure because its role is to defend the interests of the dominating and exploiting classes.

A state's character as a class institution is why it can't be wielded by the working class, and this isn't changed by information technology. It's a question of concentrating power into the hands of elite hierarchies, which creates the material basis of new class privilege and thus ensures the continuation of exploitation.

Moreover, a state is not needed to repress the bourgeois forces. It is sufficient to have a congress of worker delegates, elected from the assemblies, for making the basic rules, and an egalitarian militia that is directly controlled by the mass worker organizations. It needs to be unified and coordinated, but it doesn't need to be a top-down type military or a top-down state.

A federation of worker managed industries and towns controlled through popular power can maintain their own means of defense.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:16 am

Moreover, a state is not needed to repress the bourgeois forces. It is sufficient to have a congress of worker delegates, elected from the assemblies, for making the basic rules, and an egalitarian militia that is directly controlled by the mass worker organizations. It needs to be unified and coordinated, but it doesn't need to be a top-down type military or a top-down state.

A federation of worker managed industries and towns controlled through popular power can maintain their own means of defense.
Well, this is perhaps the weakest point of anarchist theory. Every Revolution that I can think of- not just the "important" ones that happened after Marx's senior prom, but going back centuries- has been under relentless pressure from outside powers: Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, America, France, the Netherlands... and the threat leads to a growth of authority in the Revolutionary country and the termination of the Revolution to save the Revolution, not always successfully.
So the "unification and coordination" must be of a high order and megalomaniaproof.

[Rawthentic]

It is sufficient to have a congress of worker delegates, elected from the assemblies, for making the basic rules, and an egalitarian militia that is directly controlled by the mass worker organizations. It needs to be unified and coordinated, but it doesn't need to be a top-down type military or a top-down state.
Thats what a state is, a repressive organ that enforces the rule of the dominant class, stop playing semantics moron.


A federation of worker managed industries and towns controlled through popular power can maintain their own means of defense.
Thats a state.


A state's character as a class institution is why it can't be wielded by the working class, and this isn't changed by information technology. It's a question of concentrating power into the hands of elite hierarchies, which creates the material basis of new class privilege and thus ensures the continuation of exploitation.
And thus you don't know what a state is.

I don't particularly care whether you call it a "state" or not, after all, its the same thing, what you and I speak of, except I make no bones about calling it a state, since thats what it is. Its also because I like messing with your heads, throwing the word "state" out there really gets you people going.

[syndicat]

Well, this is perhaps the weakest point of anarchist theory. Every Revolution that I can think of- not just the "important" ones that happened after Marx's senior prom, but going back centuries- has been under relentless pressure from outside powers: Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, America, France, the Netherlands... and the threat leads to a growth of authority in the Revolutionary country and the termination of the Revolution to save the Revolution, not always successfully. So the "unification and coordination" must be of a high order and megalomaniaproof.

Hierarchy and concentrating expertise and control into the hands of a vanguard elite will only guarantee that the revolution will not lead to workers' liberation but a new class system. This is also what the revolutions in all the "Communist" countries have shown.

Unification and coordination can be accomplished through a system that is controlled by the base, through congresses of delegates elected from the base assemblies, and an egalitarian militia controlled democratically by the mass organizations of the working class.

The revolution also needs to be spread geographically, and this implies that the order being created in the revolution is liberating and can thus inspire solidarity elsewhere. creating yet another dismal statist bureaucratic regime won't do this.