Will Anarchists & Communists Ever Get Along?

[shadowed by the secret police]

Or should I say without communists killing anarchists because the latter have never killed the former during a revolution. It's a pity that these two political ideologies which have so many points of similarity can not see eye to eye and focus on revolution. Instead the communists want to stampede their ideology roughshod over all opposition including the anarchists.

[TC]

This thread has to be a candidate for the most ill informed ahistorical useless question. Only on revleft would this line of discussion make sense.


Also, imo a sectarian anarchist shouldn't be allowed to use a Bernadine Dohrn icon. She's just too cool for you :mellow: .

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by shadowed by the secret [email protected] 02, 2007 02:13 pm
Or should I say without communists killing anarchists because the latter have never killed the former during a revolution. It's a pity that these two political ideologies which have so many points of similarity can not see eye to eye and focus on revolution. Instead the communists want to stampede their ideology roughshod over all opposition including the anarchists.
Though I agree with most of what you said, your very post was sectarian in that you said how "communists want to stampede their ideology roughshod over all opposition including the anarchists."

[ahab]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:11 pm
Also, imo a sectarian anarchist shouldn't be allowed to use a Bernadine Dohrn icon. She's just too cool for you :mellow: .
buuuuuuurn lol

I may not be a historian but I dont see that theres much conflict between 'anarchists' and 'communists', of course there a lot of variety in both ideologies, (social anarchists, individualists, stalinist, marxist-lenninists, etc., etc.) but for the most part we believe the same general thing and the only 'communists' I see trying to 'stampede their roughshod' is those damn totalitarians!!!

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Communism's end result is a kind of anarchy, it's just that where we want the transformation from capitalism to no government to be uninterrupted by a socialist stae environment, non autonomous Marxists think it necessary. If the ideal socialist state let the anarchists run their organisations without let or hindrance then the transition to a classless and stateless society could be quickened, even. Maybe the anarchists need the communists and vice versa.

Council Communists are very, very similar to anarcho-syndicalists, anyways. No conflict there.

[Fawkes]

Communism's end result is a kind of anarchy
It's more than kind of, nearly all members of the left want exactly the same thing.


If the ideal socialist state let the anarchists run their organisations without let or hindrance then the transition to a classless and stateless society could be quickened, even.
It's unlikely that that would happen because I can't imagine a "socialist state" allowing organisations that seek/fight for it's destruction.

[Aurora]

If the ideal socialist state let the anarchists run their organisations without let or hindranceof course..as long as you dont blow up the soviets :rolleyes:

then the transition to a classless and stateless society could be quickened, evenah,no it cant.The state is a tool for the suppression of one class by another.it will whither away when it has no function.

It's unlikely that that would happen because I can't imagine a "socialist state" allowing organisations that seek/fight for it's destruction.
Capitalism allows Anarchists to organise,why wouldnt we?

[bcbm]

As long as they don't get in the way of my freedom, communists or anarchists, then I suppose I won't need to shoot them.

[Fawkes]

Capitalism allows Anarchists to organise,why wouldnt we?
Seeing as how the socialist state would be very vulnerable in it's early days, I find it unlikely that any opposition would be tolerated.

[Severian]

Originally posted by shadowed by the secret [email protected] 02, 2007 01:13 pm
Or should I say without communists killing anarchists because the latter have never killed the former during a revolution.
That's a pretty ignorant statement.

Truth is, during a revolution the lineups never been a simple communist vs anarchist one.

Instead, everyone has to decide their attitude towards the revolutionary events - this doesn't always have anything to do with past ideological labels.

Russia 1917, Spain 1936 - there were those who supported the bourgeois government and those who supported workers' power. Both among those who called themselves "anarchist" and those who claimed to be Marxist.

[La Comédie Noire]

I think he means Anarchists vs. Marxists? :unsure:

[CrimsonTide]

As long as the Anarchists don't attempt to kill anyone except Bourgeouis and don't attempt to overthrow a transitional socialist government, I would'nt shoot them. That's stupid, counterproductive, and a waste of resources that we could be using to come together (in our own ways: Anarchists by individual militias and actions, Marxists/Communists by Official Army actions) to smash the Bourgeouis down once and for all.

[An archist]

yeah, the problem is that some anarchists will try to overthrow the sociazlist state, and some people in that socialist state will try to impose their rule on the free communes.
I hope it won't be so in a future revolution, but I fear for it.

[Forward Union]

Moved to history.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:01 pm
where we want the transformation from capitalism to no government to be uninterrupted by a socialist stae environment, non autonomous Marxists think it necessary.

I am a Marxist. I am autonomous. And I believe a transitional State to be necessary.


Council Communists are very, very similar to anarcho-syndicalists, anyways. No conflict there.

You would have to convince anarchists of that.

Luís Henrique

[Aurora]

No it doesn't. Certain forms of liberal capitalist rule do to a certain extent; but if they begin to pick up steam you'll find they'll put a quick end to their organizing.Do you expect the anarchist movement to pick up steam in a socialist society?cause i expect it to almost die out.

And we, the working class, wouldn't tolerate anyone overthrowing, or organizing to overthrow the rule of our class, post revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which literally means "the rule of the working class" is established for exactly that goal, i.e. to keep our class in power until class antagonisms can be eliminated.
If the proletariat is really the ruling class,then there will be no need to ban anarchists as they will have no sound argument.Also i dont think you can stop anarchists from organising as they organise without hierarchy.what are you going to ban,public meetings?

[Lamanov]

Most anarchists are communists. Communists are not communists. Alot of communists are anarchists. Some Marxists are communists and some are Communists. Most Marxists are Trotskyists. Some Trotskyists are communists, but none of them are Communists. Alot of communists are neither anarchists, Marxists nor Communists.

What exactly do you mean?

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 03, 2007 12:24 pm
Most anarchists are communists. Communists are not communists. Alot of communists are anarchists. Some Marxists are communists and some are Communists. Most Marxists are Trotskyists. Some Trotskyists are communists, but none of them are Communists. Alot of communists are neither anarchists, Marxists nor Communists.

What exactly do you mean?
What the hell?

[Aurora]

You know what s/he means <_<

btw all of them are socialists

[Enragé]

Yes they will, and in fact they already have done so in the past.

In revolution, ideologies are thrown out the window and what one does in practice becomes most important. In the spanish civil war you had "anarchists" as ministers in the central government which was crushing the revolution, whereas leninists were fighting alongside other anarchists to defend that very same revolution.


so as to the question
would i, as an anarchist-ish person, shoot leninists?
Depends, if they try fuck up the revolution, yes
and would i shoot anarchists?
Depends, if they try fuck up the revolution, yes

[Joby]

All right...let me just get this strait

Anarchists (at least marxist anarchists like the Party for Marxist Unity) believe that following a revolution all forms of the state should be immediately destroyed...

While Communists believe that a state-hopefully controlled by workers councils and direct democracy-should be in place until everything is publicly owned and that nations neighbors are no longer a threat?

Oh, and when I say communist view I mean how Lenin described in State and Revolution with a simple guideline: "As soon as the dictatorsip of the proletariat is created, it should plant the seeds to gurantee it&#39;s own breakdown"

That seems simple enough. It&#39;s just gurantying that a "transitional govt" wouldn&#39;t become a tyrany.

well...mayvbe not as easy as that...but still..

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:09 pm
would i, as an anarchist-ish person, shoot leninists?
Depends, if they try fuck up the revolution, yes
and would i shoot anarchists?
Depends, if they try fuck up the revolution, yes
Would I shoot you?

It depends,

- if you don&#39;t try to fuck up the revolution, no, why should I?

- if you do try to fuck up the revolution - no, because who am I to tell if you are trying to fuck up the revolution or not?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:33 pm
anarchists like the Party for Marxist Unity
I beg your pardon?

[Fawkes]

- if you do try to fuck up the revolution - no, because who am I to tell if you are trying to fuck up the revolution or not?
If one is aiding/fighting alongside the capitalists, they&#39;re fucking up the revolution.


Anarchists (at least marxist anarchists like the Party for Marxist Unity)
What?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 03, 2007 07:05 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 03, 2007 07:05 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 06:09 pm
would i, as an anarchist-ish person, shoot leninists?
Depends, if they try fuck up the revolution, yes
and would i shoot anarchists?
Depends, if they try fuck up the revolution, yes
Would I shoot you?

It depends,

- if you don&#39;t try to fuck up the revolution, no, why should I?

- if you do try to fuck up the revolution - no, because who am I to tell if you are trying to fuck up the revolution or not?

Luís Henrique [/b]
well generally a good clue is if I&#39;m

- actively fighting against the revolution, i.e on the side of the reactionary forces, intervention armies etc
- supressing the democratic institutions of the working class
- shooting people who are against me, who disagree with me
etc

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:11 pm
Also, imo a sectarian anarchist shouldn&#39;t be allowed to use a Bernadine Dohrn icon. She&#39;s just too cool for you :mellow: .
Good one. :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:54 pm
well generally a good clue is if I&#39;m

- actively fighting against the revolution, i.e on the side of the reactionary forces, intervention armies etc
In which case you will be probably shot anonimously, by a semi-random shoot of some working class fighter that has no idea that you were you.


- supressing the democratic institutions of the working class

Yeah, but let&#39;s face it, it is quite improbable that you would be in the position to do so. While this "excuse" can be too easily extended to mean other things: the comrade didn&#39;t show up in the last three meetings of the council? Well, he is clearly not cooperating with "the democratic institutions of the working class"... and if he is not cooperating, then he is "objectively" on the side of those who want to suppress them.... and there we go.


- shooting people who are against me, who disagree with me
etc

Yes, but this is what people who shoot other people always do: they shoot people who are against them. Thirty years later we will be discussing who were the true revolutionaries and who were the traitors...

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Council Communists are very, very similar to anarcho-syndicalists, anyways. No conflict there.
Actually, I don&#39;t think that there are any council communists left. Daad en Gedachte stopped publishing in 1997, and I believe that they were the last councilist organisation.
Nor do I think that councilism was close to anarcho-syndicalism. The councilists held that the unions were intergrated into the state. The anarcho-syndicalists obviously don&#39;t believe this. This would be just one of many differences.
Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

We live in a period of reaction so neither Marxist nor Anarchist movements are particularly relevant or strong to the large majority of the working class.

However, Marxism in its current form has no serious theoretical base anymore. It’s hypothesis has been proven wrong on many occasions and because of their refusal to update their analysis they are obviously on course for yet more failure.

Once the working class become conscious it is highly unlikely that they will look at the model being proposed here and say - "Hey, wait a minute those Marxists are onto something" when quite clearly they aren&#39;t and as history proves, never have been.

My point being that it is irrelevant to hypothesise about what Marxists will do to Anarchists after a revolution; in a time of revolutionary upheaval no worker in their right mind is going to pay the slightest bit of attention to such a flawed, failed, hackneyed premise. It Would be total suicide to trust these people again and I have faith the working class will see that.

The question is: What will Anarchists do with Marxists and the answer should be, shoot the fucking lot of them&#33;

:)

[Guerrilla22]

I think rather than attack each other, we should engage in constructive conversation about our ideological differences and try to focus on our common ground as revolutionist, rather than divide along sectarian lines.

[Enragé]

In which case you will be probably shot anonimously, by a semi-random shoot of some working class fighter that has no idea that you were you.

perhaps, or by you
who knows
who cares
the point is that shooting me would be justified.


Yeah, but let&#39;s face it, it is quite improbable that you would be in the position to do so. While this "excuse" can be too easily extended to mean other things: the comrade didn&#39;t show up in the last three meetings of the council? Well, he is clearly not cooperating with "the democratic institutions of the working class"... and if he is not cooperating, then he is "objectively" on the side of those who want to suppress them.... and there we go.

If i see some bloke threatening people to vote for something they dont want to vote for, i&#39;ll get my gun and blow his brains out
or i&#39;d get him to face trial, which would probably have the same outcome; his brains on the curb.


Yes, but this is what people who shoot other people always do: they shoot people who are against them. Thirty years later we will be discussing who were the true revolutionaries and who were the traitors.

:huh:
So, a worker defending a workers council he and his friends just set up against fascistoid interventionist armies...
thats the same as me shooting someone because he says "well trotsky was the coolest&#33; ZOMG&#33;"?


look
THIS ISNT THE POINT
THE POINT WAS THAT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OR NOT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT HE DOES NOT WHAT LABLE HE PUTS HIMSELF UNDER&#33;

got it?
now was that so hard to understand? -_-

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:41 am
now was that so hard to understand? -_-
Your idea that you are entitled to decide, by yourself, what is good or bad for the working class, or for the revolution.

Luís Henrique

[rouchambeau]

QUOTE (DJ-TC @ February 03, 2007 12:24 pm)
Most anarchists are communists. Communists are not communists. Alot of communists are anarchists. Some Marxists are communists and some are Communists. Most Marxists are Trotskyists. Some Trotskyists are communists, but none of them are Communists. Alot of communists are neither anarchists, Marxists nor Communists.

What exactly do you mean?


What the hell?


Communist with a capital "C" refers to state capitalists and Leninists. Communist with a lower-case "C" refers to communists that do not believe in a state or Leninist party.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Actually, I don&#39;t think that there are any council communists left. Daad en Gedachte stopped publishing in 1997, and I believe that they were the last councilist organisation.
Nor do I think that councilism was close to anarcho-syndicalism. The councilists held that the unions were intergrated into the state. The anarcho-syndicalists obviously don&#39;t believe this. This would be just one of many differences.
Devrim

I knew one. His name was Doomstar. But other than that, yes it seems to have been forgotten, sadly. But the Council-Communists to me seemed very proactive in their efforts to dissolve the state.

[RGacky3]

Will Anarchists and Communists (Authoritarian) ever get along?

Nope, because those so/called Communists are not much better than Capaitalists, "they people don&#39;t care if the stick that beats them is called the peoples stick" (Cant remember who said that). Authoritarians will alwasy attack Anarchists, or try and discredit them because Anarchists are a threat to their power, as they are a threat to ALL power.

[La Comédie Noire]

Nope, because those so/called Communists are not much better than Capaitalists, "they people don&#39;t care if the stick that beats them is called the peoples stick" (Cant remember who said that). Authoritarians will alwasy attack Anarchists, or try and discredit them because Anarchists are a threat to their power, as they are a threat to ALL power.

"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they dont much care if it&#39;s called the people&#39;s stick" - Mikihail Bakunin.

Some people who you perceive as authoritain just beleive there should be a transitional state between capitalism and socialism. Some are absolutely fine with Anarchists.

[Guerrilla22]

I&#39;m not sure how anarchist can attak Marxist for being authoritarain. The two most prominent anarchist Proudhon and Bakunin were both very authoritarain. Proudhon stated "democracy disgust me". He supported the crushing of the worker&#39;s uprising in Paris in 1848, as well a Napoleon and defended slavery, citing that blacks were an inferior race, he was also an ardent chauvinist. Bakunin advocated all sorts of authoritarain methods including the establishment of a secret society to dictate the revolution. Aside from that he was an anti-Semite.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:46 am
Proudhon stated "democracy disgust me". He supported the crushing of the worker&#39;s uprising in Paris in 1848, as well a Napoleon and defended slavery
Substantiate these claims or shut up&#33;


Bakunin advocated all sorts of authoritarain methods including the establishment of a secret society to dictate the revolution. Aside from that he was an anti-Semite.

The whole question of racism, chauvinism and anti-Semitism from Bakunin and Marx are totally irrelevant and have nothing to do with their ideas. People should stop bringing them up, because it has nothing to do with anything.

Also, what is authoritarian about having secret groups? Unlike Marx who operated in a liberal democracy, Bakunin et al operated in mainland Europe in countries under dictatorships.

The notion that Bakunin advocated that these groups "lead" the revolution is not true and you cannot back-up that claim. He simply advocated a network of revolutionaries that were secret (due to the massive repression) and affinity based, which propagandised and attempted to instigate insurrection when possible.

There is of course criticism to be had there, but the idea that it&#39;s authoritarian really makes no sense.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:09 pm
In revolution, ideologies are thrown out the window and what one does in practice becomes most important. In the spanish civil war you had "anarchists" as ministers in the central government which was crushing the revolution, whereas leninists were fighting alongside other anarchists to defend that very same revolution.
Yeah, that was my basic point as well.

Luis has a point about: who gets to decide who is a counterrevolutionary? Sure, plenty of Stalinist terror and whatnot has been conducted by labelling every factional opponent a counterrevolutionary.

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any easy or foolproof answer to this. It is necessary to suppress the counterrevolution, and it is possible to abuse that need.

Do you have a proposal on this, Luis? Who are counterrevolutionaries - and who gets to decide who are counterrevolutionaries?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 07:58 am
Also, what is authoritarian about having secret groups? Unlike Marx who operated in a liberal democracy, Bakunin et al operated in mainland Europe in countries under dictatorships.
Curiously, we would agree that such excuse shouldn&#39;t benefit Lenin, who operated in the worse part of mainland Europe...

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 04, 2007 12:31 pm--> (Luís Henrique &#064; February 04, 2007 12:31 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 07:58 am
Also, what is authoritarian about having secret groups? Unlike Marx who operated in a liberal democracy, Bakunin et al operated in mainland Europe in countries under dictatorships.
Curiously, we would agree that such excuse shouldn&#39;t benefit Lenin, who operated in the worse part of mainland Europe...

Luís Henrique [/b]
Sweden and Switzerland...?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:24 am
Do you have a proposal on this, Luis? Who are counterrevolutionaries - and who gets to decide who are counterrevolutionaries?
I think those things will be discussed collectively - it is one thing if the soviet/council of some area decides to arrest and put into trial some individuals or organisations that are fighting against revolution; it is a completely different thing if I decide by myself that NKOS is a reactionary and shoot him.

Individualist politics is always reactionary.

But the problem comes that even the most enlightened collectives will make mistakes, and kill innocent people or allow hardened counterrevolutionaries to go free. To that, no, I have no solutions or proposals. It is probably part of the "breaking eggs" issue in making omelettes... :(

Or, to use your words, it is necessary to suppress counterrevolution, it is possible to abuse that need.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 04, 2007 11:32 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 04, 2007 11:32 am)
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 12:31 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 07:58 am
Also, what is authoritarian about having secret groups? Unlike Marx who operated in a liberal democracy, Bakunin et al operated in mainland Europe in countries under dictatorships.
Curiously, we would agree that such excuse shouldn&#39;t benefit Lenin, who operated in the worse part of mainland Europe...

Luís Henrique
Sweden and Switzerland...? [/b]
Don&#39;t be foolish, you know very well that Lenin&#39;s political actions were referred to Russia, not to Sweden or Switzerland.

He, personally, could benefit from Swiss/Swede democratic laws; the organisation he lead couldn&#39;t.

Didn&#39;t Bakunin spend some of his time in Switzerland, too?

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 04, 2007 09:18 am

Once the working class become conscious

I hear that alot from people that use a mechanical application of historical materialism. Do you think the capitalist system with automatically go into crisis mode...
It&#39;s certainly plausible. Western Capitalism cannot continue forever. Especially with the impending oil crisis.


or that workers will collectively gain consciousness out of no where or what? What will provoke it? I&#39;m asking you seriously here.

I don&#39;t think that, no.


What about the idea that imperialism has allowed for measures to be taken to subdue workers&#39; and retard the development of their consciousness in the imperialist countries?

Of course I accept that to be true. Guy Debord&#39;s analysis on modern class society was particularly apt.


If you agree with it (and if you don&#39;t, you should be able to disprove what Lenin laid out in "Imperialism"), than you understand that the head of the class struggle had been transfered to the imperialist oppressed countries.

I can see how such a connection could be made, but I don&#39;t accept that it is the reality of the situation.

A country without a working class cannot create a communist society.


If you agree with it, you&#39;ll understand that that&#39;s why we see such oppression and rebellion in the "Third World."

I&#39;m sorry but I&#39;m unlcear how I&#39;d understand "why we see such oppresison and rebellion in the "Third Word" from what you&#39;ve said?


If you understand all of this, you should understand that revolutions in the imperialist oppressed countries (which often, especially in the opening stages of the world revolution, will have to centralize and oversee much more than the working class would in the imperialist countries, due to needs of defense, etc.)

Yes, centralisation is certainly a good way of dealing with such things. If your objective is communism however, then centralising into a state is not going to achieve that.


That will create a crisis in capitalism, and will allow, and even speed up, the development of class consciousness among our fellow workers in the imperialist countries.

Perhaps, perhaps not? The theory hasn&#39;t really been tested yet, so only time will tell I suppose.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 12:41 pm
Don&#39;t be foolish, you know very well that Lenin&#39;s political actions were referred to Russia, not to Sweden or Switzerland
He spent very little time there, until of course revolution happened.


Didn&#39;t Bakunin spend some of his time in Switzerland, too?

A fair bit actually.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 04, 2007 11:51 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 04, 2007 11:51 am)
Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 12:41 pm
Don&#39;t be foolish, you know very well that Lenin&#39;s political actions were referred to Russia, not to Sweden or Switzerland
He spent very little time there, until of course revolution happened. [/b]
But the rank and file bolsheviks didn&#39;t, they were most of the time in Russia, and a lot of it in Siberia. Lenin&#39;s organisational ideas weren&#39;t tailored to Switzerland, but for Russia.

Whether they were good ideas, even for Russia, is a separate debate. But it is what is implied in your defence of Bakunin&#39;s masonryism.



Didn&#39;t Bakunin spend some of his time in Switzerland, too?

A fair bit actually.

And what were his ideas for workers&#39; organisation in Switzerland?

Luís Henrique

[Coggeh]

Being a trot, im divided here , dont see eye to eye with anarchists or communists but the similaritys out due the differences and as long as what happened in Spain doesnt happen again , it will stay that way .

[Aurora]

Originally posted by TAT
The question is: What will Anarchists do with Marxists and the answer should be, shoot the fucking lot of them&#33;
You should be restricted for that.The member MKS was restricted for exactly the same thing.
btw this thread should be removed of all TAT&#39;s useless sectarian bullshit.He&#39;s managed to make all anarchists look like hormonal pieces of shit.(which of course is not the case)

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by Anarion+February 04, 2007 03:09 pm--> (Anarion @ February 04, 2007 03:09 pm)
TAT
The question is: What will Anarchists do with Marxists and the answer should be, shoot the fucking lot of them&#33;
You should be restricted for that.The member MKS was restricted for exactly the same thing.
btw this thread should be removed of all TAT&#39;s useless sectarian bullshit.He&#39;s managed to make all anarchists look like hormonal pieces of shit.(which of course is not the case) [/b]
Or so they say lol :ph34r:

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 04, 2007 01:11 am--> (Luís Henrique &#064; February 04, 2007 01:11 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 12:41 am
now was that so hard to understand? -_-
Your idea that you are entitled to decide, by yourself, what is good or bad for the working class, or for the revolution.

Luís Henrique [/b]

i think you more or less misunderstood what i said then. I didnt mean it like that at least, ofcourse I, alone, would not be entitled to do that.



but this wasnt really the point, the point was that whether or not anarchists and communists (and me) get along or not depends on what they do in practice, not what lable they put themselves under.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Anarion+February 04, 2007 03:09 pm--> (Anarion @ February 04, 2007 03:09 pm)
TAT
The question is: What will Anarchists do with Marxists and the answer should be, shoot the fucking lot of them&#33;
You should be restricted for that.The member MKS was restricted for exactly the same thing.
btw this thread should be removed of all TAT&#39;s useless sectarian bullshit.He&#39;s managed to make all anarchists look like hormonal pieces of shit.(which of course is not the case) [/b]
started a thread in CC

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:46 am
I&#39;m not sure how anarchist can attak Marxist for being authoritarain. The two most prominent anarchist Proudhon and Bakunin were both very authoritarain. Proudhon stated "democracy disgust me". He supported the crushing of the worker&#39;s uprising in Paris in 1848, as well a Napoleon and defended slavery, citing that blacks were an inferior race, he was also an ardent chauvinist. Bakunin advocated all sorts of authoritarain methods including the establishment of a secret society to dictate the revolution. Aside from that he was an anti-Semite.
Who cares? I&#39;m not a Bakuninite, or Bakuninist. So he could have been Satans Butt Buddy and it would&#39;nt matter.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh, you&#39;ve all got your knickers in a twist now, haven&#39;t you?

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 04, 2007 08:18 am

as they are a threat to ALL power.

Even workers&#39;.
If a group of workers want to oppress others? Then yeah.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 04, 2007 03:13 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 04, 2007 03:13 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 11:51 am

Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 12:41 pm
Don&#39;t be foolish, you know very well that Lenin&#39;s political actions were referred to Russia, not to Sweden or Switzerland
He spent very little time there, until of course revolution happened.
But the rank and file bolsheviks didn&#39;t, they were most of the time in Russia, and a lot of it in Siberia. Lenin&#39;s organisational ideas weren&#39;t tailored to Switzerland, but for Russia.

Whether they were good ideas, even for Russia, is a separate debate. But it is what is implied in your defence of Bakunin&#39;s masonryism. [/b]
I&#39;m not going to be drawn on a mud-slinging, name calling; my dead theorist is bigger than your dead theorist argument.

For what it&#39;s worth, I don&#39;t agree, nor does the Anarchist Federation agree, that mass organisation should be secret.




Didn&#39;t Bakunin spend some of his time in Switzerland, too?

A fair bit actually.

And what were his ideas for workers&#39; organisation in Switzerland?

I&#39;m not sure, sorry.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 05:35 pm
I&#39;m not going to be drawn on a mud-slinging, name calling; my dead theorist is bigger than your dead theorist argument.
My dead theorist isn&#39;t bigger than your dead theorist, she is just deeper.


For what it&#39;s worth, I don&#39;t agree, nor does the Anarchist Federation agree, that mass organisation should be secret.

Excellent&#33;


I&#39;m not sure, sorry.

OK, fine.

Luís Henrique

[Severian]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 04, 2007 05:38 am
I think those things will be discussed collectively - it is one thing if the soviet/council of some area decides to arrest and put into trial some individuals or organisations that are fighting against revolution; it is a completely different thing if I decide by myself that NKOS is a reactionary and shoot him.

Individualist politics is always reactionary.
I take your point. And I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a complete straw man - there is a certain tradition in anarchism that says, for example: individual assassination good, state execution bad. But another word for individual assassination is execution without trial.


But the problem comes that even the most enlightened collectives will make mistakes, and kill innocent people or allow hardened counterrevolutionaries to go free. To that, no, I have no solutions or proposals. It is probably part of the "breaking eggs" issue in making omelettes... :(

Or, to use your words, it is necessary to suppress counterrevolution, it is possible to abuse that need.

Luís Henrique

So we agree then....there does seem to be a considerable history telling us some things that are bad and won&#39;t increase workers&#39; democracy. Like your point above, about deciding by yourself that somebody is a counter-revolutionary and shooting him.

There were some interesting ideas on the subject thrown around in this thread. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53454)

[Exovedate]

No it doesn&#39;t. Certain forms of liberal capitalist rule do to a certain extent; but if they begin to pick up steam you&#39;ll find they&#39;ll put a quick end to their organizing.Do you expect the anarchist movement to pick up steam in a socialist society?cause i expect it to almost die out.
Yes because if a socialist society were to be achieved I&#39;m sure all us anarchists would just say "that&#39;s close enough" and learn to live with a less than perfect society (from an anarchist perspective that is). After all, anarchists are famous for accepting the system around them. ;)


If the proletariat is really the ruling class,then there will be no need to ban anarchists as they will have no sound argument.
Um actually there would be one major argument: the proletariat is the ruling class. Anarchists seek to abolish all forms of authority. As long as there is someone giving orders, anarchists will seek to change that.

[Enragé]

when the working class becomes the ruling class all other classes are annihilated in that section of the world where the working class has become the ruling class

as a consequence the ruling class is everyone in that section of the world
and everyone ruling equates to no one ruling.
(cuz there is simply no one to be ruled over)

[La Comédie Noire]

Um actually there would be one major argument: the proletariat is the ruling class. Anarchists seek to abolish all forms of authority. As long as there is someone giving orders, anarchists will seek to change that.

You&#39;d fight the workers?&#33; You and what army?

[Exovedate]

Um actually there would be one major argument: the proletariat is the ruling class. Anarchists seek to abolish all forms of authority. As long as there is someone giving orders, anarchists will seek to change that.

You&#39;d fight the workers?&#33; You and what army?
I wouldn&#39;t be fighting "the workers", I&#39;d be fighting anyone who seeks to have authority over me.

[La Comédie Noire]

I wouldn&#39;t be fighting "the workers", I&#39;d be fighting anyone who seeks to have authority over me.

Like
the proletariat ?

Like i said before if you were to challenge the dictatorship of the proles what would your army be comprised of?

Burgeoise and Peasents?

Unless your considering a one man crusade.

[Exovedate]

Look Comrade Floyd, I am not saying the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessarily a bad thing. Of course a communist state is not as likely as bad as a capitalist one. I am simply trying pointing out that the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. Now I realize this may be hard for you to understand, but I am going to oppose any state, because no matter how good of intentions the proletariat dictatorship may start out with, power corrupts, and pretty soon we&#39;ve got another Stalin on our hands.


Like i said before if you were to challenge the dictatorship of the proles what would your army be comprised of?

Burgeoise and Peasents?

Unless your considering a one man crusade.
1: of course I am not going to ally with burgeoise, don&#39;t be an ass
2: just because I stand alone does not make me any less steadfast in my convictions

[La Comédie Noire]

Look Comrade Floyd, I am not saying the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessarily a bad thing. Of course a communist state is not as likely as bad as a capitalist one. I am simply trying pointing out that the dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. Now I realize this may be hard for you to understand, but I am going to oppose any state, because no matter how good of intentions the proletariat dictatorship may start out with, power corrupts, and pretty soon we&#39;ve got another Stalin on our hands.

Valid point, I understand this.


1: of course I am not going to ally with burgeoise, don&#39;t be an ass

But, then if you don&#39;t have the working class or the owning class, then what base of power do you have to initiate the over throw of the ruling class? I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s nessicarily bad, I&#39;m just asking you how would you make it a social reality? With what people?


2: just because I stand alone does not make me any less steadfast in my convictions

Wish in one hand, shit in the other. Alot of Anarchists just suggest building a society within the exisitng one and asking to be left alone. What do you think of that?

[Guerrilla22]

Substantiate these claims or shut up&#33;
http://www.isreview.org/issues/03/anarchism.pdf



The notion that Bakunin advocated that these groups "lead" the revolution is not true and you cannot back-up that claim. He simply advocated a network of revolutionaries that were secret (due to the massive repression) and affinity based, which propagandised and attempted to instigate insurrection when possible.

see the article.

Anyways, the question of what is authoritarain and what isn&#39;t is irrelevent. Even if you had a completely democratic, non-authoritarain society, if the means of production is still controlled by the working class, then that society is useless. Thst said, there will always need to be a certain amount of authoritarianism in revolutionary movements, there needs to be leaders and someone to take charge. If all members of the working class were to instantly adhere to the revolution anarchism would be palusible, however that&#39;s not at all realistic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 08:29 am

Substantiate these claims or shut up&#33;
http://www.isreview.org/issues/03/anarchism.pdf
Are you having a laugh&#33;

That article is so historically inaccurate it&#39;s more a piece of specific propaganda tan a useful tool of understanding anarchism.

In the first two paragraphs he makes such wild claims that it&#39;s hard to believe he&#39;s ever read a book on the subject of anarchism.

Of the Spanish CNT during the civil war: "Their rejection of politics was in large part a reaction—though a primitive and ineffectual one..."

That&#39;s not a substantiation, that&#39;s a joke&#33; Why are you reading this shit?



The notion that Bakunin advocated that these groups "lead" the revolution is not true and you cannot back-up that claim. He simply advocated a network of revolutionaries that were secret (due to the massive repression) and affinity based, which propagandised and attempted to instigate insurrection when possible.

see the article.

I read the first three pages of it and its total utter shit. His whole argument is based on ad hominem attacks and he plays to the fact that Bakunin was an anti-Semite, as if this somehow negated his extensive theoretical works.

It&#39;s like a child wrote it.


Anyways, the question of what is authoritarain and what isn&#39;t is irrelevent.

Clearly it is.

If you say Bakunin was authoritarian for making a secret group, then the question certainly is "what is authoritarain(sic)" because I reject the assertion that secret affinity groups are "authoritarian"


Thst said, there will always need to be a certain amount of authoritarianism in revolutionary movements, there needs to be leaders and someone to take charge.

So I&#39;ve been told. I&#39;m yet to be convinced as to the reason.


If all members of the working class were to instantly adhere to the revolution anarchism would be palusible, however that&#39;s not at all realistic.

The majority of the working class will need to "ahere to the revolution" in any situation, otherwise you don&#39;t have a revolution.

Whether they choose to organise on anarchist principles is the task for anarchists, but I&#39;m confident that the workers will make the right choices.

[Guerrilla22]

read the first three pages of it and its total utter shit. His whole argument is based on ad hominem attacks and he plays to the fact that Bakunin was an anti-Semite, as if this somehow negated his extensive theoretical works.

Actually, I his argument is that those secret organizations that Bakunin advocated didn&#39;t incorporate the working class as a whole, just a select group of individuals deemed to be revolutionary enough, therefore he was authoritarain. The author points to Proudhon&#39;s support of Napoleon III as proof that that Proudhon was authoritarian.

Whether not you choose to accept this is entirely up to you, of course, but let&#39;s just be clear as to what the argument actually was.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 04:11 pm
This thread has to be a candidate for the most ill informed ahistorical useless question.
I agree, and is totally disregarding the philosophical, political, and tactical differences between Anarchism, and Communism, I mean why would Anarchists work with say the RCPUSA, when all they want to do is install their party, keep the state apparatus, and place chairman Avakian at the head of it, when those are the opposite goals of the Anarchists trying to create a Anarchist society? It doesn&#39;t make much sense, however there is some Communist sects Anarchists might work with, like say Council Communists, but still this question is rather pointless.

[Exovedate]

1: of course I am not going to ally with burgeoise, don&#39;t be an ass

But, then if you don&#39;t have the working class or the owning class, then what base of power do you have to initiate the over throw of the ruling class? I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s nessicarily bad, I&#39;m just asking you how would you make it a social reality? With what people?
If it&#39;s a state, it&#39;s eventually going to abuse power, and people. If it reaches the point where there is a Stalin-like dictator in power, I&#39;m sure there&#39;s bound to be a few people around who has been abused by the new system. Especially considering the new system would like have been advertised as a great &#39;system for the people&#39;. People tend to get pissed off when you tell them you&#39;re changing society to better their lives, and then they get shat on by their new dictator.



2: just because I stand alone does not make me any less steadfast in my convictions

Wish in one hand, shit in the other. Alot of Anarchists just suggest building a society within the exisitng one and asking to be left alone. What do you think of that?
I think as long as they aren&#39;t supporting capitalism, power to them. They&#39;re doing a lot more than millions of other people. If conditions aren&#39;t anywhere near prime for a revolution, what would you suggest they do? Maybe start a new Weatherman group? Yes, because that went off well. Considering these Anarchists probably don&#39;t have a snowball&#39;s chance in hell off creating a revolution in their unconditioned countries, at least they&#39;re trying to do something other than accepting that they have to live with capitalism until the revolution. I think if they could pull it off, it could have the potential of showing many people what an anarchist society would look like, and so could potentially gain much support for the left in general.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:46 am
I&#39;m not sure how anarchist can attak Marxist for being authoritarain. Bakunin advocated all sorts of authoritarain methods including the establishment of a secret society to dictate the revolution. Aside from that he was an anti-Semite.
Proudhon was a crypto-capitalist, and in my opinion not really a Anarchist, and how in the hell was Bakunin authoritarian other than strawmen arguments? Oh yea, the invisible dictatorship ploy, see below article debunking this.

Invisible Dictatorship (http://www.flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/bakunindictator.html)

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+February 05, 2007 02:02 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ February 05, 2007 02:02 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 01:46 am
I&#39;m not sure how anarchist can attak Marxist for being authoritarain. Bakunin advocated all sorts of authoritarain methods including the establishment of a secret society to dictate the revolution. Aside from that he was an anti-Semite.
Proudhon was a crypto-capitalist, and in my opinion not really a Anarchist, and how in the hell was Bakunin authoritarian other than strawmen arguments? Oh yea, the invisible dictatorship ploy, see below article debunking this.

Invisible Dictatorship (http://www.flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/bakunindictator.html) [/b]
From my above post: Actually, I his argument is that those secret organizations that Bakunin advocated didn&#39;t incorporate the working class as a whole, just a select group of individuals deemed to be revolutionary enough, therefore he was authoritarain.

you&#39;re article link doesn&#39;t work, sorry.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:45 pm
From my above post: Actually, I his argument is that those secret organizations that Bakunin advocated didn&#39;t incorporate the working class as a whole, just a select group of individuals deemed to be revolutionary enough, therefore he was authoritarain.
When one has one&#39;s testicles crushed by the state, one probably becomes a bit choosy about their associates.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 06, 2007 01:10 am--> (black coffee black metal @ February 06, 2007 01:10 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 04:45 pm
From my above post: Actually, I his argument is that those secret organizations that Bakunin advocated didn&#39;t incorporate the working class as a whole, just a select group of individuals deemed to be revolutionary enough, therefore he was authoritarain.
When one has one&#39;s testicles crushed by the state, one probably becomes a bit choosy about their associates. [/b]
Yes, however in order for a revolution to take place there needs to be mass mobilization, which is why Bakunin&#39;s advocation of secret socities never led to anything, not that Marxism has been successful so either, mind you.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 06, 2007 01:10 am
When one has one&#39;s testicles crushed by the state, one probably becomes a bit choosy about their associates.
It also happens when one has a brother murdered by the State.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:45 pm
Actually, I his argument is that those secret organizations that Bakunin advocated didn&#39;t incorporate the working class as a whole, just a select group of individuals deemed to be revolutionary enough, therefore he was authoritarain.
It is true that in his early years, up until the 1860&#39;s, he advocated similiar things to what you are suggesting, but this was his Political Nihilist influence spurred on by Nechayev, who he later disassociated himself from and changed his entire analysis.

What he thought in his youth, was not what he thought when he defined Anarchism.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 06, 2007 02:49 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 06, 2007 02:49 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 11:45 pm
Actually, I his argument is that those secret organizations that Bakunin advocated didn&#39;t incorporate the working class as a whole, just a select group of individuals deemed to be revolutionary enough, therefore he was authoritarain.
It is true that in his early years, up until the 1860&#39;s, he advocated similiar things to what you are suggesting, but this was his Political Nihilist influence spurred on by Nechayev, who he later disassociated himself from and changed his entire analysis.

What he thought in his youth, was not what he thought when he defined Anarchism. [/b]
Ok, So he rejected this notion after he had the split with Nechaev?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+February 06, 2007 11:08 pm--> (Guerrilla22 &#064; February 06, 2007 11:08 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 06, 2007 02:49 pm

[email protected] 05, 2007 11:45 pm
Actually, I his argument is that those secret organizations that Bakunin advocated didn&#39;t incorporate the working class as a whole, just a select group of individuals deemed to be revolutionary enough, therefore he was authoritarain.
It is true that in his early years, up until the 1860&#39;s, he advocated similiar things to what you are suggesting, but this was his Political Nihilist influence spurred on by Nechayev, who he later disassociated himself from and changed his entire analysis.

What he thought in his youth, was not what he thought when he defined Anarchism.
Ok, So he rejected this notion after he had the split with Nechaev? [/b]
Yes, that&#39;s why he joined the International, although Marx accused Bakunin of continuing secret organisation as a pretext to get him and his comrades expelled.

Whether it was true or not, I don&#39;t know; even if it were Bakunin clearly endorsed and called for mass working class action and organisation.

[Proudhon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:09 pm
I think rather than attack each other, we should engage in constructive conversation about our ideological differences and try to focus on our common ground as revolutionist, rather than divide along sectarian lines.

You people are traitors, a counter revolutionary movement sponsered by the Rothschilds to oppose Proudhon and Anarchism, totalitarien, mass murder, wrong guided without a real working theory, of jewish origin and so and so.....

"ideological differences"?

[Proudhon]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 07, 2007 06:03 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 07, 2007 06:03 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 06:20 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 11:09 pm
I think rather than attack each other, we should engage in constructive conversation about our ideological differences and try to focus on our common ground as revolutionist, rather than divide along sectarian lines.

You people are traitors, a counter revolutionary movement sponsered by the Rothschilds to oppose Proudhon and Anarchism, totalitarien, mass murder, wrong guided without a real working theory, of jewish origin and so and so.....

"ideological differences"?
Shut up, you muppet&#33; [/b]
Nothing more to say? All these points are true. After the Spanish and the Russian Revolution, every Anarchist believing the zionist-communist lies deserves what he will get in the end. How many Anarchist were killed by Stalin and than later trashed into that huge see in Syberia?

[Fawkes]

How do you expect anarchists to ever have the power to fight capitalism if, at this time, we don&#39;t ally ourselves with other leftists?

Edit: wow, that restriction came fast.

[ComradeR]

Originally posted by Fawkes+February 07, 2007 06:59 pm--> (Fawkes &#064; February 07, 2007 06:59 pm)
Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 07, 2007 01:56 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 07:28 pm
Edit: wow, that restriction came fast.
Yep, we&#39;re ruthless with anti-Semites on RevLeft&#33;
As we should be.[/b]
We damn well better be.


You know i find that the sad irony is that the greatest obstacle to a revolution is the infighting caused by our small ideological differences.


I think rather than attack each other, we should engage in constructive conversation about our ideological differences and try to focus on our common ground as revolutionist, rather than divide along sectarian lines.
I agree, we need to find a middle road between us.

[bcbm]

You know i find that the sad irony is that the greatest obstacle to a revolution is the infighting caused by our small ideological differences.


Shh, you don&#39;t want to rain on everybody&#39;s parade, now do you? I mean where would we be if we didn&#39;t all know that we have the ONE TRUE IDEOLOGY that will lead the masses to GLORIOUS FREEDOM?&#33;


I agree, we need to find a middle road between us.

Or let the autonomous self-organization of the lower classes go their own course without trying to dictate and control their movements.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by shadowed by the secret [email protected] 02, 2007 07:13 pm
Or should I say without communists killing anarchists because the latter have never killed the former during a revolution. It&#39;s a pity that these two political ideologies which have so many points of similarity can not see eye to eye and focus on revolution. Instead the communists want to stampede their ideology roughshod over all opposition including the anarchists.
Any kind of alliance between anarchists and the communist movement is at all times completely and utterly out of the question.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/nov/24.htm

The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer. Their tactics, which amount to a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy or another, since it is impossible and unrealisable for the workers really to dissociate themselves from politics. - Lenin

[Herman]

Three ideologies for the scientific socialists under the sky,
Seven for the liberals in their halls of stone,
Nine for feudalists doomed to die,
One for the Socialist Lord on his Socialist throne
In the Land of Earth where the capitalists lie.
One ideology to rule them all, One ideology to find them,
One ideology to bring them all and in the light bind them
In the Land of Earth where the capitalists lie.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:18 pm
The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer. Their tactics, which amount to a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy or another, since it is impossible and unrealisable for the workers really to dissociate themselves from politics. - Lenin
None of that is true though, even if Lenin said it :o

[freakazoid]

I agree, we need to find a middle road between us.

I also think that. We need to work together to avoid what happened during the Spanish civil war.