Kropotkin's Funeral

[JKP]

The funeral of the famous anarchist Peter Kropotkin in Moscow on 13 February 1921 grew into a monumental demonstration. This was the last time the anarchist movement in Russia manifested itself. In the course of the same year it was to be smothered by the Bolshevik party, its leaders arrested, killed, on the run or deported.

Deportation befell Grigori Maximov (1893-1950) who had represented the Russian Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists at Kropotkins burial. Maximov arranged for a photo report of the ceremony that started at the home of the deceased in the village of Dmitrov and ended at the graveyard of the Novodevičy monastery, with an in-state and procession in Moscow in between. The photoreport was meant to become a memorial album (Berlin 1922) to 'make humanity acquainted with the work of Kropotkin'. No doubt its simultaneous goal was to show the power of the Russian anarchist movement.

When Kropotkin died, a few weeks before the Kronstadt rebellion, the repression of anarchists in Russia had not been completed yet. There still was some room for the 'Anarchist Funeral Committee' to negotiate with the authorities, but many incidents occurred. Its main problem was to get permission to release the imprisoned anarchists during the day of the burial. The American-Russian anarchists Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman and some other prominent anarchists from abroad were present at the funeral.




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-876.jpg
Kropotkin on his deathbed

"And now he lay on his couch, in the little workroom, as if peacefully asleep, his face as kindly in death as it had been in life. Thousands of people made pilgrimages to the Kropotkin cottage to pay homage to this great son of Russia." (Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-870.jpg
The coffin with the remains of Kropotkin is carried from the house

"I hastened from Petrograd to Dmitrov, where a number of personal friends of the dead man were already gathered. Almost the entire village accompanied the remains to the train bound for Moscow. Little children strewed the way with pine branches..." (Alexander Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-865.jpg
The coffin is carried to the railway station of Dmitrov

"When his remains were carried to the station to be taken to Moscow, the whole population of the village attended the impressive funeral procession to express their last affectionate greetings to the man who had lived among them as their friend and comrade." (Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment in Russia)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-860.jpg
Committee for the organization of the funeral.

Seated in front of the table: Alexander Berkman. Seated at the table, third person from the right: : G.P. Maximov.
Committee for the organization of the funeral.

"The Soviet Government offered to take charge of the funeral, but the family of Kropotkin and his comrades have declined... The Funeral Commission formed by the Moscow Anarchist organizations requested Lenin to permit the imprisoned comrades of the dead to attend the funeral of their friend and teacher." (Alexander Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-883.jpg
Procession in the Palace of Labour, Moscow

"Around the corpse of the great old man, exposed to view in the Hall of Columns of the House of Trade Unions, untoward incidents multiplied... The shadow of the Cheka fell everywhere, but a packed and passionate multitude thronged around the bier, making this funeral ceremony into a demonstration of unmistakable significance." (Victor Serge, Memoirs of Revolutionary)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-882.jpg
Guard of honour at the Palace of Labour, Moscow

"We decide to protest by demonstratively removing the Government and Communist wreaths from the Hall. The threat of a public scandal quickly brings the authorities to terms, and within a quarter of an hour the seven prisoners of the "inner jail" arrive..." (Alexander Berkman, The Bolshevik Myth)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-886.jpg
Group of anarchists released from prison for one day to be able to participate in the funeral

"... only seven of the Anarchists being released from the "inner jail"... None of the Anarchists imprisoned in the Butyrki attended the funeral. The official explanation was that the twenty Anarchists incarcerated in that prison refused to accept the offer of the authorities." [Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment]



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-895.jpg
Funeral procession along the streets of Moscow

"It was a unique demonstration never witnessed in any other country. Long lines of members of Anarchist organizations, labour unions, scientific and literary societies and student bodies marched for over two hours from the Labour Temple to the burial place, seven versts [nearly five miles] distant." (Emma Goldman, My Disillusionment)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-890.jpg
The funeral procession halted before the Tolstoy Museum

"On the Tolstoy Museum the black anarchist flag was flying... while a band of Tolstoyans played Chopin's Funeral March... The Internationale was not played, in deference to Kropotkins dislike of the song, which he likened to the howling of hungry dogs." (George Woodcock, Peter Kropotkin)




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-914.jpg
One of the released anarchists, Aaron Baron (bareheaded) speaks at the grave

"Aaron Baron, due to return that evening to a prison from which he would never again emerge, lifted his emaciated, bearded, gold spectacled profile to cry relentless protests against the new despotism: the butchers at work in their cellars, the dishonour shed upon Socialism, the official violence that was trampling the Revolution underfoot..." (Victor Serge, Memoirs of a Revolutionary)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-906.jpg
Speakers at the grave

Emma Goldman (in fur coat), at her left side G.P. Maximov, at the coffin with white scarf Alexander Berkman

"Due to the limited time, number of speakers has to be cut... the latter spoke in the name of a few Petrograd comrades & read a paper that outraged everyone at the grave. It was a criticism of K's stand on the war, & of his silence in the last 3 years. Whether criticism justified or not, I considered it absolutely out of place." (Alexander Berkman, Diary 1919-1921, Berkman Papers, IISH)



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/galbaldy/a7-918.jpg
The Russian Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists at the graveyard of the Novodevičy monastery

"The unbearably autocratic tactics of the government towards the Anarchists (going even to the extent of confiscating the wreaths on the Kropotkin grave for use at other funerals) is unquestionably the result of the general policy of the government, which is exclusively controlled by the Communist Party, in regard to Anarchism, ...forcing us to raise our voices in loud protest against the panicky-brutal suppression of the Anarchist movement by the Bolshevik Government." (Protest of the Moscow Anarcho-Syndicalist Organizations, April 10, 1921; G.P. Maximoff, The Guillotine at work)


http://www.iisg.nl/collections/kropotkin/intro.php

[The Grey Blur]

I've read this before, I don't agree with it. Lenin greatly respected Kropotkin despite what he saw as his ideological failings and allowed the Anarchists to freely assemble for his funeral.

The sad fact is Anarchism in Russia sided with the counter-revolutionaries - that's why it was crushed by the revolutionary working-class.

[Devrim]

Peter Kropotkin supported the allies in the First World war thereby earning himself the epithet 'anarcho-trenchist'. He has exactly the same relevance to revolutionary anarchism as Kautsky, and the social-patriots in the SPD have to revolutionary Marxism.

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:20 pm
Peter Kropotkin supported the allies in the First World war thereby earning himself the epithet 'anarcho-trenchist'. He has exactly the same relevance to revolutionary anarchism as Kautsky, and the social-patriots in the SPD have to revolutionary Marxism.

Devrim
Regardless of Kroptkin's misguided views during WW1, his theories of both how an anarchist society and how revolution should happen are what matter. Obviously he was (and still is) a respected anarchist theorist this is shown by the huge turn out for his funeral.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 12:57 pm
I've read this before, I don't agree with it. Lenin greatly respected Kropotkin despite what he saw as his ideological failings and allowed the Anarchists to freely assemble for his funeral.
Yes, he respected them so much he executed and imprisoned them; banned their right to organise and destroyed their publications.


The sad fact is Anarchism in Russia sided with the counter-revolutionaries - that's why it was crushed by the revolutionary working-class.

What you mean is Lenin and the Bolsheviks regarded the anarchists as counter-revolutionaries.

It is neither true that the anarchists sided with the whites before or after the funeral.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:20 pm
He has exactly the same relevance to revolutionary anarchism as Kautsky, and the social-patriots in the SPD have to revolutionary Marxism.
What a bizarre assertion to make.

So his fundamental part in defining the biggest anarchist tradition in history through works like 'Fields, Factories, Workshops' - 'Conquest of Bread' and 'Mutual Aid' were all, well, what...?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 02:44 pm
What you mean is Lenin and the Bolsheviks regarded the anarchists as counter-revolutionaries.
Something no doubt made easier by Kropotkin&#39;s decision to openly support a brutal imperialist war. I doubt this was a popular stance amongst the soldiers and sailors <_<

But its good to see that he got a funeral worthy of a Prince.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 13, 2007 08:14 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; February 13, 2007 08:14 pm)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 13, 2007 12:57 pm
I&#39;ve read this before, I don&#39;t agree with it. Lenin greatly respected Kropotkin despite what he saw as his ideological failings and allowed the Anarchists to freely assemble for his funeral.
Yes, he respected them so much he executed and imprisoned them; banned their right to organise and destroyed their publications.


The sad fact is Anarchism in Russia sided with the counter-revolutionaries - that&#39;s why it was crushed by the revolutionary working-class.

What you mean is Lenin and the Bolsheviks regarded the anarchists as counter-revolutionaries.

It is neither true that the anarchists sided with the whites before or after the funeral. [/b]

Yes, he respected them so much he executed and imprisoned them; banned their right to organise and destroyed their publications.


Not before the anarchists started to undermine the young workers state


ISReview
The government desperately tried to hold out against the indigenous counterrevolutionaries and fourteen foreign armies, hoping that a revolution in Europe would come to its aid. And while there is no doubt that these conditions led to a degeneration of the revolution, committed communists felt the only possibility of reinvigorating the revolution lay in its defense against the counterrevolution. Victor Serge, an anarchist who joined the revolution, wrote to his anarchist comrades, "It is vital to respond to this necessity for revolutionary defense, as to the necessity for terror and dictatorship, on pain of death. For the grim reality of revolutions is that half-measures and half-defeats are not possible, and that victory means life, defeat means death." Serge was far from an apologist for the Bolsheviks, and certainly no Stalinist. He later became a Trotskyist, opposed to Stalin’s dictatorship. But he, like most anarchists in Russia who joined the Communist Party, recognized that only victory against the counterrevolution would create the possibility for anything the anarchists said they stood for.

Goldman wrote that the government imprisoned anarchists for their ideas. But most of the anarchists who fell victim to the Cheka police were those who took action against the revolutionary state. They emerged along with the Left Social Revolutionaries (SRs)–the descendants of the Narodniks–as the main "left" critics of Bolshevik policies. They opposed the 1918 Brest-Litovsk Treaty that signed away a huge chunk of Russia to the German Empire. The Bolsheviks felt the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was like swallowing poison, but they argued they had to make good on their pledge of peace–to get out of the First World War.

Anarchists didn’t confine their criticism of the government to words. In fact, they engaged in terrorism against the regime and bank robberies to finance their movement. Moscow anarchists organized Black Guards, which criminal elements infiltrated, to carry out these actions. The Left SR Fanny Kaplan tried to assassinate Lenin in 1918. And in September 1919, shortly before Goldman arrived in Russia, anarchists and Left SRs actually bombed the Moscow Communist Party headquarters, killing twelve and injuring fifty-five. Even with these outrages, the repression meted out against the anarchists was far more inconsistent than Goldman made it out to be. Anarchists arrested one week were released the next. Most who promised not to take up arms against the government were released. Anarchist bookstores remained open throughout the 1920s, and in 1921 the state organized a funeral for the death of anarchist leader Peter Kropotkin at which Goldman spoke.
Emphasis added.

The source is actually a critical analysis of Emma Goldman&#39;s political inconsistencies (http://www.isreview.org/issues/34/emmagoldman.shtml) which is parallels political outlook of many revleft members.


What you mean is Lenin and the Bolsheviks regarded the anarchists as counter-revolutionaries.

Anarchists&#39;s actions at that time is Counter-Revolutionary whether you like it or not.



It is neither true that the anarchists sided with the whites before or after the funeral.

But their actions clearly portray the reality. It would not have been beneficiary to Russian workers&#39;s or peasants&#39;s but to whites which is why the masses stood by the Bolsheviks throughout the Civil War.



So his fundamental part in defining the biggest anarchist tradition in history through works like &#39;Fields, Factories, Workshops&#39; - &#39;Conquest of Bread&#39; and &#39;Mutual Aid&#39; were all, well, what...?

Why did he supported the Imperialist war and worked as a minister in Kerensky&#39;s government ?

[Leo]

What a bizarre assertion to make.

So his fundamental part in defining the biggest anarchist tradition in history through works like &#39;Fields, Factories, Workshops&#39; - &#39;Conquest of Bread&#39; and &#39;Mutual Aid&#39; were all, well, what...?

Well, I am sure Kautsky was pretty good when he was writing about the Foundations of Christianity or Thomas More and his Utopia.

Sigh, it is sad to see anarchists of today being so attached to cult of personalities, especially of individuals who cheered for workers killing fellow workers for their nation-states.

Prince Kropotkin, the "Kautsky" of Anarchism supports the World War 1, but what does all that matter when compared to what he wrote about animals :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 13, 2007 02:46 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 13, 2007 02:46 pm)
[email protected] 13, 2007 01:20 pm
He has exactly the same relevance to revolutionary anarchism as Kautsky, and the social-patriots in the SPD have to revolutionary Marxism.
What a bizarre assertion to make.

So his fundamental part in defining the biggest anarchist tradition in history through works like &#39;Fields, Factories, Workshops&#39; - &#39;Conquest of Bread&#39; and &#39;Mutual Aid&#39; were all, well, what...? [/b]
Oh, you have got to love the anarchists, haven&#39;t you?
Are the facts that he supported the imperialist war, worked with the Kerensky government, but refused to work with the Soviet government after the revolution completely unconnected to the rest of his political work. I haven&#39;t read Kropotkin, but I feel sure that there must be some link between his writings, and his activity.
Why do anarchists seem to love anything that calls itself anarchist? From 1914 Kropotkin sided clearly with the bourgeoisie, yet this is passed by without a mention.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by devrimankara+February 13, 2007 04:59 pm--> (devrimankara @ February 13, 2007 04:59 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 02:46 pm

[email protected] 13, 2007 01:20 pm
He has exactly the same relevance to revolutionary anarchism as Kautsky, and the social-patriots in the SPD have to revolutionary Marxism.
What a bizarre assertion to make.

So his fundamental part in defining the biggest anarchist tradition in history through works like &#39;Fields, Factories, Workshops&#39; - &#39;Conquest of Bread&#39; and &#39;Mutual Aid&#39; were all, well, what...?
Oh, you have got to love the anarchists, haven&#39;t you?
Are the facts that he supported the imperialist war [/b]
What&#39;s the point of harping on about one position he took that barely any of his followers agreed with and that no contemporary anarchist communit has attempted to defend?


I haven&#39;t read Kropotkin, but I feel sure that there must be some link between his writings, and his activity.

Then you&#39;d be wrong.


Why do anarchists seem to love anything that calls itself anarchist? From 1914 Kropotkin sided clearly with the bourgeoisie, yet this is passed by without a mention.

He was wrong. What more do you want us to say?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 04:59 pm
Sigh, it is sad to see anarchists of today being so attached to cult of personalities, especially of individuals who cheered for workers killing fellow workers for their nation-states.
His position on WW1 was wrong, but that does not negate the extensive works he wrote that defined anarcho-communism.


Prince Kropotkin, the "Kautsky" of Anarchism supports the World War 1, but what does all that matter when compared to what he wrote about animals :rolleyes:

Don&#39;t be silly. He wrote one major work on animals and that was a justification for mutual co-operation in the context of creating a classless society.

He also wrote extensively on the formation of an anarchist communist society, the state and anarchist theory and praxis in general.

[Leo]

His position on WW1 was wrong, but that does not negate the extensive works he wrote that defined anarcho-communism.

It negates his anarcho-communism.


Don&#39;t be silly. He wrote one major work on animals and that was a justification for mutual co-operation in the context of creating a classless society.

I was being sarcastic TAT, I read the mutual aid, I know why he is talking about animals.


He also wrote extensively on the formation of an anarchist communist society, the state and anarchist theory and praxis in general.

Many people did similar things... Kautsky wrote about the formation of the communist society, Marxian economics etc. When it comes to the bottom line what matters is the working class interests, not abstract ideologies. If we support capitalist/imperialist wars, all abstract theories are meaningless.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:20 am
Peter Kropotkin supported the allies in the First World war thereby earning himself the epithet &#39;anarcho-trenchist&#39;.
Complete and utter bullshit, he didn&#39;t support WWI, see below;

Did Kropotkin support WWI? (http://flag.blackened.net/ksl/bullet5.htm)

"Yet in no positive sense did Kropotkin ‘support’ the war. He was not a &#39;recruiting sergeant&#39; nor did he offer clarion cries, or do anything practical, even oratorical. Many Russian anti-Tsarists hoped or actively strove for a German victory in the belief it would lead to the overthrow of a barbarous regime. None of them supported, even in Russia, their own government and it was notorious that the Russian Court itself was pro-German, even during the war against Germany.

Kropotkin, despite his experiences in French prisons, had a high regard for British and French democratic institutions. But he did not confuse these with the governments of the day.

He was alive to the bloody suppressions of the Commune and knowing how the Communards had suffered was sympathetic to the individual attempts of the anarchist to fight-back at the bourgeoisie at the turn of the century. His distrust of Prussian militarism was of long standing. Nothing that he said or wrote during the years of war leads one to the supposition that he supported it. What can be said about him is that he failed to oppose it."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by g.ram+February 13, 2007 04:14 pm--> (g.ram &#064; February 13, 2007 04:14 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 08:14 pm
Yes, he respected them so much he executed and imprisoned them; banned their right to organise and destroyed their publications.


Not before the anarchists started to undermine the young workers state [/b]
You mean attempting to stop it from becoming what it became? Quite justified really.



What you mean is Lenin and the Bolsheviks regarded the anarchists as counter-revolutionaries.

Anarchists&#39;s actions at that time is Counter-Revolutionary whether you like it or not.

That claim can&#39;t reasonably be proved as there are numerous lines of logic that would say that it wasn&#39;t and of course that it was.

I would not regard defending workers interests against a centralised state controlled by a group of intellectuals as "counter-revolutionary", but obviously some people (Leninists) would disagree.

The choice is peoples to make.




It is neither true that the anarchists sided with the whites before or after the funeral.

But their actions clearly portray the reality. It would not have been beneficiary to Russian workers&#39;s or peasants&#39;s but to whites which is why the masses stood by the Bolsheviks throughout the Civil War.

Present me with a reasonable argument that proves self-organisation of the working class would have benefited the whites?



So his fundamental part in defining the biggest anarchist tradition in history through works like &#39;Fields, Factories, Workshops&#39; - &#39;Conquest of Bread&#39; and &#39;Mutual Aid&#39; were all, well, what...?

Why did he supported the Imperialist war and worked as a minister in Kerensky&#39;s government ?

He sided with the British and French over the Germans under a specific analysis. That&#39;s not support for war.

In any case clearly he thought it was the right thing to do and it did not go without great criticism and disassociation.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 01:59 am
Why do anarchists seem to love anything that calls itself anarchist?
Where is this coming from?

You&#39;re responding as if this thread is full of, posts like:

&#39;Erm, shut up&#33; Kropotkin ruled, stop repeating bourgeois lies&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39; etc.

No one has denied that Kropotkins position on WWI was shit.

What i dont understand however is how you can throw out everything Kropotkin ever wrote (without reading it mind you&#33;) simply because of his shit position on WWI...

And somehow the anarchists are engaged in personality worship because they value the mans theoretical contributions to anarchist-communism (read: he laid the fuckin&#39; foundation) whilst acknowledging his errors in praxis? That is completely illogical.

He had a lot of good ideas and expressed them well, he had other ideas which were not good (he is a human after all), that doesnt make all his ideas shit or worthless; and it doesnt make anarchists who value his good ideas or respect him for the same blind worshippers of ideology, are we just meant to ignore a large section of the foundation of anarcho-communism?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 05:15 pm

His position on WW1 was wrong, but that does not negate the extensive works he wrote that defined anarcho-communism.

It negates his anarcho-communism.
Perhaps, perhaps not but in any case Malatesta disassocaited himself from Kropotkin after this happened, so he lost a great deal.

Was this justified? I don&#39;t know, I wasn&#39;t there. Regardless, it&#39;s irrelevant what his position on WW1 was.

[Leo]

He sided with the British and French over the Germans. That&#39;s not support.

<_< Yeah, that&#39;s more like joining forces...


In any case clearly he thought it was the right thing to do

Well, that&#39;s the problem.


in any case Malatesta disassocaited himself from Kropotkin after this happened

Yes, that&#39;s a positive thing about Malatesta.


Was this justified? I don&#39;t know, I wasn&#39;t there.

Eh, do you really think you have to be?


Regardless, it&#39;s irrelevant what his position on WW1 was.

Okay, why? Because you regard his theories as so abstract from real political life, therefore had nothing to do with Kropotkin&#39;s positions on actual events?


You&#39;re responding as if this thread is full of, posts like:

&#39;Erm, shut up&#33; Kropotkin ruled, stop repeating bourgeois lies&#33;&#33;&#33;&#39; etc.

No one has denied that Kropotkins position on WWI was shit.

Ehm, look at the post by Cryotank Screams please.


What i dont understand however is how you can throw out everything Kropotkin ever wrote (without reading it mind you&#33;) simply because of his shit position on WWI...

How could we throw out everything Kautsky ever wrote (and I read Kropotkin) simply because of his shit positions on WWI? Well, yeah, Kautsky didn&#39;t call himself an anarchist...

[The Feral Underclass]

Leo, I don&#39;t really understand your position here? What is the point you&#39;re making?

Every anarchist in this thread has agreed that his position was wrong and no one is trying to defend it...?


Ehm, look at the post by Cryotank Screams please.

I think it&#39;s reasonable to take the line of argument that Kropotkin didn&#39;t in fact support the war when it&#39;s arguable that he in fact didn&#39;t. I personally agree that whatever position Kropotkin took, whether it be for direct support or within an analysis of not opposing it, was wrong.

And I think the modern anarchist movement agrees.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Leo+--> (Leo)Ehm, look at the post by Cryotank Screams please.[/b]

Bollocks, that post was made AFTER devrim accused TAT, apathy maybe etc. of fellating Kropotkin &#39;just coz&#39; he&#39;s an anarchist.

I.E. Devrim was accusing the anarchists of being ideology worshippers despite the fact that no one had defended Kropotkins position.


Leo
How could we throw out everything Kautsky ever wrote (and I read Kropotkin) simply because of his shit positions on WWI? Well, yeah, Kautsky didn&#39;t call himself an anarchist...

I havent read Kautsky, so i cant judge whether or not he any worthwhile contributions to marxist theory, soooo....

Otherwise, im not really what your point is.

[Leo]

Leo, I don&#39;t really understand your position here? What is the point you&#39;re making?

I&#39;m arguing that being a &#39;Malatestite&#39;, you should be the most anti-Kropotkin person here :P

I am arguing that WW1 issue and war issue in general is far more important than abstract theoretical writings of individuals.


I think it&#39;s reasonable to take the line of argument that Kropotkin didn&#39;t in fact support the war when it&#39;s arguable that he in fact didn&#39;t...

He became a freaking minister in Kerensky&#39;s government TAT, come on...

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 12:35 pm
<_< Yeah, that&#39;s more like joining forces...
No, it&#39;s not, like the article said;


Yet in no positive sense did Kropotkin ‘support’ the war. He was not a &#39;recruiting sergeant&#39; nor did he offer clarion cries, or do anything practical, even oratorical.

Therefore it isn&#39;t like siding with the bourgeoisie, it is more like failing to oppose it, as the article also said, and I feel it was an error.


Well, that&#39;s the problem.

No shit, no one is denying it was a mistake.


Ehm, look at the post by Cryotank Screams please.

I am not screaming it&#39;s bourgeoisie lies, or that Kropotkin ruled, or anything that Black Rose said as an example, all I am saying is he failed to oppose the war, he did nothing to support, nor should any indication, nor wrote anything, nor said anything, that he was in full support of the war, and was siding with the bourgeoisie, that is all I am saying, which apparently you missed, maybe re-read my posts?

[Leo]

Bollocks, that post was made AFTER devrim accused TAT, apathy maybe etc. of fellating Kropotkin &#39;just coz&#39; he&#39;s an anarchist.

That actually weakens your argument instead of strengthening it.


I.E. Devrim was accusing the anarchists of being ideology worshippers despite the fact that no one had defended Kropotkins position.

But everyone continues to defend Kropotkin himself.


Therefore it isn&#39;t like siding with the bourgeoisie, it is more like failing to oppose it, as the article also said

That&#39;s simply being apologetic for the position. Also it seems that the article is forgetting the fact that Kropotkin worked with Kerensky&#39;s government against the "evil militaristic Germans".

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 13, 2007 12:45 pm
That&#39;s simply being apologetic for the position.
It&#39;s not being apologetic it&#39;s stating a fact, and pointing out his true position on the matter.


Also it seems that the article is forgetting the fact that Kropotkin worked with Kerensky&#39;s government against the "evil militaristic Germans".

Proof of this claim?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Leo+--> (Leo)That actually weakens your argument instead of strengthening it.[/b]

Devrim came into this thread and accused the anarchist respondents of ideology worship; despite the fact no one had defended Kropotkins pos. on WWI.

The fact that someone has since defended Kropotkins position doesnt negate the fact that Devrim was talking shit, as highlighted above.

The point is both you and Devrim were accusing people of ideology worship before ANYONE had even defended kropotkins pos. on WWI, now ONE person has, one person - that doesnt make you right, it just makes you lucky.


Originally posted by [email protected]
But everyone continues to defend Kropotkin himself.

No, people continue to defend his contributions to anarchist-communism; which of course are not magically erased from his history or the development of the anarchist tradition coz Kropotkin the person happened to put his foot in his mouth sometime around 1914.


Leo
That&#39;s simply being apologetic for the position

I agree.

[Leo]

Proof of this claim?

Here ya go;


Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)[H]e helps the Kerensky government to formulate policy[/b]


ICC
Open support for the Provisional Government under Kerensky – they saw the February revolution with its petit-bourgeois democratism as the true goal of the Russian Revolution. As an example, Kropotkin served as an adviser for the Kerensky Government

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

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/300/anar...workers-control (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/300/anarchism-and-workers-control)


Devrim came into this thread and accused the anarchist respondents of ideology worship; despite the fact no one had defended Kropotkins pos. on WWI.

Well no, he accused the anarchist respondents of defending Kropotkin despite his positions which, to him, were caused by the want to embrace all "anarchists", especially historical figures.


How so?

It happened between Dev&#39;s and your posts, it was almost too ironic.


No, people continue to defend his contributions to anarchist-communism;

Those positions mean nothing and are nothing rather than empty rhetoric when a so-called "anarchist" is supporting the war and advising the bourgeois government. That&#39;s not a minor point which you can say "oh that&#39;s wrong but I still defend his contributions". It is the most major point possible, and no contribution ever can make up for it.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 04:04 pm
What&#39;s the point of harping on about one position he took that barely any of his followers agreed with and that no contemporary anarchist communit has attempted to defend?
Because his position on the war, which can be described as being on the far-right of socialist thought at the time, is hugely significant and tells us a great deal about the man. This is a thread on Kropotkin - warts and all.

BTW does anyone have an English translation of Manifeste des Seize (Manifesto of the Sixteen)?

[bcbm]

Those positions mean nothing and are nothing rather than empty rhetoric when a so-called "anarchist" is supporting the war and advising the bourgeois government. That&#39;s not a minor point which you can say "oh that&#39;s wrong but I still defend his contributions". It is the most major point possible, and no contribution ever can make up for it.

Jesus Christ... he didn&#39;t support the war&#33;

And anyway, Marx was an anti-semite, homophobe, etc... that is pretty major, ought we reject all of his contributions, too?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 05:10 pm
Jesus Christ... he didn&#39;t support the war&#33;
While I&#39;ve yet to see an actual text of the Manifeste des Seize, what I&#39;ve read indicates that it was indeed an endorsement of pro-French intervention in the war. Certainly it could not be described as defeatism or even defencism.

You think Malatesta & Co. simply abandoned him for kicks and giggles? They knew how unpalatable Kropotkin&#39;s stances was - TAT seems to grasp this, you do not.


And anyway, Marx was an anti-semite, homophobe, etc... that is pretty major, ought we reject all of his contributions, too?You are aware that Marx was a Jew? Regardless, this is not a thread about Marx. But I will say that if Marx had condoned the crushing of the Paris Commune or supported Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War then we would of course look at his writings in a new light.

[Leo]

Jesus Christ... he didn&#39;t support the war&#33;

That made two of &#39;em... Are you watching closely, black rose?


And anyway, Marx was an anti-semite, homophobe, etc...

Well, I heard that wasn&#39;t really true but if it is going to make you happy to hear it, I think Marx did have a relationship with his maid.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Leo+--> (Leo)ell no, he accused the anarchist respondents of defending Kropotkin despite his positions which, to him, were caused by the want to embrace all "anarchists", especially historical figures.[/b]

An accusation which was never backed up; TAT and i have been defending Kropotkins on the basis of his valuable theoretical contributions not because we &#39;embrace all anarchists&#39;; there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

People have defended the utility of Kropotkins theoretical contributions - that is NOT the same as defending Kropotkin as an individual - we take his ideas, they&#39;re ours now, he&#39;s dead, and i would skull fuck his skeleton to illustrate my point if need be.


Originally posted by [email protected]
It happened between Dev&#39;s and your posts, it was almost too ironic.

Like i said in my last post,

"Devrim came into this thread and accused the anarchist respondents of ideology worship; despite the fact no one had defended Kropotkins pos. on WWI.

The fact that someone has since defended Kropotkins position doesnt negate the fact that Devrim was talking shit, as highlighted above.

The point is both you and Devrim were accusing people of ideology worship before ANYONE had even defended kropotkins pos. on WWI, now ONE person has, one person - that doesnt make you right, it just makes you lucky."


Leo
Those positions mean nothing and are nothing rather than empty rhetoric when a so-called "anarchist" is supporting the war and advising the bourgeois government. That&#39;s not a minor point which you can say "oh that&#39;s wrong but I still defend his contributions". It is the most major point possible, and no contribution ever can make up for it.

So everything he ever wrote is completely worthless and should be ignored by the anarchist movement? That is ludicrous.

If an idea is good its good, if someone expresses good ideas in an effective way thats even better.

However I dont expect everyone who has good ideas or is good at expressing them to have perfect politics or to be faultless; so why should i recoil in horror when someone with faults comes along expressing good ideas? The point is useful ideas not inevitably faulty personalities; especially considering his position on WWI cannot be traced back into his theoretical writings, there is no pro-imperialist war &#39;trojan horse&#39; to be found in the conquest of bread etc.; so why is it necessary to reject the totality of his writings?

[bcbm]

While I&#39;ve yet to see an actual text of the Manifeste des Seize, what I&#39;ve read indicates that it was indeed an endorsement of pro-French intervention in the war. Certainly it could not be described as defeatism or even defencism.

You think Malatesta & Co. simply abandoned him for kicks and giggles? They knew how unpalatable Kropotkin&#39;s stances was - TAT seems to grasp this, you do not.

I&#39;m not defending his wrong positions, dipshit, I am simply saying that from the evidence I have seen, and has been posted in this thread, it seems he did not support the war. He&#39;s still a dick for joining the government- no argument here, but I don&#39;t think his theoretical contributions need be entirely rejected either.


You are aware that Marx was a Jew?

Yeah, and you are aware he wrote some anti-semitic shit?


Regardless, this is not a thread about Marx. But I will say that if Marx had condoned the crushing of the Paris Commune or supported Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War then we would of course look at his writings in a new light.

So being a bigot is forgivable, but supporting a war is not? :wacko:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:21 pm
But I will say that if Marx had condoned the crushing of the Paris Commune or supported Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War then we would of course look at his writings in a new light.
I don&#39;t see why that would be necessary?

On what basis does Kropotkin&#39;s position on WW1 negate what he said? I understand how it may, possibly, contradict his own beliefs, but why would it rubbish his many concepts and theories?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 06:25 pm
I am simply saying that from the evidence I have seen, and has been posted in this thread, it seems he did not support the war. He&#39;s still a dick for joining the government- no argument here, but I don&#39;t think his theoretical contributions need be entirely rejected either.
I totally agree and I don&#39;t think those proposing otherwise have any way of defending such an opinion.

[Vargha Poralli]

Yeah, and you are aware he wrote some anti-semitic shit?

Seriously dude if you don&#39;t know something then you should not talk about it.

On the Jewish Question. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm)

Wiki on that work if you are really Lazy to read it fully. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/index.htm)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 13, 2007 05:25 pm--> (black coffee black metal &#064; February 13, 2007 05:25 pm)I&#39;m not defending his wrong positions, dipshit, I am simply saying that from the evidence I have seen, and has been posted in this thread, it seems he did not support the war.[/b]
Which is why I&#39;m looking for a copy of the Manifeste des Seize. I&#39;d be interested in reading exactly what he said. What is clear, if only from the reaction of Malatesta, is that he went far further than, as has been suggested in this thread, simply fudging the issue and sitting on the fence.


He&#39;s still a dick for joining the government- no argument here, but I don&#39;t think his theoretical contributions need be entirely rejected either.And I never suggested that they should be, dipshit, but they must be considered in the light of his stance on the imperialist war of 1914.


Yeah, and you are aware he wrote some anti-semitic shit?I&#39;m fairly sure I know what quote you are referring to. PM me and we&#39;ll deal with it there.


So being a bigot is forgivable, but supporting a war is not? :wacko:Pretty much. See Marx could well have been a racist, anti-semitic, cross-dressing, church-going scumbag... but that would not affect his economic writings on capitalism. On the other hand supporting an imperialist war of aggression would have directly contradicted his politics and economics.

I couldn&#39;t give a flying fuck if Kropotkin was an anti-semite, though it obviously wouldn&#39;t reflect well on him, but his support, or at the very least refusal to condemn, WWI is much more important. It flies in the face of almost every key tenant of communist thought. I&#39;m not surprised that his contemporaries were so shocked by his stance.


TAT
On what basis does Kropotkin&#39;s position on WW1 negate what he said? I understand how it may, possibly, contradict his own beliefs, but why would it rubbish his many concepts and theories? Kropotkin took a position in which he supported the actions of a bourgeois government over the international working class. I&#39;ve no other problem with Kropotkin or his theories - I&#39;ve liked, if not agreed with, those writings of his that I&#39;ve read - but this stance is simply unforgivable from a communist point of view. Really in that regard he&#39;s on par with Kautsky.

What does that mean for the broader volume of Kropotkin&#39;s work? Not much. There&#39;s far more to anarcho-communism than Kropotkin. But it does raise questions regarding Kropotkin himself and his writings must be read with his eventual position in the back of the mind.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 13, 2007 09:53 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ February 13, 2007 09:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 04:14 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 08:14 pm
Yes, he respected them so much he executed and imprisoned them; banned their right to organise and destroyed their publications.


Not before the anarchists started to undermine the young workers state
You mean attempting to stop it from becoming what it became? Quite justified really.



What you mean is Lenin and the Bolsheviks regarded the anarchists as counter-revolutionaries.

Anarchists&#39;s actions at that time is Counter-Revolutionary whether you like it or not.

That claim can&#39;t reasonably be proved as there are numerous lines of logic that would say that it wasn&#39;t and of course that it was.

I would not regard defending workers interests against a centralised state controlled by a group of intellectuals as "counter-revolutionary", but obviously some people (Leninists) would disagree.

The choice is peoples to make.




It is neither true that the anarchists sided with the whites before or after the funeral.

But their actions clearly portray the reality. It would not have been beneficiary to Russian workers&#39;s or peasants&#39;s but to whites which is why the masses stood by the Bolsheviks throughout the Civil War.

Present me with a reasonable argument that proves self-organisation of the working class would have benefited the whites?



So his fundamental part in defining the biggest anarchist tradition in history through works like &#39;Fields, Factories, Workshops&#39; - &#39;Conquest of Bread&#39; and &#39;Mutual Aid&#39; were all, well, what...?

Why did he supported the Imperialist war and worked as a minister in Kerensky&#39;s government ?

He sided with the British and French over the Germans under a specific analysis. That&#39;s not support for war.

In any case clearly he thought it was the right thing to do and it did not go without great criticism and disassociation. [/b]

You mean attempting to stop it from becoming what it became? Quite justified really.

Are you an Materialist or an Utopian Idealist ?


That claim can&#39;t reasonably be proved as there are numerous lines of logic that would say that it wasn&#39;t and of course that it was.

I would not regard defending workers interests against a centralised state controlled by a group of intellectuals as "counter-revolutionary", but obviously some people (Leninists) would disagree.

The choice is peoples to make.

People made the choice during that time they remained loyal to Bolsheviks even during counter-revolution of Stalin.


Present me with a reasonable argument that proves self-organisation of the working class would have benefited the whites?

Self-Organisation of the working class would not have helped the whites but the so called "anarchists" where not fighting for it they ahd been working to undermine the Soviets which is why they did not gain support among both the workers and peasants.



He sided with the British and French over the Germans under a specific analysis. That&#39;s not support for war.

Then what is it ?

And also you have dodged my question about his post as a minister with Kerensky&#39;s Government.

[Leo]

Originally posted by black rose+--> (black rose)An accusation which was never backed up;[/b]

An accusation which was never proven wrong.


TAT and i have been defending Kropotkins on the basis of his valuable theoretical contributions

Do you think Kropotkin became counter-revolutionary [at latest] after WW1 (if he was really revolutionary before). Why do you think he supported the WW1? Do you think it is possible that in his "valuable theoretical contributions", the justification of his support for the war exists? Do you think it is possible, sensible and healthy to reject ones practice on the most important issue of his time but embrace his abstract theories? If so would this not just mean that his theories were indeed to abstract, therefore irrelevant to real life as those theories had nothing to do with the practice?


So everything he ever wrote is completely worthless and should be ignored by the anarchist movement?

No, but everything he ever wrote should be read in an extremely skeptical manner by the anarchists. Kropotkin does not deserve any trust, neither does his works.


Originally posted by black coffee black metal+--> (black coffee black metal)I&#39;m not defending his wrong positions[/b]

No, you are denying his wrong positions existence. He cheered for the French, British and Russian ruling classes crashing the Germans.


[email protected]
On what basis does Kropotkin&#39;s position on WW1 negate what he said?

It is a matter of credibility.


g.ram
Are you an Materialist or an Utopian Idealist ?

:lol: Ah, I love it when I see 200 year old insults&#33; ( :rolleyes: <_< )

Seriously, do you expect anything to say "Yes, I am an utopian idealist, nice to meet you"?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+February 13, 2007 05:28 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension &#064; February 13, 2007 05:28 pm)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 06:25 pm
I am simply saying that from the evidence I have seen, and has been posted in this thread, it seems he did not support the war. He&#39;s still a dick for joining the government- no argument here, but I don&#39;t think his theoretical contributions need be entirely rejected either.
I totally agree and I don&#39;t think those proposing otherwise have any way of defending such an opinion.[/b]
On the question of whether he supported the war, let&#39;s quote from the horse&#39;s mouth:

Kropotkin in Freedom 1914
I consider that the duty of everyone who cherishes the idea of human progress altogether, and especially those that were inscribed by the European proletarians on the banner of the International Workingmen&#39;s Association, is to do everything in one&#39;s power, according to one&#39;s capacities, to crush down the invasion of the Germans into Western Europe.
…
But for the moment we must not lose sight of the main work of the day. The territories of both France and Belgium MUST be freed of the invaders. The German invasion must be repulsed -- no matter how difficult this may be. All efforts must be directed that way.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archi...ffenletter.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/steffenletter.html)

I think that this is quite a clear argument for national defence.

When people say &#39;he&#39;s still a dick&#39;, and talk about mistakes, it implies that these mistakes are unconnected to the rest of his politics. Do you think that he came to these positions out of thin air, or do you think that maybe there was some connection between his politics, and his openly siding on the side of the bourgeoisie against the working class? I am not saying that there is nothing of value in his work, just as I would not say that their is nothing of value in Kautsky&#39;s work.

The fact remains though that when it came down to the real test, war and revolution, both Kropotkin, and Kautsky betrayed the working class. Maybe this should be considered when reading his works.

In my opinion one of the problems with anarchism is that it sees betrayals of the working class ass mistakes. You talk to anarchists about the role of the CNT in Spain, including, but not only joining the government, and they tell you that it was a mistake. Are these mistakes all aberrations, or is their some political route to them?

In the 1930&#39;s, and 1940&#39;s the communist left re-examined the mistakes of the past trying to draw up a balance sheet. I don&#39;t believe that anarchism, with few exceptions, ever did this. Why the events in Spain unfolded like they did, and what the role of the CNT was, are just two of these questions. It would, I think, be time better spent than time praising a recruiting sergeant of imperialism.

Devrim

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 11:45 am
Which is why I&#39;m looking for a copy of the Manifeste des Seize. I&#39;d be interested in reading exactly what he said. What is clear, if only from the reaction of Malatesta, is that he went far further than, as has been suggested in this thread, simply fudging the issue and sitting on the fence.
I&#39;m interested as well, let me know if you have any luck.


And I never suggested that they should be, dipshit, but they must be considered in the light of his stance on the imperialist war of 1914.

Well, from what I&#39;ve read of Kropotkin, I don&#39;t see anything justifying his unforgivable stance. If anything, he went against his own words, which does nothing to discredit them.


Pretty much. See Marx could well have been a racist, anti-semitic, cross-dressing, church-going scumbag... but that would not affect his economic writings on capitalism. On the other hand supporting an imperialist war of aggression would have directly contradicted his politics and economics.

Wait, what is wrong with cross-dressing? Why would you throw that in with other heinous things...

And if someone does something in their personal life (like being anti-semitic, or supporting a war?) that goes against their political writings (on egalitarianism, and the destruction of the state?), then it only shows that they, like all humans, are hypocrites. Perhaps some more serious than others, but if they contradict their own writings, it does not invalidate those writings.


I think that this is quite a clear argument for national defence.

That statement seems pretty vague to me, especially without context. The preceeding paragraphs especially, but ultimately the whole letter, seem important in pinpointing exactly just what the fuck K. was thinking.



When people say &#39;he&#39;s still a dick&#39;, and talk about mistakes, it implies that these mistakes are unconnected to the rest of his politics. Do you think that he came to these positions out of thin air, or do you think that maybe there was some connection between his politics, and his openly siding on the side of the bourgeoisie against the working class?

He was against German militarism more than he was supporting the bourgeoisie, as I read his letter. I don&#39;t think his thoughts on this matter have any deep connection to what he writes about in his anarchist-communist works though, no.


The fact remains though that when it came down to the real test, war and revolution, both Kropotkin, and Kautsky betrayed the working class. Maybe this should be considered when reading his works.


That speaks of him as an individual, not his theories.


In my opinion one of the problems with anarchism is that it sees betrayals of the working class ass mistakes. You talk to anarchists about the role of the CNT in Spain, including, but not only joining the government, and they tell you that it was a mistake. Are these mistakes all aberrations, or is their some political route to them?


People are humans and we aren&#39;t blessed with being able to see the future. What may make sense to some at one time seems so obviously wrong to those of us 70 years later that it is hard to see things from their perspective. None of us on the political left have had a very good history.


In the 1930&#39;s, and 1940&#39;s the communist left re-examined the mistakes of the past trying to draw up a balance sheet. I don&#39;t believe that anarchism, with few exceptions, ever did this. Why the events in Spain unfolded like they did, and what the role of the CNT was, are just two of these questions. It would, I think, be time better spent than time praising a recruiting sergeant of imperialism.


Anarchists have constantly re-evaluated what has happened and written and spoken against it. They were doing it at the time and continue to do it&#33; And, from what I&#39;ve seen, the re-examination of the communist left seems more about excusing atrocities and mistakes than the anarchists have ever done.

[Devrim]

That statement seems pretty vague to me, especially without context. The preceeding paragraphs especially, but ultimately the whole letter, seem important in pinpointing exactly just what the fuck K. was thinking.
The context was there for anyone who wanted to read it. I posted what I considered to be a very clear example of his position. I did also post a link to the entire letter though. As I understand it he was kicked out of &#39;Freedom&#39; because of this. At least some anarchists knew what class positions meant.

He was against German militarism more than he was supporting the bourgeoisie, as I read his letter. I don&#39;t think his thoughts on this matter have any deep connection to what he writes about in his anarchist-communist works though, no.
And not against English imperialism? It is part of the whole problem with anarchism today that some anarchists, and I am not saying all, will side with any bourgeoisie faction against a worse bourgeoisie faction. I find it strange that people think that his support for the war is an abstract position. It doesn&#39;t come from nowhere. When Kautsky sided with national defence against the working class, it wasn&#39;t unexpected by the what later became the communist left. They had been fighting against his politics for nearly twenty years. As I said before, I haven&#39;t read kropotkin, but would be very surprised if you didn&#39;t find the roots of this stance in his earlier writings.

That speaks of him as an individual, not his theories.
Did his political activities come form his theories, or did he just wake up one morning in 1914 and think &#39;I know. Let&#39;s support the imperialists&#39;?

People are humans and we aren&#39;t blessed with being able to see the future. What may make sense to some at one time seems so obviously wrong to those of us 70 years later that it is hard to see things from their perspective. None of us on the political left have had a very good history.
This reads to me like something that will continue to say; they had to join the government they had no choice. The situation was bad.
Now, I understand that it was bad, but why are the CNT immune from the criticism that anarchist throw at the Bolshevik party. The situation was bad there too

Anarchists have constantly re-evaluated what has happened and written and spoken against it. They were doing it at the time and continue to do it&#33;
I don&#39;t think this is true. All I have seen from the anarchists is a realisation that it was a &#39;mistake&#39;. I haven&#39;t seen much of a discussion about why the mistakes were made.

And, from what I&#39;ve seen, the re-examination of the communist left seems more about excusing atrocities and mistakes than the anarchists have ever done.
I am not sure if you know who the communist left are. After all, it is a very small tendency. In regards to us excusing attrocities, we say that the so-called socialist states were capitalist, and our group (EKS) says that&#39;by 1921 the RCP(B) was clearly on the side of capital against the working class&#39;. I understand that you don&#39;t know our tendency, but what atrocities are we excusing?

Devrim

[Leo]

Well, from what I&#39;ve read of Kropotkin, I don&#39;t see anything justifying his unforgivable stance. If anything, he went against his own words, which does nothing to discredit them.

Because his words before were perfectly revolutionary and had nothing to do with his stance about WW1? Even Lenin was much harsher on Kautsky.

Here we see a perfect example of a disturbed cult of personality.


That statement seems pretty vague to me

What is vague about it?


He was against German militarism more than he was supporting the bourgeoisie

Eh, more apologism <_<


I don&#39;t think his thoughts on this matter have any deep connection to what he writes about in his anarchist-communist works though, no.

Than the conclusion from your statement would be anarcho-communism has nothing to do with real life, real events and the real conditions of the working class.


That speaks of him as an individual, not his theories.

To my knowledge, Kropotkin&#39;s theories didn&#39;t came to him from the skies.


Anarchists have constantly re-evaluated what has happened and written and spoken against it.

You are still refusing to re-evaluate Kropotkin, or for that matter Bakunin and for some anarchists, even Proudhon. You don&#39;t really have a good record on re-evaluation.

[chimx]

Meh, who cares. Its not as if anybody is claiming to be a Kropotkinist. He wrote some good books and became a person for anarchists to rally around after the Bolshevik seizure of power. That&#39;s pretty rockin&#39;.

[bcbm]

You guys should get different avatars, you are confusing the fuck out of me.


The context was there for anyone who wanted to read it. I posted what I considered to be a very clear example of his position. I did also post a link to the entire letter though. As I understand it he was kicked out of &#39;Freedom&#39; because of this. At least some anarchists knew what class positions meant.

Yes, but most people won&#39;t bother to read the whole letter (I don&#39;t know why the hell I did?&#33;) and take the most sensational parts at face value.


And not against English imperialism? It is part of the whole problem with anarchism today that some anarchists, and I am not saying all, will side with any bourgeoisie faction against a worse bourgeoisie faction. I find it strange that people think that his support for the war is an abstract position. It doesn&#39;t come from nowhere. . . As I said before, I haven&#39;t read kropotkin, but would be very surprised if you didn&#39;t find the roots of this stance in his earlier writings.

I&#39;m not saying his stance is justifiable or correct, just trying to correctly interpret it and why he came to his conclusions. I can&#39;t say either whether the roots lay in his earlier writings as, to be honest, I have not read very much of them and it was going on half a decade that I read what bits I did, but I don&#39;t recall anything terribly telling in this regard. But maybe it was there, who knows. I&#39;ll let the better readers of Kropotkin answer to that.


Did his political activities come form his theories, or did he just wake up one morning in 1914 and think &#39;I know. Let&#39;s support the imperialists&#39;?

Well, I don&#39;t think that is quite what he was thinking and, like I said, I haven&#39;t read enough to really say, I just don&#39;t recall it. Still, I think it is possible to separate theories on mutual aid and what have you from thoughts on German militarism and the first world war.


This reads to me like something that will continue to say; they had to join the government they had no choice. The situation was bad.
Now, I understand that it was bad, but why are the CNT immune from the criticism that anarchist throw at the Bolshevik party. The situation was bad there too

Hum? I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am not justifying their decision at all, or saying it was so bad they had to do it- quite the opposite. I am saying they should be criticized, and rightly so, but that it is incorrect to say the roots of their decision lie in some failing of anarchist theory, especially from a leftist-statist position. The CNT and the Bolsheviks both fucked up, and both need to be criticized, but I don&#39;t think in either case the failings can be directly attributed to the theories that spawned them. Am I being more clear?


I don&#39;t think this is true. All I have seen from the anarchists is a realisation that it was a &#39;mistake&#39;. I haven&#39;t seen much of a discussion about why the mistakes were made.

I think it is out there, but its been awhile since I read anything about the Spanish Civil War.


I am not sure if you know who the communist left are. After all, it is a very small tendency. In regards to us excusing attrocities, we say that the so-called socialist states were capitalist, and our group (EKS) says that&#39;by 1921 the RCP(B) was clearly on the side of capital against the working class&#39;. I understand that you don&#39;t know our tendency, but what atrocities are we excusing?

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by communist left. I am not familiar with what you&#39;re speaking of, so, apologies.

--------



Because his words before were perfectly revolutionary and had nothing to do with his stance about WW1?

I said that, in what I have read, I did not see anything to suggest his later stance. See above.


Here we see a perfect example of a disturbed cult of personality.

Not really. I don&#39;t really give a fuck about Kropotkin.


What is vague about it?

He says German militarism and the occupation of some countries should be opposed. That could mean any number of things.


Eh, more apologism

Trying to understand is different than excusing, and perhaps more difficult than simple condemnation.


Than the conclusion from your statement would be anarcho-communism has nothing to do with real life, real events and the real conditions of the working class.

Eh? I don&#39;t really follow your logic on this one, sorry.


You are still refusing to re-evaluate Kropotkin, or for that matter Bakunin and for some anarchists, even Proudhon. You don&#39;t really have a good record on re-evaluation.

I am? Bakunin was an anti-semite with dictatorial tendencies at some points, Proudhon was a sexist, racist, semi-capitalist **** and Kropotkin was apparently an aid to the bourgeois on several levels. They all had some good things to say and helped develop much in modern anarchist thought. Anarchists should take what they can from them and see what is relevant (and in my experience, they have) and reject all of the dumb shit (and, once again, in my experience they have). I think the record is pretty good, I haven&#39;t run in to many, if any, anarchists who accept those individuals uncritically.

But I am not an anarchists, so I am not really worried about reading or re-evaluating any of them. I don&#39;t, and never really have had much use for them, I am afraid.

----

Holy shit, it is difficult to write after having 6 cups of coffee.

[Devrim]

You guys should get different avatars, you are confusing the fuck out of me.
Sorry, he only just put that up for me about ten minutes before you replied. I am not good with computers. It is the logo of our organisation. I think it is goof that we have the same logo. We argue basically the same points even if he descends into abuse, and just slaging people off from time to time, which obviously he shouldn&#39;t.

I am saying they should be criticized, and rightly so, but that it is incorrect to say the roots of their decision lie in some failing of anarchist theory, especially from a leftist-statist position. The CNT and the Bolsheviks both fucked up, and both need to be criticized, but I don&#39;t think in either case the failings can be directly attributed to the theories that spawned them. Am I being more clear?
Yes, the CNT, and the Bolsheviks did both &#39;fuck up&#39; as you put it. When you write &#39;especially from a leftist-statist position&#39;, maybe you should familiarise yourself with what we are saying fist. As you yourself admit:

Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by communist left. I am not familiar with what you&#39;re speaking of, so, apologies.
The more important question is whether the theoretical base of both the Bolsheviks, and the CNT had consequences which led to them being opposed to the working class. I think that they both did.

Devrim

[Leo]

Not really. I don&#39;t really give a fuck about Kropotkin.

Then why are you trying to defend him and his contributions? He was an adviser of the Kerensky government because he wanted to see Germany being defeated by France, Russia and England. Kerensky liked him so much that he offered Kropotkin a ministry&#33;


He says German militarism and the occupation of some countries should be opposed. That could mean any number of things.

Like what?


Eh? I don&#39;t really follow your logic on this one, sorry.

If Kropotkin&#39;s theories had nothing to do with his political stances as people here say, what would that say about his theories?


Originally posted by Devrim
he descends into abuse, and just slaging people off from time to time, which obviously he shouldn&#39;t.

:o Devrim, you&#39;re embarrassing me&#33;&#33;&#33;

Oh well, guess I had it coming...

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 13, 2007 07:40 pm
Wait, what is wrong with cross-dressing? Why would you throw that in with other heinous things...
Because its a personal trait that has absolutely nothing to do with his politics. I could have easily mentioned the fact that Marx had a beard... something that does not affect his theories or philosophies. That is, none of those traits contradict core communist ideals... unlike supporting an imperialist war effort.

[Luís Henrique]

Kautsky was a class traitor. Of course, his "Agrarian Question" can still be read with profit for the reader; it is a valid contribution to Marxist theory.

But the evaluation that Marxists make of Kautsky is not that he was a great Marxist who made the "mistake" of supporting an imperialist war; it is that he was a class traitor who made some useful contributions to theory.

Kropotkin was, for what I am reading in this thread, a class traitor. But anarchists usually don&#39;t acknowledge this; instead, they consider him a great theorist who committed a "minor" error (though they would never forgive a Marxist who made the same error).

It becomes somewhat ridiculous:

Marxism is inherently evil and anti-workers because it supports bourgeois elections, participating in bourgeois governments, and the use of the State for supporting supposed proletarian interests. But when a famous anarchist like Kropotkin does exactly this, it becomes a side issue?

Come on. Shame on you.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Then why are you trying to defend him and his contributions?

Because I don&#39;t think his later stance negates his earlier work?

Also, because I am an asshole and like to argue.


Like what?

Can fighting foreign occupation only take one form?


If Kropotkin&#39;s theories had nothing to do with his political stances as people here say, what would that say about his theories?

His political stance at point x may not be the same as an earlier stance, and his theories on how individuals relate in a communist society may have nothing to do with how he views German militarism and imperial war.


Devrim, you&#39;re embarrassing me&#33;&#33;&#33;

Oh well, guess I had it coming...

Naughty, naughty. :P

---


Yes, the CNT, and the Bolsheviks did both &#39;fuck up&#39; as you put it. When you write &#39;especially from a leftist-statist position&#39;, maybe you should familiarise yourself with what we are saying fist.

I wasn&#39;t talking about you with the leftist-statist bit.


The more important question is whether the theoretical base of both the Bolsheviks, and the CNT had consequences which led to them being opposed to the working class. I think that they both did.

It was only a few leaders of the CNT who joined the government, as I recall, and the decision wasn&#39;t especially popular among the revolutionaries of the time? I could be wrong, like I said, its been awhile. What theoretical base do you think led to that? Perhaps a better conversation for PM, or a side thread?

-----


Kropotkin was, for what I am reading in this thread, a class traitor. But anarchists usually don&#39;t acknowledge this; instead, they consider him a great theorist who committed a "minor" error (though they would never forgive a Marxist who made the same error).

You haven&#39;t been reading the thread very closely then?

[Leo]

Because I don&#39;t think his later stance negates his earlier work?

Negates? Probably not, but it puts all of his works under serious suspicion.

"Class traitor" is a heavy title, and for good reason&#33;


Also, because I am an asshole and like to argue.

Well, good for you :P


Can fighting foreign occupation only take one form?

Yes, in the end it is always serving the bourgeoisie.


Naughty, naughty :P

:blush: :lol:

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 03:00 am

Because I don&#39;t think his later stance negates his earlier work?

Negates? Probably not, but it puts all of his works under serious suspicion.

"Class traitor" is a heavy title, and for good reason&#33;

Then why are we arguing? I completely agree that one should be weary of Kropotkins words given his actions, but that is certainly a huge step back from the position you were originally advocating (essentially that anarchists should burn his books&#33;).

And in reality, i think peole should read everything critically, not just texts by people known to have held reactionary positions, regardless of political affiliation, it is the same whether im reading Kropotkin, Bakunin or Lorenzo Komboa Ervin&#33;

The fact is that Kropotkins stance on WWI came as a shock to many of his comrades, if you read Emma Goldmans biography you&#39;ll understand just how out-of-the-blue this came for many in the movement, literally akin to &#39;WTF peter?&#33;&#33;&#39;

However, i have not read anything by Kropotkin in his theoretical works which suggests or argues for supporting inter-state wars, wars of imperialism etc; like the anarchists of his day i cannot see the logical connection between his theoretical writings and the position he took - this is precisely why it was an unexpected event at the time; the reaction by goldman and others was largely shock and confusion, not the reaction youd expect had his position had deep or obvious roots in his writings.

That said, if there are texts he has written advocating such a position than obviously all anarchists should reject them, that is obvious and not debateable. But i will not reject all of his writings on this basis; when i can find not even a hint of this reactionary position evident, in words, implied or stated, in the logic of his arguments or otherwise; where this can be found anarchists should rightly criticise and reject such a text.

[Vargha Poralli]

Black Dagger:

My question is that you defend Kropotkin so much could you explain why he joined the Kerensky&#39;s government ? What were those so called anarchists doing during Kerensky&#39;s days ? It is such a hypocrisy that you guys bash Lenin and Trotsky for not destroying the state(which is possible only in dreams at that time) but you don&#39;t even condemn one of your kind for participating in a Reactionary government made up by Imperial Lackeys as a minister. Luis Henrique sums up pretty well in his post and nobody is answering to his post

Originally posted by Luis Henrique

Marxism is inherently evil and anti-workers because it supports bourgeois elections, participating in bourgeois governments, and the use of the State for supporting supposed proletarian interests. But when a famous anarchist like Kropotkin does exactly this, it becomes a side issue?

Come on. Shame on you.

*********************

And for the one who had claimed that his funeral is the Last stand for anarchists is either a stupid or a Liar. It was arranged by Soviet Government itself.

[Devrim]

Then why are we arguing? I completely agree that one should be weary of Kropotkins words given his actions, but that is certainly a huge step back from the position you were originally advocating (essentially that anarchists should burn his books&#33;).
Nobody suggested burning books. We just stated that Kropotkin was an enemy of the working class, and nobody to be cellebrated. He was.


The fact is that Kropotkins stance on WWI came as a shock to many of his comrades, if you read Emma Goldmans biography you&#39;ll understand just how out-of-the-blue this came for many in the movement, literally akin to &#39;WTF peter?&#33;&#33;&#39;
Lenin was equally shocked when he first saw the copy of &#39;Vorwarts&#39; with the news of the SDP&#39;s support for war credits. In fact he thought that it was the work of German military intelligence.

However, i have not read anything by Kropotkin in his theoretical works which suggests or argues for supporting inter-state wars, wars of imperialism etc; like the anarchists of his day i cannot see the logical connection between his theoretical writings and the position he took - this is precisely why it was an unexpected event at the time; the reaction by goldman and others was largely shock and confusion, not the reaction youd expect had his position had deep or obvious roots in his writings.
As I said before Lenin was shocked too. I think though that this must be put down to problems with Lenin&#39;s analysis. The current that became the German communist Left certainly saw the roots of Kaytsky&#39;s social patriotism in his earlier works, and were not surprised when the SPD supported the war. In fact they expected it.
As I also said before, I have not read Kropotkin, but would be extremely surprised if the roots of this decision were not to be found in his earlier work. The fact that Goldman couldn&#39;t see it does not mean that it wasn&#39;t there.
Luís Henrique&#39;s post is very clear:
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+--> (Luís Henrique)Kautsky was a class traitor. Of course, his "Agrarian Question" can still be read with profit for the reader; it is a valid contribution to Marxist theory.

But the evaluation that Marxists make of Kautsky is not that he was a great Marxist who made the "mistake" of supporting an imperialist war; it is that he was a class traitor who made some useful contributions to theory.

Kropotkin was, for what I am reading in this thread, a class traitor. But anarchists usually don&#39;t acknowledge this; instead, they consider him a great theorist who committed a "minor" error (though they would never forgive a Marxist who made the same error).

It becomes somewhat ridiculous:

Marxism is inherently evil and anti-workers because it supports bourgeois elections, participating in bourgeois governments, and the use of the State for supporting supposed proletarian interests. But when a famous anarchist like Kropotkin does exactly this, it becomes a side issue?

Come on. Shame on you.

Luís Henrique [/b]

I would agree entirely with the main thrust of his argument. However, when he says that Marxism supports bourgeois elections, I would just like to make it clear that not all Marxists do. We certainly don&#39;t:


EKS Basic Positions
The rejection of parliamentarianism, and social democracy.
The idea that the existing order can be changed through parliamentary or democratic means is the main obstacle that the workers movement is confronted with at every step. While this illusion is consciously created by the dominant class, it is also defended and proposed as a solution by the leftist groups, who are unable to grasp the class nature of parliament, which is based on the idea that the working class have a stake in the nation, but in reality, it is no more than a circus that tries to impose the idea that a class based movement is both meaningless, and useless in order to mobilize the proletariat behind the interests of the bourgeoisie. Social Democracy also doesn’t refrain from taking part in that circus itself. Social democracy, which defends the ideology of democratic rights and liberties, and the change of the existing equilibrium in favor of the working class by means of reforms, which are no longer possible under capitalism, is because of its position a tool to create a middle point between the dominant class, and the working class, which defends the interests of the bourgeoisie. While Social Democracy does not constitute an obstacle to the dominant class, it is anti-working class, and takes a counter revolutionary position in times that proletarian movements arise, and constitutes a collaborative ideology of the class enemy on behalf of the bourgeoisie.

&#39;Marxist&#39; parties that do support electorialism are not &#39;evil&#39;, they are simply bourgeois parties. He is right in that it is anti-working class though.

Devrim

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 14, 2007 06:00 pm

Because I don&#39;t think his later stance negates his earlier work?

Negates? Probably not, but it puts all of his works under serious suspicion.
How does it?

[Forward Union]

Well, looks to me as if the Leninists are a bit ashamed of their brutal, authoritarian treatment of the Syndicalist movement in Russia. And have deployed two defences to try and justify themselves.

Firstly that Kropotkin was bad. Clearly a limited argument, as the underlying issue is the total, unjustifiable, obliteration of the libertarian communist movement in Russia. The execution and imprisonment of it&#39;s leaders, allies of the bolsheviks, for being anti-state, and criticising the fact that Lenin had taken decision making power away from the soviets and given it to capitalist advisors from Germany. :rolleyes:

Secondly...

The sad fact is Anarchism in Russia sided with the counter-revolutionaries - that&#39;s why it was crushed by the revolutionary working-class.

...Which is misconstrued bollocks. But I know why you might make such a claim. This argument that the Anarchists fought with the counter revolutionaries is actually very insulting to all the makhnovists that died fighting side by side with the red army against the counter revolutionaries. As the war went on, the reds eventually declared war on the Makhnovists, and one isolated band of makhnovists was convinced by phoney-propaganda that Makhno had allied with the whites, consequently they fought with the whites, and no doubt ended up being shot by either the anarchists or the reds. Though no alliance existed, the whites did send delegates to try and secure peace with Makhno, and Makhno sent their heads back.

The Reds did however make treaties with the German Imperialists, which involved giving away land won by the Makhnovists. The red army did the killing on the germans behalf. They also broke up the workers councils.

So perhaps the quotation in my signature will paint a better picture of who was on the working class&#39; side.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Love Underground+--> (Love Underground)Well, looks to me as if the Leninists are a bit ashamed of their brutal, authoritarian treatment of the Syndicalist movement in Russia. And have deployed two defences to try and justify themselves.[/b]

I would just like to state here that most of the argument against Kropotkin here has not come from Leninists, though some has, but has come from the communist left. We are not trying to justify the actions of the Soviet state against the working class. We say that:
Originally posted by [email protected]
by the time of the suppression of the Kronstadt uprising in Febuary 1921, the Soviet state was clearly on the side of capital against the working class.

Now, I don&#39;t think that Kronstadt was an aberration. I think that it was the logical development of a process that was underway well before 1921.

We are not interested in excusing the development of the counter revolution in Russia.

Now that has been sorted out, our point about Kropotkin remains. He was an enemy of the working class. I don&#39;t think that every anarchist, or even the vast majority of anarchists in Russia at the time were. Kropotkin clearly was though.


The Anarchist Tension

Because I don&#39;t think his later stance negates his earlier work?

Negates? Probably not, but it puts all of his works under serious suspicion.
How does it?[/b][/quote]

Because we don&#39;t see how he ended up taking counter revolutionary positions in complete isolation from his previous political stance. He didn&#39;t wake up one morning, and think "I know. I will become a counter revolutionary". We think that it is not an aberration, and the roots must be in his previous work.

I think the fact that thousands of anarchist workers attended his funeral points to some of the theoretical weakness in anarchism. The left wing of the Marxist movement had condemned Kautsky as a class traitor, and analysed the development of this in his earlier work.

The anarchists never did this for Kropotkin. Instead at best they dismissed it as a &#39;mistake&#39;.

Devrim

[Vargha Poralli]

Well, looks to me as if the Leninists are a bit ashamed of their brutal, authoritarian treatment of the Syndicalist movement in Russia. And have deployed two defences to try and justify themselves.

But workers and peasants stood by Bolsheviks. It is a fact whether you like it or not. No body can truly keep down the power of masses by sheer repression.


Firstly that Kropotkin was bad. Clearly a limited argument, as the underlying issue is the total, unjustifiable, obliteration of the libertarian communist movement in Russia.

Why did Kropotkin joined Kerensky&#39;s governmnet ? What were the so-called anarchists doing from February 1917 to October 1917 ? Please come up with straight answer.



The execution and imprisonment of it&#39;s leaders, allies of the bolsheviks, for being anti-state, and criticising the fact that Lenin had taken decision making power away from the soviets and given it to capitalist advisors from Germany.

Your source for this claim ?


The Reds did however make treaties with the German Imperialists, which involved giving away land won by the Makhnovists. The red army did the killing on the germans behalf. They also broke up the workers councils.

What other option did they have ?

[The Grey Blur]

Fight on in a glorious proleterian war of course&#33;&#33;&#33; Charing at the better-armed, more numerous and proto-class conscious german soldiers was clearly the only true Communist answer&#33;

Anarchists really seem to have a weird fetish for Imperialist wars...

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by devrimankara+February 15, 2007 09:34 am--> (devrimankara @ February 15, 2007 09:34 am)
Luís Henrique
Marxism is inherently evil and anti-workers because it supports bourgeois elections, participating in bourgeois governments, and the use of the State for supporting supposed proletarian interests. But when a famous anarchist like Kropotkin does exactly this, it becomes a side issue?

I would agree entirely with the main thrust of his argument. However, when he says that Marxism supports bourgeois elections, I would just like to make it clear that not all Marxists do. [/b]
But you do agree that it is inherently evil? :D

The whole sentence is a caricature of the distorted views Anarchists hold on Marxism, not a reasoned description of Marxism. Of course.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by devrimankara+February 15, 2007 12:20 pm--> (devrimankara &#064; February 15, 2007 12:20 pm)
The Anarchist Tension

Because I don&#39;t think his later stance negates his earlier work?

Negates? Probably not, but it puts all of his works under serious suspicion.
How does it?[/b]

Because we don&#39;t see how he ended up taking counter revolutionary positions in complete isolation from his previous political stance. [/b][/quote]
Why?


He didn&#39;t wake up one morning, and think "I know. I will become a counter revolutionary".

Firstly he may very well not have accepted it was counter-revolutionary, although of course it was and secondly you have still not provided any logical reason why his position on WW1 or Kerensky negates his previous work?


We think that it is not an aberration, and the roots must be in his previous work.

Then make the link.


I think the fact that thousands of anarchist workers attended his funeral points to some of the theoretical weakness in anarchism.

Again, your logic seems absurd.

How is thousands of anarchists attending a mans funeral an indication of weaknesses in ideology?


The left wing of the Marxist movement had condemned Kautsky as a class traitor, and analysed the development of this in his earlier work.

I&#39;m not clear on what basis, other than his positions on WW1 etc we should be condemning him as a class traitor.

It was a deviation over a specific event, not a development of reactionaryism throughout the course of his political lifetime. IF you are arguing that it was, then prove it.


The anarchists never did this for Kropotkin. Instead at best they dismissed it as a &#39;mistake&#39;.

As far as I can see there is no other basis to do anything else?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by dev+--> (dev)Nobody suggested burning books.[/b]

I was being hyperbolic.


Originally posted by dev+--> (dev)
We just stated that Kropotkin was an enemy of the working class, and nobody to be cellebrated. He was.[/b]

Nobody is celebrating anyone? :unsure:


Originally posted by dev
Lenin was equally shocked when he first saw the copy of &#39;Vorwarts&#39; with the news of the SDP&#39;s support for war credits. In fact he thought that it was the work of German military intelligence.

Ok?


Originally posted by dev
As I said before Lenin was shocked too. I think though that this must be put down to problems with Lenin&#39;s analysis. The current that became the German communist Left certainly saw the roots of Kaytsky&#39;s social patriotism in his earlier works, and were not surprised when the SPD supported the war. In fact they expected it.

Ok? Can we talk about Kropotkin please?


[email protected]

As I also said before, I have not read Kropotkin, but would be extremely surprised if the roots of this decision were not to be found in his earlier work.

You havent read Kropotkin but you feel confident that you can speak about what he&#39;s written... forgive me for being completely unconvinced by your argument.



dev

The fact that Goldman couldn&#39;t see it does not mean that it wasn&#39;t there.

Right, and the fact that we cant see god doesnt mean &#39;he&#39;s not there either ;)

I&#39;m sorry but i&#39;m confident that Emma Goldman (and the other comrades generally which she mentions in her biography) were more familiar with Kropotkins previous writings and politics than someone who has never read a word Kropotkin has written, i.e. you.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:44 am
But workers and peasants stood by Bolsheviks. It is a fact whether you like it or not. No body can truly keep down the power of masses by sheer repression.

And so did anarchists of the time, and both the anarchist working class, and the greater working class made a huge mistake in doing so. I mean, the working class supporting a group of nutters that hold interests contrary to those of themselves isn&#39;t exactly unusual in history. :rolleyes:


Why did Kropotkin joined Kerensky&#39;s governmnet ?

I have no Idea, im not overly familiar with Kropotkins life, nor do I care to become familiar with it, because Im not a kropotkinist.


What were the so-called anarchists doing from February 1917 to October 1917 ? Please come up with straight answer.

Fighting and dying, sometimes as members of the Bolsheviks or as members of Syndicalist groups such as "Черный Флаг" (The black Flag) or other groups. In fact, anarchists were a significant force in the Russian Revolution, though a large part of the movement joined the Bolshevik party. The Makhnovist anarchists defeated the Austro-Hungarian army in Ukraine, then joined with Bolshevik forces to fight against the white army, and later the Bolsheviks. Running an Anarchist society for three years parallel to the Bolshevik state.


Your source for this claim ?

Why is it that you can&#39;t seem to get through a conversation with a Leninist without resorting to this pedantry... Anyway the Self Education union (selfed.org.uk) did some good research into this, though I only have a hard copy of their documents on the Russian revolution, so ask them for the pdf. It is online somwhere and is well researched.

There&#39;s also some stuff here http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-a...olidarity-group (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)


What other option did they have ?

Well, let&#39;s assume then, on your terms, that there was no other way of securing peace, and that they couldn&#39;t continue the war. The fact is, that they didn&#39;t actually have any power over Ukraine. So it wasn&#39;t theirs to give away, however, that&#39;s not my point...

The makhnovists had incredible firepower and manuverability, that&#39;s how they managed to defeat the Austro-Hungarian army, and the whites. Only history could have told us whether or not they would have defeated the German army, the fact is that there was actually no need, no obligation, or no international pressure placed on Russia to massacre the Organised Ukrainian working class. It was simply an ideological vendetta, carried out in cold blood.

The Makhnovists sent diplomats to Moscow to secure peace, and were shot.

:angry:

[Leo]

Then why are we arguing? I completely agree that one should be weary of Kropotkins words given his actions, but that is certainly a huge step back from the position you were originally advocating (essentially that anarchists should burn his books&#33;).

I am not saying that his books should be burnt, I am saying that Kropotkin, as a whole, should not be treated any different than Kautsky.


How does it?

He is a class traitor, it is never wise to trust traitors.


Why?

Because, TAT, it is not possible.


Firstly he may very well not have accepted it was counter-revolutionary

And Kautsky may have very well not have accepted what he did was counter-revolutionary.


Again, your logic seems absurd.

How is thousands of anarchists attending a mans funeral an indication of weaknesses in ideology?

How many revolutionaries attended Kautsky&#39;s funeral?


I&#39;m not clear on what basis, other than his positions on WW1 etc we should be condemning him as a class traitor.

His positions on WW1, and of course his actions are enough in my opinion.


Nobody is celebrating anyone?

This is, unfortunately, not true... I see too much sympathy for Kropotkin in anarchism, it is troubling...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 15, 2007 08:21 pm

Why?

Because, TAT, it is not possible.
Why isn it?




Firstly he may very well not have accepted it was counter-revolutionary

And Kautsky may have very well not have accepted what he did was counter-revolutionary.

Ok...?



Again, your logic seems absurd.

How is thousands of anarchists attending a mans funeral an indication of weaknesses in ideology?

How many revolutionaries attended Kautsky&#39;s funeral?

That&#39;s not an argument? It doesn&#39;t address my point at all.



I&#39;m not clear on what basis, other than his positions on WW1 etc we should be condemning him as a class traitor.

His positions on WW1, and of course his actions are enough in my opinion.

Your &#39;opinion&#39; seems very confused.




Nobody is celebrating anyone?

This is, unfortunately, not true... I see too much sympathy for Kropotkin in anarchism, it is troubling...

Name one theory or piece of work that we should reject on the basis that he is a class traitor?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Leo
I am saying that his books should be burnt, I am saying that Kropotkin, as a whole, should not be treated any different than Kautsky.

What is this, Leo? I am sorry if this embarrass you again, but try to think before you write. Try not to answer in one line phrases (i.e. explain what you think, not just slag people off). We are not suggesting that books should be burnt. We are suggesting that there should be a critical analysis.



We think that it is not an aberration, and the roots must be in his previous work.

Then make the link.

I mentioned before that I have not read Kropotkin at all. I certainly can&#39;t be bothered to go, and spend my time reading his works for the sake of an internet discussion.

Rather, I would ask you whether you think that kropotkin came to this position completely independently of his previous positions, or whether you think that there must have been a link.

It is a straight forward yes, or no question. Please answer it. If the answer is yes, ı would invite you to make the link. If it is no, I would wonder about your political analysis.



The left wing of the Marxist movement had condemned Kautsky as a class traitor, and analysed the development of this in his earlier work.

I&#39;m not clear on what basis, other than his positions on WW1 etc we should be condemning him as a class traitor.

Is this not enough? Is the fact that some body urged the working class to defend the nation not proof enough of his anti-working class position. Do not the millions of dead workers not at all raise your suspicions that support for the war may have been slightly anti-working class?

I could go on about it, and the results that Kautskyism-Leninism had in the Russian revolution. I don&#39;t think that there is a need to though.

An important issue that arises from this is how do we judge political organisations today. The anarchists tend to start from a perspective of historical identification with tendencies in the Russian revolution.

We start from a class base. The most important part, but not the only part, of which, is the way an organisation reacts to the deepest tests of war, and revolution.

Again, and this is on the most basic level, we ask what the groups politics are, not whether it calls itself &#39;Marxist&#39;, or anarchist. Are they a group which calls upon the working class to sacrifice itself in the name of the nation, or are they a group which tries, in how ever small a way fight in defence of workers interests, which are always opposed to the national interest.

For us this is the basis of the class line. Some of our students collaborated with supporters of the Communist Worker parties in their university to produce leaflets arguing for a class line on Iraq. It was not an organisational collaboration, but a group of students coming together, and arguing for a class position. Nothing like this would be possible with members of a group that supported the &#39;resistance&#39;.


It was a deviation over a specific event, not a development of reactionaryism throughout the course of his political lifetime. IF you are arguing that it was, then prove it.



The anarchists never did this for Kropotkin. Instead at best they dismissed it as a &#39;mistake&#39;.


As far as I can see there is no other basis to do anything else?

Again, as I said I have not read Kropotkin, nor do I intend to make a point on an internet discussion board. What, instead, I would invite you to do is to think about why he suddenly made this &#39;mistake&#39;, which involved supporting one side in an imperialist war at the cost of millions of workers lives. Maybe, it is the anarchists that should be rereading his works.

I think that my points above also answer the questions raised by Black Rose. The comparison of Kautsky to Kropokin is valid as they both supported the working class dying on behalf of the bourgeoisie in the first imperialist war. The comparison of Lenin to Goldman is valid in that they both couldn&#39;t believe that their &#39;comrades&#39; had taken this position. It was a position that didn&#39;t come out of thin air. The German left saw it in Kautsky. Lenin didn&#39;t. To me this suggests a weakness in Lenin. Goldman didn&#39;t see it in Kropotkin. The line that separates them on this point is in our opinion though the basis of the class line. Goldman sided with the class, and Kropotkin sided against it. The fact that she didn&#39;t notice the developments that led towards this can only be explained by two things in my opinion. Either Kropotkin’s position was a sudden change in politics which had no connection at all with his previous work (I refuse to believe this), or their was some theoretical weakness that prevented her form realising it.

You don&#39;t need to have read Kropotkin to come to that conclusion. One of the alternatives, and in my opinion the second, must be true.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Name one theory or piece of work that we should reject on the basis that he is a class traitor?

The letter I quoted from Freedom in 1914 above. It is enough.

Devrim

[Guerrilla22]

Honestly, I&#39;ve read mutual aid and to tell you the truth I thought some aspects were faily close to Marx. Of course, I know about his support for allied involvement in WW1, but that&#39;s aside from his writings.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by leo
This is, unfortunately, not true... I see too much sympathy for Kropotkin in anarchism, it is troubling...

Can i ask where? I honestly rarely if ever hear people talking about, let a lone &#39;celebrating&#39; Kropotkin.

[Forward Union]

no one going to respond to me?

[Leo]

What is this, Leo?

It is a typo, it should have been "I am not saying that his books should be burnt", yet I forgot the most important word in the sentence - original post is corrected.

Sometimes a typo is just a typo...


Why isn it?

Because thoughts human beings have are connected. If thoughts are not connected, then it is a good time to suspect intentions.


That&#39;s not an argument? It doesn&#39;t address my point at all.

Well, it does. Thousands of anarchists should not have attended a class traitor&#39;s mass funeral.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 16, 2007 11:43 am
no one going to respond to me?
I would but this is neither the time nor the place for the "anarchist v Leninist" shitfest that you appear to be attempting to incite. The subject at hand is Kropotkin.

[Leo]

Honestly, I&#39;ve read mutual aid and to tell you the truth I thought some aspects were faily close to Marx. Of course, I know about his support for allied involvement in WW1, but that&#39;s aside from his writings.

Especially when he is writing about animals&#33; Yes, Mutual Aid is indeed quite an interesting book. This, of course, doesn&#39;t mean that we shouldn&#39;t raise an eye borrow when we hear Kropotkin&#39;s or any other class traitors name.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:20 pm
I would but this is neither the time nor the place for the "anarchist v Leninist" shitfest that you appear to be attempting to incite. The subject at hand is Kropotkin.
:lol:

You think I&#39;m inciting an Anarchist vs Lenninist debate when the description for this thread is "Anarchism&#39;s last stand in Soviet Russia"

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by black rose+February 16, 2007 07:18 pm--> (black rose &#064; February 16, 2007 07:18 pm)
leo
This is, unfortunately, not true... I see too much sympathy for Kropotkin in anarchism, it is troubling...

Can i ask where? I honestly rarely if ever hear people talking about, let a lone &#39;celebrating&#39; Kropotkin. [/b]
Funnily enough whilst drinking with mates tonight the crown prince himself came up&#33; Not suprisingly no one defended his stance on WWI, and more to same, no one thought it necessary to reject everything he ever wrote...

[Morpheus]

(1) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Someone can be wrong about one thing but right about another. Just because Hitler believed the Earth was round does not make it flat. Just because Kropotkin was wrong about World War One does not mean all his other beliefs are false. If it did, we&#39;d all have to support capitalism because he opposed it.

(2) Kropotkin did not support WW1, he just didn&#39;t oppose it. See http://flag.blackened.net/ksl/bullet5.htm

(3) If they&#39;re consistent the anti-Kropotkinists should also reject everything Marx & Engels wrote due to their support of the US in the Mexican-American war and their prejudiced views. Examples:


Originally posted by "Engels"+--> ("Engels")And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?[/b]
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm


"Marx"
The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I&#39;m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. ... It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like. ... One of our nigger’s great discoveries — which, however, he only confides to his ‘closest friends’ — is that the Pelasgians were of Semitic descent.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...s/62_07_30a.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm)

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Love [email protected] 16, 2007 05:49 pm
You think I&#39;m inciting an Anarchist vs Lenninist debate when the description for this thread is "Anarchism&#39;s last stand in Soviet Russia"
Yes

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Morpheus+February 19, 2007 12:21 am--> (Morpheus @ February 19, 2007 12:21 am) (1) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Someone can be wrong about one thing but right about another. Just because Hitler believed the Earth was round does not make it flat. Just because Kropotkin was wrong about World War One does not mean all his other beliefs are false. If it did, we&#39;d all have to support capitalism because he opposed it.

(2) Kropotkin did not support WW1, he just didn&#39;t oppose it. See http://flag.blackened.net/ksl/bullet5.htm

(3) If they&#39;re consistent the anti-Kropotkinists should also reject everything Marx & Engels wrote due to their support of the US in the Mexican-American war and their prejudiced views. Examples:


Originally posted by "Engels"@
And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/15.htm


"Marx"
The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I&#39;m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. ... It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like. ... One of our nigger’s great discoveries — which, however, he only confides to his ‘closest friends’ — is that the Pelasgians were of Semitic descent.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...s/62_07_30a.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm) [/b]
Everything is ok comrade and I am not the one who had advocated that Anarchists should renounce Kropotkin&#39;s works but my question is unanswered by all of you.

Why did he join the Kerensky&#39;s government ? How anarchists could defend that action ?

If you think that it is a side issue than all of your Criticisms of Bolsheviks and Lenin just exposes your hypocrisy.


when the description for this thread is "Anarchism&#39;s last stand in Soviet Russia"

The thread starter is either stupid or a liar since it is not Anarchism&#39;s Last Stand. That funeral itself was arranged by Soviet Government.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Morpheus+February 18, 2007 06:51 pm--> (Morpheus &#064; February 18, 2007 06:51 pm)(1) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Someone can be wrong about one thing but right about another. Just because Hitler believed the Earth was round does not make it flat. Just because Kropotkin was wrong about World War One does not mean all his other beliefs are false. If it did, we&#39;d all have to support capitalism because he opposed it.



[/b]


I don&#39;t think this point is at the heart of the issue. Nobody is suggesting that people, should not read Kropotkin, or that everything that he wrote was wrong. I am certain that if I read his works, I would find that I agree with a large proportion of it. The point is though that anarchists tend to see these things as &#39;mistakes&#39; whereas we think that they have deeper theoretical roots. To me his support for the war is not an aberration, but is almost certainly based on things in his earlier writings. The problem is passing it off as a mistake. In my opinion it shows a weakness in anarchist theory.


(2) Kropotkin did not support WW1, he just didn&#39;t oppose it. See http://flag.blackened.net/ksl/bullet5.htm

I read this article, and it was just an assertion of this position. Earlier in the thread I quoted from Kropotkin:


Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)On the question of whether he supported the war, let&#39;s quote from the horse&#39;s mouth:


Kropotkin in Freedom [email protected]

I consider that the duty of everyone who cherishes the idea of human progress altogether, and especially those that were inscribed by the European proletarians on the banner of the International Workingmen&#39;s Association, is to do everything in one&#39;s power, according to one&#39;s capacities, to crush down the invasion of the Germans into Western Europe.
…
But for the moment we must not lose sight of the main work of the day. The territories of both France and Belgium MUST be freed of the invaders. The German invasion must be repulsed -- no matter how difficult this may be. All efforts must be directed that way.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archi...ffenletter.html

I think that this is quite a clear argument for national defence.[/b]

I think that this is very clear. At best we can say that the KSL article is mistaken. At worst it is deliberately misleading.


(3) If they&#39;re consistent the anti-Kropotkinists should also reject everything Marx & Engels wrote due to their support of the US in the Mexican-American war and their prejudiced views.

Again, we didn&#39;t say that everything that Kropotkin wrote should be rejected. We suggested that the &#39;mistake&#39; came from a deeper source, and that it would be useful for anarchists to analyse his work, and identify this source. I think that the same method must be used with Marx. There are deep problems in Marx, and we must be aware of these when reading his work. Without going into them to deeply here, I would say that they are based upon the dominant bourgeoisie ideology of the time. When Marx was writing the whole ideology of &#39;progress&#39; is deep rooted in society. In the quote you used from Engles this is very clear:


Engles
And will Bakunin accuse the Americans of a "war of conquest", which, although it deals with a severe blow to his theory based on "justice and humanity", was nevertheless waged wholly and solely in the interest of civilization? Or is it perhaps unfortunate that splendid California has been taken away from the lazy Mexicans, who could not do anything with it? That the energetic Yankees by rapid exploitation of the California gold mines will increase the means of circulation, in a few years will concentrate a dense population and extensive trade at the most suitable places on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, create large cities, open up communications by steamship, construct a railway from New York to San Francisco, for the first time really open the Pacific Ocean to civilization, and for the third time in history give the world trade a new direction? The "independence" of a few Spanish Californians and Texans may suffer because of it, in someplaces "justice" and other moral principles may be violated; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?

This was in a period when capital was still capable of developing the productive forces. That doesn&#39;t mean that it was right for communists to support that development. The first concern of revolutionaries should be the working class. I think that the fact that Marx, and Engels didn&#39;t experience capitalist expansion as workers is a factor that made them more vulnerable to the prevailing bourgoise ideas at the time. Some leftists take every word that Marx wrote as Gospel. This is obviously a very stupid &#39;semi-religious&#39; position. The work of Marx must be analysed too. The answer is to find the weaknesses in the work of both Marx, and Kropotkin though, not to let both of them off the hook.

Finally, the time of the First World War is one when the class lines were very clear. On an economic level capitalism had reached the point where markets were saturated, and the only way for capitalists to continue to expand was by direct inter imperialist conflict. More importantly, and what was lacking in Marx&#39;s time, is the political level. The mass strike, and formation of soviets in Russia in 1905 shows clearly that the workers themselves were capable of creating their own forms of struggle, and organisation, which had been lacking before.

Before the First World War all so-called &#39;revolutionary workers organisations&#39; argued against the coming war. When war arrived, the vast majority of them &#39;betrayed&#39;. Only two parties of the Second International, the Serbian, and the Italian, stuck to the class line. Kropotkin was not the only anarchist to join in the same rallying call behind the national flag. The French anarcho-syndicalist union ,the CGT, also called for national defence. The revolutionaries, both anarchist, and Marxist, were the ones who opposed the call to war. Kropotkin was not one of them. He sided with the bourgeoisie.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)Why did he join the Kerensky&#39;s government ?[/b]

I dont know, or care. It has no relevance for me in 2006, you&#39;re talking about something that happened nearly a century ago (read this last part again).


g.ram

How anarchists could defend that action ?

Why would &#39;we&#39; defend it? We&#39;re not &#39;marx&#39;-ists, or &#39;trotsky&#39;-ists or &#39;lenin&#39;-ists; we&#39;re not &#39;kropotkin&#39;-ists, get it?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by black rose+February 20, 2007 07:57 pm--> (black rose @ February 20, 2007 07:57 pm)
Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)Why did he join the Kerensky&#39;s government ?[/b]

I dont know, or care. It has no relevance for me in 2006, you&#39;re talking about something that happened nearly a century ago (read this last part again).


Originally posted by g.ram

How anarchists could defend that action ?

Why would &#39;we&#39; defend it? We&#39;re not &#39;marx&#39;-ists, or &#39;trotsky&#39;-ists or &#39;lenin&#39;-ists; we&#39;re not &#39;kropotkin&#39;-ists, get it? [/b]

Originally posted by BR
I dont know, or care. It has no relevance for me in 2006, you&#39;re talking about something that happened nearly a century ago (read this last part again).

No surprise I half expected that answer, Which is why I am not an Anarchist.


[email protected]
It has no relevance for me in 2006

I wonder then what is the purpose for this whole forum ???? :unsure:


BR
Why would &#39;we&#39; defend it? We&#39;re not &#39;marx&#39;-ists, or &#39;trotsky&#39;-ists or &#39;lenin&#39;-ists; we&#39;re not &#39;kropotkin&#39;-ists, get it?

Yes.Then what is the purpose of this whole thread ? If you don&#39;t really care why did this thread had generated whole 5 pages of replies ? :unsure:

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Maybe Kropotkin really believed that the Kerensky government could hold Russia together until his ideas could be realised in full. He was getting old, and maybe a little desperate.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:45 pm
Maybe Kropotkin really believed that the Kerensky government could hold Russia together until his ideas could be realised in full. He was getting old, and maybe a little desperate.
Trust a liberal government to enact anarchist reforms?

[bcbm]

The work of Marx must be analysed too. The answer is to find the weaknesses in the work of both Marx, and Kropotkin though, not to let both of them off the hook.

I couldn&#39;t agree more.

--------


Why did he join the Kerensky&#39;s government ?

Who knows? He probably thought it was a good idea, try to "work within the system" or some rubbish.


How anarchists could defend that action ?

They didn&#39;t, and don&#39;t, to my knowledge and no one has even suggested that, so I don&#39;t know why you ask.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+February 20, 2007 09:41 pm--> (ComradeOm @ February 20, 2007 09:41 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:45 pm
Maybe Kropotkin really believed that the Kerensky government could hold Russia together until his ideas could be realised in full. He was getting old, and maybe a little desperate.
Trust a liberal government to enact anarchist reforms? [/b]
Its not even liberal it is a reactionary government.


bcbm

They didn&#39;t, and don&#39;t, to my knowledge and no one has even suggested that, so I don&#39;t know why you ask.

Don&#39;t lie. Many uphold him as a great revolutionary. If nobody defends him then why this thread had generated 3 pages ? I ask this question to evaluate anarchism and anarchists.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:13 am
Don&#39;t lie. Many uphold him as a great revolutionary. If nobody defends him then why this thread had generated 3 pages ? I ask this question to evaluate anarchism and anarchists.
Many view him as a good theorist who added much to anarcho-communist thinking, but that doesn&#39;t mean they support his decision to join that government, or try to defend it in any way. As has been already noted, the anarchists of the day broke ranks with Kropotkin.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)No surprise I half expected that answer, Which is why I am not an Anarchist.[/b]

You&#39;re a marxist because you enjoy talking about stuff that bears no relevance to working class people today?


Originally posted by g.ram+--> (g.ram)
I wonder then what is the purpose for this whole forum ????[/b]

Well its certainly not to debate the &#39;importance&#39; of a single anarchist joining a government nearly 100 years ago.


[email protected]
Then what is the purpose of this whole thread ?

Check the topic post.


g.ram

If you don&#39;t really care why did this thread had generated whole 5 pages of replies ?

Dont be obtuse.

When i said &#39;i dont care&#39; i was referring to your previous question not this discussion generally.

The reason why this thread has generated multiple pages is because (and this is a guess, since i cant say for sure why everyone has been posting&#33;) a bunch of people seem to have the strange idea that Kropotkin should be thrown out as a theorist based upon some shit actions; even if these cannot be traced back into the theoretical works valued by his proponents.

The aforementioned bunch decided to vigourously defend aforementioned strange idea, im sure to the bewilderment of aforementioned proponents - each side thinking the other is clearly wrong, and thus (?) neither willing to back down, thinking they are winning after all - that&#39;s all this is, and that is really a lot of threads on this board. Its not about &#39;hitting a nerve&#39; or any other moronic crap... i suppose you didnt read the part of my post from a few pages back where i expressed a desire to skull fuck kropotkins skeleton?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 20, 2007 05:20 pm--> (black coffee black metal &#064; February 20, 2007 05:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:13 am
Don&#39;t lie. Many uphold him as a great revolutionary. If nobody defends him then why this thread had generated 3 pages ? I ask this question to evaluate anarchism and anarchists.
Many view him as a good theorist who added much to anarcho-communist thinking, but that doesn&#39;t mean they support his decision to join that government, or try to defend it in any way. As has been already noted, the anarchists of the day broke ranks with Kropotkin.[/b]
I accept that many anarchists broke with him, and held to the class line. I accept that his theory added to anarcho-communist thinking. What I am questioning is whether anarchists simply view it as a mistake, or if there were some parts of his theory that led to this decision, and should be reconsidered. I pointed out very briefly what I saw as the root of some of the problems in Marx. We could do the same with Lenin. At Zimmerwald, I am sure even the anarchists would admit, Lenin stood with the most advanced sections of the class. In 1921, he ordered workers to be shot down. I would say that Lenin has crossed a class line some where. Are there reasons for this, or did Lenin just decide that February was a good month to shoot workers in Kronstadt? I would say that his earlier writings in particular his ideas about the relationship between party, and state have a very important role to play in the development of events.

You agreed earlier that Marx, and Kropotkin should be treated in the same way:


black coffee black metal

The work of Marx must be analysed too. The answer is to find the weaknesses in the work of both Marx, and Kropotkin though, not to let both of them off the hook.

I couldn&#39;t agree more.

I am suggesting that anarchists don&#39;t do this, and that the rejection of this methodology is a weakness in anarchism.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Black Rose+--> (Black Rose)The reason why this thread has generated multiple pages is because (and this is a guess, since i cant say for sure why everyone has been posting&#33;) a bunch of people seem to have the strange idea that Kropotkin should be thrown out as a theorist based upon some shit actions; even if these cannot be traced back into the theoretical works valued by his proponents.

The aforementioned bunch decided to vigourously defend aforementioned strange idea, im sure to the bewilderment of aforementioned proponents - each side thinking the other is clearly wrong, and thus (?) neither willing to back down, thinking they are winning after all - that&#39;s all this is, and that is really a lot of threads on this board. Its not about &#39;hitting a nerve&#39; or any other moronic crap... i suppose you didnt read the part of my post from a few pages back where i expressed a desire to skull fuck kropotkins skeleton? [/b]

We are not interested in the idea of winning, or losing. It is a discussion board, and strangely enough we are interested in discussing. Some people on this thread have clearly used it to slag off anarchists. We have no interest in that. For us it is quite clear that revolutionary currents can emerge in anarchism. The past proves that. I don&#39;t think that doesn&#39;t mean that a lot of anarchism isn&#39;t confused, and that some of it is anti-working class. The &#39;Friends of Durutti&#39; group, which to me represented the most clear statement of class politics in Spain carried a lot of theoretical baggage from anarchism with it.

Nor am I suggesting that the groups that the Marxist groups that broke from social democracy to form the communist left weren&#39;t carrying a lot of social democratic baggage. I am sure that we would also agree that what passes itself off for &#39;Marxism&#39; today, and its expression on these boards in particular is not merely confused, but clearly anti-working class.

You wrote:


Black Rose
a bunch of people seem to have the strange idea that Kropotkin should be thrown out as a theorist based upon some shit actions; even if these cannot be traced back into the theoretical works valued by his proponents.

We didn&#39;t suggest that he should be thrown out completely, but read with a very critical eye. You state that these can not be traced back to his work. We think that that would be very surprising. He did after all end up on the side of counter revolution.

Devrim

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:49 pm
What I am questioning is whether anarchists simply view it as a mistake, or if there were some parts of his theory that led to this decision, and should be reconsidered.
I haven&#39;t read enough Kropotkin to say. Those who have read him have said they don&#39;t view any traces of it in his work.


I am suggesting that anarchists don&#39;t do this, and that the rejection of this methodology is a weakness in anarchism.

I think anarchists have always taken a critical view of the various theorists, and there has been plenty said about the failings of Proudhon and Bakunin, to name two. There are probably critiques of Kropotkin as well, though I haven&#39;t looked for them nor do I really give a shit.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 20, 2007 10:36 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ February 20, 2007 10:36 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 12:49 pm
What I am questioning is whether anarchists simply view it as a mistake, or if there were some parts of his theory that led to this decision, and should be reconsidered.
I haven&#39;t read enough Kropotkin to say. Those who have read him have said they don&#39;t view any traces of it in his work.


I am suggesting that anarchists don&#39;t do this, and that the rejection of this methodology is a weakness in anarchism.

I think anarchists have always taken a critical view of the various theorists, and there has been plenty said about the failings of Proudhon and Bakunin, to name two. There are probably critiques of Kropotkin as well, though I haven&#39;t looked for them nor do I really give a shit. [/b]
As I said before, I haven&#39;t read it either. My Stalinist father made me read Marx as a child, and it sort of turned me off 19th century theory.

Much more interesting is the your use of an &#39;Os Cangaceiros&#39; qoute as a tag line. I think that this fetishisation of violence for its own sake is another of anarchisms weaknesses.

I actually met them once, and can tell you a funny story about them by pm if you like.

Devrim

[bcbm]

Much more interesting is the your use of an &#39;Os Cangaceiros&#39; qoute as a tag line. I think that this fetishisation of violence for its own sake is another of anarchisms weaknesses.


OC weren&#39;t anarchists (and neither am I), and actually had some rather violent fights with the anarchists in France that left one dead. They were more akin to the millenialists of earlier centuries, as I understand them. I also don&#39;t think it is fair to say they (or I) fetishize violence for its own sake- their violence was mostly directed at their class enemies and generally served a purpose. I am far from supportive of all violence (see my views on armed parties), but I recognize that violence has a place within our struggle, and to criticize some of us lashing out violently against such a violent, strangling society as some leftists do is pretty absurd.


I actually met them once, and can tell you a funny story about them by pm if you like.

Comin&#39; at ya&#33;

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 21, 2007 01:16 am
I also don&#39;t think it is fair to say they (or I) fetishize violence for its own sake
I wonder if those guys knew whose name they were adopting when they christened themselves.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 21, 2007 07:26 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 21, 2007 07:26 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 21, 2007 01:16 am
I also don&#39;t think it is fair to say they (or I) fetishize violence for its own sake
I wonder if those guys knew whose name they were adopting when they christened themselves.

Luís Henrique [/b]
I would assume so?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 22, 2007 02:34 am
I would assume so?
Then it would be somewhat worrysome that they consciously choose to call themselves after reactionary rapists.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+February 21, 2007 08:48 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ February 21, 2007 08:48 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 22, 2007 02:34 am
I would assume so?
Then it would be somewhat worrysome that they consciously choose to call themselves after reactionary rapists.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Reactionary rapists? As I understand, the cangaceiros were social bandits with the support of the poor.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I support Krotpotkin 100% and this is further example of the repression of the Bolsheviks and the crimes of Leninsim in practice.

[bezdomni]

I support Krotpotkin 100%

Funny, Kropotkin supported the allies in WWI.

This not only goes against your idealist line of "peaceful change"...but it also goes against the mainstream anarchist line of "No war but class war".

The real anarchists in the time period opposed WWI in its entirety.

[Councilman Doug]

I support Krotpotkin 100% and this is further example of the repression of the Bolsheviks and the crimes of Leninsim in practice.

The government allowed anarchists out of prison to attend the funeral; in what way is that oppression?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

The government allowed anarchists out of prison to attend the funeral; in what way is that oppression?
Well...first line, seventh word.


Anyways I like Kropotkin very, very much as a theorist but he perplexes me with his WWI stance. WWI was an imperialist war of nationalism and working-class people killing for their leaders. He himself had condmened such wars long before. So yes, the question is WTF Peter?

[RGacky3]

the Leninists attack Anarchists by attacking Kropotkin, which is wierd, because Anarchists don&#39;t call themselves Kropotkinists, whereas Lenninists, call themselves ... Leninists, and Lenin acted much more against his ideals than Kropotkin did. Yet Leninists defend what he did on grounds of defending the revolution, against enemies, which included Anarchists, which ended up kind of destroying the point of the revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 22, 2007 02:52 am
Reactionary rapists? As I understand, the cangaceiros were social bandits with the support of the poor.
"Social bandits"? Yes, they were social bandits: the causes of their crimes were social, and they committed them "socially", not individually.

In Brazilian Northeast, in the XIX century, the landlords used to have private militias, for the repression of the peasants and for their feuds among each others. During the 1870&#39;s, a severe drought affected the region, and made bankrupt many of those landlords. Their militias went then uncontrolled, and devolved into semi-autonomous armed groups who ravaged the region in indiscriminate attacks. Those were the "cangaceiros": killers for hire, mindless terrorists, stupid reactionary bullies who would gang-rape girls who "dressed slutty" (ie, had short hair or wore short skirts. "Short skirts", as in, above the knee.)

Support of the poor? Maybe, "the poor" are known to support tyrants of all kinds, provided that those tyrants, besides barbarically oppressing them (which is their normal business), also commit occasional barbaric crimes against "the rich". (Which, by the way, is one of the causes we still find people who idolise Stalin.)

But even if they were "supported by the poor", they never stood for the poor, and had absolutely no class conscience or any political stand of their own. In fact, the last significant "cangaceira" gang, that of Lampião, was even used by government and landlords as an armed force, against the "Coluna Prestes".

Either the European "Os Cangaceiros" didn&#39;t know the truth about the "cangaço", or they in fact idolised violence for the sake of it.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 04:22 am
I support Krotpotkin 100%
That&#39;s stupid.


and this is further example of the repression of the Bolsheviks and the crimes of Leninsim in practice.

Kropotkin&#39;s latent support of WW1 was, I&#39;m afraid, not something you can blame on the Bolsheviks.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 03:22 am
I support Krotpotkin 100% and this is further example of the repression of the Bolsheviks and the crimes of Leninsim in practice.
first off all he&#39;s dead, he&#39;s been dead for some time now. How do you support someone who&#39;s been deceased for decades? Also, in what way did the Bolsheviks contribute to the death of Kropotkin?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 22, 2007 05:56 am
In Brazilian Northeast, in the XIX century, the landlords used to have private militias, for the repression of the peasants and for their feuds among each others. During the 1870&#39;s, a severe drought affected the region, and made bankrupt many of those landlords. Their militias went then uncontrolled, and devolved into semi-autonomous armed groups who ravaged the region in indiscriminate attacks. Those were the "cangaceiros": killers for hire, mindless terrorists, stupid reactionary bullies who would gang-rape girls who "dressed slutty" (ie, had short hair or wore short skirts. "Short skirts", as in, above the knee.)
I thought there were two groups that came out of that, one being the cangaceiros and the other being the jagunços?


Either the European "Os Cangaceiros" didn&#39;t know the truth about the "cangaço", or they in fact idolised violence for the sake of it.

I&#39;d go with the former, as they&#39;re hardly supporters of pointless violence and rape.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 22, 2007 04:22 pm
I thought there were two groups that came out of that, one being the cangaceiros and the other being the jagunços?


"Jagunços" would be the member of the private militias. So "cangaceiros" would be former unemployed "jagunços", hiring themselves for the best price instead of serving a permanent master (and that not being possible, ramsacking the cities and towns on their way).



Either the European "Os Cangaceiros" didn&#39;t know the truth about the "cangaço", or they in fact idolised violence for the sake of it.

I&#39;d go with the former, as they&#39;re hardly supporters of pointless violence and rape.

I hope so, though the little that I read about them doesn&#39;t reassure me much.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 22, 2007 01:49 pm
"Jagunços" would be the member of the private militias. So "cangaceiros" would be former unemployed "jagunços", hiring themselves for the best price instead of serving a permanent master (and that not being possible, ramsacking the cities and towns on their way).
What I&#39;ve read makes it sound like there were two groups, the private mercenaries which seem to be what you describe, and the social bandits.


I hope so, though the little that I read about them doesn&#39;t reassure me much.

What have you read that suggested they would support pointless violence and rape?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 22, 2007 11:45 pm
What I&#39;ve read makes it sound like there were two groups, the private mercenaries which seem to be what you describe, and the social bandits.
They were two groups (in fact, two sets of groups, because neither were in any sence unified), but one originated from the other. And both were socially regressive.


What have you read that suggested they would support pointless violence and rape?

Not rape, actually, just pointless violence.

What you sent me via PM.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 23, 2007 05:52 am
Not rape, actually, just pointless violence.

What you sent me via PM.
I wouldn&#39;t describe their actions or support as "pointless," and they were actually quite critical of some violence. You should try to get a copy of "A Crime Called Freedom," its quite cheap and does a much better job than Wikipedia.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+February 23, 2007 04:59 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ February 23, 2007 04:59 pm)
Luís [email protected] 23, 2007 05:52 am
Not rape, actually, just pointless violence.

What you sent me via PM.
I wouldn&#39;t describe their actions or support as "pointless," and they were actually quite critical of some violence. You should try to get a copy of "A Crime Called Freedom," its quite cheap and does a much better job than Wikipedia. [/b]
Their motto "never work", if taken seriously, means that they must necessarily rely on criminal activity to maintain themselves. It is, in fact, a weird theorisation of lumpen behaviour.

Now, criminal activity, as it demands secrecy and hierarchical structures, is, in the long term, incompatible with class struggle - which must be open, public, and non-hierarchical. Wich means, sooner or later they would have to choose between their criminal practices and their "political" discourse.

Of course, between practice and discourse, it is a pretty predictable struggle: practice will systematically win. And that is what happened to "Os Cangaceiros": they eventually melted down into smaller, non-political, purely criminal organisations.

This quite makes whatever they made during their trajectory pointless, doesn&#39;t it?

Luís Henrique

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:03 am


The government allowed anarchists out of prison to attend the funeral; in what way is that oppression?
Well...first line, seventh word.



:lol: Good one&#33;

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 23, 2007 01:39 pm
Their motto "never work", if taken seriously, means that they must necessarily rely on criminal activity to maintain themselves. It is, in fact, a weird theorisation of lumpen behaviour.
It depends on what you mean by work, and it therefore does not neccesarily mean only criminal behavior, although it certainly can and they did use criminal means often (though lumpen? The proletariat are no strangers to crime). They pooled their talents and did whatever they could to survive. Regardless, I see nothing wrong with rejecting "work" in a capitalist sense, as such work is utterly miserable and if one can find alternative means of survival, why not?



Now, criminal activity, as it demands secrecy and hierarchical structures, is, in the long term, incompatible with class struggle - which must be open, public, and non-hierarchical. Wich means, sooner or later they would have to choose between their criminal practices and their "political" discourse.

Why? And demanding hierarchical structures? I don&#39;t think you&#39;re thinking of the same type of crime here... this isn&#39;t the mafia, its some people stealing shit. Really no hierarchy requires, I assure you. Furthermore, a method of survival that is not public doesn&#39;t need to conflict with open political work. I have seen plenty of people do both with great ease. Indeed, they were able to support worker struggles in Britain and Poland, and elsewhere, with little problem.


Of course, between practice and discourse, it is a pretty predictable struggle: practice will systematically win. And that is what happened to "Os Cangaceiros": they eventually melted down into smaller, non-political, purely criminal organisations.

That&#39;s conjecture... they may have gone their seperate ways, but the nature of the networks they dissolved into is vaguely stated, at best. I would guess many of those networks bore a resemblance to OC.


This quite makes whatever they made during their trajectory pointless, doesn&#39;t it?

Not really. Just because a group finds it neccessary to resolve doesn&#39;t negate what they did during their existence- they struck many blows against the prison system and put a bit of fear back into the bosses. That&#39;s a good thing by any account.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by AlwaysAnarchy+February 23, 2007 08:08 pm--> (AlwaysAnarchy @ February 23, 2007 08:08 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 06:03 am


The government allowed anarchists out of prison to attend the funeral; in what way is that oppression?
Well...first line, seventh word.



:lol: Good one&#33; [/b]
Do you know why they were in prison?

For killing working class militants and bombing Bolshevik offices. In the middle of the greatest direct conflict between Socialism and Capitalism we have ever seen. Their actions were downright reactionary, and I know anarchists who agree with this viewpoint - in 1917 Russia and today.

You can take certain good abstract contributions from Kropotkin I&#39;m sure, but that doesn&#39;t mean you can just ignore the fact that he supported an Imperialist war (never mind the semantics) and joined a bourgeois government. I wish more Anarchists would just denounce class traitors rather than trying to apologise for them.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 23, 2007 09:47 pm
You can take certain good abstract contributions from Kropotkin I&#39;m sure,
Can you?

Remarkably, I haven&#39;t read, in this thread, one single line about Kropotkin&#39;s contributions. Oh, yes, generalisations like, "his mistake in supporting an imperialist war doesn&#39;t negate his writings". But not a single quote from him, much less an analysis of his work.

I gave previously the example of Kautsky as a traitor that had valid contributions. I can say that his explanation of land rent is good and valid, and helps to understand how the excedent extracted in agricultural labour is distributed between capitalists and landlords.

Can an anarchist here do the same for Kropotkin? Show us what relevance his writings may have to us, or at least have had during his lifetime?

Or is it just a - gasp - personallity cult?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 23, 2007 09:21 pm
The proletariat are no strangers to crime
No class is. Lumpenproletariat is the one that typically makes a living out of it.


I see nothing wrong with rejecting "work" in a capitalist sense, as such work is utterly miserable and if one can find alternative means of survival, why not?

It should be obvious: if you don&#39;t live of your own work, then you live on the work of others.


Why? And demanding hierarchical structures? I don&#39;t think you&#39;re thinking of the same type of crime here... this isn&#39;t the mafia, its some people stealing shit.

To do it individually, no, you don&#39;t need a hierarchical structure (just to be willing to spend a part of your life in jail). To do it in a collective, organised way? Certainly, it must be hierarchical, or it&#39;s going to be busted by the first cop mole that infiltrates it.


That&#39;s conjecture... they may have gone their seperate ways, but the nature of the networks they dissolved into is vaguely stated, at best. I would guess many of those networks bore a resemblance to OC.

Well, the burden of proof would be yours, wouldn&#39;t it?


they struck many blows against the prison system

Was the prison system transformed by their actions?


and put a bit of fear back into the bosses. That&#39;s a good thing by any account.

It may be fun, undoubtedly, but if by "good" you mean "useful", then I must disagree.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 23, 2007 09:14 pm
No class is. Lumpenproletariat is the one that typically makes a living out of it.
Fair enough. Wouldn&#39;t career criminals automatically be given that distinction anyway though, by standard Marxist definitions?



It should be obvious: if you don&#39;t live of your own work, then you live on the work of others.

If you&#39;re able to live by ripping off multinationals, or relying on waste, or other methods outside of the typical capitalist sphere of work, I don&#39;t think it is much of a problem, particularly if one uses their now much freer time for striking back against capital.



To do it individually, no, you don&#39;t need a hierarchical structure (just to be willing to spend a part of your life in jail). To do it in a collective, organised way? Certainly, it must be hierarchical, or it&#39;s going to be busted by the first cop mole that infiltrates it.

Being secret is not the same as being hierarchal.



Well, the burden of proof would be yours, wouldn&#39;t it?

You&#39;re the one making assertions, I&#39;m just offering my opinion.



Was the prison system transformed by their actions?

I couldn&#39;t say, I&#39;m not particularly familiar with the French penal system. They definitely made some of the walls in the prisons weaker though which may amount to a minor victory.



It may be fun, undoubtedly, but if by "good" you mean "useful", then I must disagree.

I don&#39;t see how letting the bosses know their control is not total and the work of a small band of criminals can undermine their projects and outsmart their employees is not useful, or at least inspiring.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 24, 2007 03:31 am
If you&#39;re able to live by ripping off multinationals,
If you live by ripping multinationals, then you a have a vested interest in those multinationals. Efficient parasites don&#39;t destroy their prey.


or relying on waste,

That would be work, of course.


or other methods outside of the typical capitalist sphere of work,

They have a monopoly of means of production. Of course, you may find holes on that monopoly, but that would just make you proprietary of means of production.


I don&#39;t think it is much of a problem, particularly if one uses their now much freer time for striking back against capital.

I don&#39;t think you would have more free time by doing these things; probably on the contrary.


Being secret is not the same as being hierarchal.

No; the army is hierarchical and is not secret. But I doubt something can be secret without being hierarchical; to avoid the secrets being divulged, it is necessary that most members do not know most of the secrets. And this, of course, invites a hierarchy of initiation.


You&#39;re the one making assertions, I&#39;m just offering my opinion.

I am not making assertions, Wikipedia is.


I don&#39;t see how letting the bosses know their control is not total and the work of a small band of criminals can undermine their projects and outsmart their employees is not useful, or at least inspiring.

It would be useful for the bosses, so that they can spot the frailties in their system and mend them.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

If you live by ripping multinationals, then you a have a vested interest in those multinationals. Efficient parasites don&#39;t destroy their prey.

Erm... not if you&#39;re an anti-capitalist out to destroy said multinationals.. that is pretty obvious. Being opposed to capitalist wage labor and refusing to participate doesn&#39;t mean you want to continue capitalism- quite the opposite&#33;


That would be work, of course.

According to who?


I don&#39;t think you would have more free time by doing these things; probably on the contrary.

Doubt it. Work takes up a great deal of time, stealing in bulk is oh-so-easy.


I doubt something can be secret without being hierarchical; to avoid the secrets being divulged, it is necessary that most members do not know most of the secrets. And this, of course, invites a hierarchy of initiation.

Depends on what we&#39;re talking about. If everyone is gaining goods or whatever "somehow" and then pooling it, there is no need for hierarchy, or a great deal of "secrets."


It would be useful for the bosses, so that they can spot the frailties in their system and mend them.

Traditional worker struggles do the same thing, then.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 25, 2007 08:54 am
Erm... not if you&#39;re an anti-capitalist out to destroy said multinationals.. that is pretty obvious. Being opposed to capitalist wage labor and refusing to participate doesn&#39;t mean you want to continue capitalism- quite the opposite&#33;
It is very far from obvious, and the history of the working class movement is full of groups and tendencies who have "adapted" themselves to capitalist domination.



That would be work, of course.

According to who?

Creating use-values from nature is work, of course. As waste is re-naturalised cultural objects, living from waste is work.

Nowadays, the bourgeoisie are quickly learning that recycling waste is a source of value, and are striving to privatisate it, and expell traditional scavengers from the branch, to turn it into capitalist business.

Whenever the oppressed discover some way to live without giving the bourgeois unpaid labour, the bourgeoisie will try and find a way to reinforce their monopoly, by expropriating the direct producers.


Doubt it. Work takes up a great deal of time, stealing in bulk is oh-so-easy.

Living from waste is not "stealing", it is work. And anyway you are wrong; stealing demands a lot of time, and is only marginally "easier" than working.


Depends on what we&#39;re talking about. If everyone is gaining goods or whatever "somehow" and then pooling it, there is no need for hierarchy, or a great deal of "secrets."

Yeah, but doing it as a political organisation is quite different. Which is the reason why political-criminal organisations will always tend to either get very hierarchical like mafias, or to go non-political at all, since the political-ideological garbage that was initially useful as a means of recruitment becomes increasingly burdensome.


Traditional worker struggles do the same thing, then.

Fighting an enemy always does this, you cannot fight the enemy without "cooperating" with it in showing it its own weak spots. Which means any struggle, to be productive, must do something else than "letting them know" something.

"Traditional worker struggles" are aimed at reducing the workers overwork and raising their living standards, so that they have more time, health and money to increase their defensive and offensive strenght in class struggle.

What were "Os Cangaceiros" actions aimed at?

Luís Henrique

[JimFar]

In this discussion concerning both Kropotkin and Kautsky, it should be noted that the father of Russian Marxism, Georgi Plekhanov, was similarly a class traitor, in that he like Kropotkin supported the Russian imperial government in the First World War, and after the collapse of the Czarist regime in February 1917, he was a supporter of Kerensky&#39;s government and an advocate of Russia staying in the war. As in the case of Kautsky, Plekhanov&#39;s &#39;social patriotism&#39; had roots that could be traced back through his earlier writings and positions. While the Bolsheviks strongly condemned Plekhanov for his having supported the First World War, they nevertheless continued to highly value much of his theoretical work, especially in philosophy (I suspect that Rosa would tell us that they were deeply mistaken in this regard). Indeed, Soviet philosophy, too a large degree, was built upon Plekhanov&#39;s work in developing and popularizing dialectical materialism. Regardless of what we might think of Plekhanov&#39;s work in philosophy, it seems clear that the Bolsheviks were able to separate out what they regarded as valid in Plekhanov&#39;s work from what they thought to be mistaken or misguided. Even though he had ended up as a class traitor, they did not for that reason trash everything that he had done, although they did recognize that his work required critical evaluation. For that matter the Bolsheviks took much the same stance in regards to Kautsky. For that matter, as long as we are discussing Kropotkin, his work in biology was always held in high regard by Soviet biologists.

[Vargha Poralli]

JimFar

Nop one is saying that Anarchists should abandon Kropotkin and his works for Supporting the reactionary Kerensky&#39;s government. Most Leninists(like me) just took the bait in the heading of this topic as his funeral is Anarchism&#39;s stand in Soviet Russia. So we brought up his support for Kerensky&#39;s government to ridicule their point.And also some fools who denounced Bolsheviks and Lenin without even knowing that his funeral itself was arranged by Soviet Government.

[JimFar]

g.ram,

I suppose at some point we ought to have a discussion of the relations between the Bolsheviks and the anarchists during the early days of the Soviet Union, which were far more complex than many people make out. It&#39;s true that the Bolsheviks ended up suppressing the anarchists, but it is also true that they had also made strenous efforts to win the support of anarchists, both within Russia and abroad. It is sometimes forgotten that the reason why Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were in the Soviet Union during the early 1920s was because Lenin had invited them there. While Lenin in the end failed to win their support, lots of anarchists did become supporters of the Soviet regime, and within Russia, a number of them actually joined the Bolshevik Party. And in other countries lots of anarchists and especially, anarcho-syndicalists joined the new Communists parties that arose after the October Revolution. In the United States, most of the leading Wobblies (i.e. "Big" Bill Haywood) became supporters of Lenin&#39;s regime. Haywood, in fact, after jumping bail following a conviction for his anti-conscription activities, fled to the Soviet Union where he served as an advisor to Lenin&#39;s government. Many of the other Wobblies joined the newly founded Communist Party in the United States.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 25, 2007 09:09 am
It is very far from obvious, and the history of the working class movement is full of groups and tendencies who have "adapted" themselves to capitalist domination.
Well, nothing I&#39;ve read from OC suggests giving any measure to capital, or "adapting" to live with it. They took to crime in opposition, not to make peace with it, following in the footsteps of the illegalists to some degree.



Creating use-values from nature is work, of course. As waste is re-naturalised cultural objects, living from waste is work.

Nowadays, the bourgeoisie are quickly learning that recycling waste is a source of value, and are striving to privatisate it, and expell traditional scavengers from the branch, to turn it into capitalist business.

Whenever the oppressed discover some way to live without giving the bourgeois unpaid labour, the bourgeoisie will try and find a way to reinforce their monopoly, by expropriating the direct producers.

I don&#39;t think the bourgeoisie are going to try and reinforce their monopoloy on trash very hard, other than locking it or getting compactors. But we can fuck those up pretty quick. And obviously when they say "Never Work... Ever," they aren&#39;t referring to uh, collecting food.



Living from waste is not "stealing", it is work. And anyway you are wrong; stealing demands a lot of time, and is only marginally "easier" than working.

I was speaking of getting waste and stealing seperately, and again, that isn&#39;t what they mean by "work," which I think is pretty fucking obvious. Regardless, stealing demands almost no time. I can get a month&#39;s worth of groceries this afternoon in less than an hour. Probably less than half an hour. How long would it take to get those same groceries by paying for them through money I earned at a job? A lot longer than 45 minutes.



Yeah, but doing it as a political organisation is quite different. Which is the reason why political-criminal organisations will always tend to either get very hierarchical like mafias, or to go non-political at all, since the political-ideological garbage that was initially useful as a means of recruitment becomes increasingly burdensome.

Always? I disagree entirely and have seen plenty of examples personally, and read about many more.



Fighting an enemy always does this, you cannot fight the enemy without "cooperating" with it in showing it its own weak spots. Which means any struggle, to be productive, must do something else than "letting them know" something.

"Traditional worker struggles" are aimed at reducing the workers overwork and raising their living standards, so that they have more time, health and money to increase their defensive and offensive strenght in class struggle.

What were "Os Cangaceiros" actions aimed at?

They were aimed primarily at supporting prisoners and workers struggles in their efforts to gain the very things you mentioned, actually. They did actions in support of prison revolts and attacked the guards and police from behind, as well as personally rolling with workers in struggle throughout Europe, from Britain to Poland.

[Devrim]

I and some of my friends met them. They came across as middle class wankers with no understanding of the working class.

&#39;black coffee black metal&#39;, I will e-mail you with that story soon. I have just been a bit busy.

Devrim

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:58 pm
I and some of my friends met them. They came across as middle class wankers with no understanding of the working class.

&#39;black coffee black metal&#39;, I will e-mail you with that story soon. I have just been a bit busy.

Devrim
No problem, let me know.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 26, 2007 10:53 pm
Well, nothing I&#39;ve read from OC suggests giving any measure to capital, or "adapting" to live with it. They took to crime in opposition, not to make peace with it, following in the footsteps of the illegalists to some degree.

If you make a living from milking the cow, at some point you will start concerning about the cow&#39;s welfare, don&#39;t you think so?


I don&#39;t think the bourgeoisie are going to try and reinforce their monopoloy on trash very hard, other than locking it or getting compactors.

Of course they are, it is coming to be a huge issue. The bourgeoisie is now very concerned about the "undecent" living conditions of waste scavengers, which means it wants to put them into uniforms and give them a "decent" salary...


And obviously when they say "Never Work... Ever," they aren&#39;t referring to uh, collecting food.

And why not, darnit? What is about collectinf food that makes it not work?


I was speaking of getting waste and stealing seperately, and again, that isn&#39;t what they mean by "work," which I think is pretty fucking obvious.

I don&#39;t get what the damn sexual relations have to do with this, but it is far from obvious, fucking or not. If they think that scavenging is not work, then they don&#39;t understand the concept of work, that&#39;s the point.


Regardless, stealing demands almost no time. I can get a month&#39;s worth of groceries this afternoon in less than an hour. Probably less than half an hour. How long would it take to get those same groceries by paying for them through money I earned at a job? A lot longer than 45 minutes.

If you do it eventually, especially if you have the cover of a regular job, yes, it may work like that. But if you intend to make a living out of stealing, it becomes quite demanding, considering the time you will need to plan your actions, run from the police, move from one safehouse to another, get false IDs, and stare at the ceiling of your prison cell.


Always? I disagree entirely and have seen plenty of examples personally, and read about many more.

I once knew a swindler, a smart guy. He once told me something like that: "I don&#39;t smoke pot and I don&#39;t mess into politics. I am a swindler, and I can barely manage to do one illegal thing, why would I pick more trouble than I can handle?"*

Survival is a main concern to most people. Politics aren&#39;t. When politics get on the way of survival, people give up politics and go for survival.


They were aimed primarily at supporting prisoners and workers struggles in their efforts to gain the very things you mentioned, actually. They did actions in support of prison revolts and attacked the guards and police from behind, as well as personally rolling with workers in struggle throughout Europe, from Britain to Poland.

I doubt their support for prisoners was worth anything. The leeway for prison reform is pretty tight, and violent actions by prisoners or on their behalf tend to minimise it even more.

Prisoners are in a very bad tactical and strategical position for political action, not to talk about class struggle.

The "rolling with workers in struggle" part, I think, needs not much analysis. The working class will liberate ourselves, with no need of help from petty criminals fancying themselves as "revolutionaries" (no, not in fact "revolutionaries", not even that - just violent reformists&#33;).

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

If you make a living from milking the cow, at some point you will start concerning about the cow&#39;s welfare, don&#39;t you think so?

Let&#39;s turn the metaphor a bit. If you make a living from milking a goat, but really want a cow, you&#39;ll only milk the goat until you can figure out how to get the cow.


Of course they are, it is coming to be a huge issue. The bourgeoisie is now very concerned about the "undecent" living conditions of waste scavengers, which means it wants to put them into uniforms and give them a "decent" salary...

Um, where? Where I live they don&#39;t give a fuck about us beyond locking their dumpsters.


And why not, darnit? What is about collectinf food that makes it not work?

No salary, to be simple about it. Come on, it is pretty obvious what they meant.


I don&#39;t get what the damn sexual relations have to do with this, but it is far from obvious, fucking or not. If they think that scavenging is not work, then they don&#39;t understand the concept of work, that&#39;s the point.

They are using work in the common parlance, or they could&#39;ve been using a different word altogether that simply has been translated as "work" in English- they were French, after all.


If you do it eventually, especially if you have the cover of a regular job, yes, it may work like that. But if you intend to make a living out of stealing, it becomes quite demanding, considering the time you will need to plan your actions, run from the police, move from one safehouse to another, get false IDs, and stare at the ceiling of your prison cell.

Methinks you don&#39;t spend much time associating with small-time political career criminals. I can really, really assure you that it is definitely less work.


I once knew a swindler, a smart guy. He once told me something like that: "I don&#39;t smoke pot and I don&#39;t mess into politics. I am a swindler, and I can barely manage to do one illegal thing, why would I pick more trouble than I can handle?"*

Survival is a main concern to most people. Politics aren&#39;t. When politics get on the way of survival, people give up politics and go for survival.

You know some people who can&#39;t pull it off, I know some people who can. Where is this getting us? Nowhere.


I doubt their support for prisoners was worth anything. The leeway for prison reform is pretty tight, and violent actions by prisoners or on their behalf tend to minimise it even more.

The same can be said about workers or any other group in struggle, but ultimately we must come to blows with the authorities. And they weren&#39;t calling for prison reform. You should really get the book, though you probably won&#39;t like it.


Prisoners are in a very bad tactical and strategical position for political action, not to talk about class struggle.

Not always. Prisons became a central part of the Italian Hot Summer and the Years of Lead, and the years in between.


The "rolling with workers in struggle" part, I think, needs not much analysis. The working class will liberate ourselves, with no need of help from petty criminals fancying themselves as "revolutionaries" (no, not in fact "revolutionaries", not even that - just violent reformists&#33;).

The working class won&#39;t accept the help of allies (who, as I understand, were working-class themselves)? :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 27, 2007 04:02 pm
Let&#39;s turn the metaphor a bit. If you make a living from milking a goat, but really want a cow, you&#39;ll only milk the goat until you can figure out how to get the cow.
You will still take care of the cow.


Um, where? Where I live they don&#39;t give a fuck about us beyond locking their dumpsters.

Here, in Brazil, the privatisation of garbabe is certainly an issue. There is a whole movement of scavengers (catadores) who oppose it. Much more interesting than cangaceiros of any kind, must I say. Of course, they are a working class movement, totally unromantic, and not based on outlandish and abstract rhetorics.


No salary, to be simple about it. Come on, it is pretty obvious what they meant.

Obvious? The only obvious thing is that the Sun rotates around the Earth, and it is false.

So they use work as a synonim for "salaried work", eh? This means that, according to them, chattel slaves or gatherer-hunters don&#39;t work?


They are using work in the common parlance, or they could&#39;ve been using a different word altogether that simply has been translated as "work" in English- they were French, after all.

French may have no word for "entrepreneur", but it certainly has different words for "work" and "job". Ne travailler jamais bears the same problems than "never work".


Methinks you don&#39;t spend much time associating with small-time political career criminals. I can really, really assure you that it is definitely less work.

Listen, I worked in jail.


You know some people who can&#39;t pull it off, I know some people who can. Where is this getting us? Nowhere.

I bet those people you know are amateurs. I was quoting a professional.


The same can be said about workers or any other group in struggle,

No, the same cannot be said about workers. Whatever the bourgeoisie says, does or dreams, it cannot dispense with workers: we are the ones who create surplus value for them.

But they can dispense with prisoners. It is a completely different situation.


but ultimately we must come to blows with the authorities.

Yes, because we have a revolution to do, not because we want some partial improvement about our condition.


And they weren&#39;t calling for prison reform. You should really get the book, though you probably won&#39;t like it.

You may call it by a different word, if you wish. But in any way, they were not calling for a revolution.


Not always. Prisons became a central part of the Italian Hot Summer and the Years of Lead, and the years in between.

Oh, yes, they can do spectacular things. So? In the end, they have nothing of strategical value to use. If workers stop working for the bourgeois, the system falls apart, it is a revolution. Prisoners can do whatever; there is nothing that they can do that will ever make the system crash. That&#39;s the difference. That&#39;s what makes the working class a revolutionary class.


The working class won&#39;t accept the help of allies (who, as I understand, were working-class themselves)? :rolleyes:

Of course we accept allies. But we wish to tell our allies what they should do, not our allies saying what we should do.

Luís Henrique